Tag: history

The Multiracial Nature of the Victims of the Arab/Islamic Slave Trade

Priye S. Torulagha

Introduction

To understand the Arab/Islamic slave trade, which is sometimes referred to as the Eastern slave trade, it is necessary to examine the way Islam started.  Unlike Christianity and Judaism, the Islamic movement started in a violent environment and could only survive as a religion by fighting wars of survival which later turned into wars of conquest. As Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) started preaching his brand of religion, he was rejected by the people of Medina, and they wanted to crush him. The experiences gained through constant fighting combined with spiritual beliefs emanating from the Prophet’s circumstances culminated in the emergence and spread of Islam. The Koran reflects these developments.

 Thus, the process of mixing spiritual beliefs with military tactics led to the categorization of people into two worlds, namely, the World of Peace and the World of War. Those who embraced Islam existed in the World of Peace and non-Muslims existed in the World of War. Accordingly, those who existed in the world of war were expected to convert to Islam or pay a certain tax until either they convert to Islam or remain in the world of war as infidels. It seems that one of the major goals of Muslims is to compel non-believers to embrace Islam.

The Purpose of this essay is to explore Islamic contributions to the mass-scale capture and enslavement of millions of people during the spreading of the religion to Africa, some parts of Asia and Europe.  Thus, the Arab/Islamic slave trade is referred to as the Eastern slave trade in contrast to the Western slave trade which is known as the Atlantic slave trade. To accomplish the goal, four arguments are made here. First, while adherents strongly believe that Islam is a peaceful religion, it was largely spread through bloody wars of survival, conquest, enslavement, and colonization.  The process resulted in the mass-scale capture and enslavement of millions of people who were viewed as living in the world of war.  Second, although the concept of the two worlds is no longer a pronounced facet of Islamic faith, nonetheless, modern day militant jihadism which is directed at forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam is a reinforcement of the two worlds’ concept in Islam.   Third, while Christendom and the Western world have accepted, to a large extent, responsibility and apologized for the Atlantic slave trade, as Pope Leo XIV did, Islamic leaders and the Arab world continue to remain silent and have not acknowledged the role Islam played in the mass-scale enslavement of millions of people, especially Black Africans. Fourth, as far as Arab and Islamic leaders continue to remain silent over the slave trade, the more slavery will continue to be perpetuated in some parts of the world as jihadists provoke

wars through terrorist acts to impose Islam.

The Islamic Wars of Survival Leading to Full-Blown Wars of Conquest, Enslavement and Colonization

Thus, the first war Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) and his followers fought to survive was known as the Battle of Badr which is also referred to as the Raid of Badr or the Day of Criterion. It took place on March 13, 624 CE when his 313 members resisted being crushed by a much larger force (Watt, 1956). The second battle Prophet Muhammad fought is known as Battle of Uhud in 625 CE. It was fought on the outskirts of Medina as the Prophet and his followers faced a Meccan force comprising of 1000 fighters.  The Prophet suffered injury from this battle but survived the onslaught.  The third war that the Prophet and his followers fought was the Battle of the Trench which took place in April, 627 CE. About ten thousand fighters of a confederate force tried to defeat Medina and the Muslims.  The Muslims dug trenches as a defensive tactic to fight the siege which lasted for seventeen days. Eventually, the Muslims defeated the much larger force (Eaalim Institute. 2026, April 28).

While fighting to survive, war became a major tool of Islamic expansion. Hence, Islamic forces led by Caliph Umar ibn al-Khattab of the Rashidun Caliphate captured Jerusalem in 638 CE from the Christians. Then Islamic forces led by Amr Ibn al-As of the Rashidun Caliphate crossed from Palestine to capture Egypt in 642 CE. The Muslims ruled Jerusalem for 451 years until the First Christian Crusade recaptured it from the Muslims in 1099 CE (The Muslims occupy Jerusalem for 451 years until the First Crusade. n.d.)

After the capture of Jerusalem, war became a major tool for Islamic expansion.  Consequently, under the Umayyad Caliphate, Commander Tariq ibn Ziyad led Islamic forces to cross into Spain in 711 CE. Later, other Arab and Islamic forces joined him, thereby, leading to the capture of Spain and Portugal around 720 CE. The Muslims ruled Spain and Portugal for almost eight hundred years before Christian forces pushed them back into Morocco in 1492 CE (Collins, 1983). The Christian war against the Muslims operated in two phases. First, Afonso III recaptured Portugal in 1249 CE after Faro fell. Then, in 1492 CE, the Catholic Christian forces recaptured Granada, thereby ending Islamic rule in the Iberian Peninsula. The biggest price for the Muslims came when they succeeded in capturing Constantinople, the former eastern capital of the Roman Empire which later became the Byzantine Empire. The Ottoman Empire conquered the Byzantine Empire on May 29, 1453 (Foster, 2006, September 22).

As described above, Islam was spread by warfare, right from the beginning.  It spread very quickly within one hundred years, thereby resulting in the capturing, colonizing and Islamizing of the Iberian Peninsula as well as some parts of Southern Europe through warfare.  Since Islam was mostly spread by warfare, then what happened to the victims of the wars? Were they treated as prisoners of war or as slaves? The answer is that defeated and captured victims from non-Islamic territories were treated as slaves since the Sharia allows for the enslavement of non-Muslim captives.

The World of War and the Institutionalization of Slavery

It should be noted that the Sharia supports slavery but has extensive regulations concerning the treatment of slaves. For instance, non-Muslim men (dhimmis) who lived in Islamic societies were expected to pay a tax known as Jizya to escape being treated as infidels. To be treated as an infidel is to be treated like a slave if the individual does not convert. For instance, when the Muslims captured Constantinople, 33,000 people were captured and enslaved. It should be noted that it was an accepted practice for commanders of Islamic forces to allow their troops to plunder, loot, and enslave a defeated city or territory for three days before restoring order gradually. 

Thus, Arab/Islamic involvement in commercialized whole-scale slave trade started much earlier than the European/Christian Atlantic Slave trade. Part of the effort to spread Islam included the enslavement of defeated groups, including Arabs, Asians, Europeans and Black Africans. Hence, the phases of Islamic slave trades are categorized as follows: (1) Trans-Saharan slave trade, (2) Red Sea slave trade, (3) Indian Ocean slave trade, (4) The Ottoman slave trade, (5) Crimean slave trade, and (6) the Barbary Coast slave trade around the Mediterranean. The Trans-Sahara slave trade involved slaves taken from West and Central African regions that were transported through the Trans-Sahara. The Red Sea slave trade involved slaves captured from Northeast and Southeast Africa. The Indian Ocean slave trade involved slaves captured among the communities along the Indian Ocean, including those from India, Persia, and the Arab states. The Ottoman slave trade involved the capturing and selling of slaves from Eastern and Central Europe as well as the Caucasus. The Crimean slave trade also involved slaves captured from the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. The Barbary Coast slave trade involved slaves captured along the Mediterranean region and stretching as far as the British Isles and Iceland in Scandinavia.

The slave trades were orchestrated by the politico-religious Islamic potentates. Hence, the Rashidun Caliphate (632-661), Umayyad Caliphate (661-759), Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258), Maluk Sultanate (1258-1517), and Ottoman Empire (1517-1922) were all involved in the institutionalization of slavery. Thus, slavery perpetrated by the Muslims was not limited to any particular race since slaves were captured from all regions conquered by the Muslims (Lewis, 1970).

For instance, the Muhamad bin Qasim Umayyad Dynasty attacked and conquered Sindh in the eighth century.  Thousands of people were captured and enslaved. In one instance, about 60,000 people were taken as slaves (Wink, 1990). Additionally, the Islamic conquest of the Indian sub-continent resulted in the deaths of about 40 to 60 million people between 1000 and 1525 CE. Likewise, Mahmud of Ghazni’s series of invasions of India resulted in the deaths of about two million people from 1000 to 1027 CE (Lai, 1999). About one million slaves were captured when Muslims conquered Iberia (Spain and Portugal) from 711 to 1492 CE. Some of the slaves came from other parts of Europe (Constable, 1996). About 2 or 3 million slaves from the Caucasus, Lithuania, Poland, and Russia were captured and sold into slavery between 1500 and 1700 by Crimean Tartars. Most of the slaves ended up in the Ottoman Empire. It is estimated that between 16th and 17th centuries, a fifth of the population of Constantinople (Istanbul) were slaves. The piratical attacks on the Barbary Coast resulted in the capture of about 1.25 million European slaves along the Mediterranean and stretching to England between 1530 and 1780. The Arab/ Islamic pirates operated from Algeria, Libya, Morocco and Tunisia (Carrol, 2004, March 11).

Slaves captured and traded from Eastern and Central Europe, the Caucasus, Mediterranean, and stretching to Scandinavia are referred to as White slaves. However, the number of White slaves captured and traded by the Arabs/Muslims paled in comparison to the number of Black Africans captured and traded. Muslim rulers were heavily involved in mass enslavement of people. For instance, Ronald Segal in his book “Islam’s Black Slaves:  The Other Black Diaspora” noted that “The Calipha in Baghdad at the beginning of the 10th century had 7,000 Black and 4,000 White eunuchs in his palace” (Moore, 2014, June 2). Adam Hochschild agreed with Segal by noting that the Caliph of Baghdad had 11,000 slaves at his palace (2001, March 4).

The Justification for Treating Non-Muslims as Slaves

It should be noted that under Islam, it is justifiable to treat non-Muslims as slaves, as indicated above.  However, the treatment of slaves is regulated to a certain degree. Thus, the mistreatment of slaves is banned and they could gain freedom.  Likewise, slave owners are expected to provide medical care to them.  Therefore, it was not surprising that some slaves rose in rank and occupied important strategic positions in many Islamic states in the past.  For instance, a caliph in Egypt in the 11th century was the son of a Black slave concubine.  Likewise, a former Turkish slave named Baybars, led a military force which defeated a Mongolian army that attempted to conquer Egypt in 1260.  Similarly, an Ethiopian slave became the vizier to the Sultan of Delhi in India (Hochschild, 2001, March 4).  While non-Muslims could be enslaved, they could pay a tax called Kharaj/Jizya to avoid being captured and enslaved, as indicated earlier (Boddy-Evans, 2019, June 30).

However, slaves were treated as humans in one hand and as property on the other hand.  They were not allowed to be heard in the court of law.  Consequently, slavery was common and many Islamic leaders in the past had slaves.  This made it difficult to abolish slavery in Islamic societies, even after the international campaign to stop slavery had put a stop to the despicable trade in the West, it continued in the Islamic world up to the twentieth century.  The BBC noted that when the Atlantic slave trade was abolished, the Eastern slave trade actually expanded (2009, July 9).

The Arab/Islamic Slave Trade of Black Africans

The Arab/Islamic slave trade that affected Sub-Saharan Africa could be broken into three segments: namely, the North African/Horn of Africa slave trade, the Eastern African slave trade, and the trans-Saharan slave trade. Zanzibar served as the nerve center for the Eastern African slave trade and Mauretania served as the nerve center for the trans-Saharan slave trade. They were noted for serving as transportation hubs for carting away millions of people. Blacks in the North-Eastern and Eastern flanks of the African continent were probably the first to experience the raiding and capturing of their members by Arab traders and later by Islamic jihadists. Probably, Bilal (b. Rabah), was one of the earliest African Blacks to have been captured as a slave and one of the first to have converted to Islam (Hunwick, 2002). He was beholden to Abu Bakr, a major Islamic leader at the time.

Many Black Africans ended up in North Africa, Middle East, India and probably Southern Europe through Turkey.  As Islam spread deeper into Sub-Saharan Africa, more people were captured and sent away as slaves. It is estimated that about 10 to 20 million Blacks were captured as slaves and sent away.  Some historians believed that over 20 million Black people were sold into slavery through the trans-Saharan route (Moore, 2014, June 2). 

Arab/Islamic slave traders castrated many captured Black men, especially young men so that they could not reproduce. Many castrated men ended up serving in various palaces throughout the Islamic Middle East and Africa.  Adam Hochschild noted that Muslim elites “wanted them (slaves) as guards, and soldiers, as concubines, as cooks, as musicians, and simply to show how rich they were” (ibid). In particular, the Umayyad and Abbasid caliphs were noted for recruiting many Blacks (Zanj) to serve as soldiers in their military forces.

The Arab/Islamic slave trade existed for about thirteen centuries, starting from about 650 CE in the Middle East, including North Africa. However, it became a major feature of interaction in Black Africa, starting from about the 8th or 9th century. It resulted in the deaths of millions of captured Blacks.   The slave raids were very brutal and inhumane.  However, it must be noted that some scholars maintain that the total number of Africans captured and sold as slaves were less than ten million since the population of the sub-continent was less than the figures often quoted.

Unlike the Western/Christian Atlantic slave trade, slavery continues even today in Islamic countries in North Africa and the Middle East.  Charles Jacob noted that Blacks continue to be sold as slaves to serve Arab/Muslim masters in Algeria, Libya, Mauretania, Nigeria and Sudan (2018, July 16). Additionally, the rise in militant Islamic movements has led to the continuation of enslavement of people.  The Boko Haram in Nigeria, Al Shabab in Somalia, Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), the Islamic State of West Africa Province (ISWAP) and a host of militant Islamic groups continue to raid, capture, abduct and engage in human trafficking which eventually results in the enslavement of people.  In Nigeria, Boko Haram, ISWAP, Ansaru and herdsmen continue to engage in terrorist acts that are reminiscent of the Janjaweed terrorist acts in Darfur in Sudan and the Seleka militants in Central African Republic. Apart from Nigeria, Burkina Faso, Chad, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Mali, Niger, Mozambique, Uganda, and so forth, in Africa continue to face jihadist terrorism. 

Jihadist threats worsen in Africa after the fall of Col. Muammar Gaddafi in 2011 as Islamic jihadists poured into Libya to loot arms and continue their deadly attempt to spread Islam. As a result, Libya has been particularly notorious for being a center for human trafficking and enslavement of people. Many African migrants ended up serving as slaves in the country.  The victims are both Muslims and Christians.  It should also be noted that human trafficking and treatment of people as slaves also seem to take place in other parts of the world, including the Americas, Asia, and Europe. Thus, slavery has not abetted, rather, it is taking on a different coloration and modus operandi with a devastating effect in the modern era.

An important historical notation is that Islam was spread initially in Black Africa through peaceful means.  Many Black Africans voluntarily converted to the religion as they traded and intermingled with their Arab neighbors, starting from about the 8th century.  Two of the most noted African political leaders who converted to Islam were Mansa Uli and Mansa Musa 1 of the Mali Empire (Cartwright, 2019, May 10).  Although the leader of the ancient Ghana Empire did not convert to Islam, nevertheless, he tolerated Muslims in his empire. The militant form of Islamization began much later in Sub-Saharan Africa as the Muslims attempted to convert those who had already converted to Christianity, especially in Nubia, Ethiopia and some parts of East Africa.  Around the 18th century, Muslim Fulanis initiated the Islamic jihad in the Lake Chad region of Africa (Cartwright, 2019, May 10).

While the notion of two worlds, namely, the World of Peace and the World of War is no longer a pronounced facet of Islamic religion, nonetheless, Islamic jihadists continue to view the world in that regard.  This is why they are waging holy wars against non-Muslims to force them to convert to Islam.  The jihadists are aided in their goal of Islamizing the world by radical Islamic clerics. For instance, in Nigeria, a Yoruba-speaking Islamic cleric, Shafiy Adeba advocated the enslavement and violent suppression of non-Muslims. Citing sections of the Sharia, he stated unhesitatingly:

Allah said fight them, enslave them, lock them inside their homes, don’t let them go to market, don’t let them go to farm, don’t let them see the sun. It’s the Muslim who has the right to enslave the kafir, not the other way around. Anywhere you find them hiding, seal them. That’s what Allah said in the Quran. It’s always first attack. War against kafir is rooted in Islam. What I am saying is that if you refuse to implement these laws on them, they would reciprocate with theirs on you (Ojo, 2026, August 10).

