The idea of Biafra remains one of the most emotionally charged subjects in Nigeria’s political history. It has refused to fade from public discourse, not because of nostalgia or rebellion, but because of the unresolved constitutional and structural issues that gave birth to it in the first place. From 1967 to this day, successive attempts to revive the Biafran dream have only deepened the conversation about justice, equity, and the structure of the Nigerian federation.
The Failure of Aburi and the Birth of Biafra
After the failure of the Aburi Accord of 1967, which was meant to restore trust among Nigeria’s military leaders following the January 1966 coup and its tragic aftermath, the then Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, Military Governor of the Eastern Region, declared the Republic of Biafra on May 30, 1967.
That declaration set the stage for a brutal civil war between Nigeria and the secessionist state of Biafra. The war lasted thirty months, from July 1967 to January 1970, claiming over a million lives, mostly civilians, and leaving behind a legacy of pain and mistrust.
When the war ended, General Philip Effiong, acting as Biafra’s head of state, formally surrendered to the Nigerian Army in Lagos. In his magnanimity, General Yakubu Gowon, Nigeria’s Head of State at the time, declared a policy of “No Victor, No Vanquished.” It was a statesmanlike gesture that sought to promote reconciliation and reintegration rather than retribution.
Ojukwu himself fled into exile in Côte d’Ivoire, where he was granted asylum by President Félix Houphouët-Boigny. Years later, under the civilian administration of President Shehu Shagari, Ojukwu was granted a state pardon and returned home to participate once more in the country’s political life.
The Second and Third Waves of Biafran Agitation
The dream of an independent Biafra did not die with the end of the civil war. It was rekindled in the early 2000s through the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), founded by Ralph Uwazuruike. MASSOB adopted a non-violent approach, drawing inspiration from the philosophies of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr.
However, the movement soon ran into political repression, internal divisions, and loss of direction. Its influence waned over the years, giving way to a more radical and confrontational group — the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) — led by Nnamdi Kanu.
Unlike MASSOB, IPOB adopted a louder, more defiant rhetoric. Its leader, broadcasting from London through Radio Biafra, captured the imagination of many young Igbo people disenchanted with Nigeria’s governance structure. However, IPOB’s activities soon escalated into violent clashes with security agencies, and the group was proscribed by the Federal Government as a terrorist organization.
To this day, Nnamdi Kanu remains at the centre of a fierce legal and political struggle. His movement represents the third wave of the Biafran agitation — one that reflects the frustration of a new generation born long after the civil war but still caught in the web of marginalization and unfulfilled promises.
The Constitutional Vacuum: Absence of Referendum
The recurring Biafran agitation points to a crucial constitutional gap — the absence of a referendum clause in Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as amended). Unlike the 1963 Republican Constitution, which provided for a referendum and made it possible for the Mid-West Region to be created from the old Western Region, subsequent constitutions — particularly those crafted under military rule from 1978 onward — deliberately excluded the referendum provision.
This omission has left secessionist and self-determination movements without a legal pathway to test the will of the people. Every agitation for autonomy or restructuring therefore becomes confrontational, as there is no lawful means for such aspirations to be expressed or decided democratically.
A Call for Constitutional Reform
My candid advice to our Igbo brothers and sisters — and indeed to all Nigerians who desire true federalism — is to direct their energy towards constitutional reform. The first step is to lobby members of the National Assembly to insert a referendum provision into the Constitution. That single reform would not only give legitimacy to any future agitation but also provide a peaceful mechanism for addressing grievances in the Nigerian federation.
If the Constitution guarantees the right to a referendum, then self-determination movements will no longer be treated as treasonable. Instead, they will be expressions of democratic choice — to be debated, tested, and accepted or rejected by the people themselves.
The Path Forward
Nigeria’s unity should not be built on suppression but on justice and dialogue. The agitation for Biafra is not merely an ethnic issue; it is a symptom of the structural imbalance in our political system. Including a referendum clause in the Constitution would not automatically lead to secession, but it would make the union more voluntary, just, and democratic.
A nation confident in its fairness has nothing to fear from a referendum. In fact, the availability of such a provision could help strengthen unity — because people tend to commit more deeply to a union they freely choose to belong to.
Conclusion
The civil war ended more than five decades ago, yet the echoes of Biafra still haunt Nigeria’s conscience. The first attempt under Ojukwu failed through war, the second under Uwazuruike collapsed through inertia, and the third under Nnamdi Kanu now struggles under repression.
But perhaps the answer lies not in renewed agitation, but in constitutional innovation. If Nigeria must endure as one great nation, it must be one that allows the voice of every region to be heard — peacefully, lawfully, and democratically.
Let us, therefore, return to the spirit of Aburi — dialogue and fairness — rather than the tragedy of war.
BIAFRAN QUESTION AND THE MISSING REFERENDUM CLAUSE BY DARE ADELEKAN
