Written by Prince Tubo Johnson Aghogho.
“No Victor, No Vanquished”…..Gen. Yakubu Gowon.
General Yakubu Gowon, the then Head of State was actually on the hook for the above statement.
The “No victor, no vanquished” doctrine came about on January 15 1970 after the official surrender for the end of the war by the protem Biafran leader, Phillip Effiong, with a view of promoting national healing and unity at the end of the 3-year Nigerian Civil War which lasted from July 1967 to January 1970.
The Plan for Peace:
The doctrine (slogan) was tied to the recovery plan known as the 3Rs – to reconcile, rehabilitate, and reconstruct. However, though it’s intention was good – to stop any intended or continue widespread revenge at the initial stage, and to help hold the country together.
But despite the good intentions, the promises were broken, as they became mere words of promise. This was even so, as political and economic circumstances and problems continue to manifest, as people from the old Eastern region (South Easterners) often felt out or treated like defeated side in the political power dynamics in the country.
My Take:
Having said that, it should be reiterated and amplified too, that, for Nigeria to go forward, all the component groups or regions in the federation including the Igbos like every other group, should be treated or given fair chance of leadership in the spirit of equity, justice and fairness. Therefore, old wounds and past memories should be exorcised, and rather be extrapolated in the contemporary context, to propagate political and economic exigencies for the common good of everyone in the country.
In this regard, I believe that the statement made by Winston Churchill (1874-1965), former Prime Minister of United Kingdom, and I quote, “We are masters of the unsaid words, but slaves of those we let slip out”, end of quote, should be our guide not only to General Yakubu Gowon, but Nigerians as a whole. That the doctrine of “No victor no vanquished”, should be seen as a spoken words which should be consistent with the beliefs behind it, as it shapes the unity of the country, and therefore, we shouldn’t renege or take back that spoken words, as they evoke trust either to build or to damage, because they carry enormous weight in it (or in them). Which is why the perspective and context of “Scars and Sovereignty” have to be balanced to the effect that they represent the past trauma, deep emotional wounds, pain, and hardship endured on one side by the Igbos, and on the other side, the supreme power, authority, and absolute right of the State (federal state of Nigeria), to govern or control itself as a sovereign Nation at the time.
Introduction/Hook: The unhealed Rapture at the heart of the Nigerian State.
The Lingering Ghost of 1967: It’s more than half since the Civil War in the country ended, however, it remains a psychological and political fault line rather than a closed historical chapter of abyss.
The Dual Legacy: The tension between national survival (the idea of federal victory, preserving a multi-ethnic state), and existential trauma (the devastating human cost and perceived subjugation of the Igbo and the minorities of the old Eastern region), had become a sad reflection of how citizens were treated in a federal State.
It is instructive to remind ourselves that true national strength cannot be built on enforced amnesia or selective historical triumphalism; rather it requires an intellectual and policy-driven realignment that validates historical grievances, while forging a shared constitutional future that would maintain peace and unity.
The Federalist Defense: The Territorial Integrity and the Logic of Preservation.
The Primacy of Territorial Integrity: The argument that balkanization of the country in 1967 would have triggered a “domino effect” of catastrophic ethnic splintering across the West African subregion and among sympathisers. Which is why the need for the containment and defense of the country in a multiverse context became paramount.
State-Building through Crisis: At the initial stage of the crisis (civil war), the Yakubu Gowon administration embarked on what was framed for the conflict as a “Police Action” to restore constitutional order rather than a war of annihilation. But we were proved wrong.
The subsequent creation of twelve (12) states (and later more), as an institutional mechanism to dismantle regional monoliths and dilute the majority ethnic dominance over minority ethnic groups. This was a wise gesture though, but till date, there are still agitations of marginalization, injustice and unfair treatment.
The “No victor, no vanquished” Doctrine: The slogan emphasizes the rhetorical intent and the practical shortcomings of the post-war reconciliation, rehabilitation and reconstruction (3Rs) policy, wherein promises were made to reflect it’s purpose, however, there is the need to it perfect.
The Revisionist Critique: State Violence, Pogroms, and Unresolved Grievances:
The emphasis of challenging and re-examining ideas, past histories and cultural norms with respect to state violence, the pogroms and the unresolved grievances became the perspective and context in the hearts of Nigerians, as there were federal prosecution and institutional injustice in the land.
The Prelude to the War: This is a reflection of the 1966 counter-coup (dominated by Northern officers), and the devastating anti-Igbo pogroms that rendered remaining in the federation untenable for the Easterners in the first instance, as the first coup of January was erroneously believed to have been spearheaded by Eastern officers.
Secondly, the failure of the “Aburi Accord” in Ghana (January 1967), was seen as a missed opportunity for true Confederal restructuring (set up).
The Humanitarian Toll as a Weapon of war – the “All is fair in War” Doctrine:
The use of food blockades and starvation as a deliberate military strategy, resulting in the death of over a million civilians mainly children, was indeed, inhumanity against man, by the then federal government, which needs to be addressed. However, the moral and legal arguments surrounding the classification of the act under the framework of mass atrocities and state-sanctioned violence, were deliberately avoided/jettisoned.
Structural Marginalisation as a Post-War Reality:
The contention by critics that the end of the economic and political disenfranchisement – the instances of £20 benchmark policy, abandon properties and systemic exclusion into the Presidency (power dynamics) after the war and in the contemporary political strategy, have become a concern not only the Igbo, but even across the country with ethnic and religion attachments.
