There Was a Country: A Personal History of Biafra (25 page)

Corruption and Indiscipline

Corruption in Nigeria has grown because it is highly encouraged. In
The Trouble with Nigeria
I suggest, “Nigerians are corrupt because the system they live under today makes
corruption easy and profitable. They will cease to be corrupt when corruption is made
difficult and unattractive.” Twenty-eight years after that slim book was published,
I can state categorically that the problem of corruption and indiscipline is probably
worse today than it’s ever been, because of the massive way in which the Nigerian
leadership is using the nation’s wealth to corrupt, really to destroy, the country,
so no improvement or change can happen. Recently, out of despair, I stated, “Corruption
in Nigeria has passed the alarming and entered the fatal stage, and Nigeria will die
if we continue to pretend that she is only slightly indisposed.”

The World Bank recently released numbers indicating that about $400 billion has been
pilfered from Nigeria’s treasury since independence. One needs to stop for a moment
to wrap one’s mind around that incredible figure. This amount—$400 billion—is approximately
the gross domestic products of Norway and of Sweden. In other words, Nigeria’s corrupt
ruling class stole the equivalent of the entire economy of a European country in four
decades! This theft of national funds is one of the factors essentially making it
impossible for Nigeria to succeed. Nigerians alone are not responsible. We all know
that this corrupt cabal of Nigerians in power has friends abroad who not only help
it move the billions abroad and help them hide the money, but also shield the perpetrators
from prosecution!

State Failure and the Rise of Terrorism

In 2011, Nigeria was ranked number fourteen in the Failed States Index,
¹
just below other ��havens of stability”—Afghanistan, Somalia, and Iraq! State failure
has many definitions, so I will bother the reader with only two short descriptions
relevant to the Nigerian situation:

[A failed state] is one that is unable to perform its duties on several levels: when
violence cascades into an all-out internal war, when standards of living massively
deteriorate, when the infrastructure of ordinary life decays, and when the greed of
rulers overwhelms their responsibilities to better their people and their surroundings.
²

[Failed States are seen in] instances in which central state authority collapses for
several years.
³

Economic deprivation and corruption produce and exacerbate financial and social inequities
in a population, which in turn fuel political instability. Within this environment,
extremists of all kinds—particularly religious zealots and other political mischief
makers—find a foothold to recruit supporters and sympathizers to help them launch
terrorist attacks and wreak havoc in the lives of ordinary citizens.
⁴

Over eight hundred deaths, mainly in Northern Nigeria, have been attributed to the
militant Islamist sect Boko Haram
⁵
since its formation in 2002. The group’s ultimate goal, we are told, is to “overthrow
the Nigerian government and create an Islamic state.”
⁶
In many respects, Nigeria’s federal government has always tolerated terrorism. For
over half a century the federal government has turned a blind eye to waves of ferocious
and savage massacres of its citizens—mainly Christian Southerners; mostly Igbos or
indigenes of the Middle Belt; and others—with impunity.

Even in cases where their hands were found dripping in blood, the perpetrators have
many a time evaded capture and punishment. Nigeria has been doomed to witness endless
cycles of inter-ethnic, inter-religious violence because the Nigerian government has
failed woefully to enforce laws protecting its citizens from wanton violence, particularly
attacks against nonindigenes living in disparate parts of the country. The notoriously
(some say conveniently so) incompetent Nigerian federal government, and some religious
and political leaders, have been at least enablers of these evil acts. I have stated
elsewhere that this mindless carnage will end only with the dismantling of the present
corrupt political system and banishment of the cult of mediocrity that runs it, hopefully
through a peaceful, democratic process.

State Resuscitation and Recovery

Many pundits see a direct link between crude oil and the corruption in Nigeria, that
putting in place an elaborate system preventing politicians or civilians from having
access to petrodollars is probably a major part of a series of fixes needed to reduce
large-scale corruption. For most people the solution is straightforward: If you commit
a crime, you should be brought to book. Hold people responsible for misconduct and
punish them if they are guilty. In a country such as Nigeria, where there are no easy
fixes, one must examine the issue of accountability, which has to be a strong component
of the fight against corruption.

