Connect with us

News

2023: Igbos don’t want to be president under APC (Part 1)

Published

4 years ago

on

Can an Igbo man be allowed or supported by other ethnic groups and tribes to be the president of Nigeria? This question is currently a domineering topic in the political discourse. It is a big question that has prickled the conscience of so many Nigerians for too long and grilled their integrity because of the way the Igbos have been so highly discriminated against and very unjustly treated in the Nigerian union.

As events in contemporary Nigeria seem, and the 2023 presidential elections draw nearer, this very question of equity and fairness has triggered the affection of many from other ethnic groups with a conscience to crusade for justice on behalf of the Igbos in the political arena. Currently, notable voices particularly from the north and southwest have joined the frontal forces of those genuinely clamoring for an Igbo president. This new development has made it imperatively vital to this article to retrospectively, contemporaneously, and concisely view the way the Igbos have been treated before, during, and after the Nigeria-Biafra war. It will be an insightful review that will solely capture in summary the pains, the agonies, and the regrets/disappointments of the Igbos in Nigeria as a prelude to why they would not want to produce a president through All Progressive Congress (APC) as a party.

Before the war

It was assault of the unprovoked attacks, destruction of properties, and, the killing of Igbos in the north that led to the war. After all peaceful resolutions failed, the Igbos, led by now late and respected Col. Ikemba Odimegwu Ojukwu went into self-defense and declared Biafra.

During the war

It was the cruelty of the government policies to block the supply of food to civilians from those that wanted to help that led to the very painful and horrible death of millions of Igbo from kwashiorkor due to hunger and starvation. It was evil to have deliberately allowed blameless children and pregnant women to starve to death.

After the war

The Nigerian government was even more ruthless to the Igbos as the government led by Gen. Gowon deceptively declared immediately after the war, “No victor, no vanquished” but affirmed the policy that usurped every Igbo man’s landed property outside Igbo land as abandoned property. As if such evil was not enough, and without any justification except hatred and malice for declaring Biafra, his government again enacted a policy that callously seized all the money Igbos had in banks and gave each person only 20 pounds – just 20 pounds – heedlessly of how many millions the person had in the bank.

Irrespective of all odds, the Igbos survived every penance meant to destroy them. With their consistent hard work, shared love, teamwork, cooperation, and enthusiasm for survival, these resilient and industrious people were able to overcome all plots to the shameful astonishment of those who carefully designed devilish policies to permanently keep them down and make them perpetual paupers and beggars. Every successful Igbo person one sees in Nigeria today has a 20 pounds background.

But in the nature of the Igbos they still forgave the horrible things done to them, spread their wings of love to every nook and cranny in Nigeria, and embraced all. Wherever Igbo people find themselves, they make their homes, as they buy lands, erect houses, and even sometimes companies, thus contributing qualitatively to the development of that area. As people who foster relationships everywhere they find themselves, the actions of the Igbos in Nigeria testify that they extended hands of friendship to other tribes, and built bridges for togetherness, trust and love immediately after the war.

But what did they get in return? Contrarily, the properties of these Igbos and their lives are continuously still under heavy threat of attacks and destructions at every little or no provocation at all by the same people they have embraced. Surprisingly too, some of these aggressions could sometimes be because of a cartoon in a foreign newspaper somewhere outside the continent of Africa. With visible and quantum evidence of Igbos’ presence everywhere, they have demonstrated enough love, peace, and unity, yet the Nigerian environment still has continued to be very hostile and aggressive to them and their possessions 52 years after the civil war. The worst show of threat, hatred, and incitement against Igbos of recent time was even from the number one citizen of the country – supposedly the father of all – President Muhamadu Buhari. In his exact words of the threat, he said, and I quote, “That IPOB is just like a dot in a circle. Even if they want to exit, they will have no access to anywhere.

In any case, we say we’ll talk to them in the language that they understand. We’ll organise the police and the military to pursue them. That is what we can do, and we will do it.” Why this high level of bitterness against a people? Why this distrust? Why this hatred against the Igbos? Why? If other Nigerians do not want the Igbos and accept them to coexist in justice, fairness and mutual respect, etc. they should let them go and have their Biafra.

