By Sylvester Udemezue.
In the course of an ongoing discussion on the Rule of Law Platform on 21 December 2025, a comment by Mr. Ikeazor Akaraiwe, SAN, particularly caught my attention. He wrote:
_”The January 1966 coup messed up this country. We have General Aguiyi-Ironsi, the man who scuttled the coup to blame. The coup failed. Why not hand power back to the civilians? The Prime Minister died in the coup. The next most senior minister, Minister of Defence, Alhaji Ribadu, should have assumed office as PM. But Ironsi, having scuttled the coup, announced himself as Head of State. How illogical!!! Arguably, the 1966 constitution would still be in place if Gen. Ironsi had simply handed over power to the surviving rump of the 1st Republic government.”_
I agree, one hundred per cent, with Ikeazor Akaraiwe’s view. General Johnson Thomas Umunnakwe Aguiyi-Ironsi occupies a tragic yet pivotal position in Nigeria’s history. His actions, particularly between January and July 1966, set in motion a chain of events whose consequences Nigeria has neither fully confronted nor resolved. In my considered opinion, Aguiyi-Ironsi bears singular historical responsibility for many of Nigeria’s enduring crises, most notably the tragic persecution, alienation, and marginalisation of the Igbo people. This unresolved injustice continues to undermine Nigeria’s peace, unity, and development.
*THE FATAL DECISION TO RETAIN POWER*
After the January 1966 coup was suppressed, Aguiyi-Ironsi assumed power. At that moment, Nigeria stood at a delicate crossroads. The most patriotic and stabilising course of action would have been either:
1. To assume power briefly, stabilise the polity, announce a clear and short timetable, and return power to a civilian government; or
2. To allow a non-Igbo officer to lead a transitional administration while he remained as Head of the Armed Forces.
Instead, Aguiyi-Ironsi retained power without a defined transition plan, thereby transforming Nigeria from a constitutional democracy into a military-ruled state. That single decision fundamentally altered Nigeria’s political trajectory. And given the ethnic imbalance of the casualties of the January coup, where most of those killed were non-Igbo, it was deeply insensitive, politically naïve, and strategically imprudent for an Igbo officer to remain Head of State, irrespective of his intentions or personal integrity. Leadership is judged not by intentions alone but by perception, prudence, and foresight. His failure to announce a definite timeline for a return to civilian rule bred suspicion, resentment, and fear. Even more troubling, he appeared either oblivious or indifferent to the rising tension and distrust across the country. This was not statesmanship; it was a catastrophic failure of political judgment. In this sense, Aguiyi-Ironsi was not merely unfortunate; he was profoundly insensitive. That insensitivity sowed the seeds of ethnic hostility that would later explode with devastating consequences for his own people.
*THE FAILURE TO PROSECUTE THE JANUARY 1966 COUP PLOTTERS*
Aguiyi-Ironsi’s second grave error was his refusal to promptly and publicly prosecute those responsible for the January 1966 coup and the assassination of the Prime Minister and other senior government officials. In a volatile post-coup environment, justice delayed was justice denied. Part of his reported justification, namely: that too much blood had already been spilled, was/is in my opinion, weak, illogical, and politically disastrous. In moments of national trauma, swift and transparent justice is not vengeance; it is reassurance. His inaction created a false but powerful impression that the coup had an ethnic agenda and that the new government was shielding its own. It was reported that Northern officers and non-Igbo political leaders had demanded public trials and executions of the January 1966 coup plotters as proof of good faith. Aguiyi-Ironsi ignored this counsel. That failure directly contributed to the July 1966 counter-coup, which claimed his life and unleashed unspeakable violence against innocent Igbo civilians across Nigeria.
