ttyyyyyyyINTRODUCING THE REPUBLIC OF BIAFRA
CONTENTS
I. Introduction
II. The Country
III. The People
Inter-Group Relationships
Political and Social Systems
IV. Economic Resources
V. Conclusion
1967 Published by the Government of the Republic of Biafra.
I. Introduction
A new nation has been born. Fourteen million people have taken their destiny into their own hands and embarked on the task of building a nation free from fear, bitterness and hate. Their sole aim is to develop their innate capabilities and rear their children in an atmosphere of peace and security. They stretch their hands of fellowship to all nations and appeal for understanding, friendship and co-operation.
We, Biafrans, opted for self-determination after a long period of heart-searching and after making desperate efforts to save the Federation of Nigeria from disintegration. More than any other people in the former Federation, Biafrans contributed their human and material resources to the cause of national unity. From 1914, when the British amalgamated Northern and Southern Nigeria, Biafrans began to leave their homeland in large numbers to settle in several places among the Fulani-Hausa in the North and the Yoruba in the West. In those areas they opened up new avenues of commerce and industry and at the same time built new homes and erected places of worship and institutions of learning. By so doing they came to acquire a real stake in the progress and well-being of ALL parts of the country. They regarded themselves as citizens of Nigeria to an extent that no other group in the country ever did.
Wherever Biafrans sojourned their industry, resourcefulness and drive marked them out from their neighbours. In the North, particularly, the distinction was enhanced by religion; for while the majority of the Fulani-Hausa population were Muslims the Biafrans were and still remain mostly Christians. In addition, the progress and dynamism of Biafrans contrasted with the tardiness and conservatism of their neighbours who were generally unable to achieve the same standards of efficiency and prosperity. The envy and animosity the Biafrans excited were manifested periodically, such as in the massacre of Biafrans by Northern Nigerians at Jos in 1945 and at Kano in 1953.
While Biafrans abroad were thrusting ahead and setting the pace for the economic development of Nigeria, those in Biafra itself were diligently exploiting the human and material resources of their homeland. Their ready acceptance of modern ideas and techniques brought them to the forefront of economic and political activities. Democratic by tradition, they championed democratic ideals and at the same time advocated the concept of a united country. They resolutely opposed the reactionary ideas of the Fulani-Hausa ruling elite which controlled the North and dominated the Federal Government. They also resisted the vicious and unscrupulous methods by which the Northerners sought to perpetuate their hold on the political strings of Nigeria. It was largely this confrontation between the forces of progress, represented by Biafrans, and those of reaction, represented by the Fulani-Hausa which culminated in the Nigerian census crisis of 1963-64, the Federal election crisis of 1964 and the Western Nigeria election crisis of 1965 which brought the military to power in January 1966.
During the massacre of 29 May 1966, which was the reaction of the Fulani-Hausa to Unification Decree No. 34 of the Supreme Military Council, Biafrans were the sole victims and there was no discrimination with regard to their individual ethnic origin. The massacre of Biafran army officers and men by their Northern "comrades-in-arms" on 29 July 1966, and of Biafran civilians later, followed the same pattern: they were killed only because they were Biafrans.
Those who survived the pogrom fled back to their homeland disillusioned and embittered. Their investments in other parts of the Federation had been destroyed and those whom they held dear had been killed or maimed. The families in Biafra who received them back shared their grief, and hardly any family in Biafra escaped the loss of a member or the return of a destitute relative needing relief. The Northern Assailants showed no sign of remorse. On the contrary they were jubilant over the expulsion of the Biafrans in their midst. The Biafrans themselves would never think of going back to expose themselves to the risk of a repeat of their previous harrowing experience. Thus the pogrom of 1966 resulted in an irreversible movement of population.
In spite of all they had suffered during earlier massacres and during the more recent pogrom, the people of Biafra sought no revenge but strove strenuously to find a peaceful solution which would keep Nigeria together. The Northerners, on the contrary, rejected every overture, ignored the implementation of agreements which had been mutually arrived at, and relied on their military occupation of Lagos and Western Nigeria to humiliate Biafrans even further.
