Onoh Disputes Gowon’s Account of Ojukwu Reconciliation, Calls It a Misrepresentation
Dr. Josef Onoh, former campaign spokesman for President Bola Tinubu in the South East, has criticized recent comments by Nigeria’s ex-Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon (retd), regarding his purported reconciliation with Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, the leader of the defunct Republic of Biafra. Onoh, who is also Ojukwu’s brother-in-law, described Gowon’s narrative as inaccurate, claiming that the account of their meeting, especially the reconciliation in London, is a distortion of the facts.
According to Onoh, the meeting between Gowon and Ojukwu, which Gowon recounted in a recent interview, did not occur as he described it. He strongly contested Gowon’s claim that the reconciliation took place in London, asserting that the encounter took place in Enugu in March 2010, when Gowon came to offer condolences for the death of Ojukwu’s father-in-law, who was Onoh’s father. Onoh further explained that Gowon had been unable to attend the burial in May 2009 due to being out of the country, which was part of the reason for his visit to Ojukwu.
“I was present at the meeting. Gowon’s account of the reconciliation is not as he portrayed it. He misrepresents the sequence of events. It wasn’t in London, it was in Enugu. Gowon came to pay his condolences for my father, who passed away in May 2009. I was the one who received him and attended to him,” Onoh said.
He went on to clarify that while Gowon mentioned the importance of reconciliation during their meeting, it was Ojukwu who responded with a gesture of goodwill, stating that he held no personal grudges against Gowon. Ojukwu emphasized that, as soldiers, they had both acted according to their convictions during the Nigerian Civil War, and that he did not support any resurgence of Biafra achieved through violence.
According to Onoh, Gowon’s visit was more about offering condolences than about reconciliation, despite the impression Gowon’s narrative sought to create. “Gowon interchanged a condolence visit with reconciliation. There was no formal reconciliation as he has suggested,” Onoh explained.
Onoh further shared a personal detail from the meeting, recalling that Gowon, who does not drink alcohol, opted for water or orange juice during their discussion. Onoh said that Ojukwu promised to reciprocate Gowon’s visit, although he noted that Ojukwu mentioned he would likely be out of the country at the time. Ojukwu, however, quipped that despite any distance, he would be able to locate Gowon, even joking that he would find him “even if you are on the moon.”
Onoh suggested that Gowon’s shifting narrative about the meeting stems from a need to cover up the initial misrepresentation. “Gowon has begun telling lies, and one lie necessitates another to sustain it,” he said. “This isn’t how it happened, and I was there to witness the real events.”
Onoh’s account contrasts sharply with Gowon’s version of the events, adding a new layer of complexity to the ongoing narrative of reconciliation and healing from the wounds of the Nigerian Civil War. The dispute over the details of this meeting underscores deeper political and historical differences that continue to shape the discourse on Nigeria’s post-war reconciliation efforts.