Another Nigerian Islamic cleric, Sheikh Sani Jingir referred to Christians in Nigeria as infidels and openly called for a Muslim-Muslim presidential ticket in Nigeria while addressing a political gathering organized by the Jama’atu Izalatil Bid’ah Wa Iqamatus Sunnah in Kano (Isenyo and Folorunsho-Francis, 2026, August 11). Thus, Islam is irrevocably tied to the idea of converting non-Muslims by force if they do not do so voluntarily.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the following observations are made based on the four arguments enumerated above.

First, while most Muslims strongly believe that Islam is a peaceful religion, it was largely spread through wars of survival, conquest, enslavement, and colonization.  The reason is that the Islamic movement faced an existential threat from the moment of its creation. To survive, fighting grueling wars became part of the process for the institutionalization of the religion. Thus, fighting, killing, destroying, capturing and enslaving of combatants and non-combatants were routinized through series of wars. The military situation was compounded by the fact that the division of the world into the World of Peace and the World of War contributed immensely to the justification for the capturing and enslaving of millions of people in Africa, Asia and Europe.

Second, while many Muslims might say that the concept of the two worlds is no longer a pronounced facet of Islam, nevertheless, modern day militant jihadism which is directed at forcing non-Muslims to convert to Islam is a continuation of the two worlds’ concept in Islam.   The jihadists and some Islamic clerics continue to refer to non-Muslims as infidels, thereby, justifying the need to attack, subjugate, kill and enslave them just as Imam Shafiy Adeba said recently in Nigeria.

Third, while Christian and Western religious and political leaders are addressing the issues concerning the Atlantic slave trade which resulted in the mass-scale capture and enslavement of millions of Black Africans and Native Americans, Arab and Islamic leaders have not made any attempt to address the issue of the Islamic mass-scale capture and enslavement of millions of Africans, Asians and Europeans during the Eastern slave trade.

Fourth, the unwillingness of Arab and Islamic leaders to acknowledge and address the massive Islamic enslavement of millions of people means that the capturing and enslaving of non-Muslims is still an acceptable practice in Islam.  Islamic jihadists who engage in terrorist acts to force conversion of non-Muslims strongly believe that they are justified to do so because Islamic leaders have not spoken against the violence being perpetrated in Africa, Middle, and Europe.

References

Azumah, J. A. (2001).  The legacy of Arab-Islam in Africa: A quest for inter-religious dialogue.  London: Oneworld Publications.

Boddy-Evans, A. (2019, June 30).  The role of Islam in African slave trade.  Thoughtco. https://thoughtco.com/the-role-of-islam-in-african-slavery-44532

Carroll, R. (2004, Marh 11). New book reopens old arguments about slave raids on Europe. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2004/mar/11/highereducation.books.

Cartwright, M. (2019, May 10).  The spread of Islam in Ancient Africa.  Ancient History Encyclopedia. https://ancient.eu/article/1382/the-spread-of-islam-in-ancient-africa.

Collins, R. (1983). Early Medieval Spain. New York: St. Martins Press.

Constable, O. R. (1996). Trade and traders in Muslim Spain: The commercial realignment of the Iberian Peninsula. Cambridge University Press.

Eaalim Institute. (2026, April 28). The battle of the trench: When an idea defeated an army. https://eaalim.com/blogs/islamic/the-battle-of-the-trench.

Foster, C. (2006, September 22). The Conquest of Constantinople and the end of empire. Contemporary Review. The fall of Constantinople and the end of empire. – Free Online Library.

Hochschild, Adam. (2001, March 4). Human cargo:  A study of the little known slave trade in the Islamic world.  New York Times. https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/books/01/03/04/reviews/010304.04hochsct.html.

Hunwick, John. (n.d.).  Arab views of black Africans and slavery. Gilder Lehrman Center. Yale. https://glc.yale.edu/sites/default/files/events/race/Hunwick.pdf.

Isenyo, G and Folorunsho-Francis, A. (2026, August 11). APC Muslim-Muslim ticket: Cleric’s ‘infidels’ remark sparks condemnation. Punch. https://punchng.com/apc-muslim-muslim-ticket-clerics-infidels-remark-sparks-condemnation/#google_vignette.

Jacobs, C. (2018, July 16). Black slaves, Muslim masters.  Jihad Watch. https://jihadwatch.org/2018/black-slave-muslim-masters.

Lai, K. S. (1999). Theory and Practice of Muslim State in India. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://dn760000.eu.archive.org/0/items/theory-and-practice-of-muslim-state-in-india-k.-s.-lal/Theory%20And%20Practice%20Of%20Muslim%20State%20In%20India%20-%20K.%20S.%20Lal.pdf.

Lewis, B. (1970). Race and color in Islam. Harper and Row.

Moore, A. (2014, June 2).  10 facts about the Arab enslavement of black people not taught in schools.  Atlanta Black Star. https://atlantablackstar.com/2014/06/02/10-facts-about-the-arab-enslavement-of-black-people-not-thought-in-schools/.

Muslims occupy Jerusalem for 451 years until the First Crusade. (n.d.). History of Information. https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=1638.

Ojo, N. (2026, August 10). Yoruba Islamic cleric Shafiy Adeba advocates enslavement of non-Muslims, says war against Kafir is rooted in Islam. The Trumpet. https://thetrumpet.ng/yoruba-islamic-cleric-shafiy-adeba-advocates-enslavement-of-non-muslims-says-war-against-kafir-is-rooted-in-islam/#google_vignette.

Segal, R. (2002). Islam’s black slaves: The other black diaspora. (2002).  Farrar Straus & Giroux.

Slavery in Islam.  (2009, July 9).  BBC. https://bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/islam/history/slavery_1.shtm.

Vallangi, N. (2016, August 4).  India’s forgotten African tribe.  BBC. https://bbc.com/travel/story/20160801-india’s-forgotten-jungle-dwellers.

Watt. W. M. (1956). Muhammad at Medina. Oxford/Clarendon Press.

Wink, A. (1990). Al-Hind: The Making of the Indo-Islamic World, vol. 1, Early Medieval India and the Expansion of Islam, Seventh to Eleventh Centuries. Leiden.

The Nigerian – Biafran War and the Accusation of Genocide: Which Side is Liable for Such a Crime?

By Priye S. Torulagha

Introduction

Fifty-six years after the Nigerian – Biafran War (July 6, 1967, to January 15, 1970) ended, a narrative is being spread that Nigeria committed genocide during the war by carrying out a naval blockade of the Bight of Biafra/Bonny, thereby, preventing food and supplies from getting into Biafra to feed the civilian population who suffered from massive starvation, kwashiorkor and death.   Those who espoused this perspective believe that Nigeria committed genocide by intentionally preventing food supplies from getting into Biafra through the sea by blockading the coast.  As a result, a considerable number of civilians starved to death in Biafra.  Based on this reasoning, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and other leaders of Nigeria during the civil war are accused of committing genocide.

Some publications which hinted of a possible genocide during the civil war included Wole Soyinka’s The Man Died (1971), Chinua Achebe’s There was a Ccountry: A Personal History of Biafra (2012). Some social media content writers and commentators such as Prof. Ujuh Anya have no doubt that Nigeria committed genocide in cahoots with the British.  but focused their analysis of the issue exclusively on the role Nigeria played without examining the role Biafra played in precipitating some of the consequences of the blockade.   Obinna Chukwunenye Nweke explored the role social media played in generating the debate on genocide during the Nigerian civil war in his study Hunger as a Weapon of War: Biafra, Social Media and the Politics of Famine Remembrance (2023, March 1). Maureen Eke in an ongoing research study Biafran Genocide: War Trauma, and Genocide of Indigenous People (n.d.), examines the violence perpetrated by Nigeria against the Igbo people during and after the Nigerian civil war.  Morgan Ogbonna and Charles Akpuh attempted to verify the genocide question in their publication titled The Nigerian Civil War and the Question of Genocide (2025).

The Purpose of This Essay

Thus, the purpose of this essay is to examine whether the naval blockade instituted by Nigeria during the civil war resulted in genocide, and if so, determine the roles Nigerian and Biafran leadership played in contributing to the effect.  To accomplish the goal, it is argued here that it is simplistic and propagandistic to blame only one side and not the other in a conventional war involving Nigeria and Biafra without analyzing the events which occurred as the war dragged on.  It is further argued that if ‘genocide’ took place because of a naval blockade during the civil war, Biafran authorities were as equally responsible as Nigerian authorities in prolonging the war, thereby increasing starvation of the civilian population. To enhance the understanding of the subject matter, it is essential to define and explain three important theories and concepts.  They are genocide, just war doctrine, and conventional and unconventional warfare. Again, it should be noted that this study is focused on the question of whether genocide took place as a result of the naval blockade during the Nigerian – Biafran War.

What is Genocide? 

The Genocide Convention of 1948 defines geocide as “specific acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.” These acts include “killing members of such a group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and forcibly transferring children of the group to another group,” (UN Office of Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect, n.d.). It is based on this UN definition that some Nigerians concluded that Nigeria committed genocide against Igbos. However, to draw a conclusion that the naval blockade of the coast resulted in Nigeria committing genocide, it is necessary to examine the moral and ethical justifications for the actions that precipitated it.  Thus, just war theory is probably the best tool in determining the justification and conduct in fighting a war.

Just War Doctrine

The just war doctrine provides a moral and legal framework for evaluating whether war is justifiable and how it should be conducted.  This doctrine is applied through three concepts. The first is jus ad bellum which determines the justification for fighting a war. The second is Jus in bello which determines whether a war is conducted ethically. The third is jus post bellum which deals with the treatment of the vanquished after a war. 

Under Jus ad bellum concept, the justification for fighting a war includes factors such as the need to stop aggression, to correct wrong, the authority to declare war, the reason of state to protect vital interests, and the hope of success in fighting a war. Thus, to fight, it is necessary to pay attention to these factors in order to determine whether it is justifiable to do so. In terms of justification for fighting the Nigerian – Biafran War, the question is whether it was justified for Nigeria and Biafra to fight the civil war. The Nigerian government justified the war as necessary to ensure national unity and the territorial integrity of the state.  On the other hand, the Biafran government justified the need to fight to achieve self-determination and ensure the protection of lives since the Igbo people faced danger in Nigeria following the massacre of thousands of them in Northern Nigeria.

In jus in bello, factors such as the conduct of warfare as determined by whether it is a limited or total war, issues of proportionality and discriminate means are considered. Proportionality requires that the casualties and other evils of war suffered by both sides should not outweigh the good achieved by war (Johnson, pp. 101-110, 123). Discriminate means deals with the treatment of noncombatants. This requires that civilians should not be intentionally targeted during war. As a result, civilian casualties can only be tolerated as collateral damage following an attack on a legitimate target. Proportionality also weighs in evaluating the tactics and weapons being used in fighting a war. Thus, the issue of the justifiability of the Nigerian naval blockade to prevent food and supplies from getting into Biafra falls under the concept of jus in bello.  Likewise, the starvation and death of civilians following the naval blockade falls under the concept of discriminate means.  In other words, should Nigeria and or Biafra bear responsibility for the actions that followed the naval blockade?

Under jus post bellum, factors such as the treatment of the vanquished, peace and reconciliation are considered. Thus, the treatment of prisoners of war, the treatment of the civilian population, and the effort to resettle and rehabilitate the population are taken into consideration in determining the justifiability of conduct following the end of war.

Thus, both the concept of genocide and the doctrine of just war can be applied to the Nigerian civil war to determine whether both Nigeria and Biafra adhered to ethical and legal principles in fighting the civil war (Ogbonna and Akpuh, 2025).

Thus, to determine the justifiability of the naval blockade and whether genocide took place or not and if so, which side is most likely to be held liable, it is necessary to examine the conduct of the war. Why is it necessary to examine the roles played by both the Nigerian and Biafran authorities in prosecuting the war? The reason is that it takes two sides to fight a war.  Moreover, both sides contributed to the events which took place before and during the war, resulting in the deployment of naval blockade by Nigeria.

The Difference Between Conventional and Unconventional Warfare

To further determine the justifiability of fighting a war, it is necessary to know the difference between a conventional military force and an unconventional military force.  A conventional military force is a regular standing army which uses direct state-to-state and or force-to-force battle against its opponent. A conventional force is always state sponsored; hence, its fighters wear uniforms to show that it is a regular military organization that relies on standardized military weaponry and follows stipulated rules of war. It is answerable to a recognizable or legitimate political authority and has a chain of command structure.  The primary purpose of a conventional warfare is to destroy the enemy’s or opponent’s ability to fight by overwhelming it with a superior force (Fabian, 2021, April 5).   On the other hand, an unconventional military force is a non-traditional military group or organization that uses indirect means, including guerrilla tactics, subversion, covert operations, insurgency, assassinations, special operations, diversion and asymmetrical warfare (Fowler, 2019, November 4).

The members of a conventional force must always wear uniforms to identify themselves as members of a regular force while members of a non-conventional force do not necessarily have to wear a unform. A conventional force cannot mix or hide with the civilian population during war while an unconventional force often mixes with the civilian population to confuse the opponent. However, increasingly, in the modern era, some unconventional forces have metamorphosed into regular forces by wearing uniforms and fighting as regular forces. The Hezbollah military organization in Lebanon is a good example of a non-conventional force that is transitioning into a conventional force. Having identified some pertinent theories and concepts dealing with war, it is now appropriate to systematically examine whether Nigeria committed genocide or not.

The Events, Circumstances and Actions Taken By Nigeria and Biafra that Impacted the Nigerian Civil War

Both Nigerian and Biafran authorities adopted policies and took actions that instigated armed confrontation resulting in the deployment of a naval blockade.

First, when a political disagreement remains unresolved, the parties in conflict prepare for war to resolve the matter by force.  To do so, both sides generally develop strategies and tactics necessary to overwhelm the other side.  Therefore, as Nigeria and Biafra prepared to fight, the political and military leadership of both sides developed strategies and military tactics necessary to sustain the war and defeat the opponent.  Consequently, Nigeria had its plans to fight and defeat Biafra, with the hope of forcing it to reintegrate with Nigeria and Biafra had its plans to defeat Nigeria and gain independence or separate from Nigeria as a sovereign state. 

 Perhaps, to counter the creation of 12 states by Lt. Col Yakubu Gowon on May 27, 1967, Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu declared secession of the Eastern Region as the Republic of Biafra on May 30, 1967, and insisted on ensuring its self-determination. The differences in perception by the two leaders and their associates led to the Nigerian Civil war.  Thus, the Nigerian – Biafran War was declared by the legitimate political authorities of Nigeria and Biafra since the leaders made pronouncements to that effect.  Nigeria insisted on reunifying the country and ensuring its territorial integrity and Biafra insisted on gaining self-determination. Thus, under the just war doctrine, the Nigerian and Biafran authorities bore responsibility for declaring the war and leading the  war effort.

Second, part of the strategies and tactics utilized by both sides included using financial and economic means to weaken the military capability of the other side. Based on the strategies and tactics it developed to achieved self-determination, the Eastern Nigerian government, which later became the Republic of Biafra, was the first to deploy financial and economic weapons against Nigeria prior to the outbreak of hostilities.  How?  As the disagreement between the Nigerian government and the Eastern Nigerian government deepened over the terms of the Aburi Conference, the governor of the Eastern Region, Lt. Col. Ojukwu rejected Decree #8 that the federal side enacted to  discourage secession  and ordered in March 1967 that federal revenues collected in the region, especially oil royalties from Shell BP and other oil companies should not be remitted to the Federal Government but be deposited in the Eastern Nigerian treasury (Akinbode, 2025, May 30). This was followed by massive civilian demonstrations in Port Harcourt to prevent Nigerian oil tankers from loading crude oil in Brass and Bonny. Hence, Nigerian ships which came to load crude oil were forced to return to Lagos without crude oil from the Eastern Region. Thus, the Eastern Nigerian leadership intended to shipwreck Nigeria’s economy which depended on oil resource.

The seizure of federal revenues by the Eastern Nigerian Government laid the motivation for Nigeria to institute a naval blockade to prevent the Republic of Biafra from gaining access to the sea.  It also compelled Nigeria to establish a marine military division to quickly recapture the Niger Delta/South-South region and gain control of the oil wealth. As a result, the 3rd Marine Commando Division was established to facilitate the capture of the oil region and deprive Biafra of the ability to control the oil wealth as well as gain access to the sea. This Nigerian tactic was proportionate to the Biafran seizure of federal revenues and the prevention of crude oil shipment by federal ships.

