The Chairman of the Forum of Former Members of the Enugu State House of Assembly and former Southeast spokesman to President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Denge Josef Onoh, has pushed back strongly against recent comments by former Head of State, Yakubu Gowon, on the 1967 Aburi Accord and the origins of the Nigerian Civil War.
In a detailed statement made available to journalists, Onoh rejected Gowon’s narrative which he said portrayed the late Biafran leader, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, as responsible for the collapse of peace efforts following the January 4–5, 1967 meeting in Aburi, Ghana.
According to him, such interpretation “unfairly casts Gowon as the reasonable unifier while depicting Ojukwu as intransigent.”
Onoh said his position was informed by “firsthand accounts,” citing over a decade of private discussions with Ojukwu, interactions with the late Col. Achuzie, and his 1998–1999 conversations with former Biafran Chief of Staff, Philip Effiong.
He explained that the Aburi meeting, mediated by Ghana’s then Head of State, Joseph Ankrah, produced broad agreements on key issues including greater regional autonomy, a decentralised military command structure with regional control, unanimous decision-making within the Supreme Military Council, and a commitment 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,’” Onoh stated.
He argued that the breakdown began after Gowon’s return to Lagos, where he reportedly faced pressure from federal officials who viewed the agreements as a drift toward confederation.
According to Onoh, “This led to the issuance of Decree No. 8 in March 1967, which Ojukwu and the Eastern Region viewed as a dilution and mockery of the Aburi spirit — particularly regarding emergency powers, military control, and the balance between the regions and the federal centre.”
He further noted that “Ojukwu warned that non-implementation of the accord would leave the East with no choice but ‘self-help.’ Historical records, including declassified documents and eyewitness accounts such as Prince Akenzua’s memos, support the position that the federal side backtracked on core understandings reached in Ghana.”
Onoh insisted that Ojukwu attended the Aburi talks in good faith and did not frustrate peace efforts, stressing that the failure stemmed largely from “divergent interpretations and the federal government’s reluctance to implement a looser federation” in the aftermath of the 1966 killings and rising mistrust.
Recalling Ojukwu’s frustration, he quoted him as describing the situation as: “my friend Gowon turned bandit,” a reaction he said reflected deep disillusionment following the massacres of Easterners and the breakdown of trust.
He added that this view was also reflected in accounts by Philip Effiong and documented in Ojukwu’s memoir, Because I Am Involved.
While acknowledging Gowon as an elder statesman, particularly for his post-war reconciliation policy of “No Victor, No Vanquished,” Onoh warned against reopening old historical wounds.
“A true statesman prioritises national healing over vindication, especially on wounds that are still healing slowly more than 50 years later,” he said.
He further observed that while Ojukwu extensively documented his position during his lifetime, Gowon’s more recent public reflections risked reinterpreting events without the possibility of rebuttal.
Onoh concluded by urging Nigerians to rely on “documentary evidence, tape recordings of the Aburi proceedings, contemporary broadcasts, and balanced scholarship rather than one-sided memoirs issued when the other principal can no longer respond.”
“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 said.
