Re: The triumph of Biafra

This meritoriously earned him an auspicious weekly column in Daily Trust newspaper, Tuesday’s edition, besides other many acclaimed endeavours of his. He has been consistent and has ardently carried out his task of informing, educating and entertaining to the admiration of his readers throughout Nigeria. Newspaper columnists, as mirrors of the public, are noble professionals […]

This meritoriously earned him an auspicious weekly column in Daily Trust newspaper, Tuesday’s edition, besides other many acclaimed endeavours of his. He has been consistent and has ardently carried out his task of informing, educating and entertaining to the admiration of his readers throughout Nigeria. Newspaper columnists, as mirrors of the public, are noble professionals of conscientious mindset and should always in their reflections project the real essence of the society in factual and objective presentations. They are at liberty to utilise their columns to critically analyse, criticise and even promote whatever idea that catches their fancy. However, analysis, criticism and promotion of events we must understand is subjective depending on the side of the divide one finds oneself.   
In the light of above, his piece titled “The triumph of Biafra” published on Tuesday August 12, is a piece devoid of conscientious mindset, produced to advance certain sentimental interests and rev up animosities. It is loaded with inciting references created to pitch the government of President Jonathan against the Igbo and other ethnic nationalities. Newspapers in particular and the media in general are instruments deployed to drive freedom, justice, fairness, state cohesion, peace and unity. But when it is applied in the manner of the Ghazalis, these factors are threatened.
Some people believed wholeheartedly that the 1966 coup was carried out by Igbo and was a declaration of war in which retaliation was mandatory. The killing of some Igbo in the north, the unwarranted attempt to annihilate an entire race desirous of nothing but self-governance and issue of marginalisation after the civil war, is as familiar as the palms of every Nigerian.  That the unitary system of government initiated by late General Ironsi in which the Igbo allegedly “emerged the dominant group in the federal bureaucracy… led to the war” is a fallacy. It should be noted that even before the war it was the north that wanted their separate state; this was exemplified in the famous call for “Araba” which means ‘divide’ Nigeria in 1966. It is instructive to mention that the refusal of Lt. Col. Ojukwu to recognise a junior officer as head of state instead of General Maimalari was a hidden fact, and one credit those who were out to discredit him, even in death, have refused to acknowledge. With the introduction of Reconciliation, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation and (3R’s) by General Gowon as a palliative to the wanton destruction of a people, Al-Ghazali should have mentioned one impact of that programme on the lives of Igbo. That notwithstanding, the people have moved on with their lives, reintegrated with their traducers, forgave the “victors,” reconstructed their homes and can compete favourably with most zones which never saw the war. The Igbo, aside of the war, are the most egalitarian. They easily integrate and have invested more outside their zone than any other ethnic nationalities in the country. Intelligent “Mumu” one might say!
Where there is no trust, justice, and equitable distribution of national wealth, the lexicon of marginalisation will continue to rear its ugly head and dominate our political and even media spaces. I do not subscribe to lopsided appointment of individuals to certain positions of authority because we should all be beneficiaries of the Nigerian project.  However, did this anomaly begin with Jonathan’s administration? Nigeria is at the crossroads today because anybody who finds himself at the helm of affairs will illegally appropriate national wealth and resources to “his own people,” and even attempt to gag the truth about the concerns raised by other nationalities. This was the fact Al-Ghazali unfortunately refused to address in his piece.
Forty years after the war, the appointment of Igbo in strategic positions of authority has become a worrisome issue and not a right move to compensate and reintegrate them into the mainstream of Nigerian governance system but to satisfy only the wish of Ojukwu and the consolidation of Jonathan’s presidency.  What should matter to the nation at this moment is putting round pegs in round holes for patriotic and effective delivery on given national mandates. Are those appointed competent to occupy such positions?  Have they lived up to the responsibilities of their offices?
Nigerians are not fools and do not have to be as Al-Ghazali would want us to. After the war, the North and the South west were comfortably relishing the paraphernalia of these same and more political offices without given a hoot, while the Igbo were consigned to a corner meant for second class citizens in their own fatherland.  Today, that thing which the Goose loved so much is now good for the Gander and someone is uncomfortable. Everyone is free to express his views and associate with issues, individuals or interests which have bearing on his region. But for this to unfortunately and conspicuously gain prominence in the media, which are the watchdog of the society, is unfortunate.
Eze is of Power Holding Company of Nigeria, Zaria, Kaduna State <[email protected]>;