Third, having realized that Nigeria had instituted a naval blockade against its access to the sea, the Biafran leadership had ample opportunity to develop countermeasures to neutralize or negate the effect and ensure the availability of food supplies to its population. The fact that Biafran authorities failed to develop a counterplan to the blockade meant that they rushed the declaration of Biafran secession without sufficient preparation for the consequences. In other words, it was inappropriate for Biafra to fight a conventional war without making adequate preparation to get supplies and food.  Thus, Nigeria could not be blamed for the Biafran failure to develop countermeasures to get food supplies for its population.  At least, it would have established a marine force to counter the naval blockade.

Fourth, the Biafran inability to develop alternative plans to get food supplies meant that it violated the jus ad bellum concept of just war by rushing to declare secession without making sufficient preparation to fight the war and sustain its population through the production of food. Nigeria cannot be blamed for the Biafran declaration of secession at the time it did without planning to obtain supplies and food for its civilian population.

Fifth, Biafra contributed to the massive starvation of civilians in the sense that it opted to fight the war conventionally. This meant that it fought Nigeria directly by engaging in face to face or toe to toe military action.  By adopting a conventional mode of fighting, Biafra established itself as a state that was capable of not only defending its territorial integrity but also taking care of its citizens. In other words, Biafra took responsibility for taking care of its citizens since it decided to fight the war conventionally. It is meaningless to blame Nigeria when Biafra adopted conventional warfare, thereby assuring its citizens and the world that it could protect its territory and provide for the people.

Thus, Nigeria would have been held totally liable if Biafra had fought the war unconventionally. Why? When a military force adopts an unconventional method of fighting, it cannot be held legally responsible for the feeding of an entire population since it operates informally as a non-state actor.  For instance, Boko Haram cannot be held responsible for taking care of the residents/citizens of Borno State because it is an unconventional force.  On the other hand, Nigeria is totally responsible for all the citizens in Borno State because Nigeria operates as a state and Boko Haram operates as a non-state.  Biafra operated as a state, thereby holding itself accountable to the security of its citizens.  Consequently, it cannot argue that Nigeria mounted naval blockade to prevent it from obtaining food supplies through Nigerian territory while fighting and killing Nigerian troops in the war to achieved self-determination.

Of course, this does not mean that the leaders of an unconventional force cannot be held responsible for committing crimes against humanity and war crimes if they violate just war principles and the Geneva Convention. In fact, many political and military commanders of non-state armed groups have been arrested and prosecuted for war crimes for brutalizing and killing civilians by the International Criminal Court (ICC). For instance, former Bosnian Serb leader, Radovan Karadzic was found guilty of genocide for the murder of more than 7500 Muslim men and boys in the 1992 -1995 Bosnian War (“Radovan Karadzic: Former Bosnian Serb leader,” (2016, March 24). Other personalities who were caught, tried and found guilty of committing genocide and other war crimes in the Yugoslavian conflicts included military commander Ratko Mladic, Bosnian Serb general Radislav Krstic, a Bosnian Serb doctor Milan Kovacevic, and so forth (PBS Frontline, (n.d.).  

 In Africa, some political and military leaders of non-state armed groups who have been convicted of war crimes included Commander Dominic Ongwen of the Sinia Brigade of the Lord’s Resistance Army, Bosco Ntaganda, former leader of Union of Congolese Patriots of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) who was convicted by the International Criminal Court (ICC) of 18 counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity, former Liberian President Charles Taylor was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, the Commander-in-Chief of the Union of Congolese Patriots who was convicted of war crimes and the recruitment of children into his armed group. Other Africans who have been convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity included Ali Muhammad Ali Abd-Al-Rahman (“Ali Kushayb), Patrice-Edouard Ngaïssona, Alfred Yekatom, German Katanga, former President of Sudan, Omar al Bashire.  These are only a few of the number of Africans who led armed groups and were charged for war crimes and prosecuted by the ICC. However, in the case of the Nigerian civil war, it was the responsibility of the Biafran state to provide food for its citizens while fighting a conventional war against Nigeria and vice versa.

Sixth, since both Nigeria and Biafra fought the war conventionally, there is no doubt that both sides developed military strategies and tactics to defeat or overwhelm the other, as indicated earlier. For Nigeria, a naval blockade was one of the tactics deployed to force Biafra to capitulate so that the war does not drag on.  This is understandable since no country would like to fight an endless war. Hence, countries which are fighting a war deploy tactics that might contribute to defeating the opponent to end the war quickly and reduce the cost and suffering. As a result, in almost every conventional war, various forms of economic tactics are deployed, including naval blockades and economic sanctions. Therefore, it was not unusual for Nigeria to mount naval blockade as a tactic to facilitate quick victory by forcing Biafra to surrender or sue for negotiation to end the conflict. Nigerian military rulers rationalized that economic and food hardship would compel Biafran military authorities to call an end to the war but that did not take place. The mass starvation did not persuade Biafran authorities to call for an end to the war, instead, they continued to fight, thereby, exposing its citizens to hunger and death.

There are historical instances to cite to show how states use economic and financial resources to force their opponents to give up or negotiate an end to a conflict. The United States has mounted economic sanctions against Cuba since October 19, 1960, during President Dwight Eisenhower’s administration to force it to change its political system.  Cuba responded by refusing to give in to the sanctions by developing countermeasures to overcome the sanction. By refusing to comply with U.S. demands, Cuba was and continues to be totally responsible for ensuring that its citizens survive the sanctions and not the US. Likewise, North Korea has suffered from global economic sanctions for over seventy years.  First, the US mounted total sanctions against the country in 1950.  The United Nations joined the US to initiate comprehensive sanctions against North Korea in 2006 (Davenport, January 2022).  By refusing to comply with the demand to liberalize its governmental system and stop its nuclear bomb program, it is solely responsible for maintaining its territorial integrity and sustaining its citizens’ wellbeing. It cannot blame the world for the suffering of its citizens since it does not want to comply with the demands of the world.

Since Biafra refused to capitulate despite the hunger that severely affected the civilian population as food supplies dwindled, Nigeria cannot be blamed for the Biafran continuation of the war.  Biafran leaders knew that mass starvation was taking place, yet they continued to insist on fighting the war.  Under the just war doctrine, if the political authority of a state at war continues to insist on fighting while its civilian population is suffering massively from hunger and dying in the process, the leadership of that state could be held responsible for starving its own population.

Seventh, to avoid being held responsible for causing deaths of thousands or millions of people due to starvation, it is always the case that military commanders of conventional forces often surrender when they realize that they are running out of weapons, equipment and food.  For instance, when Germany invaded the Soviet Union during the 2nd World War in 1941, and Soviet commanders at the war front realized that they could not continue to fight effectively since the Germans had blocked their means of getting reinforcement and supplies, they surrendered to save the lives of their soldiers.  Hence, hundreds of thousands of Soviet soldiers surrendered to the German forces. For instance, in the Bialystok – Minsk front in July 1941, hundreds of thousands of Soviet troops were encircled by German forces and they surrendered.  In Smolensk front, German encirclement led to the surrendering of thousands of Soviet troops.  In Kiev in September 1941, about 600,000 Soviet troops either surrendered or were killed. On the Vyazma – Bransk front in October 1941, 600,000 Soviet troops surrendered to the German forces (Royde-Smith, 2026, June 15).  

When the tide of war changed as the German forces advanced to capture Moscow and Stalingrad (St. Petersburg), they fought very hard but could not capture Moscow and retreated. In Stalingrad, about 300,000 German troops of the Sixth Army were encircled and destroyed.  About 91,000 German troops surrendered in February 1943, including 22 generals.  It should be noted that even German Field Marshal Frederich Wilhem Ernst Paulus surrendered on January 31, 1943, in Stalingrad when he realized that German forces had been surrounded and they lacked food and resources to continue fighting.     He ordered his generals to stop fighting even though Adolf Hitler had commanded him to continue fighting. At the end of the war, the Soviet Union had 3 million German troops as prisoners of war (Hanson, 2020. It should also be noted that in the First Persian Gulf War (1991- 1992), when President Saddam Hussien realized the overwhelming nature of the international force that was mobilized against its occupation of Kuwait, he ordered Iraqi troops to withdraw.  Thousands of Iraqi troops surrendered in realization that they could not overcome the international force led by the United States (McDonald, 1999). Therefore, Biafran authorities would have called for a negotiated end to the conflict and save lives when they realized that the Nigerian naval blockade was causing massive hunger among civilians, but they failed to do so.

Eighth, Isaac Adaka Boro, Samuel Owonaro, Nottingham Dick, and their colleagues declared the Niger Delta Republic (NDR) on February 23, 1966. The declaration of secession was a declaration of war against Nigeria.  Hence, Nigeria reacted by sending troops and Mobile Police Force to the Niger Delta to stop the secession.  Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, the military governor of the Eastern Region dispatched Nigerian troops on behalf of the Federal Government to squash the secession. Isaac Boro and members of the Niger Delta Volunteer Service (NDVS) used unconventional war strategy to fight.  However, as the leader of the NDVS, he knew that he did not have the military capability to defeat Nigeria and he did not want the civilian population to suffer for the actions of the NDVS. As a result, through persuasion of Ijaw leaders, he surrendered and ended the conflict after twelve days.  Thus, Isaac Boro and his colleagues adhered to the concept of proportionality and discriminate means of the fust war doctrine by surrendering and bearing responsibility for declaring the secession of the Niger Delta. He and his colleagues were sentenced to death for committing treason but was pardoned by Gen. Yakubu Gowon.

A little more than a year after sending Nigerian troops to squash Boro’s secession, Lt. Col. Ojukwu too declared secession on May 30, 1967.  Thus, his declaration of secession amounted to a declaration of war against Nigeria, just as Isaac Adaka Boro did.  However, his actions resulted in a bloody civil war that claimed about 1 to 2 million lives.  Unlike Isaac Boro who surrendered to reduce the suffering of the people, Lt. Col. Ojukwu did not surrender or call for the cessation of hostilities as hunger bit deeper in Biafra.  He continued to fight on, and the prolongation of the war caused more deaths due to hunger and suffering.  It is indeed ironic that Isaac Boro and his colleagues who surrendered were sentenced to death during Maj. Gen. Johnson Aguiyi Ironsi regime for committing treason and Lt. Col. Ojukwu and Biafran leaders who committed treason did not face any trial after so many people lost their lives. Thus, Isaac Boro and Lt. Col. Ojukwu committed the same offence but ended up with different outcomes.

Ninth, it should not be forgotten that before the war erupted, Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu stated boldly that “no power in Black Africa could defeat Biafra,” (Nwokeji, 1994, December 26).  The statement indicated that Biafran authorities were fully equipped and ready to fight a conventional war.  By making such a statement, it meant that the Republic of Biafra had strategized and planned effectively to reinforce its military capability and provide for the wellbeing of Biafran citizens.  Since he asserted that no power in Black Africa could defeat Biafra, then why blamed Gen. Yakubu Gowon, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, and other Nigerian leaders for the Biafran inability to counter Nigerian naval blockade and stop starvation from taking place?

Tenth, it should be recalled that some Biafran military officers and a civilian diplomat felt that the war was not winnable and suggested the need to negotiate an end to the conflict around August or September 1967.  They included Maj. Emmanuel Ifeajuna, Maj. Philip Alale, and Mr. Sam Agbam.  The suggestion for a possible negotiation to end the war to stop the suffering of civilians was treated as a treasonable offence and they were hurriedly tried, found guilty and executed on September 27, 1967 (Oliver, 2014, July 13).  Lt. Col Victo Banjo met the same fate for suggesting ideas that did not meet the expectations of the Biafran leadership. The fact that these officers knew very early that the war was not winnable and suggested a possible negotiation with Nigeria to end the conflict meant that Biafran authorities did not care much about the suffering of the civilians.  As a result, Biafra continued to fight the war as hunger crept in and claimed many lives.  The fact that the suggestion for a negotiated end to the war was not heeded by Biafran authorities meant that they were directly responsible for causing starvation by prolonging the war. It is inappropriate to blame Nigeria for genocide when Biafran authorities did not pay much attention to the plight of the civilians who were dying of starvation for lack of food.  As stated earlier, it is the responsibility of the political authorities in a war situation to ensure that civilians do not die unnecessarily.  Under the just war doctrine, this falls under the principle of proportionality. In this case, Biafran authorities were willing to tolerate a large proportion of civilian deaths from hunger by continuing to fight.  Otherwise, the Biafran head of state would have accepted the suggestion made by Maj. Ifeajuna and his colleagues to lay the groundwork for ending the war in late 1967.  Likewise, the principle of discriminate means was also violated by the Biafran authorities for disregarding the massive hunger and death that were taking place as the war dragged on.

In terms of strategic thinking, the best time that Biafran authorities would have made effort to end the war was when Biafran forces captured the Mid-West region on August 9, 1967. The occupation of the region strengthened Biafra’s bargaining position.  Thus, if the Biafran leadership had listened to Maj. Ifeajuna and his colleagues and quickly laid the framework to end hostilities, fewer deaths would have taken place.  Unfortunately, the Biafran leadership missed such a great strategic opportunity.   Luckily, a second opportunity to negotiate from the position of strength occurred again when Biafran forces recaptured Owerri on April 25, 1969.  Unfortunately, the Biafran leadership did not use the opportunity to negotiate an end to the war. The two failures meant that Biafran authorities wanted to continue fighting even though they knew that the war was not winnable.  The failure to seize the opportunity to act to end the conflict could be said to have violated the principles of proportionality and discriminate means.

Eleventh. It should be noted that the Nigeria Military Government agreed to reduce the impact of the naval blockade by negotiating with international humanitarian organizations to open daily air and road corridors to allow food supplies into Biafra.  The humanitarian organizations which negotiated with Nigeria included the Joint Church Aid (JCA), led by the Council of Churches and Caritas Internationalis, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Concern Worldwide, and other national and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) which negotiated for road corridors and daily mercy flights to drop food but the Biafran leader and some Biafran miliary commanders rejected the offer, fearing that such corridors would have enabled the  Nigerian military to penetrate Biafran defenses and threaten the Biafran state. The Biafran leadership raised objection to the idea of road corridors and daily mercy flights on the ground that the food and medicine could be poisoned by the Nigerian military. The leadership also opposed the suggestion for daily flights on the ground that such arrangement could have provided opportunity for Nigeria to bombard Biafran positions (Bello, 2021, June 21). Instead, Biafran authorities preferred the risky night flights that brought relief materials from Sao Tome and other places. Some analysts believed that Biafran authorities objected to the road corridors and daily mercy flights because the two options would have made it difficult for Biafra to clandestinely obtain arms to fight the war. On the other hand, Nigeria objected to the night flights on the ground that such flights would have allowed Biafra to import arms.  It should be noted that when a Swedish Red Cross plane was shot down or crashed in 1969, Nigerian authorities found out that the plane was piloted by mercenaries and criticized the humanitarian organizations for allowing mercenaries to fly in arms (Adekilekun, 2026, January 12). Nigeria blamed the clandestine flights for prolonging the war and increasing suffering and death.

Twelfth, it should be recalled that the situation became unbearable in Biafra to the extent that Chief/Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe too was terrified of the horror that was befalling civilians as starvation, kwashiorkor, and death afflicted the population while the war dragged on.  Consequently, while he was a member of a Biafran diplomatic peace team to the Organization of African Union (OAU0 in Algeria in August 1969, he left the team and flew to Europe and ended in London to encourage unification of Nigeria. He met Liberian President William Tubman who arranged a meeting with Gen. Gowon.  President Tubman assisted greatly in setting up the process for negotiating an end to the conflict (Duruiheoma, 2024, March 29). In fact, Dr. Zik visited most of the states’ capitals in Nigeria and spoke about ending the war and establishing conditions for reconciliation.  The fact that Dr. Azikiwe opposed continuing the war clearly showed that the Biafran authorities were liable for bearing responsibility for causing mass starvation. Otherwise, they would have done what many political leaders and military commanders have done, including Isaac Boro, to surrender or negotiate an end to the conflict.

