The Nigerian Civil War, also known as the Biafran War, lasted from 1967 to 1970, and resulted in the deaths of over a million people. The events leading to the Biafran secession and the Nigerian Civil War itself were the most tragic and important in the history of Nigeria. Gavin Williams argues that despite almost sixty years since end of the war, its legacy continues to shape Nigerian society and politics today.
The war both arose from and perpetuated human rights abuses by the Nigerian government against its Ibo citizens. On May 30, 1967, the Eastern Region of Nigeria, populated by more than nine million Ibo ethnic Nigerians, declared itself the sovereign state of the Republic of Biafra. The secession from Nigeria of the province of the Eastern Region-which renamed itself Biafra-triggered a civil war in which Nigeria eventually reclaimed the province by force.
The war highlighted challenges within pan-Africanism during the early stages of African independence from colonial rule, suggesting that the diverse nature of African people may present obstacles to achieving common unity. This civil war can be connected to the colonial amalgamation in 1914 of the British Northern Protectorate, Lagos Colony, and Southern Nigeria Protectorate, which was intended for better administration due to the proximity of these protectorates. However, the change did not take into consideration the differences in the culture and religions of the people in each area.
Nigeria gained independence from the United Kingdom on 1 October 1960, with a population of 45.2 million made up of more than 300 diverse ethnic and cultural groups. When the colony of Nigeria was created, its three largest ethnic groups were the Igbo, who formed about 60-70% of the population in the southeast; the Hausa-Fulani of the Sokoto Caliphate, who formed about 67% of the population in the northern part of the territory; and the Yoruba, who formed about 75% of the population in the southwest.
Here's a breakdown of the key events and figures:
Read also: Atlanta Nigerian Passport Services
- Date: May 30, 1967 - January 15, 1970
- Locale: Biafra (now Anambra, Imo, and Cross River), Nigeria
Key Figures
- Yakubu Gowon (b. 1934): Nigerian head of state, 1966-1975
- Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu (b. 1933): Leader of Biafra, 1967-1970
- Olusegun Obasanjo (b. 1937): Nigerian military leader and later head of state, 1976-1979, and president, 1999-2007
- Philip Effiong (1925-2003): Vice president of Biafra, 1967-1970, and president, January 8-January 12, 1970
The events of 1966 to 1970 were most easily explained by grand theories: the Igbo plot, or the northern conspiracy. Evidence can be adduced for either account by incorporating them into the grand narratives. The coup-makers of January 1966 blamed the failures of Nigeria on tribalism, regionalism and politics, arguments which resonate in subsequent and contemporary Nigeria.
Political alignments changed between, within and across regions, provinces, and communities. The authority of the Federal Government and the terms of political association were questioned at various times by politicians and soldiers from each of the regions and by politicians from both the North and the East. The government of Eastern Nigeria was not the first to threaten secession. Northern officers and soldiers demanded separation in July 1967.
The war itself was the pursuit of politics by other means. Biafra seceded on 31 May 1967. The outcome of the war was clear by 4 October. A Biafran attack across the Niger with the aim of reaching Ibadan and Lagos had been repulsed; Nigerian troops had taken Bonny; Enugu, the Eastern capital had fallen. Yet the war continued until January 1970.
Biafra was imagined initially as the antithesis of the tribalism and corruption of Nigeria, as an idea of Eastern civil servants and academics, returning from Lagos and Ibadan in the face of anti-Igbo discrimination in federal institutions. The refugees from the massacres in the north provided the popular basis for Biafra.
Historical explanations contextualise complex processes of different kinds across overlapping periods of time. The origins of the civil war may, with reason, be traced back to the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates, to the electoral conflicts over political spoils from the 1950s, to the Action Group crisis of 1962, to the census ‘counts’ of 1962 and 1963, to the 1964 federal election or to 1965 elections in the West. More can be added; each of these can be seen as following from the preceding histories and as creating the conditions for the coups of January and July 1966 and the killings by civilians and soldiers in May and then August and September 1966.
Read also: Experience Fad's Fine African Cuisine
In the subsequent months the Government of Eastern Nigeria and the Federal Government followed comparable strategies. Each was willing to find agreement but on their own terms; otherwise they would assert their own sovereignty. Lagos and the West were important in the calculations of the North and the East. So too was the creation, or not, of new states. Apparent agreement among soldiers broke down when its ambiguities were revealed.
The events of the war were the result of decisions made by different people, often without regard for the likely consequences. People were killed in coups, wars and on the streets. Ojukwu led the people of Eastern Nigeria into war without the means to fight it. The federal government and army preserved the unity of Nigeria, but killed many fellow citizens to do it.
In the spring of 1967, Ibo Governor Ojukwu retained all taxes collected in the Eastern Region. Gowon warned Ojukwu not to attempt any secessionist effort. Western Region officials also began to talk of seceding, and Gowon tried to placate them by removing some federal troops from the west. Some observers have suggested that this effort to ease tensions was interpreted as a sign of weakness. On May 27, 1967, Ojukwu and a number of Ibo chiefs declared the Eastern Region independent of Nigerian authority.
In response, Gowon issued a decree to restructure the existing regions into twelve districts, including five in the east, which would allow non-Ibos in the east to exercise some political influence. On May 30, 1967, Ojukwu announced the secession of the east and declared that region the Republic of Biafra.
