By Ebuka Onyekwelu, Ph.D
The piece, “Tribalism, Memory, and the Cost of Distorting History in Nigeria”, by Kio Amachree, on one hand evokes a troubling pattern where the Igbos, or the few among the Igbos, or even just one Igbo, are used to scapegoat an entire people. For instance, Amachree referred to Nnamdi Kanu’s behaviour in court during his trial as a real and acceptable behavioural pattern of the Igbo – rash, unreasonable, aggressive, and unruly. Even when Kanu has been known to throw deadly expletives to anyone and everyone since around 2012, he started appearing on Radio Biafra. It is concerning just how Kanu emerged as the standard for gauging Igbo behaviour when he was not the first Igbo man to be tried in a Nigerian court. However, on the other hand, the article provides an opportunity to learn for the Igbos and other Nigerians.
Mr. Amachree’s article, shared on Facebook by CP Aderemi Adeoye, rtd, a long-time senior friend of mine and respected police officer, has continued to generate reactions. A look at the comments on the author’s page and those on CP Remi’s page clearly shows that this conversation is befitting and timely. The six-hundred-and-eighteen-word article relied on both personal experience and family history to buttress the following points: first, that Nigerian history is being distorted by Ndi Igbo who rely on all manner of concocted feeble and falsehood to claim that non-Igbos like the Kalabaris are Igbos. This, the writer observed, speaks to not only ignorance but arrogance of some Igbos that, in turn, annoy other Nigerians about the Igbo. Then, he proceeded to say that the way and manner some Igbos engage in invectives and idle words on social media is concerning and, in fact, again, makes other Nigerians wary of Igbos. This, he argued, tends to strengthen tribalism because other Nigerians are now suspicious of the Igbos to the extent that they are now afraid that if given national power, they would not run an inclusive government and that Nigeria will no longer accept non-inclusivity.
To begin, it is, in my estimation, a very ridiculous thing to argue against someone’s preferred ethnic identity. In actual fact, Igboness is a creation of convenience rather than a people’s identity. In the Southeast, identity is a matter of one’s origin, which is traced to the umunna or kindred. Much so that even in State creation, the cultural and spiritual distinctiveness of Southeasterners were seriously considered in allocating communities to a state. Hence, to date, there is a subsisting argument that the people of Ugwuoba in Enugu State share far more affinity with the people of Ebenebe in Anambra State. Therefore, Ugwuoba, it is argued, was supposed to be a part of Anambra State, instead of Enugu State. The Igbo trace their identity to their roots. Identity is not merely symbolic or a blanket characterization. This is why those arguing over being Igbo or not being Igbo need to do better.
The author, while claiming that the Igbos still view the Nigeria-Biafra war from a particular prism of concern, alleged that in consequence, they still struggle to continue the war from other means by distorting history or lashing out at dissenters. Surprisingly, Mr. Amachree also observed that due to the experience of the war, in which specific instance, the late Biafran warlord, Chief Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, maltreated his people; other Nigerians would no longer tolerate non-inclusion from the Igbos. Thereby making a case that the Nigerian civil war still provides a credible lens through which both Igbos and other Nigerians view Igbos in Nigeria, and in contrast, how Igbos react to issues of national concern. He then admonished Ndi Igbo to conduct themselves with decorum and imbibe inclusion, particularly calling on Peter Obi’s supporters to become nationalistic, to expand and solidify the ambition of Ndi Igbo, which Peter Obi symbolizes. Anything contrary, he referred to as a deliberate effort by Ndi Igbo to rewrite history, rather than an honest error. Ironically, there are no grounds whatsoever to accuse the Igbo of non-inclusivity in Nigeria’s national governance in contemporary Nigeria or throughout history.
The accusation of tribalism and non-inclusion against Ndi Igbo has been deflated by Mr. Kelechi Deca, who argued that the current administration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has not been any more nationalistic in disposition, considering that the Yoruba occupy every single sensitive and viable government position in Nigeria today. Before President Tinubu, we had President Muhammadu Buhari, who also appointed his own tribesmen to key government positions without qualms. My worry about the accusation of non-inclusion against the Igbo by Amachree is why he feels or believes that Ndi Igbo, or some Ndi Igbo (minority, as he claimed at some point), are the ones against inclusivity in Nigeria? Why is he second-guessing the Igbo on equitable national power distribution when the same people have not had any opportunity to govern the country? Why is he not interested in President Muhammadu Buhari and, currently, President Bola Tinubu, who have clear ethnic leanings in their approach to national governance? In fact, President Buhari’s defeat at the polls in 2011 led to violence in Northern Nigeria that resulted in the death of nearly one thousand Nigerians. So much for inclusivity! Yet, Mr. Amachree relied on the experience of the civil war to claim that the Igbos need to learn inclusion. The irony is that he faulted the Igbos for not moving on from the Nigeria-Biafra war. How exactly can the Igbos move on from the Biafra war when they are still viewed and analyzed with the suspicions and experiences of that war?
On the issues of Ndi Igbo being lousy or noisy, he observed that this is perpetuated by a minority. However, this is beyond who did what or why. Respected Statesman, Professor Chinua Achebe, in “The Trouble with Nigeria”, cautioned Ndi Igbo to be circumspect and know that Nigeria is a federation. Achebe, too, observed that Igbos can be loud in a way that embarrasses the sensibilities of other Nigerians. That by doing so, they attract unnecessary attention which negates goodwill, while sending out a perception of arrogance and showoff, which is punished in return. Notwithstanding, Achebe was emphatic that Nigeria has an “Igbo problem.” This is instructive given that Mr. Amachree left the current realities of Nigeria and chose to blame non-inclusivity on Igbos based on the civil war experience and assumptions. If this was not a case of an Igbo problem, was he suggesting that it was better for an ethnic group to quietly play the nationalism card until they gained national power, and only then deploy their tribesmen in all key government positions to consolidate their ethnic relevance? Whatever the case might be, this is a lesson for both Ndi Igbo and other Nigerians.
In the end, Mr. Amachree or his Kalabari people or other people groups in the South-South geo-political zone of Nigeria still view the Igbo from the alleged mistreatment of their people during the civil war. But while Amachree admonishes the Igbos to put the war behind them, he still judges them with the experience and assumptions gained from the war. Some Igbos, rooted in the politics of agitation, still view some of their neighbours from the South-South zone as treacherous. We must be open to discussions about past errors. People who have been offended, both Igbos and non-Igbos, have a right to their story and unpleasant experiences. Two or multiple truths can stand side by side.
About Author
