Oral History Program Baro Bida Interviewed by Ademola Adetula 17 July 1972 i Oral History Program Weber State University Stewart Library Ogden, Utah Bida Baro Interviewed by Ademola Adetula 17 July 1972 Copyright © 2012 by Weber State University, Stewart Library ii Mission Statement The Oral History Program of the Stewart Library was created to preserve the institutional history of Weber State University and the Davis, Ogden and Weber County communities. By conducting carefully researched, recorded, and transcribed interviews, the Oral History Program creates archival oral histories intended for the widest possible use. Interviews are conducted with the goal of eliciting from each participant a full and accurate account of events. The interviews are transcribed, edited for accuracy and clarity, and reviewed by the interviewees (as available), who are encouraged to augment or correct their spoken words. The reviewed and corrected transcripts are indexed, printed, and bound with photographs and illustrative materials as available. Archival copies are placed in University Archives. The Stewart Library also houses the original recording so researchers can gain a sense of the interviewee's voice and intonations. Project Description The Weber State College/University Student Projects have been created by students working with several different professors on the Weber State campus. The topics are varied and based on the student's interest or task for a specific assignment. These oral history assignments were created to help Weber State students learn the value and importance of recording public history and to benefit the expansion of the Weber State oral history collections. ____________________________________ Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews between a narrator with firsthand knowledge of historically significant events and a well-informed interviewer, with the goal of preserving substantive additions to the historical record. Because it is primary material, oral history is not intended to present the final, verified, or complete narrative of events. It is a spoken account. It reflects personal opinion offered by the interviewee in response to questioning, and as such it is partisan, deeply involved, and irreplaceable. ____________________________________ Rights Management All literary rights in the manuscript, including the right to publish, are reserved to the Stewart Library of Weber State University. No part of the manuscript may be published without the written permission of the University Librarian. Requests for permission to publish should be addressed to the Administration Office, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, Utah, 84408. The request should include identification of the specific item and identification of the user. It is recommended that this oral history be cited as follows: Bida, Baro, an oral history by Ademola Adetula, 17 July 1972, WSU Stewart Library Oral History Program, University Archives, Stewart Library, Weber State University, Ogden, UT. iii Abstract: The following is an oral history interview with Baro Bida. The interview was conducted on July 19, 1972, by Ademola Adetula. Bida discusses his knowledge of the Nigerian War and his thoughts on it. AA: Do you mind telling me about yourself? BB: My full name is Baro Bida. I was born in 1941. I trained as a teacher at the Kano and Jos College, and I taught for four years before I left my teaching job to work for Kano Native Authority as an adult education and information officer. Later I assumed the position as an assistant chief scribe of the Kano District Administration. I left my office for further studies in 1962. I attended Amadu Bello University where I had a B. S. in Geology. Having graduated in 1965, I took up a job in the Ministry of Mines and power in Kaduna as a Mining advisor. I was in Kaduna up until 1971 before I came to the United States for my master’s degree. AA: How do you find America? BB: America is a nice place. AA: Do you like to stay after your course? BB: No. Even if I wanted to, the Nigerian Government will not allow that because I am on a Nigerian scholarship. AA: How was Nigeria before you left? BB: Life was normal except for certain areas in Eastern Nigeria where fighting occurred during the war. 1 AA: How did the war begin? BB: The first shot was fired by the Biafran troops in July 1967. But it was really a case of "one thing leading to another," which I can describe as a chain of events. There was the military coup of January 15, 1966, the first in Nigeria. Riots and killings followed in all parts of the country for months later. Another military coup on July 1966 was followed by more disturbances. There were deaths of civilians and soldiers alike, mainly the important officers. Then came efforts to resolve the poor situation peacefully in order to keep Nigeria a United Nation at all costs. There were high level peace committee meetings for many months— one after another. But there was always a failure. Ojukwu steadily drew away from the rest of the country and finally declared his secession on May 30, 1967. The dye was cast! And the Federal Government, sworn to defend the Nation’s territorial integrity, took the only course open to it in such circumstances—to keep Nigeria one! AA: What was the only course open to Nigeria to keep Nigeria one? BB: To use military force as Nigeria did do. AA: What is your opinion about military coups in general? BB: I hate to see people being killed, but I have full support for violence if need be. There is nothing wrong in using force. If we do not have to use force then why do we need to keep the Army? You must realize that, as peace has its own advantages, force also has its own advantages, too. AA: Do you then justify the two military coups that happened within one year in Nigeria? 