It should be noted that Col. Ojukwu even put Dr. Azikiwe under house arrest in Portugal after inviting him there.   Two security men kept watching every move or action that Dr. Zik took.  Dr. Azikiwe managed to slip away and flew to London. Former Senator Jim Nwobodo narrated the story:

Ojukwu had invited Zik to a meeting in Portugal and when he arrived, he detailed two security operatives around Zik. Anywhere Zik went, those men were around him, giving information about where he went, what he did and said.  Zik told me he didn’t want to do that but because he didn’t know why Ojukwu should ask him to come overseas and keep two security men around him. He wasn’t a thief, he wasn’t a criminal. Why should he do that? (Duruiheoma, 2024, March 29).

Dr. Azikiwe was even accused of being a saboteur for attempting to bring an end to the conflict.  It got to a point where Onisha people were accused of betraying the Republic of Biafra because both Maj. Ifeajuna and Dr. Zik the sons of Onisha. This created tension between Onitsha people and other Biafrans.   

Thirteenth, did Nigeria intend to destroy, in whole or in part the Igbos? The answer is no, as far as the naval blockade is concerned. The reason is that Nigeria made sure that all civilians in the recaptured areas were duly fed and provided accommodations.  Thus, if Nigeria had failed to provide food and protective accommodation to those civilians and prisoners of war, then the argument that Nigeria engaged in genocide would have been proven beyond doubt, in terms of the naval blockade. The Northern and Asaba massacres of Igbos had nothing to do with the naval blockade, which is the focus of this paper.

Fourteenth, based on the points noted above, it was obvious that Nigeria did not intend to exterminate the Igbo people by instituting a naval blockade. It wanted to end the war very quickly by compelling Biafran authorities to give up the secession, thereby minimizing the number of civilian casualties. Unfortunately, the starvation and death of civilians were an unintended consequence of the delay in bringing the war to an end (Ohadike, 1994).  Nigeria demonstrated that it did not want to exterminate the Igbos by first initiating a police action to persuade Biafran authorities to stop the secession.  The Biafran resistance to the police action led to a full-blown war.

Fifteen, it was widely reported that a sizable proportion of food supplies that got into Biafra were allegedly diverted to feed the military and not sufficiently distributed to the civilian population to mitigate starvation.  The allegation was magnified when Biafra surrendered on January 15, 1970, and many of the soldiers, especially the officers, looked well-fed while the civilian population looked emaciated and sick.

Summary and Conclusion.

First, it was the Eastern Nigerian authorities which initiated a financial and economic sanction against Nigeria when federal revenues in the Eastern Region were seized and deposited in the region’s treasury instead of being sent to the federal treasury. Second, Nigeria responded by instituting a naval blockade as a countermeasure to weaken Biafran ability to sustain its military capability. The blockade inadvertently also resulted in stopping food supplies to Biafra through the sea. Third, Nigeria hoped to cripple the Biafran ability to continue fighting by instituting the blockade so that Biafra would sue for a negotiated end to the conflict.  Contrary to the Nigerian expectation, Biafra insisted on fighting even though the food situation was increasingly unbearable as millions of civilians starved and many died. Fourth, Biafran authorities failed to call for an end to the conflict even though they knew that Biafra could not win the war. The failure to initiate a plan to end the conflict tended to violate both the jus ad bellum and jus in bello concepts of the just war doctrine because the benefit of continuing to fight was outweighed by the massive suffering that took place due to starvation. Fifth, some Biafran officers who realized that the war was not winnable called for a negotiated settlement of the conflict to stop mass starvation but were arrested, hurriedly tried for treason and executed for supposedly betraying the Biafran cause. The execution of those officers meant that Biafran authorities did not pay sufficient attention to the starvation that was afflicting the civilian population.  The failure to pay attention to mass starvation was a violation of the principle of jus in bello. Sixth, when Chief/Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe changed his perspectives about Biafra and decided to lay the groundwork for a negotiated end to the war, Col. Odumegwu Ojukwu and some Biafran officials viewed him as a traitor. Hence, he was put under surveillance and he managed to escape to Europe. Thus, the Biafran opposition to Dr. Azikiwe’s peace efforts showed a violation of the just war doctrine and encouraged the perpetuation of mass starvation and death. It was Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, working through Liberian President Wiliam Tubman who helped to lay the groundwork for a negotiated end to the Nigerian – Biafran war and not the leadership of Biafra.  Seventh, perhaps, unintended, it was the Biafran leadership which encouraged mass starvation and death of hundreds of thousands of civilians by refusing to acknowledge that the war was not winnable yet continued to fight thereby prolonging the suffering in Biafra.

In conclusion, Nigeria did not show or demonstrate any effort to exterminate the Igbos or engage in genocide through naval blockade. It first initiated a police action to persuade Biafran authorities from seceding.  The Biafran resistance to the police action led to a full-blown war. As the war progressed, Nigerian authorities even agreed to allow humanitarian organizations to carry out daily mercy flights to supply foods to Biafra. Nigeria also agreed to open road corridors to allow food supplies, but the Biafran leadership rejected the plans and opted to go with clandestine night flights which included the supply of weapons as well as food. Consequently, Biafran authorities seemed to bear a greater responsibility in creating an environment which prolonged the war, thereby contributing to severe starvation and deaths of many civilians.

References

Adekilekun, A. (2026, January 12). Biafra airlift shock: The night flights that changed war, faith, and survival. Historical Nigeria. The Night Flights That Changed War, Faith, and Survival.

Ayorinde, A. (2025, May 30). Why Ojukwu declared the Republic of Biafra on May 30, 1967.Historyville. Why Ojukwu declared the Republic of Biafra on May 30, 1967 – HistoryVille.

Bello, T. (2021, June 21). Ojukwu’s Biafra: Relief corridor, arms smuggling, and broken diplomacy in the Nigerian civil war. War & Society: Vol 40, No 3. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07292473.2021.1942625.

Davenport, K (2022, January). U.N. Security Council resolutions on North Korea. Arms Control Association. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/un-security-council-resolutions-north-korea.

Duruiheoma, D. (2024, March 29). How Zik ended Biafra war, by Nwobodo. The nation. https://thenationonlineng.net/how-zik-ended-biafra-war-by-nwobodo/#google_vignette.

Eke, M. (n.d.). Biafran genocide: War, trauma, and genocide of indigenous people. Oceanic Conference on International Studies. Biafran Genocide: War, Trauma, and Genocide of Indigenous People – 2025 OCIS.

Fabian, S., 2021, April 5). Irregular versus conventional warfare: A dichotomous misconception. modern war.

Fowler, M. (2019, November 4). The rise of the present unconventional character of warfare. The Strategy Bridge.

D. C. Ohadike, (1994). Anioma; A Social history of the western Igbo people” Athens: Ohio University Press.

Hanson, V. D. (2020). The Second World Wars: How the first global conflict was fought and won. New York: Basic Books.

Johnson, J. T. (2016). Just war tradition and the restraint of war, Princeton University Press.

Lee, Y. S. (2018). International isolation and regional inequality: Evidence from sanctions on North Korea. Journal of Urban Economics, 103, pp. 34 – 51.

McDonald, J. A. (1999). After Desert Storm: The United States Army and the reconstruction of Kuwait. Department of the Army. Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office.

Nweke, O. C. (2023, March 1). Hunger as a weapon of war: Biafra, social media and the politics of famine remembrance. Taylor & Francis. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/01436597.2023.2182283#abstract

Nwokeji, G. U. (1994, December 26). The necessity of the Biafran war. Google Group. https://groups.google.com/g/usaafricadialogue/c/9b4QZDOaFhM.

Ogbonna, M. and Akpuh, C. (2025). The Nigerian civil war and the question of genocide. Nigerian Journal of Arts and Humanities, Vol. 5 No 2.

Oliver, B. (2014, July 13). Emmanuel Ifeajuna, Commonwealth Games gold to facing a firing squad. The Guardian.

PBS Frontline. (n.d.). Indicting the leaders. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/karadzic/trial/indicted.html.

Radovan Karadzic: Former Bosnian Serb leader. (2016, March 24). BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-19960285.

Royde-Smith, J. (2026, June 15). Later actions in Operation Barbarossa. Britannica. Operation Barbarossa – Nazi Invasion, Soviet Defenses, Consequences | Britannica.

The U.S. Army Special Forces Unconventional Warfare Training Manual. (2011, March 3). U.S. Army.

United Nations Office of Genocide Prevention and the Responsibility to Protect. (n.d.). Definition of genocide and related crimes. https://www.un.org/en/genocide-prevention/definition.

The Catholic Church’s Edicts Which Justified the Conquest, Enslavement, and Colonization of Non-Christian Societies

The Catholic Church’s Edicts Which Justified the Conquest, Enslavement, and Colonization of Non-Christian Societies

By Priye S. Torulagha

It is inferable that a large segment of the global population is not conscious of the fact that Islam and Christianity are responsible for the industrial-scale, commercialized mass enslavement of people, especially Black Africans and Native Americans. For the Christian Church, sections of the Bible provided the justification for conquering, enslaving and colonizing non-believers. The Quran (Koran) also provides justification for Islamic conquest, enslavement and colonization of non-believers.

Both religions also share a biblical story about Noah and his three sons resulting in the supposed justification for the enslavement of Blacks. In Genesis 9 – 18-29, the story is told about Noah’s drunkenness and nakedness.  One of his sons, Ham, saw the father drunk and naked. He told his two brothers (Shem and Japheth) about their father’s nakedness without covering him with cloth. His two brothers avoided seeing their father’s nakedness and covered him up. When Noah woke up from his drunken stupor, he cursed the son of Ham, which is his grandson, Canaan, by saying that he shall be a servant to his two brothers, Shem and Japheth. In Genesis 9:25, it is stated “Cursed be Canaan! A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren.”

 This story is twisted by some racists and fundamentalist Christians, Jews, and Muslims to mean that Blacks are cursed to be slaves to Whites and Asians. Why? Because of the belief that Blacks descended from Ham through Canaan while Whites and some Asians descended from Japheth and the Jews, other Semites, and some Asians descended from Shem (“What is the origin of the Japanese and Chinese Peoples? A Biblical perspective, n.d.). This story is responsible for why Black people are viewed as inferior, disrespected, and discriminated in most parts of the world. Most Black African Christians and Muslims do not realize that a statement in the Bible is responsible for the predicament Blacks faced in the world.

A Chronological Listing of the Christian Edicts which Led to Slavery

In this write up, the focus is on the Christian edicts or papal bulls which justified the conquest, enslavement and colonization of the non-Christian world.

This is an abbreviated chronological listing of the edicts which resulted in the enslavement of African people and the mass killings and destruction of Native Americans in the Americas.

1. Pope Nicholas V issued papal bull “Dum Diversas” on June 18, 1452, which declared: “We grant you (kings of Spain and Portugal) by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture and subjugate the Saracens (Muslims) and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, countries, principalities and other property…And to reduce their persons into perpetual slavery (Browne, 2011, July 27).

2. Pope Nicholas V went further and issued the Romanus Pontifex of 1455 which gave Portugal exclusive rights to the territories along the West African coastline.

 a.  Thus, Portugal was given the right to invade, plunder and “reduce their persons to perpetual slavery” of non-Christian societies (Elliott & Hughes, 2019, July 19). Even Arabs felt victim to this edict and also suffered from slavery.

b. The Romanus Pontifex was an official proclamation or edict by the Christian Church, authorizing the conquest and enslavement of non-Christians.

3. Pope Alexander VI issued the “Inter Caetera in 1493.

NB:  It authorized the Christian nations of Portugal and Spain to attack, conquer, loot, enslave, and colonize non-Christian territories.

4.Thus, Pope Alexander VI simply extended the decrees or edicts issued by Pope Nicholas V by dividing the non-Christian world into two and giving the Christian nations of Portugal and Spain the right to invade, pillage, conquer, and enslave the non-Christian populations of the territories. 

5. Portugal was given an area stretching from the Cape Verde and running around Africa through India to China.  This is why Portugal was the first country to visit the West African coastline. Spain ended up colonizing the entire Americas.

6. The Treaty of Tordesillas of June 7, 1494: Portugal felt that Spain benefited more than it in the sharing of the non-Christian world and called for a renegotiation of the division of the world.  The renegotiation resulted in shifting the boundary 370 leagues or 1185 miles westward from Cape Verde.  The shifting of the boundary resulted in Brazil coming under Portuguese control (Campbell, n.d.).  This is why throughout Latin America, only Brazilians speak Portuguese language while other Latin Americans speak Spanish.

7.  When other European countries realized that Portugal and Spain had become very rich from conquering, exploiting and colonizing various non-Christian territories, other European countries developed interest in embarking on their own effort to conquer and colonize.  It was Portugal which initiated a European conference.  The conference was held in Berlin, Germany, hence, the name ‘Berlin Conference.’ The Berlin Conference took place from1884 to1885, involving Belgium, Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal and Spain.  They eventually divided, conquered and colonized Africa. Thus, Western colonization of Africa, sections of Asia, Pacific Islands, and the Americas are a product of the Christian edicts authorizing the conquest, enslavement and colonization of the non-Christian world.

8. The Spanish Conquistadors laid waste to the indigenous population of the Americas. Native Americans also died in their millions through diseases that the European brought to the Americas, especially smallpox.

 It should be noted that Portugal and Spain benefited immensely from the proclamations of the Roman Catholic popes. Thus, Portugal was the first European country to visit West Africa because it was given the power to conquer and colonize the region. Quite often, West African history books do not generally indicate why the Portuguese were the first Europeans to visit West Africa.

9. It should be noted that the Christian Church engaged in mass killings of people in Europe and encouraged the mass enslavement of Africans and Native Americans because there are sections of the Bible which justify the conquest, killing, looting, enslaving and raping.  This is why in the past; it was common for ideologically committed Christians to carry out attacks against non-Christians. The Germans and Jews paid dearly during the Christian crusades, inquisitions, and the burning of suspected witches to death. 

10.  The “Ghetto” originated from the Christian effort to segregate non-Christians in Europe, especially in Venice Thus, the Venetian Ghetto came into being in 1516 when Christian authorities segregated the Jews in a walled island to separate them from the Christians.  The model of separating the Jews from Christians was adopted in Frankfurt, Rome, and Prague by Christian authorities in the 15th and 16th centuries.  During the 2nd World War, the Nazis forced the Jews to live in ghettos to separate them from the German people.

Sections of the Bible which Justify Slavery, Servitude, Mass  Killing, and Raping of People

In this part of the write up, various sections of the Bible which justify slavery, mass killings, sexual attacks are listed.

The sections of the Bible which justify slavery:

  1. Exodus 21: 2-8 For Example

       a.  Exodus 21: 2 reads “If thou buy Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in              the seven year he shall go out free for nothing.”

b.  Exodus 21:7 reads “And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.”

c.  Exodus 21:8 reads “If she please not her master, who had betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell to a strange nation, he shall have no power…”

Sections of the Bible which Justify Sexual Enslavement

  1. Exodus 21:7-11 deals with sex slavery
  2. Ephesians 6: 5
  3. Timothy 1, 6: 1-2
  4. Luke 12: 47-48 justify beating a servant
  5. Zechariah 14:1-2 deal with sexual enslavement

The sections of the Bible which Justify killings and Murder

  1. Judges 21:10-24 

a. Judges 21: 10 reads “And the congregation sent thither twelve thousand men of the valiantest, and commanded them, saying, Go and smite the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with women and children.”

b.  Judges 21: 11 reads “And this is the thing that he shall do, Ye shall utterly destroy every male, and every woman that hath lain by man.”

