CHAPTER ONE

1.1        INTRODUCTION

In his biography about Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu, Olusegun Obasanjo stated that ‘biographies of men who have shaped the course of human history have been written all over the world………….Attempts to re-examine the lives of those who have made contributions  to this country may not only provide a better insight, but offer possible solutions to our many difficulties……………..”It is in this context that this study of Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna’s role during the particularly sensitive period of Nigeria’s political evolution has been undertaken. 

This study is by no means a biography. Rather, it is a scholarly effort to illuminate the misunderstood and maligned role of a man who shaped a cloudy period of Nigeria’s history. The focus is a reexamination and analysis of who Emmanuel Ifeajuna was, and what he did in relation to events in Nigeria between January, 1966 to August, 1967. A perusal of this study will hopefully contribute to the expansion of the frontiers of knowledge about this seminal period in Nigeria’s history. More importantly, the search for national cohesion and stability is an on-going project which requires effective dependence on historical guidance. And the understanding of the roles of the principal actors in the earth-shaking dramas of  Nigeria’s political history  during the period under study, will in no small measure contribute  to the attainment of this objective. 

1.2    STATEMENT OF PROBLEM 

Much  has been written and said about the January 15^th , 1966 coup and its aftermath. But it is that these accounts are not devoid of exaggerations and misrepresentation. In some cases, these accounts are inaccurate. Given the emotional and sensitive nature of such a  development, such stance  is understandable. Be that as it may, there is a call occasioned by social pressure to put the course of events in its right perception and fill the lacuna in the knowledge of these events which still remain forty years after these events. While this study makes no claims to being exhaustive, it seeks to provide fuller and more accurate insight into the coup and its aftermath by looking at the deeds of one of its major architects, Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna. 

Also, prejudice, misconceptions and outright ignorance characterize knowledge among Nigerians and even foreigners about developments in Nigerias and even foreigners about developments in Nigeria politics between the first military coup and the civil war in the country. Indeed, the   roles of leading characters in this period of the country’s history have been suppressed, misinterpreted and even in some cases, misrepresented for selfish political, ethics and social goals. If the purpose of history is to till the truth, then the frontiers of knowledge on these characters have to be widened, and erstwhile misconceptions re-examined. Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna is one of such character whose role in the period of Nigeria history under study needs to be presented more realistically and dispassionately. It therefore becomes expedient to expand the frontiers of knowledge on what Major Ifeajuna did, how he  did it and why he did it in the course of Nigeria’s political evolution between January 15, 1966 and August 1967. With that, the role he played during that event in Nigeria’s history will be better assessed and understood.

1.3    PURPOSE/NEED FOR THE STUDY  

This study is not a biography of Emmanuel Ifeajuna. It is a scholarly examination of the roles of this controversial man in the historic events during the sensitive period of Nigeria’s history under study. 

Using a plethora of historical sources and methodology the study aims at providing a balanced understanding and predation of development between Nigeria’s first military coup and the civil war. This is only possible if the roles of leading  participants and actors are brought to the fore. Emmanuel  Ifeajuna’s place cannot be ignored if this objective is to be fulfilled. 

This study also seeks to contribute to the age old national discourse for stability and political cohesion which Nigeria has been seeking since independence. This has become necessary by looking  at the roles of leading characters who have radically altered the country’s  socio-political landscape. Hopefully, a historical study of their actions will contribute to this search for peace and stability in the country. 

Finally, this study aims at providing a historical account of what really happened during the brief occupation of the former Mid-Western Region by the Biafran forces during August 1967, and the implications for inter group relations and stability in Nigeria.

1.4    SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY 

This study is subject to inherent limitations which are worth stating and taking into consideration. The time frame is a decisive limiting factor. It restricts the scope of the research to Major Ifeajuna’s role  and events within a definite period, January 15^th  1966 to August 1967. The time frame, therefore limits the account to the roles the subject had played in Nigeria’s history during the period of study. It can be however, be argued that outside his 1954 exploits at the British Empire (now Commonwealth) Games, Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna most essentially captured the attention of Nigeria and the world from the time the guns blasted Nigeria’s democracy to pieces on January 15^th, 1966.