Two of these agreements stand out clearly. As far back as 9 August 1966 representatives of the Military Governors and Lt.-Col. Gowon agreed in Lagos that, inter alia "Immediate steps should be taken to post military personnel to barracks within their respective regions of origin". It was generally recognised that tension would be reduced and Biafrans would have less fear of attending meetings elsewhere in Southern Nigeria if this measure was taken. The implementation of this agreement was pressed on numerous occasions from August 1966 until the collapse of the Federation, but was totally ignored by the Northern "conquerors". Again, after long persuasion, the military rulers of Northern Nigeria agreed to attend a conference at Aburi, Ghana, in January 1967. Far-reaching decisions aimed at restoring the Federation to normalcy were taken at this meeting. As is now well-known, the Northern military rulers at first repudiated the decisions as soon as they returned to Lagos but, following further persuasion both from within and outside Nigeria, proceeded to implement only a portion of the Aburi decisions. At the same time the Federal Government contrary to an Aburi decision stopped paying its staff serving in Biafra, and withheld the Biafran share of Federal revenues.
The protests of Biafrans against the attitude of the North were met with threats of military subjugation. The proposal that Nigerian military lenders should meet in the presence of named African heads of States was spurned. The stoppage of salaries of Biafrans in the Federal public Service and Corporation compelled the Government of Biafra to pay these salaries in addition to bearing the financial burden of rehabilitating other refugees and displaced persons. Then the Lagos Government continued to withhold the periodic payments and remittances from Federal funds due to the Government of Biafra, the Biafran Government was forced to take steps to stop the continued accumulation of debt by the Lagos Government by promulgating the Revenue Collection Edict. Thereafter, the Lagos Government mounted a blockade aimed at the economic strangulation of Biafra.
It is this calculated and systematic persecution of Biafrans in the former Federation of Nigeria that has driven us to seek justice and salvation in independence. Molested, taunted, hounded, murdered and finally driven away from other parts of Nigeria, Biafrans have been compelled to acknowledge that close association with Fulani-Hausa is fraught with disaster. We have therefore taken up the challenge to our liberty and dedicated ourselves to the struggle for our survival.
Some well-meaning observers have expressed doubts as to whether the Republic of Biafra can survive both economically and politically as an independent, sovereign state. Firstly, they hint that Biafra had been so tied to the economy of the rest of Nigeria that if the federal links were severed Biafrans would suffer a fall in their present standard of living. In the second place they have tried to emphasize that Biafra consists of a composite group of people who lack the attributes of a nation. Such views have obviously arisen from an imperfect understanding of Biafra, past and present.
It is, among other things, in order to enlighten the enquirer and reassure the waverer that this publication is being issued. In the following pages the reader will discover the real Biafra, a country which has through the ages undergone a political as well as an economic transformation resulting in the emergence of a virile and united nation that is capable of sustaining itself in the committee of nations.
II. The Country
The country, Biafra, is an almost rhomboid shaped territory which is demarcated to the west by the lower reaches of the River Niger and its Delta, to the East by the Obudu plateau and the Highlands of Oban and Ikom, to the south by the Bight of Biafra and to the North by an administrative boundary following, approximately, the 7 deg. N. latitude. The total area is over 29,400 square miles. Thus Biafra, almost as big as Gambia and Sierra Leone put together, is bigger than Togo or Rwanda and Burundi combined, and is four times the size of the Republic of Israel.
The territory is well-watered throughout the year, lying to a large extent in the basins of the Niger River, the Cross River, the Kwa River and the Imo River. Three quarters of these river basins are lowland less than 400 feet above sea-level. The well-known Niger Delta which extends through two of the twenty provinces of Biafra, occupies about one-fifth of the lowland. North of the lowland the country rises gradually through open flat land to the Oban hills and Obudu plateau in the east and the Nsukka and Udi hills in the west. The Obudu plateau rises to over 6,300 feet and is one of the coolest and mast delightful parts of West Africa. There are also beautiful uplands in the provinces of Okigwi, Orlu and Nsukka.
Biafra is wholly located within the tropics, being only a few degrees north of the equator. But the climate, although humid at some periods of the year, is on the whole not too hot. Monthly average temperatures range between 70 deg. F and 90 deg. F, and average rainfall from about 60 inches in the north to about 140 inches in the Niger Delta. Like the rest of West Africa, the territory has two main seasons, namely a rainy and a dry season. The former generally begins towards the end of April but remains mild until the period June to September when the rains become heavy though intermittent. There is usually a short break in the rains during the first two weeks of August. The dry season which, in most parts of Biafra, lasts from November to March is characterised by relatively light rainfall. A Prominent feature of this season is the dry, bracing Harmattan wind that blows from the Sahara southwards between the months of December and February.
