Former Head of State Yakubu Gowon has reopened debates over one of Nigeria’s most sensitive historical moments, alleging that late Biafran leader Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu frustrated multiple peace efforts that could have prevented the Nigerian Civil War.
In his autobiography My Life of Service and Allegiance, Gowon gave a detailed account of the political crisis that followed the 1966 coups and eventually led to the 1967–1970 civil war.
He claimed that several attempts at reconciliation between the Federal Military Government and the Eastern Region failed because Ojukwu consistently rejected or reinterpreted agreements reached during negotiations.
Gowon specifically referenced the January 1967 meeting in Aburi, Ghana, brokered by Ghana’s then-leader Lt. Gen. Joseph Arthur Ankrah, which was intended to resolve rising tensions and prevent Nigeria’s collapse.
According to him, both sides returned from Aburi with conflicting interpretations of what was agreed, with Ojukwu allegedly presenting terms that would have significantly weakened federal authority.
He wrote that while the federal government was committed to maintaining national unity, it found it difficult to accept proposals it believed would lead to the breakup of the country.
Gowon also said efforts to preserve peace continued even after ethnic violence and political mistrust deepened across the country, but communication between both sides deteriorated rapidly.
He defended the creation of 12 states by his military government in 1967, saying it was meant to address fears of domination by majority groups and give minority communities a stronger voice within the federation.
According to him, the decision was part of broader efforts to stabilise the country and prevent further fragmentation.
Gowon maintained that the declaration of Biafra on May 30, 1967, left the federal government with no choice but to go to war.
He insisted that the conflict was not initiated out of desire for violence, but became unavoidable after secession was declared.
Reflecting on the outcome of the war, Gowon defended his post-war reconciliation policy, famously known as “No Victor, No Vanquished,” saying it was necessary to heal the nation and prevent long-term ethnic division.
He added that the goal of the federal government was to preserve Nigeria’s unity rather than punish any group.
Gowon also acknowledged the human cost of the civil war, describing it as a painful period that required national healing and restraint in its aftermath.
While Ojukwu consistently argued during his lifetime that Biafra was a response to insecurity and political exclusion, Gowon’s account presents a contrasting view that places responsibility for the failed peace process on the former Eastern leader.
