posted                      

quote:

---

Medieval Mind-Set Vs. Modernity: Why Biafra Lost. A Rejoinder to Mazi K. Ani
By
Olisa H. Osita

John Henry Cardinal Newman: Certitude is “an assent, deliberate, unconditional and conscious, to a proposition as true” – which does not mean we cannot “allow in the abstract that it is possible that we are wrong” but there can be no “degree” of certitude.

The above named article, authored by Mazi K. Ani, was well written in fairy-tale style with flow and coherence. A cursory study through the entire article reveals the degree, depth, width and breadth of the author, which l would decline to comment on for fear of being misunderstood. Suffice it to say, without being overtly sentimental, that the rational and logic expressed and presented therein in his article was anchored in medieval mind-set. The author expressed high degree of intelligence in spin embroidery of weaving and knitting replete with cosmetology. The crass import of his prejudices in the body of the article is not only implied with subtlety but egregiously edified. The author has also elevated parroting and rehashing of Biafran propaganda machinery and leitmotif for the civil war to an art form. Give it to Mr. Ani that they were masterfully and artfully put together even though the article is high on sound and gymnastics but hollow and short on substance, reality, clarity and logic.
Francis Bacon: “The human mind is prey to certain typical intellectual failures”.
Every where one looks at these days, in the entire length and breadth of our land, are dotted with unpolished medieval men and women dressed-up in modernity garb. Mazi K. Ani is the embodiment, an epicenter and exemplar of these queer and odd aberrations in all its expressions and preambles. Hear Mazi K. Ani in his own words and l quote:

“There has been a proliferation of Biafra and Ojukwu-related articles lately in the Nigerian cyber media. This is both a reflection of the critical role of one man -His Excellency Gen. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu- in the historical turning point of Nigeria as well as the Igbo proverb that after brave men have done the real fighting, the effeminate would remain at home by the fire-side and tell the tales. The cyber space has become the ultimate fire-side, the destination for cowardly tale telling by effeminate revisionists of all hue about a war that ended over three decades ago”.

A man, who grew up, enmeshed in fetish superstitions, lives and breaths superstition in all its nuances without thinking, who in his right mind would prefer to waste valuable time and energy trying to refute them for him with rationality and constructive reasoning. Such attempt is a possible impossibility, which if pursued by omission, will in the end yield futility and nothingness. It is like teaching a deaf person how to hold a tune or appointing a blind man to fly spacecraft. My main reasons for addressing these issues are not intended to convince Mazi K. Ani and his fellow travelers against the errors inherent in their thinking but to put things in their proper perspectives for unsuspecting public and readers at large. We are writing for the benefits of generations yet unborn. Let it be known that by keeping quiet we are legitimizing and guaranteeing preventable and incontrovertible future outcomes, which l am not so proud to say - war. Our generations of Ndigbo have led such a life that can be collectively characterized or inferred as in self-contempt, self-famish, self-torture, self-flagellation with poverty of spirit. One shudders and demurs at the thought of passing or bequeathing these legacies to distant future generations. The Holy Book teaches, “what father when his son asks for fish, will instead give him a serpent”. How would any one question if the sins of fathers, unattended to, left unmitigated with dispatch, un-atoned for, would not fester, linger and finally break loose in the destinies of future generations as cursed epidemic of unimaginable dimensions. You and l are currently sowing such seeds unintentionally and unconsciously. There is abundance of proof that in our era and in generation we have spent enormous amount of time fighting one another instead of building one another up. How much we have spent time destroying the fabrics of our society instead of building and enriching them. How much time we have wasted in fragmenting and fracturing the basic social and cultural infrastructure of our society instead of developing them to improve the wellbeing of our people and to guarantee better future for children yet unborn. Can we enter into covenant with ourselves and say “tu fia qua”, to this debility that has thus far polluted and infected our hearts and minds. I am referring to the caustic gospel of intolerance and divisiveness we have been piping into our heads, every minute and every second without end. Away from us and not even in our dreams this madness and blindness!