The tropical climate of the country favours the growth of luxuriant vegetation. Mangrove forest covers a depth of between 10 and 40 miles of the coastal lowlands, including the Niger Delta. Beyond this belt is the rain forest which extends northwards for approximately 80 miles. In the few places where the forest is still virgin are to be found many species of giant and medium-size trees with a thick evergreen canopy of broad leaves which restrict the penetration of sunlight. Except in the forest reserves, which are located especially in parts of the Cross River basin, much of the rain forest has been cleared and is honey-combed with villages, farms and oil-palm groves. North of the rain forest, as far as the Northern boundary of Biafra, the vegetation thins out into rich grassland or Guinea Savannah which is characterised by tall grasses and medium size trees.
III. The People
INTER-GROUP RELATIONSHIP
According to the last census conducted in November 1963 the population of the Republic of Biafra is 12.4 million, The figure has risen by the date of this publication to over 14 million following the crisis of 1966 in the former Federation of Nigeria and Which, as has already been mentioned, forced Biafrans in other parts of the Federation to take refuge in their home region. The present population of Biafra, therefore, equals the total number of people inhibiting the West African states of Togo, Dahomey, Ghana, Liberia, Sierra Leone and Gambia put together. In the whole of Africa, Biafra is now the fourth largest in population, exceeded only by Nigeria, the U.A.R. and Ethiopia, and equaling Congo Kinshasa. However, her population density of about 500 persons per square mile is the highest in the whole of Africa. The significance of this factor in terms of economic development arid potentialities is obvious.
A tradition that has become generally accepted divides the population of Biafra into four main "tribes"; a division which accounts for ninety-eight per cent of the total population inhabiting the country, namely, the Ibos, the Ibibio-Efiks, the Ijaws and the Ogojas. But, in fact this is an over-simplification introduced by people foreign to Biafra. Until the above classification, the people of the territory did not live or regard themselves as homogenous "tribes" differing one from another; rather, they lived in towns and villages each of which regarded itself as distinct although in many cases linked to its neighbours by a mythical or real ancestor. Thus the people now known as Ibos thought of themselves as Awka, Bende, Aro, Ngwa, etc.; the Ibibio-Efiks as Uyo, Itu, etc.; the Ijaw as Okrika, Ibani, Kalabari, Nembe etc.; and the Ogojas as Ekoi, Akunakuna, Boki, etc.
In other words, the present Ibos, Ibibio-Efiks, Ogojas and Ijaws did not regard themselves as such until they were so classified by foreigners. For example, the word "Ibo" was probably derived from "Heebo" which, according to some European trader of the 19th century, was the name given by Biafran traders on the coast to the hinterland area where they traded. Subsequent European traders slightly changed the word to "Eboe" from which "Ibo" was derived. It should be noted, also, that the same Biafran traders on the coast differentiated between the "Ibo" in the hinterland and the "Kwa Ibo", that is, Ibos living on the Kwa river. The latter are now known as Ibibios. The traders, of course, were merely using the word "Ibo" as a general term for people living in the hinterland rather than for a tribe in the modern sense of the word. The term "Ibo" was applied by all the inhabitants of the Eastern Delta to those of the Western Delta and never to themselves. It is interesting to note also that the riverine groups on the banks of the lower Niger, Onitsha, Osomari, Oguta etc., refer to their hinterland neighbours as "Igbo", a term which they do not apply to themselves. Thus it would seem that modern tribal consciousness, represented by the application of the term Ibo, Ibibio, Ijo or Ogoja in Biafra, was fostered not by the people themselves but by foreigners who were ignorant of the intricate bonds which held the country together and who classified Biafrans according to their own linguistic and other criteria.
These bonds were woven from the earliest times when the territory was.peopled. Archaeological evidence reveals that Biafra has been under continuous human occupation for at least 3,000 years and, as is now being discovered, that her people developed an ancient civilisation a thousand years ago, that is about half a millennium before the emergence of the Kingdom of Benin. Linguistic data also confirm the antiquity of the main languages spoken in the area. It seems, therefore, that the main groups of Biafra were indigenous to the territory and that contact among them has existed since primeval-times. This does not mean, of course, that the area was not touched, even in early times, by external influences. Naturally, populations on both sides of the Biafran borders have had cultural and other exchanges over the centuries. Thus the Delta city-states of Kalabari, Bonny, Brass, etc., have traditions which reveal an early Benin influence, while the riverine city-states of Onitsha and Osomari have some cultural affinities with Benin and Igala. More recently, of course, the entire area his come under the influence of Western civilisation. But while these external influences are significant, what is of paramount importance is the acculturation and inter-dependence which have taken place among the various indigenous groups within the area, and which have welded them together over the centuries.
