One sure way to achieve popularity in Nigeria is to write attack-articles against the Igbo. The article doesn’t have to contain any truth in it. Just cobble a few paragraphs of propaganda or outright falsehood, however shallow.

All you need do is to blame the Igbo for all the problems that bedevil Nigeria, even those of Boko Haram in the North-East and banditry/cattle rustling in the North-west, forget about the Fulani herdsmen.

Many would buy it wholesale and circulate on social media. They would organise themselves into Igbo hate groups and vent their spleen. For that moment, nothing else matters – not even their own miseries. Igbo hate, for many, is a kind of escape from the harsh realities of their own lives and the tragedy of today’s Nigeria.

I have come across a number of anti-Igbo propaganda in the past few days. One, which prompted this intervention, is a certain opinion article entitled: “The scam in the Biafra agitation process” written by one Michael Owhoko and published in some national dailies.

The article is basically accusing Biafra promoters and, indeed, the Igbo of trying to force the old eastern minorities into their “Biafra scam” for the purpose of dominating them. And although not often expressed, stealing their oil.

This baseless propaganda about the Igbo or pro-Biafra advocates wanting to annex others is so popular that it has become one of the easiest ways to divert the attention of those who bear the brunt of Nigeria’s repressive “federalism.”

The Igbo are always that boogeyman used to scare people off and put them in check whenever it appears they are becoming conscious of their own miseries. The argument then is simple: it is better to be in today’s Nigeria with all its tragic realities than to risk total annihilation in the hands of the Igbo. It sells like hotakarain a cold harmattan morning. It reinforces already held stereotypes and baseless apprehensions about a certain Igbo “monsters” waiting to devour their neighbours.

To drive home his point and justify his apprehension, Mr Owhoko had gone down memory lane to recall the “oppression” of the minorities which gave birth to the Willinks Commission set up to look into those allegations. But, if himself, and those who cite the commission as evidence of Igbo oppression of the minorities ever took time to read through its findings, they would have realised that the allegations were mostly found to be baseless. I have shared excerpt from the findings of the commission in a follow-up article below.

One would have ignored such lame propaganda but for the fact that it’s being pushed into mainstream national discuss by those who should know better, but can’t grow beyond pettiness. It’s inconceivable and idiotic to think that the Igbo want to force anyone into Biafra when themselves never reached a consensus on Biafra. But since the very foundation of the country is shaking on account of escalating frontiers of terrorism, banditry and criminality, and the mass poverty that has left many hopeless. And as restructuring becomes seemingly inevitable, there is need, I imagine, by those desperate to preserve thestatus quoto create a monster in the Igbo on whose heads the challenges would be “resolved.” There, is perhaps, no better way to explain the many anti-Igbo propaganda flying around these days.

The accusation that the Igbo are forcing other groups into Biafra stems, perhaps, from the fact that the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) led by the brash Nnamdi Kanu is floating a certain ridiculous Biafra map that not only includes the old Eastern minority territories, but also those of ethnic groups in the Middle-Belt and parts of the former old Midwest Region. The map is annoying and has been opposed by majority of the Igbo themselves. Apparently, Kanu sees himself as a certain messiah sent to save the trapped constituents of the Nigerian federation. But if he had much knowledge of history, he would have known better. The Igbo are a people many in Nigeria love to hate. The idea of an Igbo wanting to “liberate” others is completely ill-advised. It would only be an attempt to repeat a very unpleasant history.

The five majors that were the arrow-heads of the first military coup of January 1966, consisting of one Yoruba and four Igbo did so for the same would-be noble ideas. In his book,Why We Struck: The Story of the First Nigerian Coup, Adewale Ademoyega, who happens to be the only one of the five majors that lived to tell the story, narrated clearly that their motivation for the coup, among other things, were the brutal military suppression of the Middle-Belt minorities, especially the Tiv, by the Tafa Balewa government and the chaos in the Western Region, the famed “OperationWetiethat resulted from the mindless rigging of the region’s 1962 election, again, by the Balewa government and its allies in the region led by Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola.

As Ademoyega inferred in his book, their idea was to install Chief Obafemi Awolowo – who was not only rigged out in the said election but also imprisoned for treason – as prime minister. But in the aftermath, when the push eventually came to shove, nobody cared about such motivations. Everyone saw an opportunity to kill the Igbo who they already held in contempt for their successes in various fields. When the war came, the Middle-Belt teamed up with the North to butcher the Igbo. Indeed, before then was the 1966 massacre of the Igbo in the Northern Region. Who could ever forget the pathetic story of the last train ride to Biafra? Of course, Awolowo’s own Western Region also assumed frontline role in the attempt to exterminate the Igbo. He justified mass starvation of innocent women and children as a legitimate instrument of war, while the Black Scorpion, Benjamin Adekunle wanted no Caritas and no Red Cross to interfere in his mission to kill every living thing in the Igbo country, including all that moved and those that didn’t move.

But even before the start of hostilities, there was an attempt by Gen Joseph Arthur Ankrah of Ghana to broker an agreement between the late Biafra leader, Chukwuemeka Ojukwu and the federal side led by Yakubu Gowon in Aburi, which resulted in the Aburi Accord; an agreement that prescribed a loose federation which remains the only viable solution to the Nigerian tragedy. But recalcitrant Gowon who was more of a figure head reneged as the accord was rejected on the advice of the Federal Civil Service and powerful minority groups masterminded by the British government, which besides its political interest, commanded the loyalty of the then dominant oil company, Shell-BP.