Education and quest for knowledge is a continuum. History is the study of past occurrences and their merits and demerits. Such studies are a continuum and indefinite. In retrospect, the more information available in time and place, the more past histories are reevaluated in light of current awareness and revelations. Even as l am writing this piece, there are many people writing their doctoral dissertations at various centers of excellence in the universities and research centers all over the world in such subjects as slave trade, Greek civilization, Roman Empire, American Civil Right, American Civil War, Women Suffrage etc. How can we learn from our mistakes and grow up if we subscribe to the notion of keeping our history and civilization far away from our consciousness. That would be the surest way of having history repeat itself. This is what separates medieval mind-set and modernity.
Benedict Spinoza: “Freedom of judgment and freedom of inward piety are inalienable rights of human beings”.

It is beyond pale why Mr. Mazi K. Ani would adduce medieval moronity and tartuffery, to allow the instinct of slander to take better part of him in questioning with indecency and repulsion, reasons for intellectual inquiry into Nigerian civil war. What a perversion and inversion for a man who lack intellectual etiquette coupled with cockalorum to be espousing such indignation. This obscene garrulousness and uncouth intemperateness is a wholesale indelicacy to noble intellectual pursuits in all its grounding traditions. To tag such inquirers of knowledge as “effeminate revisionists” has provoked intellectual chagrin and laughter as well as nausea. But one can take solace and hold in check the ire provoked by such illogical verbose in the knowledge that one is dealing with a medieval ideologue intoxicated in herd mentality and slave morality. But, in earnest, with in-depth profundity, how then can one praise or blame nature? Therefore, Mr. Mazi K. Ani’s intellectual inflexions and convulsions are understandable. That penetrating logical thinking is alien to him is not the question in our mind nor does it concern us.

Michel De Montaigne: “Man’s inability to say definitely either “l know” or “l do not know” leads to an interrogative formula “What do l know?” (Que sais-je?) to reflect the cautious suspension of judgment man must consider. All living things, including human beings, are in a state of constant flux; being consists of movement and action. Study of the self is man’s primary duty and responsibility”.

Mr. Mazi A. Ani in his circumlocution and misinformation went off the tangent to make the following statements in his article and l quote:

“At the time Biafra was declared, very few people e.g. France's Charles De Gaulle, Tanzania's Julius Nyerere, Zambia's Kenneth Kaunda etc. upheld the right of nations to self determination over territorial integrity of states”.

Biafran Republic was declared on May 30, 1967 for crying out loud. Deviously, Mr. Mazi A. Ani in his article has erroneously assumed that prior to declaration of Biafra that the issue of self-determination was not primary at the forefront of International discourse and debate. What a naked fallacy!
After World War 1, during the Peace Conference in Europe in 1918, former US President, Woodrow Wilson, declared self-determination the center piece of his foreign policy in articulating the framework and structure on how to redraw the map of Central and Eastern Europe in his famous "Fourteen Points" declaration. On Serbia, Woodrow Wilson declared:

“Serbia to be accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into”.

Robert Lansing was US Secretary of State under President Woodrow Wilson. The then US Secretary of State foresaw dangers inherent in the President’s declaration on self-determination; Here is what

Robert Lansing had to say in 1918:
“The phrase ‘self-determination’ is simply loaded with dynamite… What a calamity that the phrase was ever uttered! What misery it will cause!

From the foregoing, who is in doubt that Mr. Mazi K. Ani is not a very good student of history. Even when he tells his stories, events and their circumstantial contexts are so superimposed and juxtaposed in disjointed mumbo jumbo crying out for clarity. He draws corollaries, which on critical examinations and reviews show neither tangencies nor common points of reference. What a rococo of the soul!
Here again is another excerpt from the article written by Mazi K. Ani:
“Today, the picture is different. The scale has tipped in favour of national self-determination as seen in Eritrea, Yugoslavia, East Timor, USSR etc.”