Sections of the Bible that deals with Killing and Destruction

       1. Deuteronomy 17:12

       2.  Deuteronomy 13:13-19

  1. Deuteronomy 20: 13-17 Mass killing and destruction
  2. Deuteronomy 22: 20-21
  3. Chronicles 2, 15:12-13 Killing of nonbelievers
  4. Isaiah 13:15-18 Killing of babies and rape

Thus, just as the Bible provides guidance for those seeking heavenly salvation, it also provides brutal ways of invading, conquering, destroying, killing, and sexually assaulting people.  Hence, in Christian history, there have been occasions in which Christians applied biblical methods to inflict death and destruction on non-believers and Christians who did not tow the Roman Catholic perspective. This resulted in the mass killings of Christians known as the Cathars.  A reading of the history of the Christian crusades, inquisitions and excommunications shows clearly the bitter experiences of people in Europe, Middle East, and the Americas in the hands of Christians, stretching for centuries. In fact, the Europeans got tired of the violent and murderous Christian crusades and inquisitions, hence, launched the European Renaissance from the 14th to the 17th centuries.  The Renaissance resulted in the separation of church and state. It also led to the emergence of secular humanism.

Thankfully, while the Roman Catholic pope has acknowledged the atrocities committed in the past and rendered an apology, the Arab/Islamic world is yet to acknowledge the role  it played in mass enslavement of Black Africans, Asians and Europeans.

References

AD 1493:  The Pope asserts rights to colonize, convert, and enslave. (n.d.).  Timeline.  Retrieved September 26, 2019, from https://www.nim.nih.org/nativevoices/timeline/171.html.

Campbell, H. (n.d.).  Treaty of Tordesillas.  Britannica Encyclopedia.  Retrieved September 26, 2019, from https://www.britannica.com/event/Treaty-of-Tordesillas.

Elliott, M. & Hughes, J. (2019, August 19).  We’ve got to tell the unvarnished story.  The New York Times.  Retrieved September 26, 2019, from https://www.nytimes.cominteractive/2019/08/19/magazine/history-slavery-smithsonian.html.

What is the origin of the Japanese and Chinese Peoples? A Biblical perspective. Free Bible. Biblical Origins of Chinese and Japanese Peoples: A Historical Perspective | Free Bible.

The Source of Easter

Priye S. Torulagha

Quite often, members of the global religious community, especially Christians and Muslims, tend to stereotype traditional/indigenous religions as paganistic and idol worshipping without realizing that every religion in the world is a product of its culture.

When the Roman Empire adopted Christianity as the official religion of the empire in 380 CE through the Edict of Thessalonica, the Christians worked frantically to persuade Europeans to convert to Christianity. At that time, many Europeans viewed the religion as a foreign religion that was culturally not palatable to their religious taste. Hence, the Europeans rebuffed the effort and continued their pre-Christian religious practices.

Therefore, to spread Christianity, the Catholic Church adopted various strategies, including incorporating pre-Christian pagan traditions. It seems that Pope Gregory I was the first church leader to encourage the adoption of pagan ways. But Pope Gregory III was the leader who decisively adopted pre-Christian practices. As a result, apart from Christmas Day on December 25, Easter was also adopted.

Easter originated from a pre-Christian Sumerian/Jewish religious tradition of Passover that was modified. The word “Easter” is derived from the Babylonian pagan goddess Astarte or Ishtar (goddess of heaven or of fertility). The Greeks had a goddess known as Demeter with a spring festival to honor her. The ancient Anglo-Saxons referred to her as Eastre or Eostre, the goddess of dawn and new beginning/fertility which reflected change in season from winter to spring (Aust, 2006, April 2). A festival was held in her honor during the vernal equinox (the point where the sun passes above the earth’s equator from the south to the north) as a way to celebrate the coming of spring, around April. It should be noted that the Anglo-Saxons referred to the month of April as Easter month (Eosturmonath).

The Christians adopted the paganistic spring festival to celebrate the spiritual rebirth of Jesus Christ after the Good Friday (Robinson, 2012, March 26). It was a tactical move to increase conversion, and it was effective in attracting converts. Today, Christianity is the major religion in Europe, but some Europeans continue to celebrate the pre-Christian religious festivals by honoring Eostre which is also referred to as Ostara.

There are some Christian scholars who do not agree with the view that there was a goddess named Eostre, instead, maintain that Eostre refer to the sun rise rather than a goddess (Bennett, 2025, April 19). Despite the opposition, the similarity between the Christian celebration of Easter and the pre-Christian celebration of either Astarte or Ishtar in the Mediterranean region and Eostre of the Anglo-Saxons is profound. Likewise, the pre-Christians used egg as a symbol to represent fertility, resurrection, and renewal or new beginning during the celebration of Eostre and the early Christian used it as symbol to represent Jesus’s resurrection during Easter. This shows that the Christians adopted the pre-Christian tradition from pre-Christian religious traditions.

References

Aust, J. (2006, April 2). What are the real origins of Easter? Beyond Today. Retrieved May 3, 2017. from https://www.ucg.org/ the-good-news/what-are-the-real-origins-of-easter.

Bennett, J. (2025, April 19). Eostre: Is the pagan origin of Easter a fabrication? Viking Herald. https://thevikingherald.com/article/eostre-is-the-pagan-origin-of-easter-a-complete-fabrication/1166.

Robinson, B. A. (2012, March 26). Easter: Its pagan origins. Religious Tolerance. Retrieved April 1, 2015, from http://www.religioustol- erance.org/easter1.htm.

The Archeologist. (2023, August 24. Uncovering the Origins of Easter: From Pagan Tradiions to Christian Beliefs. https://www.thearchaeologist.org/blog/uncovering-the-origins-of-easter-from-pagan-traditions-to-christian-beliefs.

The Christian Adoption of December 25 as a Christmas Day

By Priye S. Torulagha

The December 25, which is known as Christmas Day, is a pre-Christian (Pagan) religious festival which the Roman Catholic Church adopted and institutionalized as a Christian religious festival.

It was the day in which adherents of pre-Christian religions in the Middle East and Europe celebrated the winter solstice. During the occasion, the adherents honored their deities and feasted in a celebratory mood. For instance, the Jews celebrated the Festival of Light; the Germans celebrated the Yule; the Celts honored the deity Balder; the Scandinavians celebrated the sun god, and the Romans celebrated the Festival of Saturnia, where gifts were shared and given to the poor (Graves, 2007, June).

To understand why the Christian Church adopted December 25 as a Christmas Day, it is necessary to briefly explain the history and reason. It should be noted that the first time Christians were legally allowed to practice their religion in the Roman Empire was in 311 CE through the Edict of Serdica. This freedom was limited to the Eastern Roman Empire by Emperor Galerius. During this time, the Roman Empire was divided into the Eastern Roman Empire based in Constantinople and the Western Roman Empire based in Rome. This meant that the Roman Empire had two emperors, one ruled in Constantinople and the other based in Rome.

Then, Emperor Constantine I, after negotiating with Emperor Licinius, formally legalized Christianity through the Edict of Milan in 313 CE.  This allowed Christians to openly practice Christianity without having to hide or be persecuted. Then in 325 CE, Emperor Constantine invited various Christian leaders to a conference in Nicaea.  Three hundred bishops attended the conference which came to be known as the Council of Nicaea.  It was in the Council of Nicaea that the official doctrine of Christianity was adopted. Thus, the Council of Nicaea formalized the doctrine of Christianity and the establishment of the Nicene Creed.  It was also in this council that Jesus Christ was deified not only as a son of God but as a manifestation of God.   

Having legalized Christianity, Emperor Constantine encouraged the widespread acceptance of the religion among Roman citizens. However, many Romans objected to Christianity and refused to convert to the religion.  On the other hand, they eagerly celebrated their paganistic religious festivals, including the winter solstice on December 25. To encourage more people to adopt Christianity, Christian leaders decided to adopt some pagan rituals and festivals to encourage more people to convert to the religion.  Thus, in 336 CE, Pope Julius I officially sanctioned the acceptance of December 25 as a Christmas Day.  Thereafter, the festival which was associated with the winter solstice was now declared as the birthday of Jesus Christ, hence the Christmas Day. Before 336, there was no celebration of December 25 as a Christmas Day. The adoption of December 25 helped to increase the spread of Christianity in the Roman part of Europe.

Eventually, in 380 CE, Emperor Theodosius enacted the Edict of Thessalonica which made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

It should be noted that apart from the Christmas Day, the Christian Church also adopted the Easter, the cross, trinity and other rituals and festivals from pre-Christian North African, Middle Eastern and European religions.

Why do the Indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South Behave like Colonial Subjects of Nigeria?

Why do the Indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South Behave like Colonial Subjects of Nigeria?

Priye S. Torulagha

Introduction

Politics is defined currently as “who gets what, when, and how” (Dye). David Easton defines it as the “authoritative allocation of values” (Hanumanthappa ,2023. This definition implies that only those who consciously fight for their political, economic, legal, and human rights through political and legal means will determine who “gets what, when and how” of political power and public resources.  On the other hand, those who sit on the sidelines and expect to “get what, when, and how” will end up with little or nothing because politics is a struggle for power over rulership and the sharing of resources. Both political power and resources are scarce commodities, therefore, only those who fight stridently will prevail in ruling and enjoying a greater portion of the national resources and those who do little, or nothing will get very little.

This is why in every country in the world, the rich always get more and the poor always get the least from the state because rich people are very active trying to dominate the state and capture most of the available resources.  On the other hand, the poor always get the least even though they need the most.  The reason is that they complain a lot but always fail to mobilize themselves in a manner that is sufficient to influence government policy.  This seems to be the case globally. This is why some political thinkers and analysts infer that there is no such a  thing as democracy since the elites dominate the political system in every country in the world. 

An ethnic group in Nigeria which takes the definition of politics very seriously is the Fulani nationality.  As a result, despite their smaller numbers, the Fulanis have been able to dominate Nigerian politics to the extent of serving as the primary power-wielding group in the country.  This is why all the would-be-presidential candidates in Nigeria always pay visit to the Sultan of Sokoto and other high-powered Fulani political and religious elites to receive their blessings. On the other hand, the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South seem to have the slightest appreciation for the weightiness of the “who gets what, when, and how” definition of politics.  As a result, instead of being proactive in pursuing their political, economic, legal, and human rights, they wait patiently for the those who wield political power in Nigeria to come and knock at their doors and give them a fair share of the wealth generated from resources in their region. The sad part is that the inhabitants of the oil region do not even realize that they have enormous political and economic power in Nigeria due to the strategic importance of oil and gas in Nigeria and globally. Indeed, no region in Nigeria commands so much power as the Niger Delta/South-South but the Niger Deltans do not know how exercise to use their resources to their advantage.

The lesson here is that the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South cannot and must not sit idly by and expect those who wield power in Nigeria to do the right thing and treat them fairly in the management of oil and gas and the sharing of the wealth generated.  The reason is that politics, as defined above, calls for active involvement in demanding your rights.  

Purpose of the Article

The purpose of this article is to identify the factors and circumstances which tend to portray the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South as colonial subjects of Nigeria.  To accomplish the task, the following arguments are made: (1) the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South have failed to pay attention to the fact that politics is a struggle for power and control of resources; (2) due to lack of appreciation of the importance of politics, they allow themselves to be treated like colonial subjects of Nigeria, thereby, justifying their being exploited by those who wield national political power; (3) they do not realize and appreciate the fact that they have tremendous political and economic clout due to the availability of oil and gas in their territory and (4) due to lack of appreciation for the tremendous power they possess, they inadvertently accept to be treated as colonial subjects by allowing Nigeria to apply a double standard in the management of mineral resources in the country to their disadvantage.

 It is essential to define colonialism in order to understand why the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South act passively as if they are colonial subjects, thereby failing to proactively defend their political, legal, and economic rights in Nigeria. What is colonialism? The Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) defines colonialism “as the practice of controlling another country or area and exploiting its people and resources,” (2023, February 14).  According to Aniete A. Inyang and Manasseh Bassey, colonialism is:

A system of rule which assumes the right of one people to impose their will upon another leading inevitably to a situation of dominance and dependency which will systematically subordinate these governed by it to the imported culture in social, economic, and political life (2014, September, p. 1945).

Based on this definition, the Niger Delta/South-South is colonized, and the oil and gas resources are exploited by Nigeria for the betterment of other parts of the country to the disadvantage of the inhabitants of the region.  Due to the exploitative relationship, they have internalized the treatment, hence, behave as if they are colonial subjects of Nigeria by failing to actively pursue and protect their interests through pushing for resource control since Nigeria has failed to nationalize solid minerals. Instead of using proactive political and legal tactics to put pressure and influence national policy in favor of resource control, they sit back and wait to be compensated based on the decision of those who wield national power and make public policy over oil and gas. They have not been able to compel the Federal Government to institute a proactive environmental pollution cleaning regime in the region after more than sixty years of oil exploration.

The Reaction of the Oil Region Towards the Double Standard in the Management and Regulation of Natural Minerals

This article is written after a critical examination of the way Nigerians from the oil region react in ways that baffle the mind concerning the double standard that exist in the Federal Government’s management, regulation, and enforcement of national laws dealing with mineral resources in the country. Consequently, the following is the systematic identification of the failures of the inhabitants of the Niger Delta/South-South to actively fight politically and legally for their political, legal, and economic rights over the control and management of mineral resources in the region.

First, the late Gen. David Ejoor first noticed a double standard being manifested by the Federal Government of Nigeria.  He noted that while President Olusegun Obasanjo was in power as a civilian president, both the Niger Delta and a section of the Southwestern region, particularly the Ife and Modakeke people had disputes that led to violent confrontations over the ownership of land and the rights to own mineral resources.  Gen. Ejoor noted that President Obasanjo did not hesitate to send the Nigerian military to the Niger Delta to ensure that oil operations were not disturbed following intertribal conflicts in the Warri area.  On the other hand, even though the Ife and Modakeke conflict was over the illegal mining of gold and sharing of the wealth generated, President Obasanjo did not send the Nigerian military to stop the dispute and prevent the private mining of gold in the Ife area. Instead, he encouraged them to resolve the dispute amicably and share the wealth generated from gold mining, even though gold is a national resource like oil and gas (Osinaike and Oyegunle, 2005, July 6).

After raising the issue of double standard, nobody in the oil region took up the matter and used it to put both political and legal pressure on the Federal Government to either nationalize all minerals or denationalize oil and gas.  The people in the region barely paid attention to the issue raised by Gen. Ejoor.  It was as if they were all sleeping and did not want to be disturbed.

Second, the senators and representatives of the oil region in the National Assembly (NA) either speak very little or remain voiceless about the dichotomy over the national control, management and regulation of mineral resources in the country.  These senators and representatives, perhaps, except for a few, like Sen. Seriake Dickson, might have tactically decided not to say anything about the fact that Nigeria has a double standard which affects their constituents negatively.  It seems that the regional legislators have accepted the view that the oil region is worth being sacrificed to sustain the country.  Otherwise, they would have spoken loudly to show their displeasure regarding the way their region is being unduly exploited. Perhaps, since their number in the national legislature is small and insufficient to create much political impact compared to the number of legislators from the non-oil-producing regions who always join forces against them, they strategically decided to go slow in pursuing the oil region’s agenda to avoid putting their political careers in jeopardy.

Third, the national commissioners/ministers of the oil region have not been able to influence national policy on oil and gas in any remarkable manner.  These personalities have known for decades that the oil and gas region is treated differently from regions with solid mineral deposits.  Yet, they did not and have not worked frantically to change national policy which penalizes the indigenes of the oil region while rewarding the indigenes of the regions where gold, tin, coal, columbite, lithium, coal, manganese, and other solid minerals are found.  Even in former President Muhammadu Buhari’s Administration, there were highly placed government officials from the oil region who served as ministers, directors and political advisers, yet they seemed uninterested in persuading the Federal Government to change policy and equalize the playing field for exploration of minerals in the country.

Fourth, the governors of the oil-producing region seemed unbothered by the fact that while governors in solid mineral-producing states can invite private mining companies to come to their states and carry out mining activities, they cannot do so in the oil region.  In other words, the governors of the states with solid minerals can create wealth and employment for their citizens through mining of minerals to boost their economies while the governors of the oil region cannot do so. It is puzzling why the governors in the oil region have not filed a class action suit to force the Federal Government to apply the same standard across the board in the management and regulation of liquid and solid minerals in the country.

