16/07/2025
Nigeria Lied, Biafra Bled: A Rebuttal to the Denial and Distortion by The Nation Publication
The article titled "Lies and Embellished Biafra Stories" by Dr. Austin A. Orette, a recent publication in The Nation Newspaper, represents yet another attempt to whitewash one of the darkest episodes in Nigerian history, the Biafran War. With a dangerous mix of selective memory, half-truths, and outright distortions, Dr. Orette reopens old wounds not with empathy or reflection, but with political condescension and historical revisionism. It is imperative to set the record straight.
First:
Dr. Orette claims that “Nigeria did not declare war on Biafra. "But this is misleading. While it is true that Biafra, under Lt. Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, declared independence on May 30, 1967, it should not be omitted that it was a reaction to systemic massacres of Igbos in Northern Nigeria as retaliation of the January 1966 coup, a coup that was wrongly tagged Igbo, whereas the intention was solely political, never ethnic. And equally, plotters of the coup were not all Igbo. They includea Major Adewale Ademoyega — A Yoruba who even wrote the book, "Why We Struck". Another was Late Fola Oyewole —Yoruba, and Captain Gbugo from Middle Belt.
So, first, it is clear that the massacres which led to the Biafra declaration were out of some unfounded hatred on the Igbo, not because of the first coup, as claimed.
But, by July 6, 1967, Nigerian federal forces had launched military operations to suppress the secession of Biafra, thus igniting the war.
A declaration of secession is not a declaration of war, yet the action of Nigeria was not diplomacy but tanks, blockades, and bombers. For Dr. Orette to accuse Biafra of initiating violence without acknowledging the pogroms that drove Eastern Nigerians to flee and seek self-determination is a gross act of historical memory loss.
Secondly:
Dr. Orette dismisses the Aburi Accord as an exaggerated tool of Biafran “myth-makers.” But history records otherwise. At Aburi in Ghana, both sides agreed to a confederal system to prevent further violence. It was a diplomatic milestone. The breakdown came when General Gowon reversed on key parts of the agreement by unilaterally issuing Decree No. 8, which essentially embodied some deceptions that nullified the terms of Aburi and recentralized federal power.
Ojukwu's insistence on honoring the Aburi Accord was not a sign of manipulation but of consistency. The betrayal of Aburi by the federal side was a death blow to hopes for peace. Dr. Orette’s dismissal of this event reveals an unwillingness to confront federal duplicity.
Thirdly:
Yes, Biafran troops invaded the Midwestern Region. But why? As federal forces advanced eastward with full military might, the Midwest incursion was a strategic—though controversial—attempt to slow the federal assault and possibly negotiate from a position of strength.
Dr. Orette describes it as an act of mindless plunder. But he fails to mention that federal "liberation" of these same areas came with widespread massacres, most horrifically in Asaba, where hundreds of civilians were lined up and summarily executed in October 1967. If the Biafran occupation is to be condemned, federal atrocities must not be airbrushed.
Four:
Dr. Orette portrays Biafra as a rogue state lacking legitimacy. Yet Biafra had diplomatic recognition from countries like Gabon, Côte d’Ivoire, Tanzania, and Zambia. More importantly, it had moral legitimacy in the eyes of millions across the globe, who witnessed the horrific images of starving children, victims of a calculated blockade enforced by the Nigerian military.
The Biafran Airlift, coordinated by Catholic and Protestant missions, became the largest civilian humanitarian effort since World War II. Was this for a cause with no legitimacy?
Five:
Perhaps the most inhumane omission in Dr. Orette’s piece is the federal use of starvation as a war tactic. In the infamous words of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the economic blockade was justified because “all is fair in war.” This policy killed over one million civilians, mostly women and children. Hospitals were bombed. Relief planes were denied landing. Aid workers were accused of prolonging the war.
This was no accident, it was a strategy. And it succeeded in killing more innocents than bullets or bombs.
Sixth: Who Embellishes What Here?
Dr. Orette accuses Biafrans of historical embellishment. But it is the Nigerian state and its apologists who have engaged in decades of erasure, burying the genocidal scale of the war under the language of “national unity.” The civil war is barely taught in Nigerian schools, and survivors are rarely heard in mainstream media. When they speak, they are silenced as bitter remnants of a defeated cause.
If the goal is national healing, then honesty is the first step, not this kind of one-sided narrative warfare.
In Conclusion: Biafrans Continues Remember, and So Should Nigeria.
Biafra was not a perfect state. Mistakes were made. But its cause was rooted in survival, not ambition. Dr. Orette’s attempt to villainize Biafra while exonerating the Nigerian government of war crimes is an insult to history, and to those who died not for territory, but for dignity.
Yes, Nigeria lied. And Biafra bled.
We remember. And so should you.
Family Writers Press International