No doubt that the instinct of misrepresentation and sophistry is body, flesh and soul in Mazi K. Ani. I am actually not so sure or certain that these cacophonies of aberrations and anomalies are by design or default. Be it as it may, we cannot shirk from our responsibilities of exposing their falsities. There are certain occurrences in human history that have never been in dispute. One of them is: a country at any time can allow itself the freedom and liberty to seek union with another country or countries. A union with another country can also take place by force (when a country is conquered by military force) or through international treaties. In European theater, nation states were formed under the Treaty of Westphalia, in 1648.

Soviet Union: Most of the republics under Soviet Union were preexisting as independent nations under the Treaty of Westphalia, in 1648. After World War 11 some countries formed alliance with Russia and entered into political union of what was known as Soviet Union. After the collapse of Soviet Union in the late 80’s and early 90’s, these countries opted to be independent from union with Russia. One need to drum this fact home to Mr. Ani’s and his Biafran apologists that these countries did not wake-up one morning and declared themselves independent from Russia. They followed international law and modern procedure through peaceful negotiated dissolution of the Union. The dissolution was amicably worked out multilaterally. Biafran was not an existing political entity within the context of Nigerian geopolitics. This is how you mix apples and oranges together. Biafran Republic was declared unilaterally without respect to existing treaties and laws of the land. Secession through unilateralism is a mark of medieval mentality. It is never in doubt or an argument at any time in human history that any country or ethnic group or groups within a country can seek self-determination. The issue is always about the process employed. Was it through legal and lawful means or unilateral and crude arbitrariness. Biafran project was by crude, medieval method.

Eritrea: Eritrea was ruled by various local or international powers that successively dominated the Red Sea region. In 1896, the Italians used Eritrea as a springboard for their disastrous attempt to conquer Ethiopia. Eritrea was placed under British military administration after the Italian surrender in World War II. In 1952, a UN resolution federating Eritrea with Ethiopia went into effect. The resolution ignored Eritrean pleas for independence but guaranteed Eritreans some democratic rights and a measure of autonomy. These democratic rights were abridged. Ethiopia's annexation of Eritrea as a province 10 years later sparked a 30-year struggle for independence that ended in 1991 with Eritrean rebels defeating governmental forces. In 1993 referendum was conducted for independence which was overwhelmingly approved. Eritrea officially celebrated its independence on May 24, 1993.
In all humility, Mr. Mazi K. Ani, how does Eritrea historical dynamics relate to Biafra? I suspect gap in your understanding.

East Timor: East Timor is an island. During the colonial age the island was object of dispute between Dutch and Portuguese. During the World War 11 it was occupied by Japanese despite the neutrality of the territory. Portugal started decolonization of East Timor after the World War 11 but because of distance and cost, less attention was paid to the process. There was coup d'état by national revolution in April 1974. The change in government brought instability in the region. In December 1975, Indonesia annexed East Timor exploiting the weakness of America in South East Asia after Vietnam. Indonesia was regarded as the last great bastion of anti-communism in the region, essentially in those years for reasons of military strategy. For over a period of 19 years, there was excessive abuse of human rights and over 200,000 Timorese were killed by the Indonesians. Because of the obscure location of the Island, it did not readily come to the attention of International community. On 5 May 1999 the governments of Portugal and Indonesia signed an agreement in New York regarding the resolution of the East Timor situation. Both governments gave a mandate to the Security General of the United Nations (UN) to consult the people of East Timor through a ballot on the Indonesian government's proposal for wide-ranging autonomy. The ballot, on 30 August, 1999 was to allow East Timor's 800,000 people to decide on the future of their country. The Agreement also entrusted the Indonesian government with the responsibility for creating and maintaining security within East Timor, prior to the ballot. After the signing of the Agreement on 5 May 1999, the security situation in East Timor greatly deteriorated. On 15th September the Security Council responded to the rapidly deteriorating situation by authorizing the deployment of a peace enforcement force, acting under Chapter vii of the UN Charter.

In all humility, Mr. Mazi K. Ani, how does the historical dynamics of East Timor relate to Biafra? I suspect gap in your understanding.