Gowon initiated an economic boycott of the East and began a military campaign against Ojukwu and his Biafran army. The French assisted Biafra militarily, and the civil war raged. Food in the east was in short supply. International Biafran relief committees formed and demanded the right to send food and health supplies to the isolated Ibo. Nigeria’s federal government opposed relief efforts, arguing that the civil war would end more quickly if the economic boycott were allowed to continue without disruption, forcing the Ibo to surrender.
Read also: Philadelphia Food Truck
Ojukwu and the Biafrans appealed to the international community for help on the principle of self-determination, argued that the Christian Ibo were victims of religious persecution by northern Muslim zealots, and charged that the Nigerian federal government was pursuing a policy of genocide against the Ibo through military and economic warfare.
Biafrans argued that Nigeria’s recent history demonstrated that there was no hope of peaceful coexistence among the contending ethnic and religious groups. The Biafrans made available to leading Western media officials detailed, well-argued political position papers and photographs of starving Biafrans. Biafran officials claimed that five thousand Ibos a day were dying from malnutrition and that the federal government’s air attacks were killing thousands of civilians.
The federal government also argued against any foreign assistance to Biafra on the grounds that under the rules of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), no foreign power could aid efforts to redraw the boundaries of an African state. Member countries of the OAU, however, were divided in their support of the federal government and the Biafrans. The federal government of Nigeria accused the leaders of the new Biafran state of creating a civil war and a great human tragedy to advance their own careers. Gowon repeatedly pledged to protect the physical security of Biafrans if they would relent in their secessionist efforts.
After two and a half years of fighting, with thousands of federal soldiers who had been killed, millions of Ibos who had suffered and died, and millions more Ibos who were displaced from their homes, the federal government inflicted a major military loss on the Ibo. In January, 1970, with food and ammunition low, the Biafrans were militarily defeated when Colonel Olusegun Obasanjo captured the important town of Owerri. Shortly thereafter, Ojukwu and his family fled to the Ivory Coast. On January 13, 1970, Lieutenant Colonel Philip Effiong, who replaced Ojukwu as the major Biafran authority, surrendered to the federal government. Biafran decision-making bodies were dissolved, and Biafra ceased to exist on January 15, 1970. The Ibo waited anxiously for the next actions of the federal government.
Estimates of the number of people who died during the Nigerian Civil War vary significantly, from 500,000 to 3,000,000. Causes included battlefield deaths, ethnic cleansing, and starvation.
Table: Key Events and Outcomes of the Nigerian Civil War
| Event | Date | Outcome |
|---|---|---|
| Biafra Secession | May 30, 1967 | Triggered the start of the Nigerian Civil War |
| Capture of Port Harcourt | Mid-1967 | Federal Government blocked military equipment and supplies to Biafra |
| Biafran Defeat | January 13, 1970 | Lieutenant Colonel Philip Effiong surrendered to the federal government |
Immediately, the federal government found itself responsible for distributing the much-needed aid that international donors pledged to provide. Nigeria’s government would not allow distribution of food and medicine by any international agency that had aided Biafra during the civil war. While the federal government handled thousands of tons of food a week, it could not meet the needs of the Biafrans immediately after the cease-fire.
Gowon was able, through his own personal magnetism, to reconcile the two sides so that the former Biafran states were integrated into Nigeria once again and were not blamed for the Nigerian Civil War. The oil boom that followed the war allowed the federal government to finance development programs and consolidate its power.
Nigeria’s new head of state, Brig. Gen. Murtala Ramat Mohammed, initiated many changes during his brief time in office: he began the process of moving the federal capital to Abuja, addressed the issue of government inefficiency, and initiated the process for a return to civilian control. He was assassinated in February 1976 during an unsuccessful coup attempt, and his top aide, Lieut. Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo, became head of the government. He did not run for the presidency in 1979, and Nigeria shifted to civilian rule, thus closing the era of military control during and around the Nigerian Civil War.
An Honest Explanation of the Nigerian Civil War | The Biafran Story
The post-war expansion of oil production expanded the money and opportunities controlled by the state, but accentuated its dependence on fluctuating export revenues. The war and military government provided the ‘super permsecs’ [super permanent secretary] with the opportunity to centralize fiscal resources in the hands of the federal government. Oil rents were appropriated by civilian and most spectacularly by military rulers.
The turnover of political leaders and senior military officers enabled rulers to marginalise rivals and to extend patronage to new generations. The allocation of oil rentals from the top down meant that state and local politics came to be about claims to multiply points of access to and increase shares in oil revenues. Political violence is most common at local or state rather than federal levels; for most people, Abuja is a long way away.
‘Minorities’ have made collective claims for political recognition, the more effective for no longer being within the control of regional governments. Indigeneity reconfigures conflicts within and across state boundaries. Religion has been a repertoire of political tools and the fault lines of social divisions. The redemocratization of Nigeria was followed by the ‘generals elections’ and military arbitration of presidential succession in the current period.
Did last years elections show that electoral politics had come back full circle. Or had it changed from ‘competitive’ to ‘coercive’? Does re-examination open up political wounds and stand in the way of reconciliation? The attempts to interrogate past injustices opened the way for political elites to claim and defend their own shares of Nigeria’s resources.
Why does Nigerian politics break down into political violence? Why, bluntly, do governments at all levels come to be run by avaricious crooks? As Robin Luckham commented at the end of his 1971 study of the Nigerian military and the origins of the war, both sides and many others before them ‘contracted with the means of violence.
