News

Dad Would Be Proud Of Nnamdi Kanu’s Biafra Agitation — Ojukwu’s Son

Published

7 years ago

August 27, 2017

Emeka Ojukwu Jr., a legal practitioner and son of Igbo leader, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, tells BAYO AKINLOYE what he knows about Gen. Muhammadu Buhari’s meeting with Ojukwu and why he disagrees with the President’s statement that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable

What exactly transpired between your father, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, and Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd.) in 2003 on the issue of Biafra and the restructuring of the country?

I didn’t attend the meeting. I was not privy to what happened. But the indices point to the unassailable fact that the meeting (between Ojukwu and Buhari) held. Why I say so is, remember that Gen. (Olusegun) Obasanjo assumed power as a democratically elected president in 1999. I think the time of the meeting must have been the period leading to Obasanjo’s second term. At that time, there were people who felt he didn’t perform well. So, there was a build-up and upswell of political opinions to see what could be done either to change him or whatever. So, they must have met.

Not long after that, there was a one-million-man march involving my father, President Buhari and Chuba Okadigbo. When he (Ojukwu) came back, he told me about the one-million-man march but he didn’t tell me about the discussion he had with the President. They were no strangers and you could not had a one-million-man march with someone you have not discussed anything with. In his life, the way he lived, my father always wanted peace for everybody. About the meeting holding, yes, it did. But as for the finer points of the discussion, I cannot tell you this was what was discussed or not discussed, because I didn’t attend that meeting. If I had attended that meeting, I could pointedly tell you offhand what was discussed. But I would never be in a position to say that the President is a liar.

On record, your father was the first person to agitate for the emancipation of Igbo people by declaring an independent state of Biafra. How would you situate that moment in history with the current agitation of the Indigenous People of Biafra and The Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra?

The agitation of IPOB and MASSOB is a valid agitation. The only thing I hold against them is their methodology. But for somebody to fight for self-determination I do not see anything wrong in that. It is like a marriage; there are times the situation will be rosy and pleasant, there are times there will be some upheavals. So, we must give room for those things. No one should say those boys shouldn’t talk. They are allowed to talk. But what I am against or what I frown on is their taking over the road because when it comes to roads, there is what we call “access.” If a Yoruba man wants to go to Port Harcourt (Rivers State) or Aba (Abia State), you should not try to block the road, saying you want to vent your spleen because of some certain grievances. You’re obstructing him and if you succeed in doing that, you’re proving that there is no government and there is insecurity.

If there is a need to demonstrate or do whatever, then they should go to a stadium, book the venue, go to the police to get a public permit to hold a demonstration and you can all stay in the stadium, have (a protest by) candlelight and get the media to cover the protest – that’s enough of a message to pass across to the world. It is better than recruiting a group of young children from the universities, indoctrinating them and pushing them to get on the roads to do whatever they think they like; acting that way doesn’t help anybody. Their agitation must be devoid of violence. Any agitation must be devoid of hate speech. The reality is that nobody has a monopoly of hate speech. Everybody should be civil in relating with their fellow men. We must eschew hate speech to avoid bad consequences.