Having succinctly narrated the agonies of the Igbos before, during, and after the civil war, and the danger they face in Nigeria, let me also state sincerely and unequivocally too that every ordinary Nigerian is a victim of injustice, brutality, and suppression under the cruel leadership of a very few cabals that controlled and are still controlling this country analytically speaking. To expatiate, let me shortly focus on the northern region and use it as a case study to portray that the major problems of Nigeria are fundamental issues that the political leaders do not have the political will to address and not where a president comes from.

Before I conclude part one of this article, I want to equally lend my voice to all those that have called for the release of Nnamdi Kanu and appeal to the federal government and also to all Igbo leaders to please find neutral ground and set Kanu free as quickly as possible for peace to reign. Continue to part 2 >>>

♦ Uzoma Ahamefule, a refined African traditionalist and a patriotic citizen writes from Vienna, Austria. Contact Uzoma >>>>

READ PARTS 2 and 3

2023: Igbos don’t want to be president under APC (Part 2 )

2023: Igbos don’t want to be president under APC (Part 3 )

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Houston

Turnout, Trust, and Ground Game: What Decided Houston’s Runoff Elections

Published

5 days ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

Low-turnout runoff races for Houston City Council and Houston Community College trustee seats revealed how message discipline, local credibility, and voter mobilization determined clear winners—and decisive losers.

The final ballots are counted, and Houston’s runoff elections have delivered clear outcomes in two closely watched local races, underscoring a familiar truth of municipal politics: in low-turnout elections, organization and credibility matter more than name recognition alone.

In the race for Houston City Council At-Large Position 4, Alejandra Salinas secured a decisive victory, winning 25,710 votes (59.27%) over former council member Dwight A. Boykins, who garnered 17,669 votes (40.73%). The margin was not accidental. Salinas ran a campaign tightly aligned with voter anxiety over public safety and infrastructure—two issues that consistently dominate Houston’s civic conversations. Her emphasis on keeping violent criminals off city streets and expanding Houston’s water supply spoke directly to quality-of-life concerns that resonate across districts, especially in an at-large contest where candidates must appeal to the city as a whole.

Salinas’ win reflects the advantage of message clarity. In a runoff, voters are not looking to be introduced to candidates—they are choosing between candidates they are already familiar with. Salinas presented herself as forward-looking and solutions-oriented, while Boykins, despite his experience and political history, struggled to reframe his candidacy beyond familiarity. In runoffs, nostalgia rarely outperforms momentum.

The second race—for Houston Community College District II trustee—followed a similar pattern. Renee Jefferson Patterson won with 2,497 votes (56.63%), defeating Kathleen “Kathy” Lynch Gunter, who received 1,912 votes (43.37%). Though the raw numbers were smaller, the dynamics were just as telling.

Patterson’s victory was powered by deep local ties and a clear institutional vision. As an HCC alumna, she effectively positioned herself as both a product and a steward of the system. Her pledge to expand the North Forest Campus and direct resources to Acres Home connected policy goals to place-based advocacy. In trustee races, voters often respond less to ideology and more to proximity—those who understand the campus, the students, and the neighborhood. Patterson checked all three boxes.

By contrast, Gunter’s loss highlights the challenge of overcoming a candidate with genuine community roots in a runoff scenario. Without a sharply differentiated message or a strong geographic base, turnout dynamics tend to favor candidates with existing neighborhood networks and direct institutional relevance.

What ultimately decided both races was not a surprise, but execution. Runoffs reward campaigns that can re-mobilize supporters, simplify their message, and convert familiarity into trust. Salinas and Patterson did exactly that. Their opponents, though credible, were unable to expand or energize their coalitions in a compressed electoral window.

The lesson from Houston’s runoff elections is straightforward but unforgiving: winners win because they align message, identity, and ground game. Losers lose because, in low-turnout contests, anything less than that alignment is insufficient.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Africa

Nigeria–Burkina Faso Rift: Military Power, Mistrust, and a Region Out of Balance

Published

5 days ago

on

December 14, 2025

By

The brief detention of a Nigerian Air Force C-130 Hercules aircraft and its crew in Burkina Faso may have ended quietly, but it exposed a deeper rift shaped by mistrust, insecurity, and uneven military power in West Africa. What was officially a technical emergency landing quickly became a diplomatic and security flashpoint, reflecting not hostility between equals, but anxiety between unequally matched states navigating very different political realities.

