S am Omatseye’s piece in the Nation, “The Ghost of Biafra,” this past week adds to the growing discussion on the inevitable impact of the new secessionist movement in important ways. The kernel of that column is that Nigeria as a nation runs in vain from its obligation to effect closure on the Biafran experience. Omatseye, of course skirts certain issues, and fudges a few, including the important question he raises: “how could a people knowing that they did not have the arms still plunge to war against an overwhelming armed opponent?” Indigenous people of biafra (IPOB) In other words, why did the leaders of the East fight, when they knew they were outgunned? The simple answer is that (a) The East fought to survive. They did not levy war against Nigeria. War was levied on the East when the federal side reneged on the terms of peace arrived at in Aburi. The Federal Government initiated the war on July 6, 1967, by opening two fronts from the North: the Nsukka front and the Gakem
The advocacy for justice and equality in Biafranism is intrinsically tied to the fundamental principles of human rights. This blog post will explore the intersection of human rights and the Biafran movement, shedding light on the quest for justice and equality in this context. Understanding the significance of human rights in the advocacy for Biafran independence is crucial for appreciating the complexities of this ongoing struggle.