society
When Freedom Bled: Nigeria’s Hard Road from Independence to the Biafran Cataclysm
When Freedom Bled: Nigeria’s Hard Road from Independence to the Biafran Cataclysm.
By George Omagbemi Sylvester
“WE WON INDEPENDENCE AND THEN ALMOST DESTROYED THE COUNTRY TRYING TO KEEP IT.”
On October 1, 1960, Nigeria emerged from the long shadow of British colonial rule and took its place (in name and ceremony) amongst the WORLD’S INDEPENDENT NATIONS. That date remains a lodestar, the end of formal imperial control and the beginning of a treacherous experiment in self-government for a country STITCHED TOGETHER from hundreds of ethnic groups, languages, religions and colonial legacies. Yet independence did not magically end the structural fractures that British rule had deepened; instead it exposed them. Within seven fraught years those fractures detonated into a conflict that became one of modern Africa’s most brutal tragedies; the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970).
Independence was, for many Nigerians, a moment of dizzying hope. Leaders who had campaigned for self-rule (Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, Abubakar Tafawa Balewa among them) promised unity, development and dignity. Azikiwe himself, whose life had been bound to nationalist struggle, famously said on independence: “My stiffest earthly assignment is ended and my major life’s work is done. My country is now free” Those words captured the public optimism (and the weight of expectation) that independence bequeathed.
Although beneath the pageantry were unresolved structural dangers. Colonial rule had created administrative regions, promoted uneven economic development and favoured some groups over others; the partitioning logic of empire left behind artificial boundaries and competition for resources and political power. As historian Toyin Falola notes, the legacy of colonial boundaries and the unequal modern structures they produced made citizenship and belonging contested in the newborn state; a volatile mix when combined with elites jockeying for advantage.
The first years of independence saw fragile experiments in parliamentary democracy. But the window for peaceful resolution of deep grievances closed fast. A series of political crises, contested elections and ethnic paranoia culminated in military coups in 1966, assassinations and anti-Igbo pogroms in the north that forced tens of thousands to flee. The Eastern Region, led by Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu, declared secession as the Republic of Biafra in May 1967. The federal government, under General Yakubu Gowon, answered with military force and a blockade that would be devastating in its human consequences.
The war that followed was not merely a clash of armies, it was a political catastrophe with a staggering humanitarian price. Biafra, initially militarily agile, soon found itself landlocked, deprived of seaports and fuel and subjected to an effective blockade. Starvation (weaponized by logistics and politics) ravaged civilians. Modern estimates of the civilian death toll range widely; reputable historical accounts place the figures between roughly 500,000 and several million, with many scholars converging on a figure that reflects the horrifying scale of famine and disease. No number adequately conveys the moral and social ruin, families destroyed, entire generations scarred and civic trust pulverized.
This violence was not inevitable. It was the foreseeable consequence of leadership failures, hurried nation-building and the refusal of political elites (civilian and military) to forge stabilizing institutions. Atrocities and miscalculations escalated because neither side was prepared to manage the political compromises necessary for plural coexistence. The oft-invoked post-war slogan “NO VICTOR, NO VANQUISHED,” pronounced by Gowon at the war’s end, was meant to close wounds; in practice, it papered over grievances rather than heal them, leaving many questions of justice and reconciliation unanswered. The absence of accountability and meaningful inclusion after the war seeded later crises of trust.
Literature and memory have been the country’s conscience. Chinua Achebe’s account in There Was a Country and Wole Soyinka’s anguished reflections remind us that intellectuals and artists were not mere bystanders (they were witnesses and participants who tried to make sense of the wrenching ruptures. Achebe’s writing, in particular, documents how the Igbo were singled out both as scapegoats and as targets of structural resentment) resentment that predated independence but metastasized in the post-colonial scramble for power. These cultural testimonies force a nation to look unflinchingly at itself.
To say “LESSONS” is not to indulge in cheap moralizing. The real lessons are concrete and urgent. Firstly; nationhood demands institutions that outlive individual politicians; impartial judiciaries, professional civil services, credible electoral systems and federal arrangements that balance unity with regional autonomy. Secondly; economic equity is not optional. When wealth (whether oil or agricultural bounty) is distributed through patronage rather than transparent mechanisms, grievance becomes fuel for conflict. Thirdly; truth and reconciliatory processes matter. The war’s victims deserved a public reckoning; without it, hurt festers and narratives ossify into rival myths that fracture the public sphere. Britannica’s sober accounting of the war shows how the interplay of ethnic tensions, economic disparity and weak institutions produced the catastrophe; reading that account should be a compulsory civic education for every Nigerian leader.
