The Chairman of the Forum of Former Members of the Enugu State House of Assembly and former Southeast spokesman for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Josef Onoh, has issued a detailed rebuttal to recent comments by former Head of State, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, on the Aburi Accord and the events that led to the Nigerian Civil War.
In a statement made available to journalists, Onoh challenged Gowon’s portrayal of the late Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu as the figure who frustrated peace efforts and undermined the Aburi Accord reached on January 4 and 5, 1967.
According to Onoh, the narrative unfairly presents Gowon as a unifying figure while depicting Ojukwu as uncompromising.
He said his account was based on years of personal conversations with Ojukwu, his late brother-in-law, as well as interactions with late Col. Joseph “Hannibal” Achuzie and former Biafran second-in-command, Maj. Gen. Philip Effiong, particularly between 1998 and 1999.
Onoh explained that the Aburi meeting, hosted in Ghana and mediated by Gen. Joseph Ankrah, produced agreements on key national issues, including greater regional autonomy, a decentralised military command structure, unanimous decision-making within the Supreme Military Council, and commitments to avoid the use of force.
“The atmosphere was cordial, with both leaders actively participating. Upon his return, Ojukwu publicly broadcast the accords and adopted the position, ‘On Aburi We Stand,’” he stated.
According to him, tensions emerged shortly after the meeting when Gowon reportedly faced pressure from federal permanent secretaries and advisers who believed the agreement conceded too much power to the regions and moved Nigeria toward a confederation.
Onoh argued that this led to the promulgation of Decree No. 8 in March 1967, which the Eastern Region viewed as a distortion of the Aburi agreements, particularly on issues relating to emergency powers, military control, and the balance between regional and federal authority.
“Ojukwu warned that failure to implement the accord would leave the East with no option but self-help,” he said, adding that historical records, declassified documents, and eyewitness accounts supported claims that the federal side later retreated from core agreements reached in Ghana.
He maintained that Ojukwu participated in the peace talks in good faith and did not sabotage the process, insisting that the collapse of the agreement stemmed largely from conflicting interpretations and the federal government’s reluctance to embrace a looser federation capable of protecting regional interests following the 1966 anti-Igbo pogroms.
Recalling Ojukwu’s reaction to the aftermath of the accord, Onoh quoted him as referring to Gowon as “my friend Gowon turned bandit,” a remark he said reflected Ojukwu’s sense of betrayal over the killings of Easterners and the failure to implement the agreement.
He noted that Maj. Gen. Philip Effiong shared similar sentiments, adding that Ojukwu later documented his perspective in his book, Because I Am Involved.
While acknowledging Gowon’s contributions to post-war reconciliation, especially through the “No Victor, No Vanquished” policy, Onoh expressed concern that recent statements and memoirs by the former Head of State could reopen old wounds more than five decades after the civil war.
“Ojukwu spoke and wrote extensively while alive, whereas Gowon maintained relative silence for decades before offering a posthumous narrative,” he stated.
“A true statesman prioritises national healing over vindication, especially on wounds that are still healing slowly more than 50 years later.”
Onoh urged Nigerians to rely on documentary evidence, recordings of the Aburi proceedings, contemporary broadcasts, and balanced historical scholarship rather than one-sided accounts.
“History thrives on truth that unites, not narratives that divide. Let us learn from Aburi’s failure: genuine dialogue and faithful implementation matter far more than signed agreements in an atmosphere of mistrust,” he added.