The Viability of Colonial Boundaries in Africa.
What Biafra challenged at the time was the viability of the African boundaries as constructed by colonial powers. At the time, the received wisdom was that African boundaries were inviolable and non-negotiable. The idea was that if these boundaries were successfully challenged, it would open a floodgate for more agitation and therefore chaos in Africa and elsewhere. As a result, the OAU incorporated in its charter, the inviolability of African boundaries, a clause which it defend with great zeal.

It was precisely this principle that Biafra attempted to challenge in the 1960s. Again this idea was far ahead of its time.

Nigeria as a member of Organization of African Unity, in 1964, approved and signed “Cairo Declaration on inviolability of colonial borders”. Such declaration states in part AHG/RES 16(1) states: "Solemnly declares that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence." What a senseless argument to make by Mazi A. Ani. In the medieval era, agreements were not honored or respected in its entirety; treaties were disregarded and rubbished with impunity. Anarchy and raw use of power were valued as sign of strength and power. In modernity, disagreements are resolved through the judiciary; treaties are renegotiated and reevaluated through legislative and judiciary processes. You cannot break a law in an attempt to test same law. This is illogicality and abnormality in the highest order. Ojukwu did not discuss secession of Biafra from Nigeria in any of Nigerian court systems, neither in the OAU or UN plenary sessions. These are lawful ways and means to test and challenge any law.

International Matters.
The Biafran war strategy was based on the goodness of the international community and their ability to intervene in the resolution of conflicts. Biafra believed that the international community would not stand by while acts of genocide were being committed. Again this idea was far ahead of its time. It was not until the 1990s in Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia and Kosovo and East Timor that the international community became involved in this way. At the time of Biafra, the international community was there all right but there was no unity of purpose between the wishes of the masses and their governments.

Mazi A. Ani, by all intents and purposes is a man who has excellently graduated from the school of hotchpotch. He has an over-riding will in the art of bounding together issues that are incongruent in an attempt to appear logical and maintain his stiff-neck support to a useless cause, namely - Biafra. All these countries mentioned above never declared themselves an independent sovereign nation a priori before the intervention of International Community. These were all tribal wars. Biafra was not a tribal war. Eastern Nigeria decided to illegally breakaway from Nigeria without the due process of law. Mazi K. Ani postulations were based on jettisoned precepts of synthetic a posteriori.

Rosalyn Higgins: a law professor and currently, a judge of International Court of Justice has this to say and l quote:

“the concept of self-determination of peoples requires us to answer not only what self-determination means, but the ‘people’ to whom it applies. Minority rights are the rights held by minorities. .. But the right of self-determination is the right of peoples”. Higgins, decrying “a contemporary trend of mindless invocation of . . .fashionable concepts”, cautions that “self-determination, having for years been denied as a legal right by vested interests in the West, Eastern Europe and third world alike, now faces a new danger: that of being all things to all men”.

Accordingly, “One cannot - though many today try, lawyers as well as politicians – assert that minorities are peoples and that therefore minorities are entitled to the right of self-determination”. This is because, according to her, such an assertion simply ignores “the fact that the Political Rights Covenant provides for two discrete rights. It also, more insidiously, denies the right of self-determination to those to whom it was guaranteed – the peoples of a State in their entirety”.
Higgins, decrying “a contemporary trend of mindless invocation of . . .fashionable concepts”, cautions that “self-determination, having for years been denied as a legal right by vested interests in the West, Eastern Europe and third world alike, now faces a new danger: that of being all things to all men”.

Religion: Islam vs. Christianity
This was another question thrown up by the Biafran struggle which was poorly understood at the time. Although the conflict between Islam and Christianity is a very old one, at the time of the Biafran struggle, the main ideological battle was between communism and capitalism. Biafra however presented the religious side of the conflict to the world, but again on this issue too, Biafra was far ahead of its time. Whereas Biafra saw the conflict as a struggle between Islam and Christianity, the Nigerian side was able to use Yakubu Gowon, Anthony Enahoro etc. as fronts to mask the religious dimension of the war.