2 BB: Yes, I gave both coups my one hundred percent support. I had respect for the first coup because it kept the corrupt civilian government out of the way. Their failure was that they could not unite Nigeria as they promised. Instead, the soldiers engaged themselves in all kinds of corrupt practices. AA: What do you have to say about the second coup? BB: The second coup showed encouragement at the beginning. Since the end of the war in Nigeria, the soldiers have returned to their ugly practices. AA: What can you say about the military government and the civilian government? BB: I cannot say much because they are both corrupt. The difference is that soldiers are not supposed to rule in the first place, and there is more freedom of speech under civilian government than under military government. AA: Do you mind telling me all you know about some of the most important events that took place during the Nigerian Civil War? BB: I cannot say much about this because everyday events were all important during the war. War broke out in July 1967. The heaviest casualties took place in 1968 when the Biafran soldiers tried to capture Northern Nigeria and Lagos, the Federal capital city. The Nigerian force met the Biafran army at Ore, a small town in the Mid-West. Although the Nigerian soldiers did not find things easy, they were able to beat back the Biafran forces. The war was still heavy even after Nigeria had regained most of the cities captured by the Biafrans. Another important event that was the utmost of importance was the surrender of the Biafran soldiers in January 1970. The Biafran radio announced that Ojukwu had left the secessionist area in search of peace. Lagos and other parts of 3 Nigeria interpreted this to mean that Ojukwu had taken to his heels to avoid being captured by advancing Federal troops. But it was officially announced in Lagos that Oweri, the only important town still held by the Biafrans had been recaptured. Radio Biafra also broadcast an address by General Effiong that a high powered delegation from his regime had been given full authority to negotiate with the Federal Military Government. He named Mr. E. Agunma, Mr. J. I. Emenbolu, Sir Louis Mbanefo, and Professor Eni Njoku as the leaders of the delegation. This time the Nigerians were convinced that the war was coming to an end as about 6,000 Biafran soldiers surrendered as announced by the Nigerian newsmen. On the 15th of January, 1970, it was announced by the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation that the Biafran delegates had arrived in Lagos. And at about 10 o'clock that night there was a radio announcement that the delegates who were also the leaders of Biafra had accepted to be part of Nigeria and that there would be no more fighting or government in exile. That was the whole story that I can tell about the war. AA: What in your view are the causes of the Nigerian Civil War? BB: The following, among others, are the causes of the civil war: 1. Denial of fundamental human rights in respect of freedom of expression, freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of movement, and freedom from discrimination. 2. Increase in ministerial and parliamentary emoluments, on the one hand, and refusal to accept the recommendations of the Morgan Commission in respect of wages and conditions of service among workers. 4 3. The misuse of officially sponsored newspapers as the mouthpiece of the political parties in power, either at the federal level, or in the regions. 4. Lack of a free and fair election as manifested in the fiasco of the Federal elections of 1964 and the Western elections of 1965. 5. The coup d’état of January 1966 and the counter coup d’état of July 1966, leading to the dismantling of the Nigerian armed forces. 6. The Law which destroyed the Federal basis of the Nigerian corpus unified the public services and the appointment of civil servants, permanent secretaries, and members of the Police Service Commission. 7. The massacres of easterners in Northern Nigeria in May 1966; the massacres of northerners in Eastern Nigeria in late August 1966; and the massacres of easterners in Northern Nigeria in September 1966. 8. The debacle of the ad hoc Constitutional Conference in 1966. 9. The ambiguous interpretations of the decisions of the Aburi summit and the ambivalent role of Colonel Ojukwu in that respect. 10. The violation of the Nigerian Constitution by the Military Government of Eastern Nigeria, which arrogated to itself the unilateral control of federal statutory corporations within its territorial jurisdiction. 