Every Nigerian knows that there should be accountability, that people should be accountable.
But if the president—the person running the whole show—has all of the power and resources
of the country in his control, and he is also the one who selects who should be probed
or not, clearly we will have an uneven system in which those who are favored by the
emperor have free rein to loot the treasury with reckless abandon, while those who
are disliked or tell the emperor that he is not wearing any clothes get marched swiftly
to the guillotine!

Nigeria’s story has not been, entirely, one long, unrelieved history of despair. Fifty
years after independence Nigerians have begun to ask themselves the hard questions:
How can the state of anarchy be reversed? What are the measures that can be taken
to prevent corrupt candidates from recycling themselves into positions of leadership?
Young Nigerians have often come to me desperately seeking solutions to several conundrums:
How do we begin to solve these problems in Nigeria, where the structures are present
but there is no accountability?

Other pressing questions include: How does Nigeria bring all the human and material
resources it has to bear on its development? How do we clean up the Niger Delta? What
do we need to do to bring an end to organized ethnic bigotry? How can we place the
necessary checks and balances in place that will reduce the decadence, corruption,
and debauchery of the past several decades? How can we ensure even and sustained development?
And so forth. . . . And that would be a big debate to keep Nigeria busy for a long
time.

The Sovereign National Conference that was held a couple of years ago was a good idea.
I believe the concept was right—a platform to discuss Nigeria’s problems and challenges
and pave a path forward—however, the execution was not. Debate about a nation’s future
should not turn into an excuse for politicians to drink or feast on meals in Abuja.
It should continue for decades, in small forums, in schools, offices, on the radio,
on TV, in markets, in our newspapers, and on the streets, until we get things right.
Most advanced nations in the world constantly appraise and reappraise their countries’
paths and destinies.

I foresee the Nigerian solution will come in stages. First we have to nurture and
strengthen our democratic institutions—and strive for the freest and fairest elections
possible. That will place the true candidates of the people in office. Under the rubric
of a democracy, a free press can thrive and a strong justice system can flourish.
The checks and balances we have spoken about and the laws needed to curb corruption
will then naturally find a footing. A new patriotic consciousness has to be developed,
not one based simply on the well-worn notion of the unity of Nigeria or faith in Nigeria
often touted by our corrupt leaders, but one based on an awareness of the responsibility
of leaders to the led—on the sacredness of their anointment to lead—and disseminated
by civil society, schools, and intellectuals. It is from this kind of environment
that a leader, humbled by the trust placed upon him by the people, will emerge, willing
to use the power given to him for the good of the people.

A
FTER A
W
AR

After a war life catches

desperately at passing

hints of normalcy like

vines entwining a hollow

twig; its famished roots

close on rubble and every

piece of broken glass.

Irritations we used

to curse return to joyous

tables like prodigals home

from the city. . . . The meter man

serving my maiden bill brought

a friendly face to my circle

of sullen strangers and me

smiling gratefully

to the door.

After a war

we clutch at watery

scum pulsating on listless

eddies of our spent

deluge. . . . Convalescent

dancers rising too soon

to rejoin their circle dance

our powerless feet intent

as before but no longer

adept contrive only

half-remembered

eccentric steps.

After years

of pressing death

and dizzy last-hour reprieves

we’re glad to dump our fears

and our perilous gains together

in one shallow grave and flee

the same rueful way we came

straight home to haunted revelry
.
¹

POSTSCRIPT: THE EXAMPLE OF NELSON MANDELA

N
ot too long ago my attention was caught by a radio news item about Africa. As I had
come to expect, it was not good news, and it was not presented with, nor did it deserve,
respect. It was something of a joke. This was the announcement of the death of President
Eyadema of Togo, whom it described as the longest-serving president in Africa (or
maybe the world—I forget which). Then it gave another detail: Eyadema had died from
a heart attack even as he was about to be flown to Europe for treatment. And it concluded
with the information that Eyadema’s son would succeed him as the next president of
Togo!

