Nigeria Risks Wider Destabilization With Its Crackdown on Biafra Separatists

With the arrest of 60 supporters of the Biafra separatist movement this week, Nigeria has taken a step closer to provoking a violent insurgency in the southeastern region of the country. As tensions rise, both the government and the separatists are threatening to push Nigeria further into conflict. In an email interview, Ryan Cummings, director of Signal Risk, an Africa-focused risk management consultancy, examines what is driving the Biafra separatist movement, the evolution in the government’s response and the risks if the conflict escalates.

WPR: What is behind the surge in pro-Biafra activism, and what do these activists hope to achieve?

Ryan Cummings: Separatist agitation by Biafran activists has been an ongoing issue since the end of the Nigerian civil war in 1970; the war itself was prompted by the declaration of the Igbo Republic of Biafra in 1967. Members of Nigeria’s Igbo community, who principally reside in the country’s southeast, have long claimed to be socially, politically and economically marginalized by the Nigerian state. These sentiments became more acute after the victory of the All Progressives Congress, or APC, in Nigeria’s 2015 general elections, which resulted in a leader from the northern Hausa people, Muhammadu Buhari, assuming the presidency. Buhari proclaimed that those who voted against him could not expect the same treatment as those who supported him. This further heightened anti-government sentiment in southeastern Nigeria—a region generally considered to be a stronghold of the opposition People’s Democratic Party, which lost the presidency in 2015 but still governs in several states.

The greatest catalyst for renewed Biafran unrest, however, was the central government’s response to calls over the summer from Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, a separatist movement known as IPOB, for the re-establishment of the Republic of Biafra in southeastern Nigeria via a democratic referendum. Kanu’s appeal was limited to Abia state, where Kanu enjoyed modest support. However, recent moves taken against Kanu and the wider IPOB movement—including the arrests this week—have drawn attention to the central government’s repressive response to what was otherwise a peaceful movement. Moreover, the government’s actions reinforced IPOB claims of the marginalization of the Igbo community.

WPR: How has the Nigerian state traditionally dealt with the legacy of the Biafran War, and how is it treating the Biafran activists today?

Cummings: For many years, the Nigerian response to the legacy of Biafra could perhaps be described, for the most part, as one of indifference. However, this was mostly because the degree of Biafran agitation was less vociferous as compared to now under the Buhari administration, whose response to Biafran activism can be described as heavy-handed. While the IPOB has always advocated peace, and the group’s mobilization efforts conformed to this, the current government has disrupted IPOB gatherings and often denied the group the right to freedom of assembly. Kanu has also been arrested on charges of treason, although the Nigerian constitution is ambiguous on whether a call for secession is a prosecutable offense.

Moreover, the Nigerian government’s designation of IPOB as a terrorist organization earlier this month suggests that the state seeks to violently suppress its secessionist-leaning citizens rather than engage them on their grievances, which just pushes them further toward the goal of autonomy. The suppression of IPOB activities are in many ways similar to Nigeria’s early suppression of Boko Haram, an Islamist militant group seeking to overthrow the state. The government’s early crackdown on Boko Haram eventually militarized it and also helped it recruit among communities who perceived themselves as marginalized due to their ethno-political and religious identity.

WPR: What are the potential economic and security implications if the situation continues to deteriorate?

Cummings: The major concern is that if the Nigerian government launches a counterterrorism operation against IPOB and other Biafran groups reminiscent of the one against Boko Haram, which was marred by claims of human rights abuses, it risks militarizing a group that, to date, has been peaceful. IPOB operates in a restive region of Nigeria that has long taken up arms against the state that it says has neglected it politically and economically. This could cause further security deterioration in Nigeria's oil-producing southern and eastern regions, threatening the most vital source of revenue for the entire country. Furthermore, ongoing suppression of Igbo communities, as part of broad-based counterterrorism initiatives, can lead to violent reprisals against other ethnic communities perceived to be aligned to the ruling government, such as Nigeria’s Hausa community.