"Today is January 15. On a day like this in 1966, Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu staged the first coup in Nigerian history. It took over thirty years before his best friend Obasanjo told the world what he knows about him in a book titled Nzeogwu." (Commentary by sahara Reporters)
Posted: January 15, 2010 - 00:00
Posted by siteadmin
My Response to Sahara reporters below.
Kaduna Nzeogwu, missed
Bravery, courageousness, valor, gut, fearlessness, boldness, gallantry describes the character trait of a hero or heroism. Without a doubt Nzeogwu was a brave man and anyone with a contrary view is either a liar and have no truth and therefore as corrupt as the corrupt politicians that Nzeogwu wisely rebelled against in 1966; just as we also need Nzeogwu’s courage to eliminate the present corrupt Nigerian politicians and public officials. It is utterly stupid, cowardly and irresponsible to suggest that the citizenry should in the name of patience or even democracy allow the evil of public corruption, Mediocrity, subjugation, nepotism, cronyism, tribalism depravity, impunity, child labor and illiteracy, high maternal death, etc to persist. Nigerians have already waited and witnessed for life a span, a 53 year of internal fascism by the political class.
Nzeogwu is a hero because he was brave, it is impossible to be called hero if one is not brave but timid, cowardly, and hedonistic like Nigerian politicians and past military dictatorships. No act of bravery is far removed from heroism. Some are blaming Nzeogwu and 1966 insurrection for the today’s sorry state of the Nigerian state. I vehemently disagree. The reason Nigeria is the way it is today is not because of too much Nzeogwu rather because there are not enough of Nzeogwu; not enough brave men with courage, enough integrity, alive in Nigeria. Every successful, developed country anywhere in the world today, at one time in its history had enough of its Nzeogwu. Nigeria killed its Nzeogwu and will never see progress until it calls back into being the Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwus. The American revolutionary leaders otherwise called its founding fathers, the Abraham Lincolns were the American Nzeogwus. American had enough of its share of Nzeogwus hence its powerfulness. The only reason Nzeogwu is villain to some is because his noble cause was short changed by the status quo, by cowards, by men of mediocrity and hedonists like his so-called friend, Obasanjo who did nothing then to help and later given leadership, he wasted, stole public wealth entrusted in his care; and by Ironsi and Ojukwu who opposed Nzeogwu not on the logics of his mission but were by themselves driven by their self centeredness. Obasanjo cannot claim to be Nzeogwu’s friend as he himself flunked the test and proved to be the symbol of the evil of corruption, impunity, the 10 per-center, the tribalism when for 10 years as president he had the opportunity and the position to champion the noble cause Nzeogwu died for. Is either Nzeogwu was wrong and Obasanjo was right or vice versa. Nzeogwu and Obasanjo see the same things in different lights and therefore could not have being mutually trusting friends. Their friendship if any, may have been for convenience.
With all their stolen public wealth and presidencies, Obasanjo and his likes are none-personas when compared to likes of Nzeogwus. History has vindicated Nzeogwu; that these profiteers, these ten per-centers, these tribalists, these crooks, and cabals are only after their own pockets and never had anything good to offer neither to the citizenry nor to the country. Fact; time will show that as Nzeogwu’s immortality becomes increasingly apparent that of those of the criminal cabals called Nigerian leaders will increasingly fade away.
It is being 47 years since a courageous attempt was made to rid Nigeria of its evil pervasions; the evil pervasions that demanded a decisive action, an action that could only come from courage. By any measure Nigeria’s political, social, and economic and even religious evils have risen by over 30 fold from where they were in 1966. Yet Nigerians are doing nothing about it but instead blame a man that single handedly without regard to his own life and safety tried his utmost best to do some about these evils. Some suggest that the January 1966 rebels should have exercised patience, that Nigerians should be patience and wait on Time, or on the Corrupt themselves or on a God to bring, fairness, justice, equity, public accountability, into the polity. Sorry my fellow citizens, Time does nothing but passreth with the timid who fears to alter it. Sorry my fellow citizens, power is never conceded by the Corrupt Powerful but can only be wrestled from them and returned to the people by a measure of force. Sorry my fellow citizens, the god is dead because he has finished his work and his handwork was infinitely enduring, and perfect and no longer requires his presence.
Some mischief makers and polarizing tribal hawks have described the January 1966 coup an Igbo coup, a misnomer. Or worst, they say that the coup was an attempt by Igbos to dominate other ethnic nationalities, These descriptions are without doubt illogical, senseless and are but the product of confused ill-informed minds. This charge of Igbo domineering and hegemonic tendencies are clichés already formulated by many and by the Sardauna of Sokoto, Ahmadu Bello in an interview with a British journalist long before the January 1966 coup and were grounded on fears of health competition from the Igbos.
