Gowon not the Enemy: Nnamdi Azikiwe Is Why Biafra has no legal right to secede

By Reno Omokri

The recent comments by Peter Obi labelling former Head of State, General Gowon, as an ‘enemy’ to be ‘forgiven’ has emboldened many of his closet IPOB supporters who now wear the tag Obidients (which in reality is the political arm of the Indigenous People of Biafra movement) to revise history and make fallacious and salacious claims.

One such claim was made by a certain Onyekwelu, who asserts that Biafra has a legal claim to secede and is being extrajudicially held back in Nigeria by domestic and international powers, especially the British government.

But the truth is that by virtue of succeeding Nigerian Constitutions, beginning from the Independence Constitution of 1960, no part of Nigerians had or has a right to secede from the country named the Federal Republic of Nigeria. For that, we have Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe to thank if you believe in a united Nigeria, or blame if you support Biafran secession.

The idea for a secession clause was mooted by Chief Obafemi Awolowo in 1954 during the Lagos Constitutional Conference, but Nnamdi Azikiwe rejected it and galvanised a majority of the conference attendees to kill the idea.

After this was rejected, Chief Awolowo again wrote to the then Governor General of Nigeria, who rejected the clause on the grounds that the majority, led by Nnamdi Azikiwe, was not in support of it.

It was because of Nnamdi Azikiwe that section 86 was inserted into our constitution with the proviso that if any region should secede, it would be an act of treason.

Nnamdi Azikiwe himself wrote about this in an essay that was published by the New Nigerian Newspapers in 1975. It has since been republished by other papers and by Mr Azikiwe himself.

The funniest thing is that those now accusing the North of forcefully keeping them in Nigeria are unaware that the North actually supported Chief Awolowo for the inclusion of a secession clause.

The essay was republished under the title ‘Why I opposed Awolowo on secession’. For the benefit of those who have been misled by the likes of Peter Obi and their fellow fantasists, I will now republish Mr. Nnamdi Azikiwe’s essay word for word, without adding or removing anything.

‘My opposition to secession

By Nnamdi Azikiwe

When the 1954 constitution conference started, my good friend, Chief Obafemi Awolowo tabled a motion to the effect that in the new constitution, provision should be made that any state which feels like seceding should do so. I was opposed to it and said ‘no’ and said that once we have a federation, we are indivisible and perpetual.

That was when we began to use that expression – ‘The Indivisibility and perpetuity of the federation’ – and that to secede would amount to treason. And so, a debate ensued.

The Secretary of State then was Oliver Littleton, later Lord Chandos and he was very much interested and that was his first time in saying that the people of African descent were people actually debating at a high level.

So a full day was given to Chief Awolowo to make his points. He spoke brilliantly as a lawyer. He made his points why secession should be incorporated in the Constitution. He cited the case of the Soviet Union which is a federation, and that secession is written there so that any state in the Soviet Union can secede at will. He also cited the case of Western Australia and eventually he finished his case and was applauded.

Lord Chandos said that on the face of the arguments before him it would be suicidal to incorporate secession in our constitution and that is why we have section 86 in our constitution that if any region or state should secede, then it will be an act of treason.

We adjourned. The next day, I had to reply. I availed myself of the opportunity to, well, demolish the arguments of my friend and I cited the case of United States which based its constitution on that of the Swiss Confederation. That is Switzerland. I pointed out a case, I think, that of Texas versus White, where Mr. Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice laid down the principle – he was really an arbiter – that the union was intended to be perpetual and indivisible and that any attempt to divide the union by secession was treasonable.

The North (NPC) supported Action Group. The question was then: Should we have secession? The Colonial Office came to our rescue. You know, the usual principle of Britain – ‘divide and rule’ (laughs) but this time, it was in our favour. So, the colonial office backed us.

Lord Chandos said that on the face of the arguments before him it would be suicidal to incorporate secession in our constitution and that is why we have section 86 in our constitution that if any region or state should secede, then it will be an act of treason and that was what led to this war, because Col. Ojukwu seceded and so violated the constitution.”

Here ends the essay by Mr. Nnamdi Azikiwe.

Biafra would have had the legal right to secede if it had not been for Azikiwe.

Moreover, even before that conference, Mr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, in a speech he gave at a caucus meeting of the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons on Monday, May 12, 1953, threatened the Northern Region of a blockade and denial of access to the sea if they should attempt to secede from Nigeria.

His exact words were as follows:

“It may lead to economic nationalism in the Eastern Region, which can pursue a policy of blockade of the North by refusing it access to the sea, over and under the River Niger, except upon payment of tolls. It may lead to economic warfare between the North on the one hand, and the Eastern or Western regions on the other.”

Those who would like to read the full speech of Mr. Azikiwe threatening the Northern Region can do so here: https://www.blackpast.org/global-african-history/1953-nnamdi-azikiwe-speech-secession/

On February 23, 1966, Isaac Adaka Boro declared the secession of the Niger Delta Republic from Nigeria. After he did this, there was outrage in the Eastern Region, which almost resulted in riots. Please go and research it. The then Head of State, Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, quashed what he called the Isaac Boro mutiny using primarily troops of Eastern Nigeria origin.

When his ‘rebellion’ was crushed twelve days later, there was celebration in the Eastern Region. The other regions were not so enthused.

My question to you, Onyekwelu, is this: If Isaac Boro’s declaration of the Niger Delta Republic was seen as a crime by the then Head of State, Major General Ironsi, and the Government of the Eastern Region headed by then Lt. Colonel Ojukwu (Isaac Boro’s part of the Niger-Delta was then under Eastern Nigeria), why should the declaration of the Republic of Biafra be seen as lawful?

Lt. Colonel Emeka Ojukwu himself was the military Governor of Eastern Nigeria who first moved against Isaac Boro with the assistance of the Ironsi central government. If both Ojukwu and Ironsi fought Isaac Boro for attempting to secede from Eastern Nigeria and Nigeria, why are some of Peter Obi’s supporters blaming Gowon and Nigeria for fighting Colonel Ojukwu when he declared Biafra?