In fact, when former Governor Nasir El-Rufai of Kaduna State stated that his state has more gold than South Africa and he was going to invite mining companies to explore gold (Tijani, 2016, April 6), a governor in the oil-producing region would have tested the constitutionality of the draconian military-era decrees that nationalize oil and gas ownership by announcing that he too would invite an oil company to explore oil and gas in his own state to test federal response.  Unfortunately, none of the governors paid attention to the implication that a governor in the same country can invite foreign mining companies into his state to engage in mineral exploration and a governor in an oil-producing state cannot do so.  The lack of response to Governor El-Rufai’s announcement to hire private mining companies means that the governors of the oil-producing states have accepted the status quo, which is that the Federl Government has a right to totally nationalize oil and gas, hence, decided not to challenge the constitutional authority of the national government.

Perhaps, the governors of the oil-producing states are not eager to challenge the total nationalization of oil and gas and the failure to nationalize solid minerals due to the nature of politics in the country.  It should be noted that in Nigeria, to become a governor requires an intense bargaining with the leadership of the political parties and other important political stakeholders in the country.  Thus, having gone through such a grueling process, the region’s governors probably feel exhausted and strategically decide not to add to their political burden by challenging national authority over the management and regulation of liquid minerals. Basically, they decided to let a sleeping dog lie without arousing it to create political obstacles or for them as they govern their respective states. Some Nigerians infer that the governors are not willing to stir the hornet’s net because some of them probably have financial skeletons in their cupboards.

Fifth, a baffling thing about the lack of proactive response from the oil region is the almost absent-mindedness of the civil society organizations in the region to the double standard that exists between the way the Federal Government totally nationalizes the oil region and the total lack of national enforcement in the management of solid mineral resources in the country.  It seems that the region’s civil society organizations are not bothered by the fact that the citizens of the region are not having a fair deal in the country

Additionally, the oil region’s civil society organizations are not very helpful in articulating the political and legal rights of the oil region. Why? Because they tend to fight and oppose each other. Hence, for every regional civil society organization that speaks for the rights of the indigenes of the region, there is another regional civil society organization that speaks for the interest of the national government. As a result, if one regional civil society organization calls for a protest, another regional civil society organization is most likely to condemn the proposed protest.  When that happens, the Federal Government always supports the group that opposes protest, thereby putting the other civil society group in a bad light. The lack of consensus among the region’s civil society organizations weakens the overall effect of their campaign to enhance the economic and political rights of the region. Due to the rivalry and divisiveness, it is very easy for the national government to sponsor civil society organizations that oppose those organizations that want change.  This divide and conquer tactics have been very effective, hence, the Federal Government pays little or no attention to the concerns of the oil region. The indigenes of the oil region have not been able to develop an effective strategy to counter or neutralize the divide and conquer tactics deployed by the national government against them.

Sixth, it is inferable that the citizens of the oil region are overwhelmed and tactically defeated to the point where they have given up any hope that Nigeria will reconsider its double standard and allow them to engage in private exploration or gain at least 50% share of the revenue accruing from oil and gas exploration.  It is assumable that after decades of protesting and decrying their unfair treatment without positive response from the Federal Government, many of them have given up and simply decide to exist, knowing full well that there is not much they can do to change the minds of Nigerian rulers. Moreover, many citizens in the oil region feel that their political leaders are not doing enough to put political pressure on the national government to pay attention to their unfortunate plight.

Seventh, the different national regulatory standards for solid and liquid minerals have existed since the enactment of the Petroleum Act, yet the sons and daughters of the oil region who have served as leaders of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) and other oil-related agencies kept quiet and allowed their people to be exploited.

Eighth, the surprising fact about the anomalous situation is that a son of the oil region, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, actually served as the head of state of Nigeria for six years without crafting a bill to equalize the standard for regulating liquid and solid minerals or remove the ignominious acts that turn the citizens of the oil region into colonial subjects of Nigeria. 

Ninth, the most painful thing is that the leaders of the oil-producing region know that there is a different standard for liquid minerals and another one for solid minerals yet fail to do something about it.  They did not protest and take legal action to stop the undue nationalization of liquid minerals. They know that oil blocks are given to individuals who are mostly from the non-oil-producing regions yet did not scream loudly to stop the practice. In other words, the leaders of the oil region stood by while the Federal Government gave oil rights to a selected few to amass tremendous private wealth from public resources.

Instead of totally nationalizing solid minerals, the Federal Government registered about 600 private mining cooperatives. This means that private cooperatives operated by Nigerians and foreigners, especially the Chinese, can earn income officially from solid minerals (Onehi, 2020, February 19).   It should also be noted that 50 mining leases and 952 exploration licenses were awarded to foreign and local mining companies and individuals in 2007.  During the same time, the government encouraged private investment in solid minerals exploration by relaxing some of the regulatory rules (Reuters. 2007, August 9). In 2024, 10,000 people applied for mining licenses, but the Federal Government awarded 4,000 (Aina, 2024, May 24).  On the other hand, there is no relaxation of the regulatory rules in the liquid mineral sector. 

Tenth, the Niger Delta/South-Southand South-East regions were not consulted when Nigeria negotiated with Algeria to build the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline.  President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration finalized the agreement with Algeria to build a $13bn gas pipeline in February 2025. Emmanuel Chilamphuma reported:

The Nigerian government has reached agreements with Algeria and Niger to advance the Trans-Saharan Gas Pipeline (TSGP) initiative, a key project aimed at boosting gas exports to Europe.

Representatives from the three nations concluded crucial agreements during a conference in Algiers, Algeria. These agreements, involving energy companies fromNigeria, Algeria, and Niger, cover essential aspects of the project, including:

Updated feasibility study to assess financial and technical viability.

Compensation framework ensuring equitable benefits for all stakeholders.

Non-disclosure agreement (NDA) to protect commercial interests (2025, February 17).

It is predictable that a few highly connected individuals from the non-oil-producing regions would be the primary beneficiaries of the $13bn deal, as it is always the case in Nigeria, as far as the oil region is treated as a colony of Nigeria.  It is necessary for the leaders of the oil and gas region to insist that no gas should be taken from their territory without their inclusion in the negotiations.

Again, the Niger Delta/South-South and South-East were totally absent when former President Muhammadu Buhari negotiated with European nations and Morocco to develop a gas pipeline from the oil and gas region to Europe through Morocco. The deal has been reinforced by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Nadim Kawachi reported, “Morocco and Nigeria have agreed to create a joint venture to manage a long-planned $25 billion pipeline which will ship gas to Europe, a Moroccan minister has said (2025, April 24).  Imagine, a $25bn gas pipeline contract in which the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South and South East are not consulted or included in the package.  This means that some highly placed Nigerians from the non-oil-producing regions will benefit greatly from the deal, and the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South will end up with little or nothing just like the way they are treated in the distribution of the oil wealth.   The signing of this deal without effective consultation or involvement of the stakeholders in the oil region means that Nigerian officials have little or no regard for the indigenes.  Thus, the leaders of the oil and gas region should petition the Federal Government and declare emphatically that no gas should be taken from their region without their inclusion in the negotiations. If possible, send a petition to the Federal Government and copy the Moroccan government and the European Union. Then take legal action to address the demand.

Eleventh, Nigeria’s ruling elites and high-government officials who negotiated to explore and exploit the Niger Delt/South-South cannot be solely blamed because the political and legal leaders of the oil and gas region seem to be apathetic and wait for someone from Abuja to come and knock at their doors, instead of marshalling their political and legal forces to change the colonial relationship between the Federal Government and the oil-producing region.

Twelfth, although it is officially stipulated that all minerals are in the Exclusive List, meaning that the Federal Government has total control and regulation of all minerals, in practice, this is not the case.  Most of the oil and gas industry has been privatized.  Hence, it is individuals who own oil blocks.  The Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) has been tactically privatized and controlled by a powerful cartel which benefits most from the oil wealth.  There is also a plan on the ground to allegedly “sell oil equity to President Tinubu’s nephew Walle Tinubu’s Oando ally Chagoury’s firm” (Sahara Reporters, 2025, September 14). If the alleged plan materializes, the Tinubu family will become the most powerful oil baron in Nigeria. Despite the revelation, the stakeholders in the Niger Delta/South-South have not spoken forcefully to condemn such effort to privatize the oil industry in Nigeria. Thankfully, the Committee of Patriotic Forces (CPPF) made up of patriotic Nigerians vigorously opposed the idea (Sahara Reporters. 2025, September 10). Where are the leaders of the Niger Delta/South-South on this issue?  By now, they would have mobilized to demand resource control before the high and mighty totally take over their resources.

Thirteenth, already, due to the total disregard for the feelings of the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South and Nigerians in general, crude oil is now being used by the Federal Government as a collateral to borrow loans. Kevin Emmanue, an energy analyst, remarked:

At a time when the Nigerian government should be laying out a detailed plan to conduct house cleaning for NNPC Ltd or books, start book building for an IPO, the Nigerian government is amortising precious future crude oil earnings in a deal structure that robs the federating units of millions of barrels of crude oil in oil for swap transaction that sums up the point Jeffrey Frankel made in his working paper about the ‘Resource Curse Theory’ at Harvard University (Oladehinde, 2024, July 10).

Already, about three or four international loans have been borrowed in what is known as oil-for-cash-deals. These loans are being taken without consulting the indigenes of the oil region to let them know that their resources could become the properties of foreign countries if Nigeria fails to pay the loans.  While the Niger Delta/South-South is being burdened with unnecessary loans, solid minerals are not being used as collateral.  Here again, Nigeria treats the oil region as a colony that can easily be exploited. Meanwhile, most major infrastructural development projects are carried out in the non-oil-producing regions.  So why are the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South still sleeping, instead of waking up and fighting politically and legally for their natural rights.

Fourteenth, instead of working together as a team to put pressure on the Nigerian government to achieve resource control or at least get a 50/50 share of the revenue accruing from oil and gas exploration, the ethnic groups in the region tend to compete against each other and negotiate clandestinely with the national government to have advantage over other ethnic groups in the region.  Some ethnic groups are always eager to create the impression that they are more civilized and peaceful than others in the hope of attracting the attention of the Federal Government and gaining advantage over other ethnic groups. The youth groups sometimes compete unnecessarily over the right to gain surveillance contracts, to the point of almost engaging in physical confrontation. The civil society organizations in the region often take contradictory positions, thereby neutralizing the political effect of their demands. Most of the politicians do not want to offend those who wield national power in the country because of their desire to run for elective offices or retain their elective offices.  Only the Ogoni nation proactively pursued its goals and gained in the process.  As a result, the Ogonis were able to work with the United Nations Environmental Programs (UNEP) to recommend the cleaning of oil pollution in their territory.  It is also the Ogonis who succeeded in using the legal process to ban the exploration of oil in their territory for twenty years. During the heydays of the oil struggle, they were also able to gain political asylum status for their members in the US and other countries.

Fifteenth, due to the passivity of the indigenes of the oil region, the oil wealth is treated as a free for all manna from heaven.  Hence, a substantial proportion of the oil wealth is embezzled by high level public officials.  Thus, it is arguable that a sizable number of Nigeria’s millionaires and billionaires acquired their wealth through the embezzlement of public funds generated through oil and gas exploration. As far as the indigenes of the oil region fail to take appropriate political and legal action to gain control of the oil wealth, massive embezzlement of the oil wealth will continue. As a result of massive embezzlement of the oil wealth, the masses are not benefitting from the oil wealth.

Sixteenth, to avoid forfeiting total control of the oil and gas resources, the political and traditional leaders of the Niger Delta/South-South should come together and emphatically make it clear to Nigerian authorities that no oil or gas facility in the oil region should be sold without first consulting and negotiating with the host communities and the region’s leaders.  This is important because when Nigerian authorities permit major oil companies like Shell, Eni, Exxon/Mobil and Tota/Energies to sell their oil and gas facilities to domestic private companies without compelling them to clean the massive pollution they generated, it means that Nigeria’s political rulers do not care about the oil and gas region since they view it as a colony, rather than as part of Nigeria.

Due to the passivity of the leaders of the oil region and the willingness of Nigerian authorities to sacrifice the oil region, it is the United Nations that has spoken loudly to warn of the danger of allowing the major oil companies to sell their facilities without first cleaning the mess they created in the Niger Delta/South-South. Indeed, a UN panel wrote a letter to “Shell, ENI, Exxon/Mobil and Total Energies, warning the companies that they cannot sell off their assets and dodge their responsibilities to local communities” (RFI. 2025, September 9).

Conclusion

Indeed, the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South behave as if they are colonial subjects of Nigeria, hence, allow the country to openly exploit them for decades. As a result, wealth generated from the oil region is used mostly in developing and modernizing the infrastructure in other parts of the country while the region that lays the golden egg is often neglected by Nigeria’s ruling elites. Due to their passivity and an unwillingness to proactively demand their rights, Nigerian ruling elite and some highly connected individuals from the non-oil-producing regions now behave as the owners of the oil and gas resources while the indigenes of the oil region behave like beggars and are happy with having just 13% percent share of the revenue generated.  Meanwhile, solid minerals are treated like private resources in which anyone can mine with little or no consequence.

There is no doubt that Nigeria treats the oil region as a colony and the citizens of the region as colonial subjects. Under the pretext of nationalization, highly connected individuals are incrementally privatizing the wealth generated through tactical purchasing of oil facilities and the NNPCL, yet the indigenes of the oil region do little or nothing to reclaim their rights to the resources. Again, Nigeria treats the Niger Delta/South-South as a colony, hence, refused to regulate the behavior of the multinational oil companies by allowing them to flare gas and pollute the region.  Likewise, Nigeria treats the oil region as a financial plantation, hence allows the oil companies to sell their assets without compelling them to clean the pollution generated through gas flaring and oil exploration. Despite the failure to clean Ogoniland, the Federal Government wants oil exploration to resume, against the interest of Ogoni people. Nigeria’s recklessness and the indigenes powerlessness has compelled the United Nations to intervene by  warning about the danger of allowing the major oil companies to sell off their assets without cleaning the oil region.

The inhabitants of the oil region must express their appreciation to the United Nations for speaking on their behalf.  It is very sad that Nigerian authorities are only interested in the quantities of oil and gas being produced daily to boost their financial wherewithal and care very little about the massive pollution that has devastated the oil region. The Indigenes of the oil region must stop behaving like colonial subjects of Nigeria and demand their natural, political, economic and legal rights to own the resources in their region. Over sixty years of nationalization and exploitation should come to an end immediately because Nigeria has repeatedly demonstrated that it is irresponsible and incapable of managing the resources of the region to the benefit of all Nigerians.

References

African Manager. (2012, May 9). Nigeria licenses 7 firms to mine gold. https://en.africanmanager.com/nigeria-licences-7-firms-to-mine-gold/.

Aina, D. (2024, May 24). FG grants 4,000 investors mining licenses. Punch. https://punchng.com/fg-grants-4000-investors-mining-licences/#google_vignette.

Chilamphuma, E. (2025, February 17). Inside the US13bn Trans-Saharan gas pipeline. Further Africa. https://furtherafrica.com/2025/02/17/inside-the-us13b-trans-saharan-gas-pipeline/.

Council on Foreign Relations (2023, February 14). What is colonialism and how did it arise? https://education.cfr.org/learn/reading/what-colonialism-and-how-did-it-arise#:~:text=Colonialism%20is%20the%20practice%20of,vast%20majority%20of%20the%20world.

RFI. (2025, September 9). Oil giants accused of dodging Niger Delta clean-up as UN panel intervenes. https://www.rfi.fr/en/africa/20250905-oil-giants-accused-of-dodging-niger-delta-clean-up-as-un-panel-intervenes

 Hanumanthappa, D.G. (2023). An overview of David Easton and the political system. International Journal of Political Science. Volume 9, Issue 1, pp 14 -16. https://doi.org/10.20431/2454-9452.0901002.

Inyang, A. A. and Bassey, M. (2014, September). Imperial Treaties and the origins of British colonial rule in Southern Nigeria, 1860 – 1890. Mediterranean Journal of Social Sciences Volume 5(20).

Kawachi, N. (2025, April 24). Morocco and Nigeria agree terms for $2bn gas pipeline. Arabian Gulf Business Insights. https://www.agbi.com/oil-and-gas/2025/04/morocco-and-nigeria-firm-to-manage-gas-pipeline/.

