Former Head of State Yakubu Gowon has reopened debate over one of Nigeria’s most sensitive historical moments, alleging that late Biafran leader Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu frustrated multiple peace efforts that could have averted the Nigerian Civil War.
In his autobiography My Life of Service and Allegiance, Gowon provides a detailed account of the political crisis that followed the 1966 coups and ultimately led to the 1967–1970 civil war. He argues that several attempts at reconciliation between the Federal Military Government and the Eastern Region collapsed because Ojukwu repeatedly rejected or reinterpreted agreements reached during negotiations.
Gowon specifically referenced the January 1967 Aburi meeting in Ghana, brokered by then Ghanaian leader Lt. Gen. Joseph Arthur Ankrah, which was intended to ease tensions and prevent Nigeria’s disintegration.
According to him, both sides returned from Aburi with differing interpretations of the agreements reached, with Ojukwu allegedly advancing positions that would have significantly weakened federal authority.
He maintained that while the federal government was committed to preserving national unity, it could not accept proposals it believed would effectively lead to the country’s breakup.
Gowon also stated that efforts to maintain peace continued even as ethnic tensions and political mistrust deepened nationwide, but communication between both sides broke down rapidly.
He defended the creation of 12 states in 1967 by his military government, saying the decision was aimed at addressing fears of domination by majority ethnic groups and giving minority communities stronger representation within the federation. According to him, it was part of broader efforts to stabilise the country and prevent further fragmentation.
Gowon further maintained that the declaration of Biafra on May 30, 1967, left the federal government with no alternative but to go to war, insisting the conflict was not sought but became unavoidable after secession was declared.
Reflecting on the war’s aftermath, he defended his reconciliation policy, “No Victor, No Vanquished,” describing it as essential to healing national divisions and preventing long-term ethnic hostility. He added that the federal government’s goal was to preserve Nigeria’s unity rather than punish any group.
He also acknowledged the immense human cost of the civil war, describing it as a painful chapter that required restraint and national healing in its aftermath.
While Ojukwu consistently maintained during his lifetime that Biafra was a response to insecurity and political exclusion, Gowon’s account presents a contrasting interpretation that places responsibility for the collapse of peace efforts largely on the former Eastern leader.