First, Igbo officers foiled the January coup. Second, an Igbo officer General Ironsi took over command as the Commander in chief. So if the so-called Nzeogwu coup was attempt by Igbos to dominate others in Nigeria, Ironsi being Igbo was in a position to deliver it. Rather Ironsi being a typical Igbo man in Nigeria, never considered ethnicity when he appointed Hausa/Fulani/Middle Belt Officers (Gowon, Chief of Army Staff) to more important and strategic positions. These unbiased liberal appointments eventually led to Ironsi’s demise. The Murtala Mohammed/ Theophanous Danjuma coup or the July 29 1966 revenge coup was an open secret whose main ideology was for revenge killings. Some Igbo officers were even within the vicinity of the planning venues and in the know as Murtala and Danjuma planned their revenge coup. Ironsi was aware of the pending doom but he did nothing to ensure the so-call Igbo hegemonic conspiracy.
What mix of ethnicity would have made the January coup a-no-Igbo coup; 3, 5, 10 Yorubas, Hausa/Fulani, Igbos mix, respectively or vise versa? If one is to go on a dangerous mission like subversion and must go with the most trusted accompanies how would he chose accomplices? He would naturally be expected to chose from among his trusted family members, friends, peers, kith and kin, clan members, his village people, his town people, people from his region, state, country; in this order or mixture or rearrangement of this order in one form or another. In a dangerous mission like subversion of a constituted authority one does not chose team members for equity in representation but on trust, ability, confidentiality and cohesion. And unfortunately but naturally people believe that this kind of accomplice is readily and best obtained from within the family or within a psychological group. As analogous, one who hires one’s son over an outsider that is more qualified, in one’s own company does not make self a discriminator, a ‘tribalist’, a bigot, or a homophobe. This employer’s decision would be natural and normal and anything otherwise would have been a deviation from normal. So, that the January 1966 rebels trusted their kith and kin more, in the then Nigeria military could not have meant that they were bigots rather they exercised typical normal human behavior in a quest for success and for self preservation. Anything more or less would have meant that the rebels were suicidal, deviants from the law of self preservation.
Yet some argue that because officers of Igbo extraction overwhelmingly dominated in the number of officers that planned the coup and that Igbo Officers and Politicians were not killed it therefore was an Igbo coup. Again this line of thinking lacks common sense, bigoted and ignorant of the enormous danger and consequences inherently associated with act of subversion. Yes, this assertion that more Igbo officers in the January 1966 coup made the coup Igbo affair is bigoted because Murtala Mohammed coup is not so described as Hausa/Fulani coup, The Dimka Coup is not described as northern minority coup d'état for a hegemonic domination; lantarn only describes a kind of area bodies. The IBB, the Mamman Vasta, the Orkar, the Diya coup d'états are not given the same tribal, ethnic epithet wrongly labeled on the January 1966 coup. This equation of more Igbo Officers in the January 1966 coup equals Igbo coup lacks common sense because it tends to foolishly describe a rebellion in terms of the constituent participants instead of on a more reasonable terms of ideology, grievance and goals of the rebellion. Also the argument that the coup plotters killed Northern and Western military officers and politicians and spared Igbos of same cadre, therefore it was Igbo coup is an argument that is based on naïveté and ignorance. Yes this line of thought is informed by naiveté and ignorance because it failed to take cognizance of the first law of nature, the law self preservation. The fact that the January 15 1966 coup plotters differentiated between military officer/politician whose elimination guaranteed the success of their mission and the self preservation of the rebels and those whose existence or death made no difference, neither in the mortality of the mission and or mortality of rebels, meant that these rebels where neither suicidal nor blood thirsty. They were only out to change the government with the minimum number of assassinations and maximum number of targeted killing that guarantees the success of the mission and self preservation. The rebels may have been wrong in their calculation but wrong calculation is not an evil or hegemonic calculation. It would be everybody’s desire and wish that none gets killed in any subversion but the reality is that subversion in most cases means the demise of people in either or both side of the divide and to think and believe otherwise is pure naiveté and ignorance.