On December 8, 2025, the Nigerian Air Force transport aircraft made an unscheduled landing in Bobo-Dioulasso while en route to Portugal. Nigerian authorities described the stop as a precautionary response to a technical fault—standard procedure under international aviation and military safety protocols. Burkina Faso acknowledged the emergency landing but emphasized that the aircraft had violated its airspace, prompting the temporary detention of 11 Nigerian personnel while investigations and repairs were conducted. Within days, the crew and aircraft were released, underscoring a professional, if tense, resolution.

Yet the symbolism mattered. In a Sahel region gripped by coups, insurgencies, and fragile legitimacy, airspace is not merely technical—it is political. Burkina Faso’s reaction reflected a state on edge, hyper-vigilant about sovereignty amid persistent internal threats. Nigeria’s response, measured and restrained, reflected confidence rooted in capacity.

The military imbalance between the two countries is stark. Nigeria fields one of Africa’s most formidable armed forces, with a tri-service structure that includes a large, well-equipped air force, a dominant regional navy, and a sizable army capable of sustained operations. The Nigerian Air Force operates fighter jets such as the JF-17 and F-7Ni, as well as A-29 Super Tucanos for counterinsurgency operations, heavy transport aircraft like the C-130, and an extensive helicopter fleet. This force is designed not only for internal security but for regional power projection and multinational operations.

Burkina Faso’s military, by contrast, is compact and narrowly focused. Its air arm relies on a limited number of light attack aircraft, including Super Tucanos, and a small helicopter fleet primarily dedicated to internal counterinsurgency. There is no navy, no strategic airlift capacity comparable to Nigeria’s, and limited logistical depth. The Burkinabè military is stretched thin, fighting multiple insurgent groups while also managing the political consequences of repeated military takeovers.

This imbalance shapes behavior. Nigeria’s military posture is institutional, outward-looking, and anchored in regional frameworks such as ECOWAS. Burkina Faso’s posture is defensive, reactive, and inward-facing. Where Nigeria seeks stability through deterrence and cooperation, Burkina Faso seeks survival amid constant internal pressure. That difference explains why a technical landing could be perceived as a “serious security breach” rather than a routine aviation incident.

The incident also illuminates why Burkina Faso continues to struggle to regain political balance. Repeated coups have eroded civilian institutions, fractured command structures, and blurred the line between governance and militarization. The armed forces are not just security actors; they are political stakeholders. This creates a cycle where insecurity justifies military rule, and military rule deepens insecurity by weakening democratic legitimacy and regional trust.

Nigeria, despite its own security challenges, has managed to avoid this spiral. Civilian control of the military remains intact, democratic transitions—however imperfect—continue, and its armed forces operate within a clearer constitutional framework. This stability enhances Nigeria’s regional credibility and amplifies its military superiority beyond hardware alone.

The C-130 episode did not escalate into confrontation precisely because of this asymmetry. Burkina Faso could assert sovereignty, but not sustain defiance. Nigeria could have asserted its capability, but chose restraint. In the end, professionalism prevailed.

Still, the rift lingers. It is not about one aircraft or one landing, but about two countries moving in different strategic directions. Nigeria stands as a regional anchor with superior military power and institutional depth. Burkina Faso remains a state searching for equilibrium—politically fragile, militarily constrained, and acutely sensitive to every perceived threat from the skies above.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

News

Bizarre Epstein files reference to Trump, Putin, and oral sex with ‘Bubba’ draws scrutiny in Congress

Published

1 month ago

on

November 14, 2025

By

The latest tranche of emails from the estate of late convicted pedophile Jeffrey Epstein includes one that contains what appear to be references to President Donald Trump allegedly performing oral sex, raising questions the committee cannot answer until the Department of Justice turns over records it has withheld, says U.S. Rep. Robert Garcia, the top Democrat on the House Oversight Committee.

Garcia insists the Trump White House is helping block them.

In a Friday afternoon interview with The Advocate, the out California lawmaker responded to a 2018 exchange, which was included in the emails released, between Jeffrey Epstein and his brother, Mark Epstein. In that message, Mark wrote that because Jeffrey Epstein had said he was with former Trump adviser Steve Bannon, he should “ask him if Putin has the photos of Trump blowing Bubba.”

“Bubba” is a nickname former President Bill Clinton has been known by; however, the email does not clarify who Mark Epstein meant, and the context remains unclear.

Texas Guardian News
Latest posts by Texas Guardian News (see all)
Continue Reading

Trending