By Uche J. Udenka
The characterization of the January 15, 1966, coup as an “Igbo coup” has had profound and tragic consequences for Nigeria, particularly for the Igbo people. General Ibrahim Babangida’s memoir offers a critical reassessment of this narrative, highlighting the importance of understanding historical events beyond ethnic simplifications. Such insights are vital for healing old wounds and building a more cohesive and inclusive Nigerian society.
The Biafran War (1967–1970), remains one of the most defining and tragic events in Nigeria’s history. It was a war fought between the Nigerian government and the secessionist Republic of Biafra, primarily composed of the Igbo people from the Eastern Region. One of the key events that set the stage for the conflict was the January 15, 1966, coup, which has long been labeled as an “Igbo coup.” This characterization has been widely debated and, as General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida argues in his memoir, A Journey in Service, it is a gross misconception.
Babangida’s insights challenge the prevailing belief that the coup was an ethnically motivated plot by the Igbo to dominate Nigeria’s political landscape. His account sheds light on the true nature of the coup, how the misinterpretation of its intentions fueled ethnic tensions, and how those tensions ultimately led to the Biafran War and the mass killings of Igbo. This essay critically examines Babangida’s perspective, the origins of the misconception and its devastating consequences, and the broader implications for Nigeria’s political and social landscape.
The first military coup in Nigeria occurred on January 15, 1966, led by a group of young military officers, the majority of whom were of Igbo descent. The coup resulted in the assassination of key political leaders, including: Prime Minister Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Northern Region Premier Sir Ahmadu Bello, Western Region Premier Samuel Akintola, Finance Minister Festus Okotie-Eboh. Notably, the highest-ranking Igbo political leader, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, who was Nigeria’s ceremonial president, was out of the country at the time. Additionally, the Eastern Region Premier, Dr. Michael Okpara, also an Igbo, was unharmed. This apparent selective targeting of leaders created suspicion and fueled the narrative that the coup was an ethnically driven conspiracy orchestrated by the Igbo elite to seize power from the North and West. However, as Babangida argues in his memoir, this interpretation is deeply flawed.
In A Journey in Service, Babangida provides a counter-narrative that challenges the widely accepted idea that the 1966 coup was an Igbo-driven conspiracy. He presents several key arguments: one of the primary figures of the coup was Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, a military officer who, despite being ethnically Igbo, was culturally and linguistically more associated with the North. Born and raised in Kaduna, Nzeogwu spoke Hausa fluently and identified with Northern Nigeria more than with Igbo nationalism. His role in the coup was not motivated by Igbo supremacy but by a desire to eliminate corruption and misgovernance. Babangida argues that if the coup had been purely Igbo-driven, it would have focused on securing power for Igbo leaders. However, no clear Igbo political figures were put forward as the new head of state, and the coup plotters did not have a structured plan for governance post-coup.
While the majority of the leading coup plotters were Igbo, there were also participants from other ethnic groups, including Yoruba and Middle Belt officers. This undermines the idea that the coup was purely an Igbo agenda.
Furthermore, the coup had strong opposition even among Igbos within the military. Major-General Aguiyi-Ironsi, an Igbo officer who eventually took control of the government, was not part of the coup and only assumed power to prevent further chaos. His leadership was more about stabilizing the country than advancing Igbo interests.
If the coup had been an ethnic conspiracy, it would have likely resulted in an Igbo-led government. However, there was no immediate Igbo dominance in governance. Instead, General Aguiyi-Ironsi, acting as the highest-ranking officer, took charge and sought to maintain unity rather than promote Igbo hegemony.
Despite these facts, the perception that the coup was an Igbo plot spread rapidly, leading to significant ethnic tensions. The immediate consequences were severe and played a critical role in the events that followed: The belief that the coup was an Igbo conspiracy ignited outrage in Northern Nigeria, where many felt that their leaders had been deliberately targeted while Igbo politicians remained unharmed. This resentment led to the counter-coup of July 29, 1966, in which Northern military officers retaliated, assassinating General Aguiyi-Ironsi and installing Yakubu Gowon as the new head of state.
More tragically, the violence spilled over into civilian life. In what became known as the 1966 anti-Igbo pogroms, thousands of Igbo civilians living in the North were massacred, and many more were forced to flee back to the Eastern Region. Estimates suggest that between 30,000 and 50,000 Igbos were killed in these massacres. With the mass killings of Igbo people and the failure of the Nigerian government to protect them, the Eastern Region, under the leadership of Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, declared the independent Republic of Biafra on May 30, 1967. Ojukwu justified secession as a necessary step to protect the Igbo people from further extermination.
The declaration of Biafra’s independence led to a full-scale war between Nigeria and Biafra. The war lasted for three years and resulted in immense suffering, including mass starvation due to the blockade imposed by the Nigerian government. It is estimated that between 1 and 3 million Biafrans, mostly Igbo civilians, died from hunger, disease, and conflict. The war ended on January 15, 1970, but the scars of the conflict remain deeply embedded in Nigeria’s history.
Babangida’s memoir provides an essential perspective that urges Nigerians to move beyond ethnic biases in interpreting historical events. The labeling of the 1966 coup as an “Igbo coup” was a dangerous misconception that led to mass killings and one of the bloodiest conflicts in African history. This misinterpretation underscores the dangers of ethnic stereotyping and political propaganda.
One of the key lessons from Babangida’s analysis is the importance of understanding historical events in their full complexity. Simplistic ethnic explanations often serve political interests rather than the truth. The legacy of the Biafran War continues to influence ethnic relations in Nigeria today. Acknowledging the role of misinterpretations and propaganda in fueling violence can help foster national reconciliation. Babangida’s insights emphasize that Nigeria’s survival depends on rejecting ethnic divisions and focusing on shared national interests. Moving forward, leaders and citizens must work toward inclusive governance and prevent a repeat of the mistakes that led to the war.
The Nigerian Civil War was not inevitable but was largely the result of ethnic mistrust fueled by misinformation. Babangida’s memoir serves as an important counter-narrative, debunking the myth of an “Igbo coup” and highlighting how this false perception contributed to the suffering of the Igbo people. By critically reassessing Nigeria’s history and addressing the root causes of ethnic divisions, the country can strive toward a more unified and peaceful future.
· Uche J. Udenka, a social and political analyst, writes vis email.