The South-East (Igbo-Biafra) stands on a solid foundation for pursuing remedial secession from Nigeria, rooted in both historical grievances and substantial legal arguments supported by international law. Over decades, the Igbo people have faced systemic exclusion, political marginalisation, and social and economic discrimination. These conditions warrant serious consideration of the South-East’s right to self-determination and, potentially, secession.
Underpinning this argument are several key considerations:
Relational Factors – examining the South-East as a state-like entity seeking independence from a parent state that asserts lawful claims over it.
Internal Self-Determination – highlighting the thwarted attempts by the South-East to achieve fair representation within the Nigerian state.
Group Harm – illustrating the collective harm and irreparable damage suffered by the Igbo people under Nigeria’s governance.
- Relational Factors: The South-East Region as a State-Like Entity
The South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) historically possesses the characteristics of a state-like territory. The Igbo nation, a distinct ethnic group with a unique cultural, social, and linguistic identity, existed long before the colonial creation of Nigeria. The arbitrary borders imposed by colonial powers forced the Igbo people into an artificial union with other groups whose cultural values and political interests have consistently conflicted with theirs. While Nigeria claims sovereignty over the South-East, the governance structure has failed to represent or serve the Igbo people effectively, leading to an enduring identity crisis and political disenfranchisement within the Nigerian state.
The Igbo people have exhibited all the defining characteristics of a “people” under international law: shared ethnicity, language, cultural heritage, and a sense of self-identity. The South-East also has a long-standing tradition of political organisation, social cohesion, and a collective will to pursue their own future, making it a state-like entity within Nigeria. Nigeria’s failure to integrate the Igbo people equitably only strengthens the South-East’s case as a distinct community with a legitimate claim to independence.
- Internal Self-Determination: Thwarted Efforts by Nigeria
The South-East region has repeatedly attempted to exercise internal self-determination within Nigeria. Following the end of the Nigerian Civil War in 1970, the South-East sought reconciliation and reintegration into the Nigerian political framework. Despite these efforts, the Nigerian state has systematically prevented the Igbo people from obtaining meaningful representation and equality within the federation. This exclusion is evident in the distribution of political power, economic resources, and development opportunities. The South-East has consistently been marginalised in federal appointments, state creation, and resource allocation, leaving the region with fewer states and representation than other regions.
For instance, Nigeria’s government has limited political appointments to the South-East region, favouring other areas at the expense of the Igbo people. This deliberate marginalisation has made it impossible for the South-East to achieve its aspirations within Nigeria. According to international law, when a group within a state is denied the right to participate fully in government or to benefit equally from the resources and opportunities available, it has a valid claim to seek external self-determination. In the Katangese Peoples’ Congress v. Zaire (1995), the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights noted that external self-determination is justified when there is concrete evidence of human rights violations and a denial of internal self-determination. The South-East’s situation aligns closely with these criteria.
- Group Harm: The Irreparable Damage and Collective Harm Suffered by the South-East
The South-East region has suffered substantial and irreparable harm within the Nigerian state. This collective harm includes economic deprivation, political exclusion, and social discrimination that have led to an enduring sense of insecurity and alienation among the Igbo people. Since the Nigerian Civil War, the government has engaged in policies that have economically marginalised the South-East, including the denial of federal investments, minimal infrastructural development, and economic policies that restrict the growth of Igbo-owned businesses.
Additionally, there is a pervasive atmosphere of ethnic discrimination and targeted violence against the Igbo people. Incidents of violence against Igbos, particularly during political elections and regional conflicts, highlight the insecurity they face within Nigeria. The 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations, an international instrument, affirms that a state’s territorial integrity remains intact only when it respects the rights of all its people equally. When a state fails to uphold this standard, the affected population has a legitimate claim to impair territorial integrity through secession.
International legal precedents, such as the Kosovo Advisory Opinion (ICJ, 2010), further support the South-East’s claim by recognising that self-determination may extend to secession in cases where the state has caused irreparable harm to a distinct group within its territory. The South-East’s situation mirrors such conditions, as the Nigerian state has systematically failed to protect the rights and welfare of the Igbo people, resulting in irreparable harm that justifies their demand for self-determination.
Historical and Legal Foundations of Igbo-Biafra’s Claim
Historically, the Igbo people had a distinct political, social, and cultural identity before Nigeria’s formation. The Igbo Nation operated autonomously, with a cohesive community structure and governance that reflected its people’s values. The colonial amalgamation that created Nigeria disregarded the unique identities and governance systems of the region’s constituent nations, forcing the South-East into a political framework that has continuously marginalised and oppressed it.
This history aligns with international precedents that recognise the right of a distinct people to pursue self-determination if forced into a union without their consent. The 1975 Helsinki Final Act and the Vienna Declaration of 1993 both affirm that people have the right to self-determination and that the state must respect this right. Nigeria’s violation of these principles undermines its territorial integrity claims over the South-East and bolsters the South-East’s argument for independence.
The Principle of Equal Rights and Nigeria’s Failure to Uphold It
The principle of equal rights is a cornerstone of international law, and the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations mandates that states must govern without distinction as to race, creed, or colour. Nigeria has persistently violated this principle concerning the South-East, failing to provide the region with equal political and economic opportunities. This systematic exclusion amounts to a breach of Nigeria’s obligations under international law, thereby justifying the South-East’s call for external self-determination.
In particular, the Declaration on Friendly Relations establishes that territorial integrity remains intact only when the state respects equal rights and self-determination within its borders. By failing to uphold these standards for the South-East, Nigeria has forfeited its claim to indivisibility and territorial integrity, leaving the South-East region with a legitimate basis to pursue independence.
Balancing Self-Determination and Territorial Integrity: The South-East’s Unique Case
While territorial integrity is a fundamental principle, international law recognises that self-determination can override it in cases where a state has failed to uphold its responsibilities. The South-East’s experience of systemic oppression, political exclusion, and economic deprivation makes it a unique case that justifies remedial secession. Similar precedents, such as the secession of Kosovo from Serbia, underscore the legitimacy of secession as a remedy when a government fails to protect a group’s rights and denies them fair participation in governance.
The South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) has been subjected to policies and actions that undermine its cultural and social identity, deny its people equal rights, and inflict collective harm. The right to secede, as articulated in international law, exists as a remedy for such situations, allowing a group to seek self-determination when their rights within a parent state have been thoroughly disregarded.
In closing, the South-East Region (Igbo-Biafra) has a robust and compelling case for remedial secession. Nigeria’s persistent marginalisation, discrimination, and oppression of the Igbo people have created a situation where internal self-determination within the current state framework is no longer viable. The South-East has suffered irreparable harm and has been denied meaningful participation in Nigerian governance, justifying its call for independence.
The international community must recognise the legitimacy of the South-East’s claim to self-determination and the urgency of its demand for independence. In the face of Nigeria’s failure to fulfil its obligations under the 1970 Declaration on Friendly Relations and other international norms, the South-East’s pursuit of remedial secession is both a moral and legal imperative. The right to self-determination is not only enshrined in international law but is also a fundamental right of all peoples, especially when a state persistently disregards the principles of equality, justice, and fair representation.
Uche Mefor is the Convenor of the Igbo-Biafra Nationalists and the Indigenous People of Igbo Nation for Self-Determination
