Against memory-as-remedy to the traumatic aftermaths of Nigeria-Biafra war past: whither justice?

ABSTRACT

This article examines recent scholarship proposing the use of memory practice to remedy the traumatic aftermaths of Nigeria-Biafra War past. The assumption sustained in this scholarship is that through certain cultural memory practices such as truth commissions and commemorative rituals some form of appeasement might be reached regarding the extent of subsistence of that traumatic past. We fault these scholarly claims proposing memory as panacea to mass injustices and tragedies. In addition to the problematic proposals for using memory to remedy past atrocities in Nigeria, we observe that the question of justice is either absent or construed sometimes vaguely as one and the same with memorialisation. Accordingly, this paper further explores the place of justice in (and its implications for) this recent scholarship on Nigeria-Biafra War past. By inserting and centralising questions of justice in the discourse of that war, we seek to rethink the assumptions of memory practice as a remedy to past atrocities in Nigeria. The underlying argument of our discussion is that not only does the emphasis on memory diminish the political nature of the conflict but also that resort to memory indicates a continued reluctance to address the fundamental questions of political in/justice in Nigeria.

KEYWORDS:

• Nigeria-Biafra War
• memory
• trauma
• political justice

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1. For a comprehensive collection of literature that many Western scholars believe to have inaugurated and propelled memory and collective memory studies, see Olick, Vinitzky-Seroussi, and Levy (2011).

2. For discussions of justice from a wide range of conceptual approaches and contexts, see Solomon and Murphy (2000).

3. There have been age-long agitations by some groups in what is known today as the Niger Delta for separation from the Eastern Region because of what they termed “Igbo domination.” These struggles date back as far as the late nineteenth century. (See, e.g., Asuelime and Okem 2017). The FMG’s unilateral state creation was clearly understood as an attempt to appeal to non-Igbo groups in the Eastern Region and rouse their fears of an Igbo domination should the east secede from Nigeria.

4. See, e.g., Achebe (2012); Chukwurah (2014); Ekwe-Ekwe (2007); Forsyth (1977); Korieh (2012); Jacobs (1987).

5. The Nigerian Federal Military Government of General Yakubu Gowon declared a “no victor, no vanquished” as part of the rationale informing the government’s post-war reconstruction efforts. However, this declaration was clearly merely political rhetoric with no resonance in reality. The political and economic policies that Gowon’s government devised and implemented all worked to weaken the political leadership and economic sustenance in the conquered region. See, e.g., Achebe (2012, 228–236).

6. Noteworthy, contrary to official state policy, writers refused to forget. Hundreds of publications in several genres have been released since the end of the war in 1970, notably prose-fiction and memoirs. Ironically, too, some of the key military players during the war from both Biafra and Nigeria have written memoirs about the war.

7. Biafra’s final surrender was on January 11 1970. However, Nigerian leaders decided to postpone the official surrender to January 15 1970 for purposes intended to overwrite the 1966 coup with victory over Biafra. See, e.g., Madiebo (2002, 372–373).

8. The underlying assumption of this slogan is that Biafran secession was an attempt to destroy Nigeria’s unity. Recently, just before the general elections of 2015 in Nigeria, then US President Barack Obama, perhaps inadvertently, quoted – quite ceremoniously and in a patronising gesture – this historically unwholesome slogan used to rationalise genocide in Nigeria in his address urging Nigerians to be peaceful during the election process. See US Embassy (2015).

9. For incisive discussions of the Oputa Panel in relation to memory and justice, see, e.g., Aka (2004); Knight (2003); Yusuf (2007).

10. In more recent years the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) have dominated the resurgence of Biafran activism and the agitation for Igbo secession from Nigeria. On IPOB activism and emergence, see, e.g., Maiangwa (2016); Nwofe (2019); Otuonye (2019); Oyewole (2019).

11. For some other recent scholarly accounts advancing similar positions of memory practice as remedy to Nigeria-Biafra War past, see, e.g., Msiska (2014); Onuora (2015); Ejiogu (2013); Korieh and Ezeonu (2010).

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Chigbo Arthur Anyaduba

Chigbo Arthur Anyaduba is assistant professor of English at the University of Winnipeg, Canada. He teaches African literatures and cultural expressions. His current research interests have been on the cultural representations of genocide and mass atrocities in Africa.

Benjamin Maiangwa

Benjamin Maiangwa teaches Indigenous Worldviews and Peacebuilding at the Arthur V. Mauro Institute for Peace and Justice, University of Manitoba, Canada. He researches the contested notions of home, belonging and indigeneity in postcolonial (especially African) societies.