Olufemi Aduwo is the Permanent Representative of the Centre for Convention on Democratic Integrity to the United Nations
In this era of historical conventions and national retrospection, it has become evident that the Nigerian state must confront its past with unflinching honesty. Recent remarks by General Ibrahim Babangida, in which he attempted to provide his perspective on Nigeria’s history, have set a precedent. It is now incumbent upon General Yakubu Gowon to exhibit a similar level of candour and address, with absolute sincerity, the lingering questions surrounding the Aburi Accord. The Nigerian people deserve clarity on what precisely was agreed upon between him and Colonel Chukwuemeka Ojukwu during that fateful meeting at Aburi.
The Aburi Accord, reached in January 1967, was meant to provide a framework for resolving the deepening political crisis that threatened Nigeria’s unity. However, what transpired following that agreement remains a matter of intense debate. History, however inconvenient, cannot be rewritten to suit the interests of any individual or institution. There has been a persistent claim that the Federal Government, under General Gowon’s leadership, reneged on the agreements reached in Aburi, thereby exacerbating tensions and ultimately leading to the Nigerian Civil War. If there was indeed a deviation from the original commitments made at Aburi, then it is only fitting that it be acknowledged, not with defensiveness or obfuscation, but with the dignity befitting a statesman.
It is also crucial to recognise the stark contrast in intellectual and academic exposure between the principal actors at Aburi. Ojukwu, a man of formidable intellect, obtained a master’s degree in history from the esteemed University of Oxford before he enlisted in the Nigerian Army. His understanding of historical precedent, governance structures, and negotiation principles was thus firmly rooted in rigorous academic training. In contrast, General Yakubu Gowon transitioned directly from Barewa College into military service, rising through the ranks with little exposure to structured political discourse or historical analysis. This disparity in scholarly grounding must be considered when evaluating the breakdown of the Aburi Agreement. Did General Gowon fully comprehend the weight of his commitments at Aburi? Or was there a fundamental failure in interpretation, possibly exacerbated by external influences, particularly from the British government and other vested international interests?
The Nigerian people demand the truth—unsullied by revisionist attempts or political expediencies. The events that followed Aburi shaped the course of Nigerian history in ways that continue to be felt today, particularly in matters of governance, federalism, and ethnic relations. There can be no national reconciliation without a thorough, unbiased examination of our historical missteps. If General Gowon remains steadfast in his belief that the collapse of the Aburi Accord was justified, then let him articulate his position clearly and provide the Nigerian people with an unambiguous account of his actions. However, if there were errors—whether in judgment, implementation, or external manipulation—then history would demand nothing less than an admission of responsibility.
The time has come for General Gowon to reaffirm his integrity or accept accountability before posterity renders its judgment. History is an impartial judge, and its verdict, though sometimes delayed, is inexorable. A nation that fails to confront its past with honesty is doomed to repeat its mistakes. The Nigerian people, having endured the consequences of this unresolved chapter, deserve no less than the unvarnished truth. Legacy is not one of greatness but of squandered potential and irredeemable perfidy.