History also offers a final, stubborn demand, that remembrance be coupled to reform. If independence was meant to unlock dignity and prosperity, then remembering Biafra’s dead must not become an exercise in nostalgia. Rather, it should be the prologue to systemic change, decentralised governance structures that allow regions to govern local affairs; educational curricula that teach honest history instead of selective amnesia and economic policies aligned to inclusive growth rather than narrow elite enrichment.
We must also listen to scholars who insist that the contours of modern Nigerian crises are not accidents. Toyin Falola’s scholarship warns that colonial structures and elite manoeuvres shaped durable inequalities; to address our present we must engage with the structural past honestly. To put it plainly; ignorance of history is not innocence, it is a political choice that guarantees repetition.
At its best, independence promised a covenant between rulers and the ruled; protection, opportunity and reciprocal duty. The Biafran nightmare revealed how quickly that covenant can be broken. As Nigeria approaches each anniversary of October 1, the country should do more than parade veterans and raise flags. It should enact policies that make the union meaningful, expand avenues for redress and uphold the dignity of all its peoples.
There is no simple balm for the past. There is a path forward; robust institutions, shared memory, accountable leadership and an economic architecture that binds rather than divides. If independence taught us anything, it is that freedom without justice is brittle and that the test of nationhood is not when flags are raised, but when every citizen can live without fear and with hope.
*New Electoral Act Or Self-Coronation in Disguise?*
By Gbenga Shaba
Nigeria’s democracy has taken a dramatic turn with the signing of a new Electoral Act by Bola Ahmed Tinubu, following its passage by the National Assembly. At the heart of this new law is the complete removal of the delegate system, otherwise known as indirect primaries, as a method for political parties to choose their candidates. For decades, party delegates played a decisive role in determining who emerged as flag bearers. That era has now been brought to an abrupt end.
Under the new legal framework, political parties are left with only two recognised options for selecting candidates. The first is direct primaries, where every registered party member is entitled to vote in choosing the party’s candidate. The second is consensus, an internal agreement process in which aspirants voluntarily step down to allow a single candidate to emerge. By abolishing indirect primaries, the law eliminates the traditional system where a small group of selected delegates decides the fate of aspirants.
Supporters of the reform argue that this marks a shift toward internal democracy. The principle of one member, one vote gives broader participation to party faithful and reduces the influence of powerful blocs that once controlled delegate lists. In theory, it expands political power beyond a privileged few and places it directly in the hands of grassroots members. For many ordinary party members who previously had no voice during primaries, this could represent a significant opportunity.
However, critics see deeper political implications. They warn that while direct primaries appear more democratic on paper, the process could be easily influenced by those who control party registers and structures at the national level. Concerns are also being raised about the practicality, cost, and transparency of conducting nationwide direct primaries across all political parties. Without strong safeguards, the promise of wider participation may not necessarily translate into fairer outcomes.
Ultimately, the removal of delegates from party primaries represents a fundamental restructuring of Nigeria’s internal party politics. Whether this reform strengthens democracy or consolidates power will depend on how faithfully it is implemented. What is certain is that the landscape of political competition has changed, and Nigerians will be watching closely to see whether this new law deepens democratic inclusion or reshapes control in a different form.
Senate Backs FCC, Says Underfunding Weakens Constitutional Mandate
The Senate Committee on Federal Character has raised serious concern over the underfunding of the Federal Character Commission (FCC), warning that it is affecting the Commission’s ability to carry out its constitutional responsibilities.
During the 2026 budget defence at the National Assembly, the Executive Chairman of the FCC, Hon. Hulayat Motunrayo Omidiran, presented a proposed budget of ₦6.5 billion and explained that limited funding has reduced the Commission’s capacity to properly monitor and enforce compliance across more than 700 Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs).
She stressed that without adequate funding, the Commission cannot effectively ensure fairness, balance, and equal representation in federal appointments and public service.
“We are appealing to the Senate to support improved funding for the Commission. Federal Character is a constitutional duty, and we must be equipped to enforce it effectively for the good of national unity,” she said.
Chairman of the Senate Committee on Federal Character and Intergovernmental Affairs, Senator Allwell Heacho, described the funding gap as a serious setback.
