Beyond The Igbo Narrative: Untangling The Forgotten History & Politics Of ‘Biafra’

FOR decades, public conversations about Biafra have been framed through a narrow lens—one that equates the idea almost exclusively with the Igbo ethnic group. The South-South, in particular, has remained sharply divided, with many communities dismissing Biafra as an Igbo-centric agenda. But a closer look at history, cartography, colonial records, and political evolution reveals a far more complex story—one that exposes how a regional identity was gradually simplified into a single-ethnic struggle.

A Region Shaped by Narratives—and Misunderstandings

Much of today’s confusion is the result of three forces: the memory of the civil war, the prominence of Igbo political voices during the 1967–70 conflict, and decades of state-sponsored propaganda aimed at preventing another separatist surge. Over time, these forces produced a simplified, emotionally charged storyline: Biafra belongs to the Igbo alone.

Yet this narrative collapses under historical scrutiny. Long before Nigeria existed, the term Biafra was already in use—and it did not refer to the Igbo.

The Historical Footprint of the “Bight of Biafra”

Centuries of European exploration documents—especially Portuguese navigation charts—refer to a vast coastal stretch known as the Bight of Biafra, a region far larger than today’s South-East. In fact, the area covered by the name extended across multiple ethnic nations now classified under:

• Rivers

• Bayelsa

• Akwa Ibom

• Cross River

• Delta

• Imo, Abia, Anambra, Enugu, Ebonyi

• Portions of Benue, Kogi, and Edo

British colonial records before amalgamation routinely described the peoples of this coastal zone—Ijaw, Ibibio, Efik, Ogoni, Isoko, Ukwuani, Ndoki, and others—as “Biafrans.”

This was not an ethnic label. It was a geographical and cultural identifier, linked by shared maritime economies, migration patterns, and centuries-old coastal networks.

Cultural Ties That Pre-Date Nigeria

Anthropological research suggests strong cultural and linguistic affinities among the peoples of the eastern delta and lower Cross River basin. Shared rites, riverine livelihoods, kinship patterns, and intergroup alliances knitted these communities into a loose regional identity—one that predated the creation of Nigeria by hundreds of years.

In today’s South-South, these deep ties often go unacknowledged, overshadowed by modern political boundaries and the scars left by the civil war.

How the Civil War Reshaped the Meaning of “Biafra”

The 1967 secession dramatically rebranded the word. With Chukwuemeka Ojukwu leading a resistance dominated by Igbo population centers, the global spotlight turned the Biafra story into an Igbo narrative. Many South-South elites distanced themselves—some out of fear, others due to internal political rivalries or distrust of Eastern Nigeria’s pre-war leadership.

As the conflict intensified, the Igbo increasingly carried its burden alone. The world began to read “Biafra” as synonymous with Igbo nationalism, a definition that has persisted for over 50 years.

This political compression erased centuries of multi-ethnic history.

What the Debate Means Today

Whether one supports or opposes modern separatist movements, one fact is clear: Biafra was never originally an Igbo-only identity.

It was a broad regional classification, shaped by geography and trade, not tribe. It included:

• Peoples of the South-East

• Numerous South-South ethnic nationalities

• Fringe Middle Belt communities touching the Biafran coastline

Ignoring this history fuels suspicion, misinformation, and needless ethnic hostility.

Why Revisiting This History Matters

Understanding the true origins of Biafra does not automatically validate any present political project—but it does restore context. It helps communities recognize shared histories that colonial borders fragmented. It also corrects the assumption that the Biafra debate is inherently tribal.

A historically literate society is less vulnerable to propaganda, less likely to demonize its neighbours, and more capable of holding nuanced political conversations.

At its core, the Biafra question is not a story of separation—it is a story of identity, memory, and the power of narratives to shape the future.

A Question for Readers

Given this historical background, should South-South and parts of the Middle Belt be considered part of the original Biafra region? What does the evidence suggest?

Share your thoughts below.