Oladehinde, D. (2024, July 10). Rising appetite for cash loans traps Nigeria’s next generation. Business Day. https://businessday.ng/news/article/rising-appetite-for-oil-for-cash-loans-traps-nigerias-next-generation/.

Onehi, V. (2020, February 19). Federal Government harps on small miners formalization, registers 600 cooperatives. Daily Trust. https://dailytrust.com/fg-harps-on-small-miners-formalisation-registers-600-cooperatives/

Osinaike, G. & Oyegunle, J. [July 6, 2005] Maj. Gen. David Ejoor’s eye-opening statements. Vanguard. Posted on Ijawnation@yahoogroups.com. 7/6/2005. 

Reuters. (2007, August 9). Nigeria awards 1000 licenses to investors. https://www.reuters.com/article/legal/government/nigeria-awards-1000-mining-licences-to-investors-idUSL13261013/.

Sahara Reporters. (2025, September 10). Group rejects plan to sell Nigeria’s oil equity to Tinubu’s nephew wale Tinubu’s Oando, Ally Chagoury’s firm. https://saharareporters.com/2025/09/10/group-rejects-plan-sell-nigerias-oil-equity-president-tinubus-nephew-wale-tinubus-oando.

Tijani, M. (2016, April 6). El-Rufai: Kaduna has more gold than S’Africa. The Cable. https://www.thecable.ng/el-rufai-one-kaduna-lga-has-more-gold-than-safrica/.

Why a State of Origin is Preferable to a State of Residence Policy in Nigeria?

Why a State of Origin is Preferable to a State of Residence Policy in Nigeria?

By Priye S. Torulagha

A debate has been going on in Nigeria concerning whether the principle of State of origin or the principle of state of residence should be adopted constitutionally to legalize the status of Nigerians who live in states other than their states of origin (Olugbile, 2024, June 3).  The principle of the state of origin emphasizes the view that only the indigenous citizens of any given state should have the right to vote for state-related elective offices as well as enjoy the rights, benefits, and obligations emanating from the state.  This means that Nigerians who reside in states other than their states of origin should not have the right to vote for state-related elective offices as well as enjoy the benefits and obligations accruing to the indigenes of the state.

On the other hand, those who support the principle of the state of residence emphasize the view that Nigerians who reside in states other than their states of origin should have the right to vote for elective offices in the states they live or reside and be able to enjoy the benefits and obligations  accruing from the states they reside rather than the states they originate from.  This option implies that Nigerians should have the right to vote and be treated as the citizens of the states in which they reside, regardless of their original states of origin.  Basically, a Nigerian should be recognized as a citizen of the state where he or she resides or lives and not where the individual originally came from. Those who support this position often point to the United States where the state of residence allows Americans to live in any part of the country and enjoy the benefits and obligations of the states where they live, after completing the requirement for state residency.

However, in critically examining the Nigerian sociopolitical environment, it is argued here that the principle of the state of origin should be the standard constitutional framework for deciding who is a resident of any state.  In other words, the state of origin should be the standard for determining the status of Nigerians, at the present time in Nigerian history. Why the preference for the state of origin over the state of residence? There are many reasons for choosing the state of origin option.

First, Nigeria contains three of the most populous ethnic groups in Africa with each numbering more than 30 million people. At the same time, there are hundreds of small or minority ethnic groups in the country.  If a state of residence is allowed to take place, there is no doubt that members of the three largest ethnic groups are most likely to dominate the smaller ethnic group as they move around to take advantage of the policy of state of residence.  As a result, during elections, the settlers from the major ethnic groups are likely to overwhelm the populations of the indigenous groups to the extent that they will become the determinants of who becomes the governors, local government chairs, senators, and representatives of the states with small ethnic groups through massive voting.

Such a development will simply take Nigeria back to the era of regionalism where the major ethnic groups dominated the minority groups to the extent that they became mere vassals in each of the three regions. It should be recalled that as soon as the British established the colony of Nigeria, minority ethnic groups started to campaign vigorously for the creation of states to avoid being absorbed or gobbled up by the major ethnic groups. It was the desire to create a political space between them and the major ethnic nationalities that enabled them to demand the creation of states during the Henry Willinks Commission Hearings in London in 1957-1958.  Therefore, the creation of states by Gen. Yakubu Gowon on June 27, 1967, was intended to enable the minority groups to manage their own affairs without being dominated by the major ethnic groups.

Second, a state of residence policy will result in dragging the country down economically.  Why? Because Nigerians who hail from economically unproductive or depressed states with high unemployment levels are likely to flock to states with high economic productivity to compete with the indigenes for jobs and to overwhelm the social services of those states.   Thus, as more Nigerians move from economically unproductive and gloomy states to those with high economic growth, those states would be forced to bear the brunt of accommodating the economic refugees, thereby, putting undue pressure on their infrastructures and financial resources. Such pressure can result in economic downturn and push the states to the point of collapsing due to the population overflow.  Moreover, the economically vibrant states would be forced to solve problems generated by the unproductive states. The possibility of unrestrained migration as Nigerians rush to states that are doing well to claim residency should not be dismissed. After all, that is what is happening in the global system as people migrate in large numbers from the developing countries to the developed countries in search of greener pastures, thereby putting undue pressure on the economy and social welfare programs in those countries, especially in the West.

Third, it is quite possible that states which are led by incompetent or less imaginative governors might tactically encourage their citizens to migrate to states with robust economic growth, thereby putting on undue pressure on the productive states while the less productive states end up with less problems to solve as they encourage their citizens to migrate. In other words, what happens internationally where citizens from poorer or economically depressed economies are sometimes encouraged to move to the economically vibrant industrialized countries with the hope that they can gain employment and send money home through foreign transfers to boost the local economy will also take place in Nigeria.

Fourth, a state of residence policy will enable Nigerians with wealth to move to less economically developed states and use their financial power to dominate the political system by serving as godfathers and godmothers to the politicians.  In so doing, the settlers might eventually end up dominating the politics of such states to the extent that they become political kingmakers and queenmakers.  Such a development will force indigenous politicians of the less productive states to increasingly rely on the financial donations of the settler population to campaign and run for political offices.  Eventually, the wealthy Nigerian settlers might end up acting like colonial masters to the indigenous population and take over the states with the promise to assist them to generate their economies.

Fifth, those who support the principle of state of residency try to justify the system by referencing the U.S. state system where American citizens call wherever they live as their states of origin.  It is obvious that the American system is unworkable in Nigeria because the Nigerian sociopolitical environment is not compatible with that of the United States.  The reason is that the U.S is basically a settler state where most of the citizens originated from other parts of the world to settle in the U.S.  Like the U.S., Australia, Canada, New Zealand, most countries in the Caribbean and Latin America are settler states because the indigenous populations were replaced by settlers.  Therefore, in such countries, it is easier for an individual to move from one state or region to another to become a resident since majority of the citizens are settlers.  In Nigeria, people are irrevocably tied to the territories of their ethnicities because most Nigerians are indigenous groups.

Nigeria is a country where the ethnic nationalities existed for hundreds and thousands of years before the establishment of Nigeria as a colony.  Thus, each ethnic nationality has its own territorial space and operates like a state.  Hence, there is Hausaland, Igboland, Kanuriland, Yorubaland, Tivland, Ijawland, Ibibioland Edoland, Junkunland, Urhoboland, and so forth. The lands in Nigeria are owned by the ethnic groups and they have a right to make decisions about their territories without someone from another ethnic group dictating how they should live and use their lands. Therefore, the principle of the state of origin is more compatible with the African cultural tradition whereby each ethnic group has a territorial space to manage its existence.  A state of residence policy will seriously impede the African cultural tradition, thereby resulting in constant conflict as the indigenes fight against the settlers to maintain their ownership of their territorial lands. Land conflicts are already raging in Nigeria, especially in Northeast and Northcentral Nigeria.  Thus, people in the Middle Belt have paid dearly as settlers try to grab their lands through violent invasion.

Sixth, a state of residency works in Australia, Canada, the United States, New Zealand, and so forth, because these Western countries operate an individualistic social system where the individual is treated like a legal corporate entity as soon as the person reaches the age of adulthood (either 18 or 21 years old). As an adult, the individual is free to leave his or her family and take a path that is opposed to the family without facing any consequence as far as the law is not violated.  Thus, an individual can move from state or region or province to another and become a resident by cutting off previous connections.  In Nigeria, the prevailing social system is collectivism or communalism where the individual is irrevocably tied to the extended family, community through kinship and the ethnic group in perpetuity. Quite often, in Nigeria, family decisions are made collectively. Consequently, it is culturally impossible to adopt a system that glorifies individualism in an environment that is based on collectivism.

Seventh, Nigeria’s ethnic groups are characterized by two geographic modes of existence.  Some ethnic groups are migratory in nature like nomads, and their members prefer to settle and own land wherever they put root due to the nature of their economic activities.  On the other hand, other ethnic groups are stationary in nature, where their members prefer to establish their permanent residence in their territorial homelands without moving all over the place to settle.  Therefore, if a policy of state of residence were instituted through the constitution or statutory law, it is the ethnic groups that have migratory tendencies that will benefit the most.  The reason is that such a law will enable their members to spread all over the country and establish political and economic bases to eventually dominate the country.  On the other hand, the stationary ethnic groups will bear the brunt of surrendering their lands to members of migratory ethnic groups to the extent that conflict between the indigenes and settlers will erupt uncontrollably to destabilize Nigeria.  Why? Because the stationary ethnic groups might feel that the migratory groups are tactically using the policy of the state of residence to take over their lands.

Eighth, a state of residence policy will lead to a situation whereby the indigenous owners of the lands are displaced by the settler population from different parts of the country. There are many examples to cite to show the possibility of land displacement. The indigenous people of Lagos, that is, the Awori or Amori people are not happy that settlers from other parts of the country have almost literarily taken over their territory, thereby, turning their homeland into a No Man’s Land.  The overwhelming population of the settlers’ forces Lagos State government to spend considerably to cater to the needs of the settler population while the indigenes suffer from marginalization and neglect. Additionally, it is mostly settlers who have served as the governors of Lagos State since 1999 while the indigenes are treated like invisible and unimportant entities (Olumoro, 2025, January 17).

Similarly, the indigenous people of Abuja have lost control of most of their territory since they agreed to allow Abuja to be turned into Nigeria’s capital.  Today, only very rich settlers can afford to buy land in Abuja and the indigenes are treated like refugees. The settlers do not care about the plight of the Abuja people who cannot afford to buy land in Abuja because wealthy Nigerian settlers have turned the place into an exclusive enclave for wealthy settlers.

Ninth, Nigeria is not politically, sociologically, and legally ready to create an environment where the entire country becomes an open space for Nigerians to congregate and claim to be residents of the states they live while also having their own states of origin.  Since Nigeria has not metamorphosed to a stage where a state of residence can replace a state of origin, it would be a major strategic mistake for Nigerian authorities to pass legislation approving a state of residence as a public policy.  Why? Because Nigeria is a British creation and it is a mere geographical expression until Nigerians restructure the country and come up with a constitution that reflects the interest of the generality of Nigerians.

Otherwise, the policy of state of residence will be abused and used to exploit and marginalize hundreds of ethnic groups in the country because Nigerian institutions are too weak and easily exploited by the financially and politically powerful members of society.  It should be reminded that the policy of nationalization of mineral resources resulted in the exploitation of the oil wealth while the indigenes of the Niger Delta/South-South are marginalized and deprived.  Sadly, the oil wealth has been privatized by highly connected individuals in Nigeria who have accumulated substantial wealth from the resources that belongs to the people of the oil region. It is predictable that a policy of state of residence will be abused the way nationalization of mineral resources has been abused.

Tenth, a state of residence policy will encourage powerful individuals to relocate to states with enormous mineral resources and dominate the exploration of the minerals by claiming to be residents of the states.  This possibility is not far-fetched because it is widely reported that part of the violence, killings, and destruction of communities that are being perpetrated are sponsored by powerful individuals who form mining cartels to exploit gold and other solid minerals in Benue, Kaduna, Nasarawa, Plateau, Sokoto, Taraba, and Zamfara states (Daily Trust, 2024, January 20).  The same will happen if a state of residence is adopted.  Greedy and crooked Nigerians who want to get rich quickly will form human trafficking cartels to purposively encourage thousands of Nigerians to migrate to states with critical minerals and use such settlers to exploit the minerals at the disadvantage of the indigenous owners of the lands.  This is why people in Benue, Kaduna, Niger, Plateau, and Zamfara states and paying dearly with their lives as sponsored gun-totting gangs operate the mines.

Eleventh, if a state of origin is replaced by a state of residence, soon or later, settlers who are financially endowed are most likely to use their wealth to bribe police and military officers and judges to bend and interpret the law against indigenous members of the states whenever land issue arises between the original owners and settlers. This is a great possibility because in Nigeria today, there is a tendency by police and military personnel to take actions in favor of the high and mighty who bribe them to act in a certain way. This is why land grabbers today can grab land from their original owners with the assistance of corrupt police and military officers.  Thus, if a state of residence is legalized, settlers might end up owning the most productive lands in various states by bribing police and military officers and judges to enforce the law and rule in their favor. 

Twelfth, if the state of residence becomes the law of the land, in most states, the settlers might act like cattle herders who have been using violence to force out indigenous owners and occupy their lands through displacement.  They would be able to do so by forming interest groups to influence national and state governments to enact laws and make public policy decisions on land in their favor the way Fulani herdsmen have been able to influence the Nigerian government to look the other way and allow them to invade, destroy, and kill indigenous farmers with the security forces not intervening aggressively to stop them.  On the other hand, currently, if an indigenous Nigerian commits a crime against a herder, the police and the army react quickly to arrest the individual.  Thus, the law is tilted in favor of herders due to special political relationships, hence the police and the army are not eager to use full force against herders, bandits, and kidnappers. 

It is also the case that due to special relationships or connections, the Nigerian Police Force and the Nigerian Army rarely apprehend herders who carry prohibited guns.  On the other hand, security agencies generally do not hesitate to arrest any indigenous Nigerian who carries a gun.  Even judges have no hesitation in sentencing indigenous Nigerians who are arrested for carrying guns while they hesitate to sentence Fulani herdsmen to imprisonment for carrying guns. Right now, in Adamawa State, a farmer known as Sunday Jackson who fought and killed a herder named Ardo Bawuro who allegedly invaded his farm and attempted to kill him was sentenced to death and the Supreme Court agreed with the sentence by disregarding the fact that the farmer fought to protect his life from someone who attempted to kill him (Ogebe, 2025, March 7). It should also be noted that a kidnap kingpin named Hamisu Bala, otherwise known as “Wadume” who had been involved in several kidnapping cases and was later involved in a case in which an army officer allegedly ordered the killings of five police operatives of the Intelligence Response Team (IRT) when the accused escaped from the police team and gained protection of a unit of the 93 Battalion of the Nigerian Army, stationed in Takum, was only sentenced to seven years imprisonment for his heinous crimes.  The army captain who ordered the killings of the police officers was promoted by the Nigerian Army.  Moreover, Mr. Wadume was released from prison after serving less than three years because of the backdating of his date of arrest to 2019 (Abeku, 2024, April 8). Consequently, a state of residence will give an advantage to the settlers against the indigenes of the states whenever there is a dispute involving the two groups.

Thirteenth, a state of residence, if passed as a law, will violate the African cultural tradition in which every ethnic group exercises authority over its own territory. In other words, it is against the law of nature in Africa to prevent various nationalities in Nigeria from exercising authority over their lands as tradition demands.  A state of residence policy will destroy the ethnic groups in Nigeria by allowing those with money and political power to impose their will on nationalities that do not command political influence in the country.  Indeed, hundreds of ethnic groups would suffer under a state of residence policy because aggressive Nigerian settlers will spread all over the country and impose their will through capturing the states.

Fourteenth, the notion of a state of residence is too radical because Nigeria has not metamorphosed politically to a state of national cohesion where all Nigerians can shed their ethnicities and embrace one nationality.  Despite being over sixty years old, Nigeria has not congealed to form a united nationhood because the founding fathers competed during the struggle for independence along ethnic and regional lines to dominate the country rather than work together to unite the country. In other words, Nigeria continues to be a mere geographical expression because it was created by a foreign power and continues to operate disjointedly. Consequently, it would be too revolutionary for Nigerians to give away their ethnicities and embrace a country in which the ethnic coloration no longer matters when the politics of the country continues to be based on ethnicity, region, and religion.