If Eyadema stayed that long because he was so good, why was there no hospital in Togo
to attend to his condition? Did Eyadema, who had given nothing but bad news to Togo
since the 1960s, imagine that the solution to problems created largely by him would
be solved by a dynasty of Eyademas? Which reminded me of another First Son: the son
of the president of Equatorial Guinea, who was seen around the world on television
as he shopped extravagantly in Paris for expensive clothes. Unfortunately, he seemed
no less a bum in the suits he was trying on than out of them.
¹

This event brought me once again face-to-face with Africa’s leadership charade. What
do African leaders envision for their countries and their people? I wondered yet again.
Have they not heard that where there is no vision the people perish? Does the judgment
of history on their rule mean anything to them? Do they remember how a man called
Mandela, who had spent twenty-seven years in prison for South Africa, gave up the
presidency of that country—a position that he so richly deserved—after only four years
and made way for another and younger patriot? Why do African leaders choose bad models
like Malawian president Kamuzu Banda instead of good ones like Mandela? Have they
considered how Zimbabwean president Robert Mugabe has ruined the cause of land distribution
by demagoguery and a thirty-year tenancy in power?

Which makes me wonder whether any of these life presidents consider how Mandela became
the beacon of justice and hope on the continent, indeed for the world. For those who
do not know, Mandela did not have an easy life. He fought alongside African heroes
such as Steve Biko, Walter Sisulu, and Oliver Tambo, among other brave activists,
for the liberation of his people from one of the most racist systems the world has
ever known. For his efforts, he was sent to prison.

Most men would have been broken, or consumed by bitterness. But not Mandela. This
giant among men walked free that fateful day, on February 11, 1990, after nearly three
decades of imprisonment on Robben Island, hands held high, fist in the air. His release
was beamed across the planet. The world was pleased, but nowhere as ecstatic as his
African brethren around the globe, who saw in Mandela the personification of their
highest aspirations and the embodiment of the kind of leadership Africa needs desperately.

Mandela has delivered magnificently on those dreams. And it is to this great man,
lovingly known as Madiba—father of the nation of South Africa, antiapartheid leader,
lawyer, writer, intellectual, humanitarian—that present and future African leaders
must all go for sustenance and inspiration.

APPENDIX

Brigadier Banjo’s Broadcast to Mid-West
¹

NOTE: “B
RIGADIER
” B
ANJO
WAS
THE
C
OMMANDER
OF
THE
B
IAFRAN
I
NVASION

Benin, August 14, 1967, at 20:00 GMT.

Fellow Nigerians and Biafrans, I am sure I do not need to introduce myself either
to you nor perhaps to many people outside our country. You have already had ample
opportunity to hear of my name in January 1966 when this political crisis started
in our country. Unfortunately at that time I also only heard about the circumstances
under which my name was being publicized at a time when I was in no position to do
anything about it. I was then accused of having attempted the life of the late Supreme
Commander, Maj.-Gen. J. T. U. Aguiyi-Ironsi, and that for the attempt I have been
arrested and detained.

Fellow Nigerians, nothing could be further from the truth. The mutiny in the Army
which started the revolution in January 1966 was as much of a surprise to myself as
it was to some of my colleagues. I spent all of my time [words indistinct] of the
events in ascertaining the true state of affairs in the country. My colleague, then
Lt.-Col. Yakubu Gowon, was the first officer who gave me precise information about
the state of affairs. It then appeared to me that sufficient had taken place to ensure
the removal of several Governments of the Federation and that the sum total of the
trend of events could be regarded as the beginning of a national revolution. I then
considered it my duty to ensure that no further military action took place which might
have the effect of totally destroying the stability of the nation.

