The Wider East: History, Myth & The 13-State Debate On Biafra
Beyond the Simplified Map
PUBLIC conversations about the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970) often compress the secessionist state of Biafra into the modern five states of Nigeria’s South-East. Yet archival records, demographic realities of the late 1960s, and testimonies from affected communities complicate that narrative.
When Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu declared the Republic of Biafra in May 1967, the territory did not correspond to today’s geopolitical zoning. Instead, it largely comprised the former Eastern Region of Nigeria — an administrative unit that included areas now carved into multiple states across the South-East and South-South.
The reduction of Biafra to “Igbo land” alone, historians argue, is both politically convenient and historically incomplete.
The Core East: The Undisputed Heartland
The present-day states of Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu, and Imo formed the demographic and administrative nucleus of the old Eastern Region. These areas supplied much of Biafra’s political leadership, civil service, and intellectual infrastructure.
Cities such as Onitsha and Enugu were economic and administrative hubs long before the war. Enugu served as the capital of the Eastern Region and later of Biafra. In this sense, describing the South-East as the “core” of Biafra reflects documented political reality.
Yet even at the height of the conflict, the Eastern Region was never ethnically homogeneous.
The South-South Dimension: Shared History, Divergent Politics
Before state creation exercises fragmented Nigeria into its present 36-state structure, the Eastern Region included territories now known as Akwa Ibom, Cross River, Rivers, Bayelsa, and parts of Delta.
Ethnic groups such as the Ibibio, Efik, Ijaw, Ogoni, and others were administratively part of the Eastern Region at independence in 1960. Trade networks along the Niger and Cross River corridors predated colonialism. Palm oil commerce, coastal trade, and missionary activity linked inland Igbo communities with riverine and coastal societies for centuries.
However, the political alignment during the civil war was more complex. In 1967, the federal military government under Yakubu Gowon created 12 states, splitting the Eastern Region into East-Central, Rivers, and South-Eastern states. That move strategically weakened Biafra’s territorial and oil base. Some minority leaders in the riverine areas supported state creation, seeing it as liberation from perceived Igbo political dominance.
Thus, while historical connections existed, wartime loyalties were not uniform.
The Middle Belt Question: Cultural Continuities or Political Stretch?
Claims that parts of Benue, Kogi, and Edo states belong in a broader historical Biafran conversation are more contentious. Proponents cite linguistic overlaps, migratory histories, and intermarriage among border communities such as Igede, Idoma, Igala, Igbanke, and Esan.
Anthropological studies indeed show centuries of interaction across these zones. Markets, shrines, and kinship networks crossed what later became colonial boundaries. Yet these areas were not formally part of the Eastern Region at independence in the same way as the coastal and core eastern provinces.
The argument here shifts from administrative history to deeper pre-colonial ethnography — an important distinction often blurred in public debate.
Colonial Cartography and Fragmented Memory
British colonial administration reorganized territories for governance efficiency, not cultural coherence. The 1914 amalgamation under Frederick Lugard fused disparate regions into a single colony. Later regional structures further hardened lines that had once been fluid.
Post-war state creation from 1967 onward deepened fragmentation. Over decades, new state identities diluted memories of shared regional belonging. What was once “Eastern Nigeria” became multiple political blocs with divergent interests.
As a result, contemporary discourse often retrofits 1967 realities onto today’s political geography.
Why the Debate Persists
The renewed interest in Biafra’s territorial scope reflects more than nostalgia. It touches on unresolved grievances from the civil war, questions of federal equity, and ongoing agitation by groups such as Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB).
For some, expanding the mental map of Biafra is an attempt to reclaim suppressed historical narratives. For others, it risks reopening ethnic fault lines.
What is historically verifiable is this: Biafra emerged from the Eastern Region, which included far more than today’s five South-East states. Whether that historical fact translates into contemporary political alignment is a different, and far more complicated, matter.
History resists simplification. And perhaps that complexity — rather than any map — is what unsettles many Nigerians.
