Winning Peace

Southeast Nigeria has witnessed a steady rise in violent secessionism in the last two years. Fifty-two years after the horrendous Nigeria/Biafra civil war, resentments and agitations in the region have not died down. The proscribed Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) champion current secessionist struggles, which have seen a rise in violence and deaths linked to the struggle since the end of the civil war in 1970. Crisis types such as armed robbery, communal clashes, cultism, attacks by “unknown gunmen” and hoodlums, kidnapping and assassinations have created an unsafe atmosphere in the relatively calm region, buzzing with market activities. According to the Nextier Violent Conflict Database, 2,453 incidents occurred within the last two years, leading to 9,635 deaths. The top three most violent states in the Southeast are Imo, Anambra and Enugu, with 128, 112, and 65 incidents, respectively.

Southeast’s lull and losses may continue. Security responses from federal and state governments-backed forces are waging war against the violent uprising. However, achieving peace in the region is complicated. IPOB launched its operation based on a perceived marginalisation of the Igbo people, found in the southeast and parts of south-south Nigeria. Resentments from the civil war also add to the current agitations, signalling that post-conflict healing was either unsuccessful or did not happen. The wide compliance to sit-at-home orders by IPOB indicates two possibilities: many of the region’s residents are wary of IPOB’s assault on defaulters and the government’s inability to protect them, or there is widespread sympathy and support for IPOB’s pro-secession campaigns. Indicatively, the Nigerian state may ‘win the war in the region and lose peace’.

Unrelenting agitations in the Southeast is an eye-opener. The horrific details of the Nigerian/Biafra civil war did not forestall new agitations, nor did it push the Nigerian state from mitigating the triggers of new violence. Current secession agitations have a bearing on perceptions of marginalisation and insecurity. For example, the Eastern Security Network (ESN), the armed wing of IPOB, was purportedly created to protect Igbo lives and properties. IPOB’s leader, Nnamdi Kanu, is still on trial for treason. IPOB had recently warned that peace in the southeast lies with their detained leader. Some responses from the region’s residents affirm that a speedy and fair trial of IPOB’s leader may restore stability in the area. Others claim that security agencies’ high-handedness will undermine stability in the region. Amnesty International\’s report of repressive campaigns by Nigerian security forces supports this assertion. Despite repressive government responses, recurrent pro-secession calls require a holistic and sustainable action plan.

Unpacking the Southeast’s violence requires evidence and local engagement. Interventions in the region must be based on analysing the tracked information. It will provide insights to intervening actors on violence triggers, modus operandi of armed actors and periods of attacks. This will also help identify and classify the violent actors. For example, there are arguments that beyond violent secession struggles in the region, other criminal elements, either secession group factions or independent actors, are capitalising on the uncertain security climate. Therefore, a robust analysis of the data from the region will provide evidence for the government and relevant actors to intervene and manage the crisis. Reliable data and local intelligence will guide combative responses and ensure they do not complicate the security situation.

Government must continue non-combative approaches to salvage the Southeast. Probing extrajudicial killings in the region should open up platforms for reporting unauthorised killings. The process will pass the message of social justice and accountability. Government can counteract the narrative that security responses in the region are biased and repressive. Professionalism and clear rules of engagement would help improve civil-military relations and mitigate future harm, enhancing mission effectiveness in the area. Furthermore, a speedy and fair trial of IPOB’s leader will echo the government’s commitment to the rule of law, respect for human rights and stability in the southeast region.