Fifteenth, a state of residence policy will only breed more problems for Nigeria as settlers compete with the indigenes of the states for land ownership, the right to vote to determine who becomes the senator, governor, representative and the local government chair and to share the resources of the states. To avoid the internecine conflicts that might take place, it is necessary for the state of origin to remain so that resources of the states are used for the benefits of the indigenes of the states. A state of residence is not practicable at this time in the history of Nigeria because Nigerians are culturally and religiously attached to their ancestral homeland like other Africans.

Sixteenth, political parties and politicians will abuse a state of residence policy during elections by sponsoring Nigerians to move to states where critical elections are being held. The tactic is likely to involve paying some Nigerians to change their residency by moving to states where presidential, senatorial, representative, gubernatorial, and local government elections are being held and vote as residents to tilt election outcomes in favor of either a political party or a candidate.  Thus, about six months before a scheduled election takes place in any state, hired voters are likely to gradually move to the state to increase the population of voters who may vote for a particular political party or a candidate.  This possibility should not be dismissed because it has been allegedly reported variously that sometimes Nigeriens are Chadians are encouraged to come to Nigeria through payments to participate in elections and censuses. Similarly, it is a common practice among Nigerian political parties and candidates to pay voters at the election centers to vote for their parties and candidates (Salihu, 2023, February 1).

Seventeenth, A state of residence policy, if enacted into law, will encourage double residency by some Nigerians.  Basically, some Nigerians might exploit the system by claiming rights in both their states of residence and states of origin.  They are likely to exploit the system by claiming to be residents of the states they live in while secretly going to their states of origins to also claim benefits, thereby enjoying the rights to both states.  In a country where corruption is rampant, a citizen may register as a resident of the state he or she resides and then quietly go to his or her state of origin to bribe some officials to register him or her as a resident, thereby voting and enjoying the rights and obligations of both states at the same time.

Conclusion

It would be a grievous strategic political mistake for Nigeria to adopt a state of residence policy at the present time.  The reason is that the country is highly fragmented based on ethnicity, region, and religion, hence, the country continues to be a mere geographical expression created by Britain and Nigerians have not fully embraced it.  Moreover, it is against African cultural tradition to adopt a state of residence policy that denies the ethnic groups the right to exercise authority over their ancestral homelands. The policy could trigger massive migration by Nigerians from states with depressive economies to those with productive economies, thereby, literally bringing down the national economy when the productive states are overwhelmed by migrants from the unproductive states.

Due to the importance of communal landownership as dictated by the ancestral tradition, a state of residence policy is most likely to result in land conflicts all over the country as migratory ethnic groups compete with stationary ethnic groups to gain control of land, resources, and political power.  The struggle could lead to the disintegration of the country as some ethnic groups might opt to secede from the country rather than surrender their territories to migratory groups.  This implies that the state of residence idea is a threat to the national security of Nigeria.

 .

References

Abeku, T. (2024, April 8). FG frees notorious kidnapper, Wadume two years after sentence. The Guardian. https://guardian.ng/news/fg-frees-notorious-kidnapper-wadume-two-years-after-sentence/.

Daily Trust. (2024, January 20). Powerful Nigerians were behind banditry – Alake. https://dailytrust.com/powerful-nigerians-were-behind-banditry-alake/.

Ogebe, E. (2025, March 7). Supreme Court confirms death sentence on farmer who resisted Fulani herdsman. Attacker. News Express. Supreme Court confirms death sentence on farmer who resisted Fulani herdsman attacker | News Express Nigeria.

Olugbile, F. (2024, June 3). Between residence and origin: The national question in Nigeria. Business Day. https://businessday.ng/columnist/article/between-residence-and-origin-the-national-question-in-nigeria/.

Olumoro, A. (2025, January 17). Discrimination against Lagos indigenes: The leaders needed at this time. Vanguard. https://www.vanguardngr.com/2025/01/discrimination-against-lagos-indigenes-the-leaders-needed-at-this-time/.

Salihu, F. D. (2023, February 1). Vote buying in Nigerian politics. Daily Trust. https://dailytrust.com/vote-buying-in-nigerian-politics/

It is time to Denationalize the Ownership and Management of Oil and Gas in Nigeria if Solid Minerals are not Nationalized

Priye S. Torulagha

After more than fifty years of the nationalization of the ownership and management of liquid minerals, particularly oil and gas, it is time to change the policy and revert to the principle of derivation in order to stop the mismanagement, lack of accountability, lack of transparency, massive exploitation and embezzlement of the oil wealth. Nationalization of mineral resources has been an abject failure since oil and gas are totally nationalized while solid minerals are not subjected to the same stringent standard of nationalization in violation of the decrees, acts and laws that Nigerian authorities have passed. 

It should be recalled that during the First Republic (1960 -1966), the principle of derivation was the principal means of owning, controlling, and managing of mineral resources in the country.  This meant that each region had the constitutional authority to explore and manage its resources and share a percentage of the revenue generated with the national government. As a result, the regions were able to utilize the wealth generated from their natural resources for the infrastructural and economic development of their regions.

Perhaps, as an instrument of war to deprive Biafran authorities from gaining financially from the oil wealth as well to secure the oil wealth for the prosecution of the Nigerian civil war, the military regime of Gen. Yakubu Gowon initiated a policy change and nationalized the ownership and management of mineral resources, particularly oil and gas in the country.  Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo and subsequent military regimes and civilian administrations followed suit with the policy of nationalization.  As a result, various regimes passed the following decrees and or acts: (1) The Oil in Navigable Waters Act of 1968; (2) The Petroleum Act of 1969; (3) The Oil Pipelines Act of 1969; (4) The Associated Gas Reinjection Act of 1969; (5)The Offshore Oil Revenue Decree of 1971; (6) The Petroleum Production and Distribution Act of 1975; (7) The establishment of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation on April 1, 1977 to  control, regulate and manage petroleum and gas production in Nigeria; (8) The Exclusive Economic Zone Act of 1978; and (9) The Land Use Act of 1978.

 Most of these decrees were passed during the military regimes of Gen. Yakubu Gowon and Gen. Olusegun Obasanjo.

The inhabitants of the Niger Delta/South-South and some sections of the Southeast zones lost ownership, control, and management of oil and gas in their zones as the Federal Government assumed total ownership, control, and management of the two major resources.

The inhabitants of the oil region tolerated the change as far as the intention was to ensure the effective and efficient management of the resources as well as support the even development and modernization of the infrastructure and the economy across the board without discrimination or favoritism.

Perhaps, to ensure even-handedness and equity, the military under the caretaker regime of Lt. Gen. Abdulsalami Abubakar enacted the 1999 Constitution which nationalized all minerals in the country. The constitution vested the ownership and control of Nigeria’s mineral resources to the Federal Government.  Additionally, the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act of 2007 was enacted to replace the Minerals and Mining Act #34 of 1999.  It vested the ownership and control of solid minerals to the Federal Government.  With this act, Nigeria completely nationalized the ownership and control of all minerals in the country.   One of the conditions of this act is that “No person shall search for or exploit mineral resources in Nigeria or divert or exploit or impound water for the purpose of mining except as provided in this act” (https://www.lawnigeria.com/LFN/N/Nigerian-Minerals-and-Mining-Act.php).

Based on the principle of nationalization, all minerals in the country are supposed to be owned, controlled, and managed exclusively by the Federal Government of Nigeria with no exception. However, the operationalization or functionalization of total national ownership by the Federal Government has been problematic, resulting in massive exploitation, marginalization, deprivation and discrimination against the nationalities in the oil region. Why?

 Because, while petroleum and gas are totally nationalized to the extent of rendering the rightful owners of the resources helpless and poor, solid minerals are not.  As a result, individuals and cooperatives have been allowed by the Federal Government to mine solid minerals for decades without the authorities taking any decisive action to stop them.  Evidently, individuals are allowed to mine solid minerals and earn income to take care of their families and enrich themselves in Adamawa,  Bauchi, Benue, Bornu, Jigawa, Kaduna, Katsina, Kebbi, Kogi, Kwara, Nssarawa,  Niger, Oyo, Osun, Plateau, Sokoto, Taraba, Yobe, and Zamfara states (Isenyo, 2016, April 7)  while the citizens in Abia, Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, Imo, Ondo, and Rivers State cannot explore and refine oil to earn income to take care of their families and enrich themselves. 

As part of the double standard in nationalizing mineral ownership in Nigeria, not until March 2024 did the Federal Government announced a plan to inaugurate mining marshals to combat illegal mining of solid minerals in Nigeria (Idoko, 2024, March 2). On the other hand, the Federal Government deployed the Nigerian military since 2002 to secure the oil region for oil exploration. Thus, the Niger Delta/South-South is under military occupation while the solid minerals regions are not under military occupation. Even in 2025, the mining marshal’s plan has not been activated to private mining of solid minerals. 

Likewise, the wealth generated through oil and gas exploration from the Niger Delta/South-South has been primarily responsible for the infrastructural enhancement of Lagos, the development of Abuja from the ground up, the construction of major roads and railway lines in other parts of the country, the financial pipeline for maintaining and sustaining the national government, 36 states, and the Federal Capital Territory of Abuja for about five decades now.

While Nigerians are told that all minerals belong to the Federal Government, yet most oil blocks are privatized and owned by highly connected individuals from the non-oil-producing regions while the owners of the oil wealth are left to scramble to pick the crumbs (Eguzozie, 2021, August 2). This is why tension is always high in the oil region as the ethnic groups compete for the crumbs left behind by the looters who feast insatiably on the oil wealth. Even the Nigerian masses do not benefit from the oil wealth, contrary to the expectation that nationalization would result in an effective management of the oil wealth to the benefit of the entire country.

In addition, most of the private wealth accumulated by individuals in Nigeria is generated from the oil and gas resources from the Niger Delta/South-South.  They do so through the ownership of oil blocks, contracts, oil blending refineries, fuel imports, the domination of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) and oil and gas companies.  The sad part of the oil and gas business in Nigeria is that most of these privileged Nigerians who have commandeered the oil industry are from the non-oil-producing regions while most Nigerians from the oil-producing region wallow in extreme poverty, neglect, and dehumanization.

Nigerians are told that oil and gas are national resources, yet a substantial part of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL) has been privatized to the advantage of the few and the disadvantage of most Nigerians.  The NNPCL, controlled by an invisible cabal, seems more powerful than the Federal Government to the extent that it does what it wants without accountability and transparency in its operations. 

While the Niger Delta/South-South lays the golden egg that maintains and sustains Nigeria, the region is utterly neglected in national infrastructural development and modernization projects.  Hence, the East-West Road, the major transportation artery in the oil region, has been neglected by the Federal Government for decades.  As a result, it is a death trap for the citizens of the oil region, especially during the rainy season when some sections of the road become impassable.  While the oil region is neglected in infrastructural development, Nigeria spends the oil wealth massively for the infrastructural development of other regions and expects the citizens in the oil region to keep quiet, suffer, and smile in silence.

All the major government agencies responsible for controlling, regulating, and managing oil and gas resources in Nigeria are dominated by Nigerians from the non-oil-producing regions.  Most of the high-level positions in these agencies and corporations are held by Nigerians from the non-oil-producing regions.  As a result, only a few individuals from the oil region gain employment in the oil industry even though the industry is located in their region.

All the major oil companies have their headquarters outside the oil region.  This means that they pay taxes for their operations elsewhere and not to the oil-producing states.

Thus, the Niger Delta/South-South is treated like a colony of Nigeria and not as part of Nigeria.  Nigeria’s ruling elites exploit the resources of the region for the accumulation of their private wealth, the infrastructural development and modernization of their regions, and creating businesses in their regions to generate wealth while utterly neglecting the oil region.

Since 1957 when commercially viable oil exploration began in Oloibiri in Bayelsa State and continuing up to the present day, Nigeria has never embarked on any measurable environmental cleaning operation of the massive oil pollution and gas flaring that have devastated the Niger Delta/South-South zone.  Pollution has destroyed farmland and fishing waters, thereby devastating the traditional economic activities of the peoples of the oil region.

Additionally, the massive environmental pollution has led to the emergence of devastating medical conditions that afflict people with incurable diseases.  The Federal Government seems unconcerned about the special health care needs of the inhabitants of the oil region as they bear the brunt of toxic chemicals generated by oil and gas operations.  Due to gross negligence and corruption, even the Ogoni clean up that the United Nations Environmental Program (UNEP) recommended is done haphazardly and disinterestedly.  The only thing national decision makers seem to care about is increasing the quantity of oil production in order to increase the wealth generated to offset foreign debts incurred through reckless borrowing and spending.

The Federal Government militarily occupies the Niger Niger/South-South like a colonial power by stationing the Joint Task Force Operation Restore Hope (JTF) to prevent individuals from engaging in the refining of oil while the Federal Government is not interested in creating a JTF to prevent individuals from illegal mining of solid minerals.

Indeed, the reckless exploitation of oil and gas in the oil region is an existential threat to the survival of the peoples of the Niger Delta/South-South. Therefore,   Federal Government should take the following steps to remedy the situation:

  1.  Nationalize solid minerals the way oil and gas are nationalized.
  2. Establish the Nigerian National Solid Minerals Corporation (NNSMC) to carry out effective ownership, control, and management of solid minerals the way oil and gas are owned, controlled, and managed through the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation Limited (NNPCL).
  3. The Board of Directors of the NNSMCL must come from the six zones of the country.
  4. Establish a military Joint Task Force (JTF) to stop illegal mining of solid minerals the way illegal refiners are prevented from doing so in the Niger Delta/South-South.
  5. Revenue generated from the mining of solid minerals must go directly into the Federation Account.
  6. The funds must be shared the way the oil wealth is shared through the Federation Account to the Federal Government, states, local governments and the Federal Capital Territory.
  7. The Federal Government must set up a proactive pollution cleaning program to clean the oil region.

If these steps are not taken to nationalize solid minerals, then Nigeria must denationalize petroleum and gas.  This means that the citizens of the oil region should be able to explore and refine petroleum the way Nigerians mine gold and other solid minerals. In other words, failure to operationalize the nationalization of solid minerals should result in automatic denationalization of oil and gas in the Niger Delta//South-South.

This further means that if the Federal Government continues to look the other way and allow individuals and cooperatives to mine solid minerals, then, the indigenes of the oil region should be allowed to explore and refine petroleum and gas.

Indeed, Nigeria must stop the double standard in controlling, regulating and managing mineral resources in the country.  The double standard creates the impression that the oil region is a colony because the inhabitants of the region are not power-wielding groups in Nigeria, hence deserved to be exploited and deprived of their natural rights to make use of resources in their territory while solid minerals are mostly found in the regions of the power-wielding groups, hence, the citizens of those regions can mine and create individual and family wealth from solid minerals exploration.

References

Eguzozie, B. (2021, August 2). Nigeria’s Oil Block ownership: A dubious national oil industry management. Business A.M. https://www.businessamlive.com/nigerias-oil-block-ownership-a-dubious-national-oil-industry-management/#:~:text=An%20oil%20block%20or%20oil,to%20be%20extracte.

Idoko, C. (2024, March 2). FG inaugurates mining marshals to combat illegal mining.  Nigerian Tribune. https://tribuneonlineng.com/fg-inaugurates-mining-marshals-to-combat-illegal-mining/#:~:text=Mining%20Marshals%2C%20a%20unit%20cr.

Isenyo, G. ( 2016, April 7). Kaduna gold deposit bigger than S’Africa’s reserves. Punch. https://punchng.com/kaduna-gold-deposit-bigger-than-safricas-reserves/.

Minerals: Is there a complacency? Business Day. The Silence of the Ministry of Solid Minerals; Is there a Complacency? – Businessday NG.

Nigeria Minerals and Mining Act, 2007. chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://msmd.gov.ng/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Nigerian-Minerals-Mining-Act-2007.pdf; (https://www.lawnigeria.com/LFN/N/Nigerian-Minerals-and-Mining-Act.php.