Another limitation to the study is that it does not provide a sufficient basis for understanding the entire personality of the subject – Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna. It is a study of the place and roles of Major Ifeajuna in relation to a definite historical episode in Nigeria. Thus, the study may not help those who are interested in unraveling in its entirety the personality of the controversial historical character under focus in this work. The study draws attention to aspects of the subject’s personality which help to analyse the trends of Nigeria’s politics  between January 1966 – August 1967. 

The study’s focus on a single character in the earth-shaking historical events of our study period gives the impression that a mono-casual factor in history is given an undue emphasis. It is a fact that Ifeajuna was not the sole character, or even the major causative factor of the coup of 1966 and the outbreak of the civil war in 1967. The searchlight on Ifeajuna therefore goes to show and directs attention to the extent major Ifeajuna shaped these events in which he eventually lost his life, and/or how these events affected him.

1.5    METHODOLOGY /SOURCES/ORGANIZATION OF THE WORK 

This research makes use of a plethora of historical methodologies in the bid to arrive at illuminating interpretations and conclusion.

First, the principal of content analysis is adopted. This involves a rigorous examinations of the explicit and implicit contents of the sources used. Although inferences and ‘educated guesses’ are not  ignored, no attempt is spared at drawing conclusions based on extent evidence. 

Secondly, a cross fertilization and synthesis of sources is pertinent in a study of this nature.  The fundamental thesis can be summed up as the quest for the truth about Emmanuel Ifeajuna’s place in the cloudy period of Nigeria’s political history between January 1966 and August 1967. The antithesis is a cross-examination of the dissenting positions on what Ifeajuna did, how and why he did it in relation to the events of the period of study. The synthesis can be defined as the conclusions drawn based on the available evidence. 

The historical nature of this study necessities a narrative format which is devoid of ideological or model-seeking paradigms. However, information and interpretations from non-historical sources are adopted and subjected to rigorous analyses.

LITERATURE REVIEW

A research of this nature inevitably involves extensive review literature. This is because of a number of reasons. Every academic study should aim at principally expanding intellectual horizons, and this calls for seeking for and filling in the lacuna in the knowledge of the subject under scrutiny. Thus, literature review is necessary. Secondly, literature review for a subject of this nature involves a search for sources and implicit dimensions and issues that bear on this study.

The review of literature for this study cuts across primary and secondary sources. Adewale Ademoyega’s Why We Strack¹ is a seminal work which extensively covers events in Nigeria’s history within the period under study. The book provides an in- depth background to understanding the events in which Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna was deeply involved. Written by the sole survivor of the trio who planned the January 15, 1966 coup – the others were Emmanuel Ifeajuna and Chukwuma Nzeogwu – the book provides an insight into the personality of Emmanuel Ifeajuna and his deeds or misdeeds in the grim events leading to the first coup, during the actual coup itself, as well as during the Mid-western invasion in the course of the civil war. Indeed, the book is a key to unlocking the role of Ifeajuna in the cloudy period of Nigeria’s history, in the course of which he lost his life.

The book portrays the involvement of the architects of the January 15, 1966, coup, including Emmanuel Ifeajuna. It idealizes the actions of Ifeajuna in the Mid – Western invasion and the coup against the Biafran Government for which he (Ifeajuna) was executed. However, the book lacks objective interpretation of facts. Given that the writer and the subject of this study were very close friends, intellectual school mates, comrades – in – arms both in the Nigerian and Biafran Military, co-coup plotters and co-detainees, the inability of Ademoyega to reasonably distance himself is understandable. However, the work is significant for the fundamental insights it provides into the period under study. The book is not the biography of Ifeajuna, but only provides information and assessment of what he did in the course of Nigeria’s political history between January 1966 – August 1967.