11. The retaliatory measures adopted by the Federal Military Government in the nature of administrative and economic sanctions, imposed by the Federal authorities on Eastern Nigeria and which bit deeply on its corporate existence; and 5 12. The declaration of independence and secession of Eastern Nigeria from the Federation. AA: What were the Nigerian leaders doing since all these happenings? BB: We should not blame the leaders alone because many of them did their best. All I know is that no matter how wise human beings are, we cannot prevent what will happen. AA: What were the foreign countries attitudes toward Nigeria and Biafra during the Civil War? BB: What any experienced man would expect happened. Some countries backed Biafra while some agreed with Nigeria to keep Nigeria one. Many countries did their level best to stay out of the trouble. AA: Do you justify any of the countries for their roles? BB: I justify all the countries because they said what their opinion was about Nigeria. There is nothing wrong about that. AA: What can you say about France, Great Britain, and the United States of America? BB: Depending on what area? AA: I mean their roles in the War? BB: France sided with Biafra. Great Britain was hanging on the balance because they never knew who would win the war; while the United States tried by all means to stay away, but they indirectly supported Biafra. AA: In what way did the United States support Biafra indirectly? BB: They supplied them with a few ammunitions; but this was in an unofficial manner. 6 AA: Were these countries trying to show their love for Nigeria and Biafra? BB: No. They wanted the oil from Nigeria. They were all after exploitation. They were at all times fighting for their own interests and not for anyone else. AA: How could Nigeria have avoided the sad experiences from the Civil War? BB: If Ojukwu had only accepted the proposals at the Nigerian Peace talks and the efforts made to keep Nigeria a single union, then perhaps the war could have been avoided. As it was, being divided as Nigeria was, there isn't a man in heaven or on earth that could have prevented the war. AA: Does that mean that Ojukwu was the cause of the War? BB: Yes. As I said before, he fired the first shots and dropped the first bombs. In my estimation, he caused the whole confusion. AA: In your own opinion, why do you think the war ended the way it ended? BB: The war ended because, in the first place, we ratified the war, and also we had a situation in the war zones where the dominion part of the East-Central State was surrounded by Nigerian soldiers and there was a complete blockade of many parts. Also a shortage of food in the East-Central State and the mid-war zones when the Uli Air Port was taken was another reason. So it was not easy for the Biafran soldiers to get food and supplies from foreign countries because before the fall of the Uli Air Port, food and ammunitions used to be flown from elsewhere. So with this it was not easy for them to carry on the war. There was a shortage of food and there was a shortage of ammunitions and also there were so many people concentrated in a small area so it 7 was very, very dangerous to carry on the war without a total annihilation of the Ibos and many other people. AA: Does that mean that the Biafrans could have been fighting still if they hadn't run out of ammunition? BB: As you know, war does not just end. It is easy to start a war, but it is not easy to end it. So what you'd expect, we are well equipped and if we could not arrive at any compromise at the conferences, the war could have gone on ceasingly if there was not such a shortage of food and ammunition. I don't think that either the Biafran side or the government side could have surrendered to the other if one of the sides did not have such a disadvantage. AA: You said before that many soldiers died on the Biafran side— though it also happened on the Nigerian side, too—and the tremendous reduction of the Biafran soldiers as a result of the deaths was so great that it opened everybody's eyes. Wouldn't you think that would be enough reason for them to withdraw from the war? BB: I don't think that could have been sufficient reason for them to withdraw. Each side knew that there was going to be many casualties in a war like this and the Biafran side speculated that they were ready to fight to the last man—so that was not such a disadvantage on their part. I don't think they would have just surrendered to the Federal troops because of the losses they encountered. It was decided to estimate which side suffered the heaviest casualties—and Ojukwu speculated that the Biafran side suffered more. So, I don't think that, by the time the war ended, the Biafran army did not have enough men to carry on the war for the next six months or more. 8 AA: Do you mind telling me about the foreign influences on the war? BB: As I have already stated, many foreign countries took part in the war, either directly or indirectly. I can mention, again, some of the countries which had participated and maybe some of the reasons why they did so. Let's take the case of France, for example. France supported Biafra openly and she had many reasons for doing so. France had experienced such a civil war in the French Revolutionary War, and they were determined to give their support to peoples who