13/06/2025
Biafra Story – Series 1: The Origins of Biafra
Episode 1.4: The Role of the British in Post-Independence Tensions
When Nigeria gained independence in 1960, many believed the colonial chapter had ended.
But in truth, the British Empire had left behind more than a flag—it had left a blueprint for conflict.
Far from being neutral observers, the British played an active role in shaping Nigeria’s post-independence power structure. While waving the banner of "self-rule," they ensured that the seeds of division they had planted would continue to grow. The ethnic rivalries, uneven development, and political imbalances that plagued Nigeria after independence were not accidents—they were the legacy of a colonial strategy designed to maintain influence long after the Union Jack was lowered.
🏛 A Rushed Independence
The independence process for Nigeria was hastily arranged and poorly managed. Despite deep-rooted ethnic, religious, and cultural differences, Britain hurried the transition without resolving key structural issues. There was no shared vision of what it meant to be Nigerian.
Each region—North, West, and East—entered independence with its own goals, leaders, and fears. The British, aware of these tensions, did little to build unity. Instead, they empowered regional elites who served their interests during the colonial era.
The British ensured that the Northern Region, which was politically conservative and culturally closer to traditional authority, retained dominance in the new federation. This wasn’t by chance. The North, being less exposed to Western education and missionary activity, was seen by the British as more loyal and easier to influence.
As Nigeria's largest region, the North was favored in parliamentary representation. In the final years leading to independence, British census figures showed the North as having a larger population—giving it more seats in parliament. These numbers were widely disputed, especially by Southern leaders, but the British stood by them. This created immediate tensions over representation and power.
🧠 Divide and Influence
The British maintained influence over Nigeria’s internal affairs even after independence. Through advisors, economic partnerships, and military connections, they stayed close to the new Nigerian government—particularly the ruling elite in the North.
When the 1964 federal elections turned chaotic, with allegations of rigging and violence, the British government ignored the outcry. Many observers saw the elections as deeply flawed, but Britain recognized the outcome anyway—because it kept their Northern allies in control.
This decision further alienated the Eastern and Western regions, who saw Britain not as a neutral former colonizer, but as an active player in Nigeria’s imbalance of power.
The British also influenced the Nigerian military. Though Nigerian soldiers were taking control of the army, many senior roles were still held by British officers well into the 1960s. British advisors continued to shape Nigeria’s defense policies, sometimes favoring certain regions or officers over others.
💣 A Blind Eye to Rising Tensions
By 1966, Nigeria was a boiling pot. Ethnic tensions had reached dangerous levels. The January coup, led by mostly Igbo officers, was seen by many Northerners as an Igbo plot—despite the fact that many Igbo political leaders had no role in the coup.
After the bloody counter-coup in July 1966, and the widespread massacre of Easterners in the North, Britain once again took no firm stand. Thousands of Igbos were murdered in cold blood. Over a million fled back to the East. Yet, the British government remained silent, unwilling to pressure the Nigerian federal government to protect its citizens or seek justice.
Why? Because the North remained in control—and Britain’s economic interests, particularly in oil, were tied to the unity of Nigeria under Northern leadership.
🛢 Oil and Economic Interests
Oil had become Nigeria’s lifeline, and the majority of oil reserves were in the Eastern Region—what would later become Biafra. British oil companies, especially Shell-BP, had major stakes in these reserves.
When the Eastern Region began moving toward secession in 1967, it wasn’t just a political threat—it was an economic crisis for British business. An independent Biafra could have cut off access to these oil fields, or nationalized foreign assets.
So, when Biafra declared independence on May 30, 1967, Britain backed the Nigerian federal government. It supplied arms, ammunition, and diplomatic support to crush the secession.
In official statements, Britain claimed it was protecting Nigeria’s territorial integrity. In practice, it was protecting its oil deals.
This support continued even as horrific images of starving Biafran children reached the world. Britain refused to recognize Biafra or acknowledge the humanitarian crisis until it became too big to ignore. By then, over a million people had died—many from starvation caused by a federal blockade that Britain chose not to condemn.
🎯 A Legacy of Selective Silence
By the end of the war in 1970, British leaders congratulated Nigeria on preserving unity. But the truth was harder to swallow. The war had exposed the deep scars left by colonial manipulation—and the role Britain played in keeping those scars from healing.
Even today, many Nigerians view Britain’s post-independence involvement with suspicion. It’s a reminder that colonialism doesn’t always end when independence begins. Sometimes, the chains just become less visible.
So we ask you now: Can a nation ever be free if its past still shapes its present?
Share this story, and follow Biafra Story for more untold truths.
And in our next episode, we dive into the Aburi Accord—what it promised, why it failed, and how its collapse set the stage for war.