Ben Gubulie’s Nigeria’s Five Majors² is a short but gripping insider account of the January 15, 1966 coup. Told from the perspective of the writer who eagerly participated in the coup, under the command of Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu, the book analyses the planning, preparation, execution and failure of the coup. Thus, as a fundamental, in –depth narrative of the antecedents of the coup in which Ifeajuna was deeply involved, it makes an invaluable contribution to our knowledge of the subject matter of our study. 

But the book leaves a few lacunae on the intellectual frontier. The writer was actually recruited into an already hatched plot, and was not an insider, thus, he would not have known all the aspects of the plot know certain dimension inevitably involving Ifeajuna, who was an insider. Also the writer’s active role in the coup was in Kaduna under Nzeogwu. It was only after the failure of the coup and subsequent detention of the plotters that he could glean information about the botched operation of the coup in Lagos, which was spearheaded by Ifeajuna. Thus, his account about Ifeajuna in relation to the coup is second-hand. Thirdly, the book unduly idealizes the plotters of the first coup, including Ifeajuna. Finally, the book  limits its scope to the first coup of January 15, 1966.

However, the book is important as a fundamental text for appraising Ifeajuna’s role in the planning, execution and failure of Nigeria’s first putsch.

Perhaps, One of the most significant primary source materials for this research is Ifeajuna’s unpublished book³. This manuscript, which is untitled, has been copiously quoted by many scholars and writers of the political crises that troubled Nigeria in the mid-1960s. The manuscript has been confirmed as a work by Ifeajuna. It gives an insight into the personality of Ifeajuna, his record of rebellion as a student, and his role in and interpretation of the January 15, 1966 coup. As a source of fundamental information, it is invaluable.

But the work does not throw light on Ifeajuna’s role in the postJanuary 1966 political developments in Nigeria. Given his, intense involvement in combat, his detention, his exile and subsequent execution, this lacuma is understandable.

The book titled Nzeogwu⁴ is a short biography of Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu, one of the architects of the first coup, by his friend, colleague and the former President of Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo. The book gives an insight into the personality, background and upbringing of Nzeogwu. Since it inevitably discusses and analyses the first Nigerian Military coup and its aftermath, it inevitably pays attention to the place and role of Ifeajuna in these developments. The book also gives some insight into Ifeajuna’s background.

The book, however, is principally about Nzeogwu, not Ifeajuna. Thus, information and analysis about the latter are incidental to the writer’s quest to analyse Nzeogwu’s place in Nigeria’s political history. Ifeajuna’s involvement is highlighted only insofar as it illuminates Nzeogwu’s role. The book clearly portrays Nzeogwu as the leader of the first coup – a historical controversy which continues forty years after the putsch.

Biafra War Revisited⁵ written by Egbebelu Ugobelu is an account of the war by a former Biafran soldier. It dwells on the background to Nigeria’s political evolution and tensions and the conflicts between 1966 -1970. The writer is openly pro-Biafran in his approach and analysis. Undoubtedly the writer shows a favourable disposition towards Nigeria’s first military coup and its architects. But he is less disposed to eulogizing the roles of key Biafran commanders (of which Ifeajuna was one) in the invasion of the Mid-Western region by Biafran forces.

The book does not provide in – depth information or interpretation of Ifeajuna’s roles in these events. Although it dwells on the causative factors in Nigeria’s first putsch and the subsequent civil war, it does not dwell on the specific roles of key architects of these events (of which Ifeajuna was one) .However, the book is significant because it provides background information and a historical context for situating the crises in which Ifeajuna featured prominently. It also provides a clarification of the tribal? or ethnic nature of the conflicts that are said to have characterized the first coup.

The Brothers’ War ⁶ by John de St. John is an in-depth, analytical and voluminous account of the Nigerian civil war by a British journalist. It pays attention to the causes, nature, course and conclusion of the civil war in which Ifeajuna was involved. 