Unfortunately, although General Aguiyi-Ironsi’s personal miscalculations were not the collective actions of Ndi Igbo, yet, it was the Igbo people (men, women, and children) who paid the ultimate price through mass killings, dispossession, and enduring marginalisation. Truth is, history exposes the moral bankruptcy of this collective punishment. (a). General Gowon overthrew Aguiyi-Ironsi in July 1966. Nigeria rightfully and wisely did not hold Gowon’s ethnic group responsible for his actions or omissions? (b). General Muhammadu Buhari overthrew a democratic government in 1984. Buhari’s ethnic group were not collectively punished for Buhari’s military adventurism? On the contrary, Buhari and his ethnic group later presided over multiple presidential terms, including eight uninterrupted years under Buhari himself. (c). Generals Babangida and Abacha also seized power, ruled for extended periods, truncated democracy, and deepened Nigeria’s crisis. Yet, their ethnic groups were never subjected to collective punishment. To be clear, this is as it should be; this is the right way to go. In my humble opinion, and this is the point I am trying to make, no ethnic group should bear responsibility for the personal actions of individual soldiers or rulers. What I do not understand is why this reasonable principle has been so persistently denied to the Igbo in Nigeria.
*DECREE NO. 34 AND THE DEATH OF TRUE FEDERALISM*
Perhaps Aguiyi-Ironsi’s most enduring and destructive legacy was Decree No. 34 of 1966, which replaced Nigeria’s genuinely federal 1963 Constitution with a rigid unitary system. This decision defied Nigeria’s historical and sociological realities. Even colonial administrators in Nigeria had recognised Nigeria’s diversity and governed through indirect rule:
1. The Emirate system in the North,
2. The Oba-in-Council system in the West, and
3. The Warrant Chief system in the East.
Aguiyi-Ironsi ignored these realities and imposed an alien unitary structure on a deeply plural society. This error remains Nigeria’s original constitutional sin. Both the 1979 and 1999 Constitutions are fundamentally unitary documents: direct descendants of Decree No. 34. Until Nigeria dismantles this constitutional architecture and returns to genuine federalism, the country will continue to stagger under the weight of its contradictions.
*COLLECTIVE GUILT AND THE UNANSWERED QUESTIONS*
In my opinion, judging from disinterested research, it is historically inaccurate and morally indefensible to label the January 1966 coup in Nigeria an “Igbo coup”. While Aguiyi-Ironsi’s post-coup decisions were reckless and utterly condemnable, they were his decisions, not those of the Igbo people. This reality gives rise to troubling questions Nigeria has consistently refused to confront:
1. Why have the Igbo continued to suffer persecution for decisions that were never theirs?
2. Even assuming, wrongly, that punishment was justified, have they not suffered enough after nearly six decades?
3. Over three million Igbo lives were lost during the pogroms and the civil war. Was that not sufficient suffering?
4. Can Nigeria not see that the continued alienation of the Igbo is a major cause of its stagnation and decline?
5. Why has the Nigerian state failed to fully implement the post-war promise of Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, and Reconciliation (the 3Rs)?
*CONCLUSION: THE CHOICE BEFORE NIGERIA*
Nigeria cannot build a viable future while remaining imprisoned by selective memory, inherited prejudice, and ethnic injustice. True nationhood calls for honesty, equity, forgiveness, and inclusion. Perhaps the time has come for Nigeria to thoughtfully address the so-called Igbo Question, in a spirit of understanding and reconciliation, so as to ease long-standing distrust, reduce ethnic tensions, and strengthen our shared commitment to building a more united Nigeria, politically, economically, and constitutionally. Although one of the key figures who formally received the instrument of surrender marking the end of the Nigerian civil war, former President Olusegun Obasanjo would later remind Nigeria and Nigerians that genuine nation-building rests on justice, equity, mutual respect, and equality of opportunity. He warned that without these foundational principles, the Nigerian project itself stands imperilled.
In his words, on 6 March 2022:
“…there is no substitute for steady and uncompromised process of nation-building …. God is not to blame if we fail.It would appear that we are not getting our priorities right, and that can spell doom on our country if we fail to do what we should do for nation-building in terms of fundamentals of equity, justice, common ideals …mutual respect and equality of opportunity anchored and propelled by leaders across the board … with the fear of God.… If we derail from nation-building process with solid principles, Nigeria will be shipwrecked. I will, at this juncture, leave it to fair-minded Nigerians who believe in the continuation of the process of nation-building to decide which way Nigeria should go…. If we are going fault-finding zonally or regionally, no region or zone can claim absolute innocence…”.
The choice remains ours.
*To be continued.*
(Respectfully,
Sylvester Udemezue (Udems)
Lawyer, Law Teacher &
Proctor, The Reality Ministry of Truth, Law and Justice (TRM)
08021365545 udems@therealityministry.ngo
(21 December 2025))