On why the rebels of January 1966 were overwhelming officers of Igbo extraction and why Igbo officers and politicians were not killed, only requires a simple deduction that premises on same statements above. First, as already stated, unlike the July revenge rebels, the January 1966 rebels were not out to kill people but rather to change government with minimum number of assassination that guaranteed the success of the mission and the preservation of their lives, successful or not in their mission. Analogically, what could be said of a person who leads or participates in a subversion of government that his or her parents are in principal or head positions if while he kills others, of the government’s officials, spares his parents’ lives, because in his heart he believes that his parent would not kill him even if his attempt fails to the overthrow the parent’s government? For sparing his parents lives while he kills others, should this rebel be called a tribalist, a racist a homophobe? Or to prove his fairness in killing or that his is not a tribalist, should this rebel kill his parent even when perceptionally the parent poses no danger to him or to his group or to the rebels’ mission? In name of fairness, would it have been okay for the January 1966 rebels to kill Igbo politicians (Zik, for example) and military officers if the rebels believe in their hearts that these Igbos do not and would not pose danger to their mission or to the preservation of their lives, success or failure in their mission? Perhaps ethnic identity instict may have influenced rebels decision here, but the decision was not just to spare only igbo politicians and military officers but any politician, military officer of any ethnicity that perceptionally poses no danger to both mission and rebels' self preservation. The key word here or perhaps the culprit here is perception. We all have one time or another succmbed to the enslavement of wrong perceptions rooted in fears.
Besides, an Igbo Lieutenant colonel, a Qarter Master was killed. Or should the rebels ought to have killed Igbo politicians and military officers whether or not they pose danger to rebels, merely to prove fairness in the killings, the hallmark of the July 29 1966 revenge Murtala/Danjuma coup? Is there anything like fairness in killing of people? Was the Danjuma Murtala July revenge coup moral? Would it be wise to kill people to just to prove that one is or is not a tribalist if such killing is avoidable and make no difference in the out come of the mission? I do not know, do you know? The January rebels may have miscalculated as they believed that Ojukwu would like Hassan kastina not be a stumbling blocks to their mission hence they did neither mark Ojukwu for elimination nor did Nzogwu kill Hassan having met him just after he had finished operation in Sardauna’s residence. But again miscalculation does not mean bigoted evil. Ironsi was marked for elimination and may have been tipped off on the pending rebellion by one of the rebels perhaps an Igbo who may have felt that Ironsi did not represent a mortal threat, at least not to the lives of the rebels. He may have counted on Ironsi’s Igbo ethnicity. The (hypothetical) rebel who may have tipped off Ironsi may have been wrong in believing that Ironsi would not mortally oppose their rebellion which Ironsi did. But he may have been right also because even though Ironsi quelled the rebellion he did not court marshal the rebels. Now, mischief makers may say, there we go, that I have said it, that all was truly a grand plan or Igbo conspiracy. But a critical, logical look into the unfolding and folding of the rebellion will see no grand conspiracy. but I am not going to go into all the innuendos associated with January 1966 coup except to say that the rebels where humans, young, exuberance, naïve but meant no evil to Nigeria. And as for the assassinations though intrinsically associative with subversions the rebels were wrong yet they were not bigoted evil doers as some would want people to believe.
Nzeogwu could not have been a tribal bigot because he was larger than life, he was intellectually advanced, and his horizon extends beyond any boundary. He said ‘if Nigeria disintegrated he will pack his things and leave.’He couldn't have hated northerns if he was reared, grew, 'lingualled' and named like a northern. He couldn't have surrounded himself by Nigeria soldiers of all ethnicity following the unraveling of the rebellion he had just led against a northern led government. Perhaps he was crazy for perfection in the most imperfect, cursed environment and people. Nzeogwu was very much aware of the consequences of his action but he knew that inaction was not an option. He died for a cause he believed in and what about you. You, is there anything you believe in? What would you die for? Would you believe in a thing so much that you would be willing to risk any, everything and at any cost to achieve such thing? I agree a life not having anything to die for does not worth living. Even God seemed fit to die for something. Life is not about how long, how rich, how many wives and children, how much money one has, these things passreth. But rather life is about one’s impact to lives. The world is shaped by those who took bold unpopular action to change things or nothings to the ideal, even in the face of impending harm. But yet these courageous men and women go on to live forever. To me, Kaduna died a brave man which makes him a hero. Yes, some view Nzeogwu as villain but I see him as hero who lived among the corrupt and the unintelligent. Like him I prefer to die no matter how but to be remembered, than to die like I never lived; and what about you?
