Prior to colonial rule, the area now known as Nigeria consisted of autonomous kingdoms, city-states, and communities, each with distinct governance structures, religious systems, and cultural norms. Major ethnic groups, including the Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo, coexisted alongside smaller communities, often interacting through trade, diplomacy, and regional alliances (Nnoli, 1978; Chikendu, 2003).
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
The 1914 amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates by the British created a single administrative entity for economic and administrative convenience. This unification brought together diverse ethnic groups under one colonial framework but did not immediately foster a shared Nigerian national identity (Uzoigwe, 1996). Indirect rule allowed local institutions to survive but also created uneven development across regions, particularly favouring Northern emirs and Southern commercial elites, laying the groundwork for perceptions of regional inequality.
Emergence of Ethnic Nationalism and Separatist Movements
Following independence in 1960, Nigeria inherited a highly diverse political structure with significant regional, ethnic, and religious differences. Centralised governance occasionally prioritised certain regions or ethnic groups, fostering perceptions of marginalisation among others.
Ethnic militias and separatist movements emerged as responses to these historical and political grievances. The Biafra secession (1967–1970), led by General Odumegwu Ojukwu, was a direct reaction to violent ethnic clashes, political exclusion, and economic inequities under the federal system. The war resulted in immense humanitarian consequences and highlighted unresolved structural and ethnic tensions.
Contemporary movements, including the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB, 1999) and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB, 2012), draw on similar historical grievances. These groups, particularly in the South-East, advocate for greater political recognition, economic development, and cultural respect, though their claims are often framed by perception rather than fully documented exclusion (Duruji, 2010; Okeke, 2018).
Conceptualising Nationalism, Ethnicity, and Separatist Agitations
Modern nationalism is defined as the belief that a defined community has the right to self-determination. Precolonial political identities in Nigeria were local or ethnic rather than national; loyalty was to kings, chiefs, or communities, not a unified state. Postcolonial ethnic nationalism arises when groups seek recognition, equitable resource allocation, and political influence within a federal framework (Chikendu, 2004).
Separatist agitations occur when ethnic groups mobilise for self-determination, sometimes through militant action. Instrumentalist theory suggests elites may invoke ethnic identity strategically to pursue political or economic objectives, rather than solely reflecting cultural or historical differences (Chandra, 2004; Dodeye, 2015). IPOB exemplifies this dynamic, mobilising perceived grievances among the Igbo to advance demands for autonomy.
State Responses and Escalation
The Nigerian state has historically employed a mix of military, legal, and political strategies to respond to ethnic agitations. Military crackdowns on IPOB, particularly from 2015 onwards, heightened mobilisation in the South-East, although the state has also pursued legal and institutional measures to address grievances. Historical patterns indicate that coercive approaches can exacerbate ethnic tensions, while inclusive engagement, dialogue, and equitable policy interventions can mitigate conflict (Madunagu, 2017; Anugwom, 2001).
Historical Context
Ethnic nationalism in Nigeria, including the emergence of IPOB, is rooted in a combination of historical and contemporary factors. British colonial administration laid an early foundation by implementing indirect rule and unevenly investing in infrastructure, education, and administrative authority, which deepened regional disparities and shaped unequal political development (Crowder, 1968). After independence, patterns of political appointments, development projects, and resource allocation were often perceived as favouring certain regions, reinforcing feelings of marginalisation and exclusion in others.
These tensions were dramatically exposed during the Nigerian Civil War of 1967–1970, when the attempted secession of Biafra highlighted unresolved ethnic and regional conflicts and left a lasting legacy of distrust toward central authority. In the post-war period, and especially in recent decades, movements such as MASSOB and IPOB have emerged as expressions of persistent grievances related to federal representation, uneven regional development, and the quest for cultural and political recognition.
Social and Economic Implications
Ethnic agitations influence social cohesion and economic stability. Perceived marginalisation can limit access to federal resources, discourage investment, and heighten mistrust among ethnic groups. Conversely, politically dominant regions may consolidate advantages, perpetuating cycles of grievance. Among younger South-East populations, activism, both peaceful and militant, serves as a perceived mechanism for asserting political and economic rights when conventional democratic avenues are viewed as insufficient (Nnoli, 1978; Duruji, 2010).
Theoretical Perspectives
Theoretical explanations of ethnic mobilisation often draw on group theory and instrumentalism. Group theory emphasises collective political interests as the primary drivers of mobilisation, focusing on how ethnic groups act as organised entities pursuing shared objectives and protecting common interests (Bentley, 1908; Ezeani, 2010). Instrumentalist perspectives, by contrast, explain ethnic nationalism in terms of strategic action by political elites, arguing that leaders deliberately mobilise ethnic identity to advance specific political or economic goals rather than as an inevitable expression of primordial loyalties (Glazer & Moynihan, 1975; Chandra, 2004).
Together, these frameworks illuminate IPOB’s mobilisation strategies and the persistence of ethnic-based separatist movements in Nigeria.
Legacy and Contemporary Relevance
IPOB represents the contemporary expression of Nigeria’s enduring struggle with ethnic nationalism. It demonstrates the consequences of historical marginalisation, structural inequalities, and inconsistent engagement by the state. Sustainable national integration requires equitable political representation, fair resource distribution, and open dialogue with dissenting groups to prevent cycles of grievance and conflict.
Ethnic nationalism and separatist movements like IPOB are deeply rooted in Nigeria’s historical and structural inequalities. Military and coercive responses have sometimes reinforced agitation, while dialogue and inclusive governance can reduce tensions. Understanding the historical origins of ethnic grievances and the dynamics of mobilisation is critical for promoting national cohesion, equitable development, and long-term stability.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
Author’s Note
This article examines the historical and structural factors underpinning ethnic nationalism and IPOB in Nigeria. By separating historical grievances, perception, and strategic mobilisation, it provides a nuanced account of how ethnic identity, marginalisation, and state responses shape contemporary separatist movements.
References
Chikendu, P. N. (2003). Nigerian Politics and Government. Enugu: Academic Publishing Company.
Nnoli, O. (1978). Ethnic Politics in Nigeria. Enugu: Fourth Dimension.
Duruji, M. (2010). “Ethnic Militia as a Social Pressure in Nigeria’s Fourth Republic Politics.” International Journal of Research on Social and Natural Sciences, 1(1), 1–9.
Crowder, M. (1968). West Africa Under Colonial Rule. London: Hutchinson.
Falola, T. (1999). History of Nigeria. London: Greenwood Press.