were fighting a war for freedom. I think, also, that they had an economic aim because of the oil in the Eastern part of the country. They could gain some retribution from Biafra if Biafra was the winner of the war. In the case of the United States—it did not state that she would support either side of the Nigerian Crisis. But from rumors and from other sources we know that certain organizations and agencies in the United States provided help of one sort or another to the Biafrans. It is hard to say what they were really after because I cannot say if they had something in mind, such as an economic aim, but I can guess that if Biafra had won the war, organizations in the United States that had supported it would have come openly and it would have been one disadvantage to the United States, such as drilling oil and exploitation of soil. Then let's take the case of Great Britain. From the way that Great Britain acted in trying to play a waiting game; we can safely say that it did not concern her whether it was Nigeria or Biafra that won the war. What it was concerned about was waiting to see which side was winning so as to know which side to support because if Biafra won the war, then Great Britain was going to gain from it. And if Nigeria won the war, then Great Britain was going to gain from it, too. So, Great Britain was playing the waiting game to see which side was going to win and to know which 9 side to support so that the ultimate aim was that Great Britain would not lose much no matter which side won. AA: Now that the Nigerian Government won the war, what do you think would be good for Nigeria to show their appreciation to the Russians that helped them? BB: Nigeria should show great appreciation and gratitude for the countries that had supported her during the civil war. Russia is a case in point. When Great Britain had refused to sell arms to Nigeria, it was Russia that came in to help and so, many ammunitions were purchased from Russia. Before the war ended, diplomatic relations were established between Russia and Nigeria. Also some cultural activities had been set up between the two countries—mainly the exchange of students. There are many Nigerians who have gone to Russia to study under this program, although I don't know of any Russians studying in Nigeria at the present time. But I think there are Russian tourists in Nigeria. So this is a first step and I think we can share more in the future by having more cultural affairs and by having diplomatic relations. Also Nigeria should try to show gratitude to Russia by any other way for the great help that Russia had given Nigeria during the civil war. AA: Should Nigeria cut relationships with France and the other countries who sided with Biafra during the war? BB: It is not diplomatically sound for Nigeria to cut relations with France, Great Britain, and the other countries that supported Biafra, either directly or indirectly, during the war. Having diplomatic relations does not always indicate the degree of friendship between two countries. As you know, Nigeria being from a British colony, cannot easily cut relations with Great Britain. The relationship can continue and some of the activities 10 going on, such as international trade, can still go on because I think that’s a sort of symbolic relationship between developing countries of Africa—especially those that we honor as the British, and the French, and foreign countries that had ruled us for some time. So, I don't think there is any need for us to cut relations. Let1s keep in mind that they did not come to help us in our hour of need, but we should not go to the extent of trying to do away with them because it is not certain that we could do away completely with them as they cannot do away completely with us. AA: Do you say, then, that if we do away with those countries that it might be felt in the Nigerian economy or the other way around? BB: Sure. If diplomatic relations were cut and there is no trade between Nigeria, France, or Great Britain, it is going to have as adverse effect on Nigeria1s economy and also on the economy of those countries that I have just mentioned. AA: Just in case it happens that those countries refuse to have any relationship with Nigeria, does that mean that Nigeria will not be able to stay? BB: Nigeria can stay and can set up trade treaties with other countries such as the East European countries, and the far eastern countries such as India and Japan and the United States. So, that's not the issue at all. I'm not saying that if Nigeria does away with Great Britain or France then it cannot have other foreign countries to trade with, but conventionally and customarily these are the countries with which Nigeria traded within the past so I don't think there is any need for either of them to decide to do away with the other. 