Some have suggested that the discrimination and marginalization Igbos suffer in Nigeria today is the making of the January 1966 coup that led to the civil war which the Igbos lost. I beg to differ. First, there was no victor no vanquished in the civil war and this was the official war end proclamation by then Head of State General Yakubu Gowon. The reason Igbos are marginalized in Nigeria is not because they were vanquished but because, after the civil war Igbos inculcated defeatist attitude and chickened out; instead of putting forth more Nzeogwu like personas. Instead of sending the Nzeogwus to the center to demand their fair share of national cake Igbos have consistently sent compromisers and ten per-centers, the greedy, the weaklings, the unintelligent, the self centered, the illogical, the profiteers and the crooks, the likes of Ojior Uzor Kalu, the Nzeribes, etc. So Igbo Marginalization is self inflicted and the product of poor or no Igbo leadership. If Igbos actually want an escaped goat, somebody to blame for the Igbo plight in Nigeria and if such punch bag would ginger up and gives a measure of comfort then they should blame the accidental Head of State, Major General Thomas Umunakwe Agu-Ironsi. Ironsi though a good soldier, was neither intellectually nor tactically prepared to lead a complex disjointed society like Nigeria. Yes, Ironsi was a good man, a good soldier than he was Igbo. He was his father’s son.
Gowon rightly understood that a no victor and no vanquished end of the war proclamation was the only way to effectively bring the war to final and comprehensive end otherwise the guerrilla warfare that would have issued would either be raging till today or Nigeria would have for long disappear or the entire Igbo race would have been by now exterminated. Because no true born, not myself would live, accept, sit and do nothing in a society where one is rated, treated like second class defeated person. I for one would lay full claim to my Rights and defend my birth and citizenship Rights because neither my father nor my grand fathers nor my ancestries were strangers to the land I live in. So Igbo marginalization is Igbo making and is the result of the lack of visionary selfless Igbo leadership. Until such time visionary, courageous leaders, the likes of Nzeogwu emerges, Igbos would continue to relegate themselves as second class and continue to clamor for a none viable Biafran State. Igbos and indeed any Nigerian ethnic nationality must be prepared to deploy all its arsenal, political, legal and civil disobedience for perceived injustice. However, groups must show unity of purpose, consistency, determination and not selfishly fractional.
For example, federal allocation is given on state and local government bases, that is, the more states and or local governments a zone or state has the more money it gets from the center. The current state and local government partitions in Nigeria were all executed by Northern military dictatorial regimes and were skewed; as one would imagine, favored the old Northern region. Under the current flawed divisionary indigenous acts in most states in Nigeria an Ibo man living in any other part of Nigeria outside Igbo land is counted as citizen or indigene of one of the Igbo states, a stranger to his state of residency. So in states creation and or local governments creation such Ibo man should be assigned to an Igbo states and not to the state where he resides until such a time the regressive indigenous laws in the states are changed. But this was not the case when the present states and local governments were created by the Northern Military Juntas. For instance Kano has more than 40 local governments which perhaps took into account none indigenes living in Kano. However these none indigenes are not accorded ‘indigene-ship’ or security. So if there are 3000000 Ibos for example living in Kano and it becomes necessary that these Ibos move back to their states as is the case with Boko Haram attacks in the north, then Kano state would lose 3000000 residents but still keeps its 44 local governments. While the states where these Ibos relocated to still maintain their twice less the number of local governments as in Kano State. This arrangement is not only unfair but also wrong. With this arrangement Kano State has it both ways and there is sound legal ground to legally and politically challenge the current geo-political arrangement and partitions in Nigeria. This is an example of nepotism, tribalism, cronyism that the Januarys 1966 rebels and Gideon Orkar group complained about, it still exists and in a worse form. South East zone have only five States while the other zones have either 6 or 7 states and the national cakes are given out on state bases. Does anybody honestly believe that each of the three zones in the north is more populated than the Ibo population in Nigeria? This kind of injustice demands courageous leadership and unity of purpose. If civil disobedience, political, legal pressures fails to halt Igbo marginalization then social disengagement along with UN actions seeking Igbo autonomy should proceed economic and political disengagement from the center. And this mass political movement will need courageous leadership, the type that is currently lacking in Nigeria and in Igbo land in particular.
A constitution, law, policy, decree, allocation, and even rights that is discriminatory or that encourages discrimination is worse than lawlessness itself and worth less than the paper they are scribbled on. Such constitutional provisions or legal illegalities must be abrogated, amended or repealed. Regardless of its acclaimed form any government that refuses to abrogate discriminatory laws must be sacked by any means necessary. And this was what the January 15, 1966 coup d'état was all about.