Biafran civil war has little or nothing to do with religion. It was caused because the then Eastern Nigerian Government unilaterally decided to secede from Nigeria without following the due process of law. The Federal Government of Nigeria was duty bound to protect the lives, properties and territorial integrity of her citizens. Many ethnic groups in Nigeria are not predominately Moslems. For instance, Isoko, Itsekiri, Urhobo, Ogonis, Efiks, Tivs, Igalas, Yorubas etc. The pogrom of Ndigbo in the Northern part of Nigeria was in response to the January 15, 1966 coup, whereby, many leaders from the Northern and Western Nigeria, both in the military and in the political arena, were disproportionately slaughtered in cold blood. The configuration of coup plotters revealed that the architects and core leaders of that putsch were predominantly Ndigbo. Unconscionably, the lives of Ndigbo political and military leaders where surprisingly spared. To add insult to injury, Ndigbo hijacked the Federal political power and nominated an Igbo man as the Head of State. Ndigbo, through some convoluted Russian roulette: refused, frustrated, sabotaged, stone-walled any attempt at bringing the coup plotters to trial, even though, the military law was very clear and explicit on treasonable felony. This is what provoked pogrom of Ndigbo in the Northern part of Nigeria. To invoke religion into the causation of the war, is a blatant lie that has no example in the annals of forgery and misrepresentation.

The Concept of Hausa-Fulani Hegemony and the Role of Local Groups
Aside from the international ideological currency in favour of maintain territorial integrity of existing states at the time of Biafra, the other major reason for Biafran defeat was the role of local groups. Biafra interpreted the conflict in north-south terms, internal colonialism and the need to fight Hausa-Fulani domination. This idea turned out to be far ahead of its time in that many local groups did not buy the idea of Northern domination. Indeed, many Nigerian groups contested the notion of Hausa- Fulani domination and considered Igbo domination as a more dangerous threat to themselves.

The concept of Hausa-Fulani Hegemony is a bold-face lie. In any political setting, the group that has wider constituency and geographical spread wins and dominates the political landscape. It is an equal opportunity measure open to any group with better and more sophisticated political organization and structure. Ndigbo from history and as a group have never championed the interests and welfare of any other group except their own selfish interests. In the Northern part of Nigeria, one of the smallest tribes is Fulani. Fulanis have always championed the interest and the welfare of the whole Northern Nigeria. That they have always dominated the political topography of Northern Nigeria is not due to their strength in number but the trust they earned from other tribal groups in the North. To be very conservative, there are no less than at least thirty ethnic groups in the North.
No ethnic group in Nigeria is favorably disposed towards Ndigbo. It is not due to hatred or jealousy as some would like us to believe but due to the brand and type of politics played by Ndigbo. Ndigbo would like to prove and show to other ethnic groups that they “Ndigbo” know better than any other ethnic group in Nigeria. This attitude and behavior alone always breed resentment and resistance in others. Ndigbo crave power but lack the skills necessary to win power.
The idea that Ojukwu's personality was contributory to Biafra's Defeat is a myth created to scapegoat and demonise him after the war. Sociologically, there are three sources of legitimate authority: traditional, legal-rational and charismatic. Ojukwu was (and still is) a charismatic leader, precisely the sort of leadership you need to found a new state. Every other issue must be subordinated to that single aim and that was precisely what happened in Biafra. So, Ojukwu has done his bit. All the arm-chair theorists and back-stabbing internet revisionists are hereby reminded that modern states and nations are not founded by whingeing sissies, cringing fence-sitter or crumb eaters who believe in nothing and will ultimately die for nothing.

