This is the News Analysis segment of the Voice of Biafra International Broadcast.


For January 12, 2002


You have heard the news; now, the analysis…


We start today with a recent article published in the Anchor Newspaper of Nigeria titled “Rebirth of Biafra.” Analysis of this article will make a good exercise which will provide an excellent tapestry on which to weave the current events news.


That author started with “Voice of Biafra broadcasts,” which he heard for the first time in Washington DC. We are so proud that Voice of Biafra is being heard all over the world. We want to remind him that BBC has a Yoruba Language Broadcast. BBC also has a Hausa language broadcast. Have ever heard of BBC Igbo language broadcast?  You have not, because it does not exist. This is an example of the continuing pattern of Igbo marginalization. In any case, we now have our Voice of Biafra.


Referring to the content of the Voice of Biafra broadcast, the author said it “consisted of the same old passionate speeches advocating for the seperation of eastern part of Nigeria from the rest of the country…” We want to make sure he and everybody get it right. One Nigeria does not work, has not worked, will never work—not just for Eastern Region, but for all regions of Nigeria. One Nigeria does not work for Western Region; it does not work for Yoruba nation. One Nigeria does not really work for the Northern Region—ask Tivi nation, or even Arewa nation for that matter. One Nigeria is not working for the Delta Nation. It certainly has never worked for the Igbo nation—Biafra.


And if the speeches sound like “the same old passionate speeches” from 1967, it is precisely because the same old conditions and attitudes and actions that prompted those speeches then, are now with us today, in the year 2002, 35 years later—still and even worse. But, it may be that the author is too young to remember that the call for Biafra in 1967 was a call for self-defense of the Igbo nation in the face of determined and open aggression by, and expurgation from, Nigeria.


The author, speaking for other Nigerians, (according to him), claims that they were shell-shocked and numbed “at the way the Biafra resurrection is taking shape.” He even added to that, “…in the light of events back home…”


“Events back home”? Say, does he mean the unprovoked killing of thousands of Igbo-Biafran in Kaduna in the name of Sharia within the last couple of years? Did the author and those he is speaking for raise a voice in protest and in condemnation of this most heinous act of genocide against Biafrans? What did Biafrans do to deserve this? Was the author shelled and shocked and numbed by these atrocities? Was he even more shocked that General Obasanjo’s government stood by and watched as the State government in Kaduna was turned into an agent, machinery and a sponsor of this systematic murdering of Igbos?


“Events back home”? Could it be that the author is referring to General Obasanjo going to Bayelsa State and using the occasion to engage in unabashed incitement of the Bayelsans against Igbo people, an act unbecoming of a Head of State, especially since this was totally unprovoked?  Where was the author’s shock and numbness?


“Events back home”? Did this author speak up when an Igbo driver was chased down and killed by a Northern Nigeria mob just recently, and his crime? He is Igbo, and his vehicle ran over a sheet of Koran! Which shocked the author more: that the mob lynched this innocent Igboman without remorse, or that the Igboman first ran into a Police Station, but the police could not or would not protect him, and allowed him to be taken away by the mob, or that up till today, nobody has been brought to justice for this most hideous crime?


“Events back home”? Is the author concerned that Bola Ige’s murder is getting so much attention but the little Igbo guy’s murder is ignored? Where is the sense of justice—never mind equal justice for all? How can you say that you are paying honest tribute to Ige but pretend that this Igboman was not done even greater injustice? Any tears for the tens of thousands of Igbo-Biafrans brutally and ruthlessly murdered by Northern Nigerian Muslims? Had these Igbo murder victims no feelings? Do they have feeling Igbo family members—even perhaps, non-Igbo friends with feelings, in or outside of Nigeria?


What is the point of even mentioning other injustices done to the Igbo in Nigeria, in broad daylight, if this author fails to understand readily available facts? It would appear obvious that he “saw no evil, heard no evil” as far as the treatment of Biafrans in Nigeria is concerned. But then, he turns around and is shocked at the “Rebirth” of Biafra! Hello-o-o


He thinks the Biafran Anthem is an “adulteration” of Finlandia. Yes, it is Finlandia alright, but it is not an adulteration. It is a song about struggle and liberation, and the few Finns who have heard it in use by Biafrans love it and say it brings them ever closer to us Biafrans and they wish us victory, just as they overcame their own oppressors! It fits; and we are proud to have it as our Biafran National Anthem.


The author continues to exhibit the type of blindedness or scotoma and insensitivity that has made Biafra possible, made Biafra viable and made Biafra a reality, when he cites General Obasanjo’s earlier visit to the US to give support to Bush in the coalition against terrorism. By mentioning BAF (Biafra Actualization Forum) in the same breath, he insinuates that BAF is associated with terrorism. Such stupidity! Tell us, while General Obasanjo was in the US supporting Bush, in which country were certain people jubilating about September 11 events? In which country were Christians and Igbos attacked because Muslims wanted to vent their anger over US launching of an attack against terrorists in Afghanistan? In which country were 70% of babies born after September 11 in a particular region named after Osama bin Laden? In which country did regional leaders express their anger to General Obasanjo because he did not consult with them before supporting Bush’s antiterrorism policy?