11 AA: When the war appeared to be against Ojukwu, he escaped from Nigeria according the information I have. The only country that accepted him was Ivory Coast, and he was there as a political refugee, which means that this country gave him political asylum. What do you think of this type of country? Are they friendly with Nigeria? Do you think what they have done is right or wrong? BB: I would not give a moral judgment in this matter. This often happens that when some official persons in Africa have problems in their own counties they flee the country and take asylum in another country. So, this was what had happened in the River State and I cannot blame them for giving asylum to Colonel Ojukwu. I don't think it was a bad thing to do. AA: On many occasions now, the Nigerian government appealed to the Ivory Coast to send Ojukwu back to Nigeria. What is your opinion about this? Do you side with Nigeria to have him returned or do you hope for betterness by his staying there? BB: Unless Nigeria states that it is going to forgive Ojukwu upon his return, he should not come back to the country. So, Ivory Coast would like to have the assurance that when he comes back he is not going to be prosecuted and is not going to be imprisoned or is not going to be killed. So, unless Nigeria is willing to do so, Ivory Coast should not return Ojukwu because I don't think the death of Ojukwu or the imprisonment of Ojukwu is going to do anything to solve the problems that have been created in the country by the civil war. So I think that he should stay there. I would even appeal to the Nigerian Government to forgive Ojukwu and let him return to the country. AA: If Ojukwu returned to Nigeria would you rather see him take his former job as Colonel or to become a civilian worker in Nigeria? 12 BB: The job for him to hold is not the problem. If he wants to remain in this position he should remain there. I think he did a marvelous job on the Biafran side. I would not blame Ojukwu for all of the events that led to the war or to the declaration of war. I think that the Biafran declaration of a republic came as a result of the fact that protestors had been unable to arrive at some other peaceful solutions to the Nigerian crisis. And Ojukwu had the full support of those in the East Central State indicated by the statement that not one hundred percent of the people there support him, but a good majority of them did. So if Ojukwu canes back, he should hold his job as somebody in the army. Unless he wants to become a civilian that's nice for him, but I don't think anybody should decide for him what job he should hold and what job he should not hold. AA: What could have become of Nigeria if Ojukwu had won? BB: If Ojukwu had won the war and Biafra had become an independent country, it is hard to say exactly what would have become of the rest of the country. I think that the remaining regions of the country would find it very, very hard to stay together if the former Eastern region had become an independent country. I think the West, from what one of my other students indicated at one time or another; it would have seceded categorically if Ojukwu had succeeded. And I think Ojukwu was rather confident when the secession occurred that some other States or some other regions would follow suit. This might have been the motivation behind the occupation of the Mid-West and the declaration of the Benin Republic which fell within 2k hours. So, it is very, very, hard to say if the Western State, the Mid-Western State and the Northern State or regions would have stayed together as one country if the Eastern part had broken away. And 13 even then, the Eastern part would have had many problems because although Ojukwu had declared the republic of Biafra including the whole of the former Eastern region it is not everybody in the former Eastern region who supported the cause. Those in the present South-Eastern State and the River State did not give full support to the idea of secession. So, it would have been hard for them to stay there although they would have been forced to stay. And there would have been problems on either side of the country— in Eastern State which would have become the Republic of Biafra and the rest of the federation which would have become the Federation of Nigeria. So, it is hard to say, but I don't think that would have been a solution to the Nigerian crisis—having the two countries of Biafra and Nigeria. AA: There have been speculations that there will be government in exile for the Biafrans'. What do you know about this? Do you really justify such action? BB: I have been aware of the rumors that Biafra will rise again, but from the people I have talked to, those who were in the country and those Biafrans who were not in the country during the war, I have come to the conclusion that there is nothing like that. Some people, like France and some people in the United States, for example, would like Biafra to fight again so that it will gain as a republic. As I have already said in the past, there is not any need for that now because leniency has been shown to those on the Ibos side, and indeed, they themselves have acknowledged that leniency has been shown to them. And those outside the country would not support such a move although they could contribute financially to it because it is the common man who suffers the brunt of such an action. So, I don't think that they are going to propagate that there 14 should be another Biafra after the sad experiences we had concerning the civil war. I think they are just rumors. AA: In 1966 when Ojukwu delivered a speech to a group of reporters when he said that Nigeria would never be