Mazi A. Ani got it all wrong why Biafran project was not feasible and successful. Biafra was conceived in error. Behind the conception of Biafra is the greed for oil. First, oil was at the time not discovered in Igbo-land but in the delta areas of Eastern Nigeria. The territory to be referred to “Ndigbo” is the old Onitsha and Owerri provinces. If those territories alone were declared the Republic of Biafra, it would have appeared very convincing that the declaration of Biafra was in response to pogrom of Ndigbo in the Northern Nigeria. But Biafra was declared to incorporate other ethnic groups that never wanted to be part of Biafra, except that oil fields were located in their territories. Hear from a non-Ndigbo commentator:

Fubara David –West, Dallas, Texas USA:
“When Ani writes about "the right of nations to self-determination," what nations is he referring to? The Ibo nation? The Eastern Nigerian nation? Or the Nigerian nation. If it was the Ibo nation, the Biafra enterprise lost its way from the word go because Eastern Nigerian was not peopled by Ibos alone. If we are talking about an Eastern Nigerian nation, we are dealing in fantasy. If we are talking about the Nigerian nation, then the action of the nation to ensure that its self-determination was not destroyed by a faction of the population is quite logical and legitimate within the concepts of sovereign rights and of self-determination”.

John Locke:[b] “The chief reason for establishing governments is the preservation of private property. Civil government comes about as a result of a social contract”.
[b]In May 2000, the anniversary of Biafra's independence the Biafran flag was hoisted anew in Igboland by a local group. Quite clearly, the Biafran saga is not over until it is over. Unless the grievances that lead to that war are satisfactorily addressed, those dry bones may yet rise. Triumphalism or revisionist posturing about Igbo, Biafra, Ojukwu etc. may be soothing, but they cannot by themselves change the course of world history.

I guess, Mazi A. Ani is oblivious and unaware of the consequences and the implications of the above fable he is spewing. That is the classic arrogance of an Igboman. When other Nigerians read this fabled, unintelligible concoction, how would it make them feel and what would be their mind-set in dealing with an Igbo person. On one hand Ndigbo are talking about a Nigerian President of Ndigbo extraction. On the other hand Ndigbo are threatening to tear the country apart if their demands were not met. The reaction of other Nigerians to this idiotic, hollow threat is to put in place every structure possible to prevent Ndigbo from holding any political position that bears on security of Nigeria as corporate entity.
Ojukwu & Moral Depravity:
It was a common practice during the Biafran civil war to summarily put suspected people in detention as saboteurs. More often than none, the details of their offence or offences were never communicated to them nor were they charged to court of law to prove their guilt or innocence. There was a particular Justice of the High Court that was placed in gulag accused of saboteur till the end of the Biafran war. That judge was married to a British West-Indian lady with children. While the judge was languishing in jail, our morally depraved leader, Odumegwu Ojukwu, was rendezvousing and fooling around with the man’s wife in Biafran State House. The type of arrogance and power intoxication that inflated Ojukwu’s head during the war can never be compared with any thing known in our history. This particular judge was well known as a cerebral legal giant in the legal community and was also well respected. Most of the top Ndigbo top government functionaries in Biafran government were peers and friends to this particular high society, socially well-heeled justice of the high court. It is very pertinent to note that Odumegwu Ojukwu at the time was still married to Njideka, his ex-wife. This tall, beautiful, attractive West-Indian wife of the aforementioned justice of the high court was more or less living in the Biafran State House as a concubine to morally worm-eaten Ojukwu, while her husband was languishing in the Biafran jail. Ndiigbo by custom and tradition are well known beyond doubts to be people or peoples that place high premium with reverence to marriage and family.

At the end of the war the judge was released from detention but vowed never to have any thing to do with his wife of many years. The judge felt that his pride was trespassed, his personality bastardized, his ego deflated and dragged through the mud. Not only that his wife cheated on him but it was so overt, flagrant and offensive. His wife’s sexual escapades with morally petrified Ojukwu was not only discussed in murmurs and whispers during the war but was a routine topic at dinner tables of who is who in Biafra.

This judge, who later became a chief judge in one of the eastern states government later remarried and things were never the same for his four children from his first marriage. I would like to decline comments concerning the life the ex-wife was leading in Lagos after her divorce for decency. Two of the judge’s children from his first wife are currently living here in the US and they have never forgiven, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu for destroying the fabric and structure of their family life. This occurred when Ojukwu was in his thirties. Now let us fast forward.

