Ojukwu’s Genocide Warning Was Accurate Assessment, Not Propaganda

Nigerian Political Figure Condemns Cleric’s Revisionist Civil War Claims

Denge Josef Onoh has strongly rebuked Islamic cleric Sheikh Ahmad Gumi for what he termed “historical lies” regarding the late Biafran leader General Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s characterization of the Nigerian Civil War.

The controversy arose after Gumi, in a recent interview responding to U.S. President Donald Trump’s threat of potential military intervention over alleged Christian persecution in Nigeria, claimed that Ojukwu had falsely portrayed the 1967-1970 conflict as genocide against Christians. According to Gumi, such allegations were undermined by the fact that General Yakubu Gowon, Nigeria’s head of state during the war, and his deputy were Christians.

Onoh dismissed Gumi’s statements as “factually bankrupt” and a “deliberate attempt to rewrite the blood-soaked pages of Nigeria’s Civil War for petty and divisive ends.”

“This is not scholarship; it is sophistry, a cheap sleight of hand meant to gaslight survivors and sanitize atrocities under the guise of peace and stability,” Onoh stated in his detailed response.

In his rebuttal, Onoh referenced documented historical evidence of the 1966 pogroms that preceded the civil war, during which an estimated 30,000 Igbos were killed in targeted ethnic and religious violence across northern Nigeria. He cited eyewitness accounts, reports from international organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross, and diplomatic records confirming the systematic nature of the attacks.

Onoh further referenced Ojukwu’s contemporaneous documentation of these events in his “Statement on the Nigerian Crisis” (September 1966) and the “Ashram Declaration” (May 1969), which detailed the suffering of Biafrans during the conflict. He noted that the resulting war and blockade led to a famine that claimed approximately two million lives, mostly children.

The political figure characterized Gumi’s emphasis on Gowon’s Christian faith as a “risible deflection” that ignores the complex religious and ethnic dynamics within the Nigerian military at that time, particularly the influence of northern Muslim officers in directing operations against Biafra.

Beyond the historical debate, Onoh broadened his criticism to encompass Gumi’s more recent activities, particularly his controversial role as a self-appointed mediator with bandit groups in northern Nigeria. He accused the cleric of effectively legitimizing criminal organizations through his advocacy for amnesty and engagement, citing statistics showing escalated kidnappings from 3,620 in 2020 to over 5,000 by mid-2025, with ransoms exceeding ₦2.57 billion.

Onoh also criticized Gumi’s tendency to frame Nigeria’s security challenges through conspiracy theories, including claims about “white evangelical Christian supremacists” and dismissals of Boko Haram as a “CIA creation.” He pointed to Gumi’s recent suggestion that President Tinubu should negotiate with terrorists in the manner of Israel-Hamas truces.

In his conclusion, Onoh called for an end to divisive historical revisionism and urged Nigerians to pursue unity based on equity rather than ethnic or religious identities, aligning with President Tinubu’s “Renewed Hope” agenda.

The exchange highlights ongoing tensions in Nigerian political discourse around historical memory, religious dynamics, and approaches to contemporary security challenges, particularly in the context of external interest in Nigeria’s internal affairs.