“Federal Character is not optional. It is backed by the Constitution. The Commission responsible for enforcing it must be properly funded to deliver,” he stated.
He assured that the Senate Committee is committed to supporting the FCC to strengthen its operations and improve accountability across government institutions.
With support now coming from both the Senate and House Committees, the FCC is set to push for stronger enforcement and better service delivery nationwide
society
Apostle Suleman Lectures: Your Association Determines Your Acceleration; If You’re Gifted, You’ll Stand Out
Apostle Suleman Lectures:
Your Association Determines Your Acceleration; If You’re Gifted, You’ll Stand Out
Gifted people are always different. They stand out and never fit in because God uses them in a greater way, the servant of God and founder of the Omega Fire Ministries (OFM) worldwide, Apostle Johnson Suleman, lectures. Speaking about gifts, in particular, spiritual gifts, the ‘Restoration Apostle’ noted that every man is gifted by God. He stated in his sermon that gifts are the result of the finished work of Jesus Christ on the cross.
While suggesting that where a man is most gifted is where he will be most lifted, Apostle Suleman declares that, to stand out in one’s generation, the person must be gifted.
“To be gifted is to be specifically empowered. To be gifted is to be supernaturally assisted to fulfil a task. Many of us are praying for helpers, but you cannot stand before helpers without anything to offer. A man’s gift maketh room. The more gifted you are, the more rooms you have (Proverbs 18:16). Man’s gift maketh rooms for him and bringeth him before great men. No Joseph appears before a Pharaoh until he has capacity to interpret his dreams. The king sent for Daniel because there was a gift in his life. He stood out because there was a gift he had. The problem is not getting helpers, when you have a gift, helpers will look for you. What is your gift?
Apostle Suleman asserts that every man possesses inherent, distinct gifts that are designed to be developed and deployed for a specific purpose. However, he emphasizes, identifying one’s unique gift or purpose requires a defining moment, experience, or interaction rather than just passive introspection, designed to unlock potentials that have been dormant.
“There is nobody that is not gifted. Everyone is equally gifted but it takes an encounter to discover your gift. The gift can be there, hidden but it takes an encounter to discover it. The Bible says Saul was met by Samuel and Samuel took a vial of oil and anointed Saul and said is it not because the Lord hath ordained thee to be captain over the people of God (1 Samuel 10:1). Saul was not a king of Israel, he was a captain. That is why his son, Jonathan could not step into the stool because kingship is by inheritance, but captain-ship is by appointment. So, when Saul met the prophet he began to prophesy. It takes meeting a man to enter the next season. Season is not a bait, it is a man. It takes meeting the right man. The second thing that empowered Saul to stand out was that he joined the right team; Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego.
Highlighting that the people a man surrounds himself with, learn from, and follow, directly influence the speed and success of his life’s progress, the man of God submits that positive associations can accelerate man’s destiny, while negative associations can drive stagnation, delays, and limitations.
“Your association determines your acceleration. If you’re with the wrong people, you will get the wrong experiences. It is very important. Blessed is the man that walks not in the counsel of the ungodly. Nor stand in the way of sinners, nor sit in company with scoffers. (Psalm 1:1,2,3). You start by walking with them. If you keep walking with them, you’ll soon stand with them. When you stand with them, you’ll sit with them. You must be extremely picky in your relationship. There are some people that should be made to know, because they’re not aware that they’re not your friends. They assume they are your friends but you have to let them know that you are colleagues not friends. You have to be very intentional because friends either add, subtract, divide or minus. You can’t have a friend who’s playing neutrality.
In your walk with God, when the enemy wants to destroy you he will introduce you to a strange company. Any company that kills your fear of God is a wrong company. The right company will make you think of heaven. A right company will want to make you live clean, pure and right. The right company will make you God-conscious. The right company is family-oriented. A right company will make sure you avoid conflicts. A right company will promote God not greed,” he counsels.
-
celebrity radar - gossips6 months agoWhy Babangida’s Hilltop Home Became Nigeria’s Political “Mecca”
-
society5 months agoReligion: Africa’s Oldest Weapon of Enslavement and the Forgotten Truth
-
society6 months agoPower is a Loan, Not a Possession: The Sacred Duty of Planting People
-
news6 months agoTHE APPOINTMENT OF WASIU AYINDE BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS AN AMBASSADOR SOUNDS EMBARRASSING