However, five decades, many are now asking for the same arrangement they rejected at Aburi and proceeded to wage a genocidal war that wasted estimated 2.5 million souls.

I must also point out that that Ojukwu was quite stubborn and could have saved the day by listening to the advice of the likes of Nnamdi Azikiwe and diplomats on the continent who wanted him to shelve the idea of secession in the meantime. But, in the event, he insisted on secession at a time when Britain and other European allies had decided that the nations they forced together into amorphous states in Africa must remain together, as secession was then a very bad thing. Notwithstanding, Ojukwu was understandably angered by the mass killing of the Igbo in the North and parts of the West, assassination of Gen Aguiyi-Ironsi with his host Col Fajuiyi, the renege on the Aburi agreement.

So, although Ojukwu was stubborn, he was convinced in the nobility of his cause and the “fairness” of the Biafra project. But the world works differently. It is not a fair place. And he ought to have taken into cognisance the already existing animosity towards the Igbo in the Eastern region and should have allowed the minorities room to decide their own path. Nnamdi Kanu, convinced, it would seem, by the idea that the entrapped peoples of Nigeria should be liberated, is stubbornly drawing a “Biafra map” that runs very wide. He is making a big mistake. But then, his map is no reason to accuse the Igbo and the advocates of Biafra, falsely, of trying to co-opt the Niger Delta or any other group into Biafra. Apart from this being complete falsehood; the Igbo has no such power or desire.

The fact again, is that Kanu whose IPOB is drawing the wide map is not asking for Biafra as far as I understand, but a referendum to enable people decide whether they want to be in Nigeria or not. Their map, they say, is where they think the referendum should be held. And, indeed, they have always insisted that everyone reserved the right to opt in or out of a Biafra that may emerge as a result of such referendum. However, it’s always very appealing to deliberately distort facts to be able to lash out at the Igbo for cheap recognition by the powers that be in the hope of crumbs from Abuja.

Another important fact is that not every Igbo buys the idea of Biafra. Indeed, IPOB is just a group that actually has membership, no matter how few, even in the Niger Delta. It is common sense knowledge that their views cannot represent the view of the Igbo nation. But these days, common sense is rarely common. Indeed, many Igbo continue to be at the receiving end of unbridled insult by some of their most radical members who don’t accept that people should have contrary opinions. The Igbo political leadership, including the Ohanaeze Ndigbo and the governors, whose views approximate the views of the Igbo are not asking for any Biafra, but restructuring. President-general of Ohanaeze, Chief Nnia Nwodo, has continued to make his pro-restructuring point so eloquently in agreement with the Afenifere, PANDEF and the Middle-Belt Forum. A vast majority of Igbo people want restructuring. It is what represents the Igbo demand in Nigeria, not Biafra.

Yet, those who favour Biafra are in two groups. One, a vast majority of them are strictly for a homogeneous Igbo nation. The others, mostly the less-exposed group are the ones promoting the said wide map.

Even then, it bears repeating, it’s never by compulsion. It is utter mischief, therefore, to attribute the argument of a few internet champions to the generality of the Igbo. It makes no sense for any reasonable Igbo person to want a Biafra that includes the non-Igbo in the Niger Delta or indeed anyone there who doesn’t ask to be included. If anyone is in doubt about the futility of the quest, he should spend a month or two in Port Harcourt or Uyo.

I must also restate the fact that Biafra advocates are simply those who are fed up with the Nigerian system. And more importantly, the marginalisation of the Igbo, real or perceived. It is strange that while many people will agree that Nigeria is not working, they will in another breath malign others who say they want out because the country is not working. This is basically what Biafra advocacy is about. Nigeria is a place where people call white black and black white because they can’t bear to admit the truth.

I believe, however, that Biafra, with its own potential challenges, is not what the Igbo need. I sincerely believe that restructuring or what we have come to know as true federalism will be best for everyone. Each of the six geopolitical zones in the country should have a measure of autonomy, control its resources and pay tax to the central government.

The current unitary feeding bottle system will only encourage rifts. The unfortunate reality of today’s Nigeria is that while nations tend to compete with one another, the competition is in terms of Ethnic Group A versus Ethnic Group B and Christianity versus Islam. And, usually, the ultimate objective of some, particularly those who manage to hold on to power, appear to be to hold others down as if that’s the way to achieve their own growth.

Nigeria as it is today is clearly not sustainable. If 2 million barrels of crude oil a day could feed 80 million people in 1990, it can barely feed 190 million in 2020, hence the escalating poverty and insecurity. And, certainly, it cannot by any stretch, feed 300 million in 2050. To insist on this system, which doesn’t encourage innovation and growth of regional economies, is to insist, therefore, on a catastrophic collapse of the Nigerian “federation.” Therefore, instead of dissipating energy and deploying whatever writing skills anyone has to accuse the Igbo falsely of wanting to annex others, such skills should be deployed to advocate for a workable federation.

Besides the foregoing, there aretwo other propaganda articles currently circulating on social media platforms, particularly on WhatsApp. One entitled “Igbo Political Leaders and Their Past Misadventures Resulting in Current National Political Problems,” is a very nauseating falsehood written by an apparently depraved soul named George Udom and promoted by nonentities. The other, a no less nonsensical piece with no known author, seeking to blame the Igbo for “handing over Nigeria to the Fulani.”

The two are dubiously crafted pieces of pungent falsehoods aimed at putting the blame of Nigeria’s disastrous turn of events on the Igbo and, therefore, settling them up for perhaps another round of genocide. Both shall soon be addressed.