Contemporary Repercussions – the long shadow of 1967-1970 in modern Politics:
The revival of neo-biafran agitations: This is a reflection of the display of disillusionment, poor governance, and systemic exclusion in key and critical positions thereby fueling contemporary separatist agitations (IPOB, MASSOB) and other parts.
The Securitization of Political Dissent: This is seen as State’s (government) heavy-handed kinetic responses to regional agitations in the case of Igbos in particular, reflecting a lingering institutional fear of fragmentation (balkanization).
Inter-Ethnic Trust Deficits: This is coming on the heels of crisis emanating in the weaponization of ethnic identity during electoral cycles , rooted in the unresolved anxieties of the political crises both in the first Republic through the Fourth Republic.
The Strategic Imperative for National Realignment
Moving Beyond Zero-Sum Nationalism: The government at any given time should realise that patriotism cannot be demanded through the erasure of collective trauma or by denying that the Igbos were treated justly and fairly, and that, there should not be any feelings of loss or being defeated.
The Economic Cost of Disunity: There is no denying the fact that there were no economic costs as a result of the civil war in the country, and not less in the old Eastern region. It is therefore instructive to know that the ethno-regional friction in the country stifled foreign investments, weakens national security and diverted capital which should have been used for huge expenditure in internal policing and high military spending, instead of infrastructures – healthcare services, education, electricity power supply, industrialization, etc.
Redefining Unity: In this regard, transitioning from forced unity as was the case during the amalgamation of the country in 1914 and decree No. 34 styled-federalism enforced by central coercion in a functional unity and true federalism where equity, justice and mutual consent (fairness) would have given everyone a sense of belonging in a true federal State like ours.
Actionable Policy Recommendations for Sustainable Peace, Unity and Strength
This calls for the establishment of a Truth, Reconciliation and Restorative Justice Commission (TRRJC): This means a federally backed independent commission model on post-apartheid frameworks (like the Justice Oputa panel in retrospect) to officially document the civil war atrocities with a view of hearing testimonies from all sides, and offer national moral restitution.
Constitutional Realignment and Devolution of Power: Although it was the military government of Major General Johnson Thomas Umunakwe Aguiyi-Ironsi that introduced the unification decree No. 34 in 1966, however, over the years, political power has been over centralized at the centre (federal government), even with the current presidential system. Therefore, restructuring the federal architecture to move away from the over centralized system (to decentralised system), in the mould of a genuine fiscal economic policy (of true federalism), resource control, and local security system- state policing, would have been the ideal (the USA) structure.
Equitable Infrastructure and Economic Inclusion: Prior to the civil war, each of the old regions strived in the industrialization of their respective regions. However, the war decapitated most of them, as capital investments were damaged especially road infrastructure, healthcare, and education. And so, after the war, the military governments tried to restore some of them. But the major albatross that has been a stumbling block in the country is the level of corruption by those in government and out of government in seems like a metaphoric infectious disease.
Therefore, there is the need to strategically restart investments and industrial hubs across the country – Kano, Kaduna, Aba, Port Harcourt, Asaba, Jos, etc, just as the case in Lagos and Ogun states, by government and private partnership. Closely linked to this is the fact that major ports like – Port Harcourt, Warri, Calabar, etc, should be given priority as Lagos, for economic equity and fairness, with a view to bridging the infrastructure deficits in locations where necessary.
Educational Curriculum Reforms: Recently, the educational system in the country has been experiencing a downward trend with lack of quality historical memories and studies, and past history of the country. In this regard, while efforts should be directed for science-driven and technology learnings, but the absence of the Nation’s history in school curriculum, should be condemned. Therefore, an objective, transparent and empathic teaching of the Nigerian civil war in schools – secondary and tertiary curricula nationwide, and to do away with political propaganda, emphasising historical studies and facts, be encouraged.
Reforming Security Governance: No doubt, there has been deliberate neglect of equity, justice and fairness as it should be reflected in a federal system, not only in the allocation resources, but also in the distribution of security personnel and structural architecture. There is therefore the need to ensure that federal security institutions reflect the geopolitical diversity as it ought to be, with a view to building public trust, and to avoid regional (zonal) suspicion.
Conclusion: Forging a Shared Horizon
The choice of future trajectories: As it is right now, Nigeria stands at a crossroads between persistent and prolonged structural decay fuelled by historical denial, or national renewal through courageous reconciliation that can restore peace and unity for growth and development.
Final Synthesis: It is imperative to know that true strength is not the absence of dissent or the suppression of history, but the capacity of a diverse nation to confront it’s darkest hours, do justice to it’s citizens, and to march forward under a renewed “social contract” between the government and the people. Which is why it has become expedient to ensure that peace, unity and strength are maintained to cohabit together as a Nation in brotherhood irrespective of tribe, tongue and religion.
But what is required is a courageous leader with impeccable character, honest, accountable and transparent to the people. That, there is no need for a vague and pretentious “No no victor, no vanquished” slogan, not any more, and let there be no more “All is fair in politics” declaration, as we are not practicing a “do-or-die” politics, rather than peaceful coexistence, unity and strength where equity and justice shall reign.
Prince Tubo Johnson Aghogho is a Columnist and Public Affairs Commentator.
About The Author