However, the book does not give an in- depth analysis of the place and roles of Ifeajuna in these momentous events. Perhaps where his role comes close to being highlighted is in the section which deals with the invasion of the Mid- Western region. Since the book is by no means a biographical account or a history text, it is devoid of historical interpretations. But it is a goldmine of information because of its author’s objectivity and background information which helps to contextualize Ifeajuna’s roles in the events under discussion. 

Alexander Madiebo’s book titled, The Nigerian Revolution And TheBiafran War.⁷, is an eyewitness account of the momentous events under scrutiny in this study. The book is seminal to this study because the writer, a high ranking army officer on the Nigerian, and later on the Biafran side, knew Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna well and was able to interact with him in the course of the events in which Ifeajuna was involved. The book provides an in – depth assessment of the coups of 1966 and the Nigerian civil war. The account, is sympathetic to the Biafran cause but the writer’s objectively, painstaking attention to historical accuracy, and critical approach to issues makes the book a goldmine in the quest to understand the background to the events in which Ifeajuna played significant and controversial part.

The book however is deficient in relation to this research in that it is not, per se, a searchlight on Ifeajuna. Also, it does not highlight his roles in the coup of January 15, 1966. 

Robin Luckham’s The Nigerian Military: a Sociological Analysis ofMilitary and Revolt, 1960 – 1969 ⁸ is a scholarly treatise on the Nigerian military class within the years in which the momentous events focused on by this study occurred. The well researched book highlights the diverse philosophies, concepts, affinities and political trends in which the Nigerian Army of that period, especially its officer corps, was based. It provides a context in which the institution in which Ifeajuna forged his career was moulded during the crises. The book is also significant because it highlights the currents and forces that moulded the revolutionary crop of army officers, to which Ifeajuna belonged.

But the book is a sociological study which does not take into account historical contexts. The authors of the revolution which ushered in the coup, including Ifeajuna and Nzeogwu, are presented here as significant members of a class, not as individual architects of a radical military action which altered the country‘s socio-political equilibrium. The book does not also delve deeply into the civil war years in which Ifeajuna was a significant actor. Per se, the book is not a study of the major events in which Ifeajuna played major roles.

Although Oliver Ifeanyi Anyabolu’s Nigeria: Past to the Present: 500B.C. to the Present⁹ is a slim overview of Nigeria’s history which hardly paid attention to Ifeajuna’s role in the country first coup and the civil war. It is important as a basic text for understanding the background to the momentous events of Nigeria’s history. It also highlights phases of the invasion of the Mid-West by Biafran forces.

Nowamaghe A. Omoigui’s The Midwest invasion of 1967: Lessons fortoday’s geopolitics¹⁰ is a scholarly and in-depth analysis of the invasion and brief occupation of Nigeria’s Mid-Western region by the Biafran forces. It delves beyond mere military and strategic plans and operations, and looks at the political implications of that episode of the war. The account also pays attention to the human element and component of the exercise – a significant aspect of historical study which is often neglected or relegated in a work of this nature.

This study pays extensive attention to the place, roles and implications of the actions and non-actions of Emmanuel Ifeajuna in the invasion. It analyses Ifeajuna’s place in the invasion and occupation of the region, and draws logical conclusions. Indeed, the work provides an extensive background for situating the context of events that finally cost Ifeajuna his life on September 22, 1967. It is a goldmine of information, analysis and interpretation on the subject matter.

But the work does not pay enough attention to the first two coups which are an essential background to understanding the civil war. The first military coup, for example is only cursorily mentioned and its architects, including Ifeajuna, only came to the limelight in the context of their roles in the invasion and occupation of the Mid- West by Biafran forces.

The Prelude to the January 15, 1966 Coup¹¹, an account by Nowanagbe A. Omoigui, is a concise analysis of the  events leading up to the first coup, the roles of the military and the ruling class, relations between them prior to the coup, and the actual putsch. It provides a background for understanding Ifeajuna’s role in the coup. But the account does not pay sufficient attention to Ifeajuna as an individual architect of the coup.