a united country because of different cultures in the four different regions of the country. Perhaps he was referring mainly to the different languages of Nigeria which has always caused much confusion in bringing together or to the more understanding of each other. What is your comment about Ojukwu's statement? BB: I could understand what Ojukwu was aiming at. I think that was rather propaganda because there was much adversity in Africa that if we were going to give due consideration to that, then there should be as many different countries in Africa as there are different cultures. But from an analysis of cultures that exist in Africa and in Nigeria in particular, such an idea would not be possible. Take Nigeria, for example, although we say that the main languages are Yoroba, aosa, and Ibos, there are about two hundred other different languages in the country. So if every linguistic and tribal group were to have a separate country, then we are going to have about two hundred different countries in Nigeria with a result that some would have a population of one million and others would have a population of only 500,000. Do you think that such a country would be valuable economically in Nigeria? So, as stated in the book, Crisis Struggles in Africa, it is no use to say that we must be of one culture, that we must speak the same language before we can have unity. I think we should think of unity in Africa, or in Nigeria as a unity in diversity, because I don't think that the diversity in Africa or in Nigeria today is going to be wiped out within one century or so. If we are going to base 15 any decisions on that, then we will have a long way to go and it would do us harm rather than good. I think that we should nave unity, and if we want to maintain our tribal identity, we should also do so. If we want to speak our own different languages we should be free to do so, but there should be an understanding that we should have a common language as a means of communication. But as far as the other aspects are concerned, I don't think there is any need for uniformity. AA: At present, the official language in Nigeria is English. In your opinion, should Nigeria continue with this system of speaking English as the official language even though it is not the modern talk in Nigeria? BB: It is unfortunate that the different tribal groups in Nigeria cannot decide to take one of the many languages in Nigeria as the official language because I don't think that we should inherit English from the English and take English as the official language of the country. We are losing much as far as authenticity is concerned. But at the present, no tribal group is willing to relinquish his language for another Nigerian language. So if we are selfish to that extent, then English is going to stay for a while. I think we should have English as a second language and take one of the many Nigerian languages as the official language. AA: How soon would you like to see Nigeria set up a language program so that everybody would go there to learn a common language? BB: I cannot speculate on how soon that would be. In the first place, it has not been shown that the different tribes in Nigeria are willing to take just one Nigerian language and study- that. So if the people are not willing to do so, to set up a program would be useless because it wouldn't profit the people, you cannot force students to study 16 another language in school and force them to speak that language at home. So this is a social problem we have. As I have already said: if we want to retain English as the official language; fine, we should retain it. It would be good for us to have one language, but we cannot force that language on any person. So I don't speculate on the time that Nigerians will be willing to have one language. We should wait to see if in the near future that they want to have one Nigerian language, then programs will be set up in the schools. If there is no consensus as to which Nigerian language should be taken, then English will continue to be the official language and each tribal group will maintain his own language. AA: What are your suggestions to better Nigeria? BB: There are a few of them and I would like to mention them. First, I would like to see our exports greater than our imports so that we can better our economical stand. Second, The Federal power should be stronger than individual state's power. Third, our educational system should be changed, at least to eliminate the higher school certificate. The General Certificate of Education should be conducted at least three times a year rather than only once. The West African Examination should be open to anyone who qualifies to take it. There should be more schools, colleges, and universities to absorb all the thousands of qualified young students. Fourth, at present, our agricultural system is still remote. The system should be modernized. Fifth, all efforts should be made to reduce the unemployment rate. To solve this problem of unemployment, we need more industries and people to invest in. If Nigeria can do this, our problems should be solved in no time. 17 AA: Thank you very much, Baro Bida. I really appreciate your effort in bring my interview to a successful close. 18