I felt that the young officers who had started the action were only anxious to destroy
what had become a most corrupt and discredited Government. As such, I spent a considerable
time in an effort to urge the late Major General to assume responsibility for the
State with the support of the Army from national collapse. It was then my view that
any attempt to use the Nigerian Army for any military action within Nigeria would
only have the effect of breaking the Army into its tribal components of which the
Northern component would represent the lion’s share. This Northern component, effectively
under the control of the Northern feudalists, would then inevitably be employed to
impose on the rest of Nigeria the most repressive feudal domination. I was one of
the senior officers of the Nigerian Army who took the decision to accept responsibility
for Nigeria. In fact, on that occasion I was the chief spokesman for that decision.
I therefore considered it my duty to remain with the General as closely as possible
rather than accept the office of the Military Governor of the West which he then proposed
to me and which I declined in favor of the late Lt.-Col. Adekunle Fajuyi. On the day
after the General had assumed full responsibility for the State I was arrested by
a few of my colleagues while waiting to see the General. I was never given a reason
for my arrest, nor given an opportunity to defend myself against any charges that
could be raised. I went to prison for 14 months under a false accusation, the details
of which I only found out from the press and radio after I got to prison. I have since
had the opportunity of speaking to the so-called actors in that drama of my arrest,
and I now appreciate that the action was an act of hatred motivated primarily by fear
and suspicion. I spent a considerable part of my time in prison sending warnings to
the late Major-General and my colleagues about the policies that would appear to represent
a continuation of the policies of the Balewa Government, which could have the effect
of encouraging counterattempts, which might not only destroy the Nigerian Army but
would also, by the extent of the bloodshed and the tribal selectiveness of the [word
indistinct], destroy the Nigerian nation as well.

The inevitable has now happened, which would seem to confirm that my fears were well-founded.
There is now an army at the disposal of the feudal North, an army that has lost all
the traditions, discipline, and standards of a responsible army. There is now a Government
of the Federation that is sustained by violence and is therefore tied to the ambitions
of the Northern Feudalists. There has been a considerable amount of bloodshed, chaos,
and tribal bitterness among such people. Such tribal rivalry, as used to be exploited
by our previous political parties for the harnessing of the opinion of the North and
its people, is now translating itself into a most extreme form of brutality and of
despicable savagery.

Finally, the dismemberment of our nation has commenced in the breakaway of Biafra.
In August 1966, I wrote to my colleagues from prison to inform them that I did not
consider that we, military leaders of this country, had the right to carry out such
action as the proclamation of the dismemberment of presiding over the dismemberment
of Nigeria. I still do not think that we have the right to destroy a nation that was
handed over to us to save at a moment of crisis. The 29th July 1966 Federal Military
Government came into being as a result of a mutiny in which the primary action was
directed at the elimination of a particular ethnic group and the supremacy of another
ethnic group in Nigeria. This has had the effect of destroying the basic mutual trust
and confidence among the people of Nigeria and has created the decentralization of
the Nigerian people into tribal groups. This action, more than any other event that
has occurred throughout the history of Nigeria, has had the greatest effect on the
dismemberment of Nigeria. The Federal Military Government cannot claim to represent
the Government of the people of Nigeria and to fight for the unity of Nigeria while
constantly rejecting fundamental human rights for all people forming parts of Nigeria.
The Federal Military Government cannot claim to be seeking a peaceful solution to
the problems of achieving Nigerian unity while at the same time contemptuously ignoring
the wishes of the people of the Mid-West and the West in their previous demands for
the removal of the unruly troops of the North from their territories in order to allow
the unfettered discussion of the present political crisis.

The Federal Military Government cannot claim to be genuinely interested in the progress
and welfare of the Nigerian people while at the same time inflicting the bloodiest
warfare on the people of Nigeria and employing unscrupulous foreign mercenaries in
a total war that really destroys hundreds of our people and the economy of our nation. . . .

The people of Biafra have a right to fight a Government that has constantly treated
its people to the most savage forms of brutality and persists in denying these people
its fundamental human rights while claiming to represent other interests. It is my
view that the people of Biafra were prepared to remain part of the nation into which
they have for so many years invested their resources of manpower and material and
with which they had the closest social ties. Provided the people of Biafra could live
within such a nation under a Government that truly represents all sections of its
people and truly tries to pursue such measures as are designed to promote the welfare
of all Nigerians irrespective of tribe or religion [
sic
] [sentence as broadcast]. It is the remnants of the old Nigerian Army that broke
away in July that now threatens the Nigerian nation. This Northern army is now under
the power and control of a group of Northern feudalists who have as their aim the
total conquest of Nigeria. The Federal Military Government, having been brought to
power and control by that army, is playing to that end. Hence policies are inevitably
directed toward achieving the objectives of the Northern feudalists who control that
army. . . .