Ojukwu was magnanimously given state pardon by former Nigerian President, Alhaji Shehu Shagari, and he returned to Nigeria in 1982. One of the heavy hitters in NPN, a successful business mogul, opened his arms and embraced morally cheesy Ojukwu. The Igbo chief (name withheld) in his glorious naivete thought himself to be playing a noble host to morally bankrupt Ojukwu. This Chief was not educated formally but he had money to scare daylight out of any one. To crown his successful achievements, he married a very attractive lady many years his junior from a very well established and connected political family in Anambra State. His wife later studied law at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, Enugu Campus. This man’s wife was too irresistible to morally petrified man, Ojukwu. Before you know it this Igbo Chief was paying dearly for his hospitality to Ojukwu with divorce certificate starring in his face. Ojukwu started unprintable ……escapades with this man’s wife and the rest was history. After her divorce, the lady relocated to the US.

I pray that Ojukwu will publicly deny these two incidents cited above about destroying matrimonial families. Of course, hell will break loose and he will have a taste of fire-works since all the players are still well and alive today. Here in the US, a man with this type of character flaws in destroying married families is called a “scum bag”. For sure, no one wonders why Ojukwu can not write his memoirs because it will wake up every cadaver from tomb and open every long healed wound. We know for sure that Ojukwu’s memoirs are ready but will be published posthumously. By then all the lies, forgeries and bogus claims it will embody can not be challenged directly with the cunning author.

Sigmund Freud: “The two principles of mental functioning are survival and pleasure. Human behavior is the result of both heredity and environment. Motivations originate from unconscious wishes; conflict between these wishes is expressed in both normal and pathological behavior”.
In Ojukwu, this instinct of pathological behavior of lust for power is extraordinary. When all the facts are in, future generations after us, will have cause and opportunity to defecate and dance around Ojukwu’s tomb for atonement of the Nigerian civil war. Today, we are held hostage by our inflated self-pride and egotistical sense of shame in coming to terms with our past. Some of Ojukwu’s apologists would not waste any time in advancing most absurd and perverse reason for the war. That Ndigbo went to war to prove their manhood. What a logic! As if every Ndigbo man and woman is animated by medieval value system of foolhardiness and wantonness. According to their impoverish thought process, thirty thousand Ndigbo were killed during the pogrom and we went to war to lose another two million men and women. The architect of such misadventure would have been lynched bare-naked in the public square during the dark ages.

Ndigbo went to war because the political leadership of Ndigbo at the given time was too power-drunk and juvenile. The leadership of Ndigbo exploited the then prevailing psychological frailty and impotence of critical mass of Ndigbo.

Mr. Mazi K. Ani, both of us are in agreement that Ojukwu is the most charismatic leader of our time. Chukwuemeka Ojukwu led the mass suicide of Ndigbo from 1967 – 1970 because of his indisputable Charisma. In 1978, Jim Jones led the mass suicide of men, women and children in Jonestown, Guyana because of his indisputable charisma. In 1993, David Koresh led the mass suicide of his followers at Waco, Texas, USA, because of his indisputable charisma. In 1997, Apple White led the mass suicide of his followers in Rancho Santa Fe, San Diego, USA because of his indisputable charisma. Men with charisma! Today we are looking at charismatic leaders with eye behind eyes. No second suicide mission for Ndigbo again, Mr. Mazi K. Ani. Today we know better. Hausa, Yoruba, Efik, Fulani, Ogoni, Edo, Urhobo, Itsekiri, Igala, Nupe, Idoma etc are our brothers and sisters. We are not going to entertain for one second the thought of seeking separation from our brothers and sisters. To build is always very difficult but to destroy is very easy. Our choice today is to build enduring relationship with our brothers and sisters every where in Nigeria. The road is less traveled. In our work, very distant future generations will have much to celebrate in the history of their founding fathers and mothers. It is the love of brotherhood and sisterhood.

Olisa H. Osita
California

---