Liberation Without Consent Is Still Oppression
In 2017, Nnamdi Kanu claimed that while in custody he rejected proposals that would limit his dream for Biafra to only the five Igbo states. He also claimed that he insisted that any new Biafra must include other so called oppressed nationalities outside the Igbo speaking areas, including every group within the former Eastern Region that once fell under the old Biafra territory.
For some historical context, the Eastern Region was created in 1954 when Nigeria, under British occupation, adopted a federal constitution known as the Lyttleton Constitution. That constitution reorganized the country into three main regions with significant autonomy: the Northern Region, the Western Region, and the Eastern Region.
In essence, the Eastern Region existed from 1954 until 1967, when it was dismantled by the federal military government shortly before the civil war. Thus one can understand why I can never take anyone who tries to frame 1954 as our beginning seriously.
I also always found his claim and overall stance on the subject to be detached from reality because I know for a fact that in the AkwaCross region a good majority of the natives are not interested in this idea. You might find a handful of uneducated people repeating beer parlour arguments, but the overwhelming majority of our people do not entertain the ideology even as a joke.
Unlike many of the young “Biafra” supporters today, I was not born and raised in Lagos or any other faraway city. I was born at home and spent a significant part of my life in my hometown. I lived in the village with my Annang grandmother whose brother died in the civil war. I attended town hall meetings with my grand uncles. I sat through those same meetings with my Efik and Ibibio grand aunts and uncles, moving between Cross River and Akwa Ibom. So when people talk about being a daughter of the soil, that is exactly who I am. I know what my people think, and our stance on this ideology has not changed since nineteen sixty seven.
So to hear someone who knows absolutely nothing about us speak publicly as though they were advocating for us is not only ridiculous but genuinely laughable. What makes it even more absurd is the double standard that plays out every time the subject comes up.
During the onset of the Biafran project my people protested loudly. We did not want any part in it. Our voices were drowned out and we were bullied into a conflict we never desired. Our identity, history and political priorities have always been different. Support for Biafra has never been uniform. It is not something that all southeastern or Niger Delta communities collectively support. This is why it is baffling that the same people who claim to be fighting for the voiceless are the ones drowning out the very voices they claim to defend.
People love to insist that we must join this or that movement, but that narrative is false. The combined AkwaCross region covers about twenty seven thousand square kilometres and holds between six and nine million people. That is comparable to or larger than several independent nations. Nobody has the authority to speak as if we are some tiny appendage waiting to be attached to a project we never subscribed to.
More importantly, if the Biafra campaigners truly have the formula to build a successful multiethnic nation, why not apply it right now? Why wait until after secession? Why try to create a smaller version of the Nigeria we already struggle with?
During the onset of the Covid pandemic, I joined a Biafran group online out of curiosity. I wanted first hand insight into their ideology. Sadly, it was a waste of time filled with gaslighting and people who could not handle simple questions.
The most common response I heard was the same empty line. Let us get out of Nigeria first and then we will decide how things should work. That alone convinced me that the entire idea is built on sand. When someone refuses to answer clear questions before a serious decision, it is not deep strategy. It means there is nothing real behind the offer, or they assume the other party is too naive and stupid to demand clarity.
Any movement that claims to understand how to build a peaceful multiethnic nation should demonstrate it now. Respect for neighbours is the first test, and they have failed it every single time.
When a movement says we will sort it out after independence, that is not leadership. That is avoidance. It means there is no concrete plan or a defined structure. It also means no respect for the people they want to drag along. Serious liberation movements draft constitutions before independence. They negotiate territory before independence. They clarify governance and identity before independence. Any group that avoids these steps is not seeking partnership. They are seeking control.
If people cannot show integrity now, cannot recognise boundaries now, cannot accept no now, cannot listen now, and cannot negotiate now, nothing magical will happen the moment a new flag is raised. A passport does not fix character. Leadership failures do not disappear just because a new flag has been raised. Deep conflicts do not evaporate. An exclusionary or tone deaf mindset will simply reproduce itself in any new country.
People in the AkwaCross region made our position clear in the nineteen sixties and still got dragged into a conflict we did not initiate. Our voices were drowned then and they are drowned again today. That alone exposes the flaw in the ideology. You cannot preach freedom while denying others their own right to self determination. You cannot claim liberation while forcing people into your dream. That is not freedom. That is domination with a new name.
If someone cannot clearly state what we stand to gain, what our autonomy will look like, what our cultural protection will be, how political representation will work, how resources will be shared or how disputes will be resolved, then they are not offering a partnership. They are offering submission. People who genuinely want allies negotiate early and openly. People who wait until you are trapped are seeking power, not unity. Also, if they truly had a working formula for nation building, we would have already seen evidence of it.
Regardless, I still support every genuine self determination movement at home and abroad. People deserve the right to choose their future. But my people will never leave Nigeria only to recreate a smaller Nigeria somewhere else. I will not sit with folded hands and watch my people fall into a pit that’s been dug for us, that will never happen.
That said, Nnamdi Kanu was very recently sentenced to life imprisonment. And although I strongly disagree with his rhetoric because it often harms the same minority groups he claims to defend, I cannot pretend not to see the injustice here. Nigeria has individuals who have committed far worse offences and they continue to walk free. The fact that Nnamdi Kanu faces this level of punishment while others enjoy impunity continues to expose the long standing imbalance in Nigeria’s justice system.
You do not need to support his ideology to recognise when the law has been used selectively. You do not need to agree with him to acknowledge that the punishment does not reflect the principle. This unevenness is one of the reasons Nigerians are losing trust in the state. Justice should be equal. Justice should never depend on who is in power or which groups are politically convenient to silence.
I do not support his vision for my people, but I will always stand for fairness. A country that applies justice selectively is a country that harms itself. If Nigeria is ever going to hold together with dignity, equal treatment under the law must be the foundation. Anything less only deepens the fractures we already live with.
Leave a Reply