It is my idea that the peaceful settlement of the Nigerian problem will be readily
achieved when that fragment of the Nigerian Army now at the disposal of the Northern
feudalists has been completely disarmed. Toward this end, the Liberation Army is irrevocably
committed. It is not at all an invasion, and it is not intended to promote the domination
of any group of the Nigerian people by any other group through the presence of the
Liberation Army. I wish to stress once again what I said during the press conference
and previously on the radio, that the movement of this Army into the Mid-West is not
a conquest. It is also not an invasion. It is to enable the people of the Mid-West
to see the Nigerian problem in its proper perspective. I firmly believe that the people
of the Mid-West would prefer to be able to declare their stand in the conflict that
has arisen in Nigeria free from any [pressure] either from the North or from anywhere.
I believe that the people of the Mid-West would like to be given an opportunity to
state their case, free from the coercive influences due to the presence of Northern
troops. It is my view that the political future of Nigeria rests with all the people
of Nigeria. It has become a matter of great concern to me, however, to be informed
that certain ethnic groups are jubilating as a result of the presence of the Liberation
Army in this Region. As a consequence, I also understand that certain other ethnic
groups are feeling depressed and frustrated. I wish to assure all ethnic groups in
the Mid-West that the achievement of the Liberation Army does not give any ethnic
group an advantage over any other. I wish also to appeal to all ethnic groups to exercise
restraint and humility and not to indulge in acts which may result in confusion, bringing
distress to a large number of our people. Any misbehavior on the part of any group
of persons will give rise to a chain of unpleasant reactions. . . .

I am informed that since the Liberation Army came into the Mid-West a number of civil
servants have become so frightened that they have either refused to come to their
places of work or reported only for a few hours and then left before the closing time.
I wish to take this opportunity to appeal to all civil servants to return to work
not later than 15th August 1967, and to assure them of their safety. Those, however,
who fail to report on this day will be in danger of permanently losing their jobs. . . .

While on the question of cooperation among the various ethnic groups in the Mid-West,
I would like to stress that all tribal meetings should stop, as such meetings are
not conducive to peace and mutual understanding. In order to foster cooperation among
the people of the Mid-West, I propose within the next few days to invite a cross section
of the people of the Mid-West to a meeting to explain to them the present situation
and objectives of the Liberation Army, and I believe this will go a long way to giving
them the true picture of the situation and instill confidence in the future of the
Mid-West. I understand that anxiety is being expressed in some quarters about the
safety of the Military Governor of the Mid-West, Brig. David Ejoor. I wish to inform
you that I have personally held discussions with Brig. Ejoor and to assure you that
he is in good health and is not under detention. . . .

I have, therefore, today promulgated a decree setting up an interim administration
in Mid-Western Nigeria. This decree has suspended the operation in Mid-Western Nigeria
of the Constitution of the Federation of Nigeria, the Constitution of Mid-Western
Nigeria, and other constitutional provisions applicable in Mid-Western Nigeria, except
those constitutional provisions absolutely necessary for the efficient functioning
of the machinery of State. All legislative and executive powers have been vested in
me during the period of interim administration. In order to assist me in the task
of administering Mid-Western Nigeria during the interim period I propose to appoint
a military administrator and an administrative council. I have also established a
Mid-Western Nigerian Army and a Mid-Western Nigerian Police Force, which will for
the moment remain independent of the Nigerian Army, the Nigerian Police Force, the
Biafran Army, or the Biafran Police Force. The Mid-Western Nigerian Army shall, however,
during this interim period be part of the Liberation Army. All courts in Mid-Western
Nigeria shall continue to function as usual and it may be necessary to establish a
court of appeal until it becomes possible to resume [words indistinct] the Supreme
Court of Nigeria. As soon as it is practicable I propose to hand over the administration
of Mid-Western Nigeria in order to proceed to the war front and to complete the liberation
of Nigeria.

Good Night.