Seminal to this research are interviews conducted by News Watch Magazine¹² with Chukwuemeka Odumegwu – Ojukwu, Biafran’s Head of State, in September and October 1992.  These interviews are a gold mine of first hand information for many reasons. First, the interviewee is an active participant in all the events in which Ifeajuna was involved. He provides perspective and illuminations on the events of the period. The interviews are also significant, given that Ojukwu had a personal relationship with Ifeajuna, outside official and military connections. Perhaps more poignant is the fact that Ojukwu signed Ifeajuna’s death warrant. Ojukwu, in his capacity as the commander of the fifth Battalion, Kano, played no small role in crushing the January 15, 1966 coup. Thus, the interviews are important because of the illuminations they provide on a personal level. Perhaps, much more important is the fact that as the head of the secessionist government of Biafra, Ojukwu provides a context for understanding the momentous events of the period under study. The interviews also go beyond Ifeajuna as a person and seek to provide an understanding of the context in which he did what he did. The interviews also provide a basis for ascribing the leadership of the January 15, 1966 coup to Emmanuel Ifeajuna, which is a controversial historical argument. 

The outcome of the interviews, though significant remain the views and perspectives of one man, Ojukwu, who was, indeed, a very significant actor in these events. The perspective provides an illumination on Ifeajuna’s roles which are not conventional. But Odumegwu Ojukwu cannot be and indeed may not be, privy to every aspect of the political and social milieu in which Ifeajuna was moulded. Also, one cannot ignore the historical realities of oral sources used in this study in relation to human bias and prejudice particularly in relation to the allegation that Ifeajuna was involved in a coup plot to over throw Ojukwu’s government. 

Fredrick Forsyth’s Emeka¹³ is a short biography of Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu but it is important to this study for a number of reasons. The writer provides a critical perspective to Ifeajuna’s role in the Mid-Western invasion. Though the account briefly portrays Ifeajuna in an unflattering light, it helps to show the context in which he (Ifeajuna) was either eulogized or demonized by students of the events under focus in this study.

Notes  

(1.)        Olusegun Obasanjo Nzeogwu (Ibadan. Spectrum Publishers, 1987) p.25

(2.)        Robin Luckham, The Nigerian Military: A Sociological Analysis OfMilitary and Revolt, 1960 – 69. (Cambridge Cambridge University Press) 1988; p.32.

(3.)        Adewale Ademoyega, Why We Struck: The Story of Nigeria’s firstmilitary coup (Ibadan: Evans Publishers, 1981).  

(4.)        Ben Gubulie, Nigeria’s Five Majors (Onitsha: Africana – FEP Publishers, 1981)

(5.)        Ifeajuna’s unpublished manuscript, as quoted in Nzeogwu (Obasanjo) and The Brother’s War by John de St. Jorre.

(6.)        Olusegun Obasanjo, Nzeogwu (Op.cit p.30, 1987).

(7.)        Egbebelu Ugobelu, Biafra War Revisited (Spartanburg, USA: Obiesili Publishing Company, 1994).  

(8.)        John de. St Jorre, The Brothers’ War (Boston, USA: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1972).

(9.)        Alexander Madiebo, The Nigerian Revolution and the BiafranWar(Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishers, 1980).

(10.)     Robin Luckham, The Nigerian Military: a Sociological Analysis ofMilitary and Revolt, 1960-69. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1971).

(11.)     Oliver Ifeanyi, Anyabolu, Nigeria Past to Present: 500 B.C to thePresent (Enugu: Classic Publishing Company, 2000).  

(12.)     Nowamagbe A. Omorigui, The Midwestern Inasion of 1967:Lessons for Today’s Geopolitics.www.dawodunet.october 3, 1998.  

(13.)     Nowamagbe A, Omoigui, The Prelude. Bloody Coup of January1966. www.waado.org/Niger Delta/Nigeria_facts/Miitary Rule.June 24, 2002.  

(14.)     Emeka    Ojukwu,       Interviews    with   Newswatch Magazine, September 28 and October, 1992.

(15.)     13. Fredrick Forsyth, Emeka (Ibadan: Sepectrum Publishers, 1992).