That country, of course, is Nigeria; the region is Northern Nigeria, Muslim Nigeria. By the way, even before September 11, bin Laden was their hero there. And, they burn American flags there routinely.


It is obvious that the author was not, and has not been, bothered by these events. But he has the gall to even insinuate that a peaceful organization trying to get its nation, Biafra, away from a murderous people in Muslim Northern Nigeria and away from a murderous government, the Federal Government of Nigeria, could in any way be associated with terrorism. We have to ask him: with respect to Nigeria, who are the real terrorists now, and who support them? Will you have the guts to point them out, to point at them?


Some semblance of sanity returns to this author’s piece when at last he acknowledges serious on-going problems in Nigeria and fracturing along national lines (who each has her own national organization); and sees the rationale of, and the place for, a Sovereign National Conference in Nigeria.


But his prejudice is immediately evident in his last rhetoric “Why can’t we extinguish the flame of secession or Biafra by seating to talk about a true federation?” Prior to that, in the same paragraph, he talks about “One thing also became clear: destabilizing elements in Nigeria and the Nigerian diaspora must be checked…”


We have to feel sorry for the author because he does not seem to grasp the fact that a “true Federation”—whatever that is—is not possible and not viable in Nigeria. We have to feel sorry for the author because he does not understand that so-called “destabilizing elements” are actually the realists, the wiser ones who know or finally realize what is not working, what is not going to work, what will never work. These are the ones who know how to deal squarely with futility.


We have no choice but to feel sorry for the author because all he really wants to do is to stop Biafra—which is exactly what Nigeria has been doing since 1967—to stop the Igbos. He is still so blinded by the same prejudice that makes Nigeria unworkable. He cannot see that the major new destabilizer for Nigeria is Sharia, and since Sharia will not go away, Nigeria is truly finished. He finds it difficult to accept that since Igbos cannot live in any other part of Nigeria without losing their lives and property, the Igbos have a right to leave Nigeria. In fact, it is now a duty and a moral obligation—but this author pretends not to understand this. Like General Obasanjo, he is willing to pick on the Igbos, but has no courage to address the real issues in one Nigeria, which are:

  1. Sharia makes it necessary and inevitable that Nigeria is doomed to disintegrate as one country.
  2. General Obasanjo—and the rest of Nigeria, for that matter—do not have the courage to tackle the issue of Sharia, but find their mettle when it is time to unjustly castigate the Igbo without the least provocation—and that is all the time for them.
  3. Nigeria is a colony owned and controlled by Muslim Northern Hausa-Fulani who want it to stay that way so that they can fulfill their imperative.
  4. “One Nigeria” is going to be the death of us all
  5. The Igbo will be the first to be wiped out by Nigeria—and Nigeria is not hiding her intentions to do so. Only the good Lord stands between Nigeria and their planned annihilation of the Igbo.
  6. The continuing killing of the Igbo in other parts of Nigeria, especially in the Muslim North, without any response by the Nigerian government, without other Nigerians speaking up and out against this crime against humanity, without anybody being brought to justice, and without any plans by the government to protect the Igbos from such genocide, amount to one thing: Biafra Actualization.


If the author thinks that Biafrans want to be in the same country with those who want to stop Biafra, but who will say nothing when Igbos are constantly being killed and hounded for the one reason that they are Igbo, he makes the same mistake that Nigeria has been making. This mistake will always lead to the same solution: Biafra.


We hope that the lesson of this article and the conclusion of the author are not lost on you. The author, by his own statement, is really only interested in stopping Biafra. How many times and in how many ways have you seen, heard or experienced Nigeria do the same thing over and over again: stop the Igbos at all cost? Nigeria is bent on stopping the Igbo; Nigeria is bent on suppressing, oppressing, subjugating and marginalizing the Igbo—openly, directly, and even subliminally, as this author’s writing has shown. Should it be a shock to anyone, then, that Biafra is the only alternative for the Igbo?


We conclude by asking all the nations of Nigeria to realize that the only problem with Nigeria is Nigeria—“one Nigeria.” None of us will get anywhere under the banner of one Nigeria: we have 50 years of evidence and experience on our side. We have to get out from under one Nigeria, then, we can decide, on an equal, independent, sovereign national footing, how we can relate to one another, as we fulfill our different national collective and individual destinies. We can do it— leave Nigeria together, in a peaceful process.


For Biafrans, it is a matter of survival. We shall not fail. We shall not relent. We shall find a way to accomplish this in peace. As God is Life, Freedom and Peace and such Life affords Freedom, Biafra is assured, because we in God’s peace move away from forces which oppose God’s imperative of Life and Freedom.


That’s it for this week; stay tuned for more of Voice of Biafra International



Go to; check out the audio broadcast version of news analysis by following the Voice of Biafra Link.