The Nigeria Civil War (1967–1970), also known as the Biafran War, remains one of the most tragic and contentious chapters in Nigerian history. At the center of many debates about this conflict is the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, a towering statesman, nationalist, and former Federal Commissioner for Finance. Despite his towering legacy as a champion of federalism and national development, Awolowo’s wartime role has been scrutinized, criticized, and sometimes misunderstood. In a remarkable 1983 town hall interview in Abeokuta — aired live and recorded for posterity — Awolowo addressed these controversies head‑on, answering questions about his actions, his motivations, and the enduring allegations concerning his conduct during the war.
To understand Awolowo’s own defense, it is important first to set the historical context.
Historical Background: Nigeria on the Brink of Disintegration
The Nigerian Civil War erupted on July 6, 1967, after the Eastern Region, predominantly inhabited by the Igbo people, declared independence as the Republic of Biafra. This followed a series of violent political upheavals, including military coups and ethnic pogroms that deeply polarized the country. The federal government, led by General Yakubu Gowon, rejected the secession and committed to preserving Nigeria’s territorial integrity, culminating in a brutal three‑year war.
At that time, Chief Obafemi Awolowo was appointed Federal Commissioner for Finance and Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive Council, making him one of the most powerful members of the federal cabinet during the conflict.
Facing the Accusations: What Awolowo Said in Abeokuta (1983)
During the 1983 town hall session in Abeokuta, Awolowo confronted allegations — including those recently revived by the late novelist Professor Chinua Achebe — that he played a role in policies that harmed Igbo civilians during the war. Achebe, in his memoir There Was a Country, criticized wartime policies such as the economic blockade and currency changes, arguing that they contributed to widespread suffering among the Igbo population.
Awolowo’s response was measured but firm. He maintained that his actions were rooted in duty to the nation, not malice toward any ethnic group. He emphasized his deep belief in Nigerian unity and rejected personal enmity toward the Igbo people — though he acknowledged that political rivals sometimes abused narratives for their own gain.
1. Allegations of Personal Enmity: Awolowo’s Clarification
One of the earliest points Awolowo addressed was the suggestion that he bore personal ill‑will against the Igbo. He observed that, outside of politically charged periods like elections, many Igbo people welcomed him warmly when he visited Igboland. He suggested that a few leaders — individuals he argued profit politically by denigrating him — propagated false claims about his conduct. These, he said, should not be mistaken for the sentiments of the broader Igbo populace.
He recounted that his life had been shaped by overcoming ridicule — from being mocked for promoting education to earning nicknames that eventually became marks of honor. This, he said, taught him to take attacks in stride and focus on his convictions rather than on personal insults.
2. Financial Support and Management During War
One of the most disputed aspects of the Abeokuta interview was Awolowo’s account of how he handled funds due to the Eastern Region (then East Central State) during the war.
a. Revenue and Subventions
Awolowo stated that he ensured funds that were constitutionally due to the Eastern Region were preserved during the war — rather than diverted or withheld — and redistributed once areas were liberated. He claimed that he could have diverted these funds for other uses but chose not to. Instead, he continued to extend monthly subventions of £990,000 (nearly £1 million) to that region despite resistance from other members of the federal executive council. He clearly stated that many council members were hostile toward the Eastern Region’s interests, and that he avoided seeking their approval for these payments to ensure continuity for the state’s survival.
b. Banking and Reconstruction
After major military victories, he explained that he granted £3.5 million to the African Continental Bank (ACB) to support Igbo traders who might otherwise have struggled to restart economic life. He also defended the decision not to shut down the Cooperative Bank of Eastern Nigeria, insisting these financial institutions were vital for post‑war recovery.
3. The 20‑Pounds Policy and Currency Controversy
Another controversy Awolowo tackled was what became known as the “20 pounds policy” — the scheme under which Easterners who lost savings due to war‑destroyed banking records were compensated a flat rate when accounts could not be verified. Awolowo explained that this policy was not meant to disadvantage anyone but was based on practical constraints: many bank books were destroyed during the conflict, particularly as Biafran currency had been printed locally and could not be converted without risking national economic collapse. A special panel, established by the Central Bank and Finance Ministry officials, was convened to investigate and make recommendations that Awolowo ultimately approved.
4. Starvation Accusations and Humanitarian Measures
Perhaps the most emotionally charged accusation against Awolowo has been that he supported using starvation as a weapon of war — intentionally restricting food supplies to civilians in Biafra. Critics like Achebe and some historians argue that the federal blockade caused massive suffering and contributed to the deaths of thousands from malnutrition.
In his defense, Awolowo recounted visiting recently liberated areas like Enugu and Port Harcourt, witnessing firsthand cases of severe malnutrition (including kwashiorkor) among the civilian population. He explained that intended food supplies sent via humanitarian channels were frequently intercepted by soldiers and diverted away from civilians — fueling the continuation of combat instead of relieving human suffering. He stated he stopped certain food shipments because they were not reaching their intended recipients and were inadvertently prolonging the conflict. These explanations, he believed, justified his difficult decisions under wartime pressures.
5. Currency Change as a Strategic War Measure
Awolowo openly acknowledged his role in the federal government’s decision to introduce a new currency in 1968. This move rendered Biafran currency inconvertible and useless abroad, restricting the Biafran leadership’s ability to raise foreign exchange for arms purchases. Historians acknowledge that this policy — intended to weaken the secessionist government’s economic base — was effective, though controversial.
Awolowo maintained that only a small group — including himself, the governor of Cross River, and a senior official — knew about the currency change before it happened, underscoring the secrecy required for such a consequential wartime action.
6. Preserving Igbo Property
Finally, Awolowo addressed accusations regarding the confiscation or misuse of Igbo property in Lagos and other regions. He stated that properties belonging to Easterners were not seized by the federal government. In some cases, he said, rent had been collected for owners who later returned to claim it — indicating that legal rights were respected even amid the conflict.
Conclusion: Legacy, Criticism, and Historical Complexity
Chief Obafemi Awolowo remains one of Nigeria’s most influential leaders, remembered for his intellectual foresight, educational policies, and principled advocacy for federalism. Yet, his wartime role continues to elicit strong reactions — admiration for his commitment to national unity and critique for the human cost of strategic decisions.
What is clear from his own testimony is that he believed he acted out of duty to the nation and compassion for its future. The controversies surrounding his actions — including subventions, currency policy, welfare provisions, and humanitarian measures — highlight the messy realities of wartime governance where moral choices and strategic necessities often collide.
As historians continue to examine this period with more sources and narratives, understanding both the accusations and defenses is essential to appreciating the full complexities of Nigeria’s path through one of its darkest hours.
0 Comments