The Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), also known as the Biafran War, was fought not only on battlefields but also in the war of information, perception, and emotion. Both the Federal Military Government of Nigeria and the secessionist Republic of Biafra recognised that controlling narratives could influence domestic morale, international opinion, and the flow of humanitarian aid. Propaganda and media strategies became as crucial as weapons and ammunition in shaping the conflict’s course and legacy.
This article examines how both sides employed radio broadcasts, newspapers, films, and international campaigns to win hearts and minds, how these strategies evolved during the war, and how their legacy continues to influence Nigerian media and political communication today.
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
The Context: War Beyond the Frontlines
On 30 May 1967, Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu declared the Eastern Region of Nigeria independent as the Republic of Biafra, sparking one of Africa’s deadliest conflicts. As the war escalated, both sides realised that military victories alone could not secure their objectives. Nigeria aimed to preserve national unity and discredit secession, while Biafra sought international recognition and humanitarian sympathy.
Communication constraints and censorship meant propaganda became the primary tool for shaping public perception. The Nigerian government sought to present the conflict as a necessary “police action” against rebellion, whereas Biafra depicted itself as a besieged region struggling for survival against potential extermination. Both sides tailored narratives for domestic citizens, foreign governments, and the global press.
Biafra’s Propaganda Machine: A Cry for Survival
Biafran leadership understood that international sympathy could become a strategic weapon. With limited military resources, Ojukwu’s administration developed a media and propaganda apparatus designed to reach global audiences.
Radio Biafra: The Voice of Resistance
Broadcasting initially from Enugu and later Umuahia, Radio Biafra became the central mouthpiece of the secessionist movement. It maintained civilian morale and military spirit, airing patriotic songs, Ojukwu’s speeches, and reports emphasizing resilience despite Nigeria’s blockade. The station blended factual reporting with emotionally charged storytelling, portraying Biafra as a heroic David confronting a Nigerian Goliath.
Images of Starvation: Turning Tragedy into Global Advocacy
Biafra’s most potent propaganda tool was famine imagery. As Nigeria tightened the blockade, the humanitarian crisis deepened. Photographs of starving children, particularly those suffering from kwashiorkor, circulated internationally via missionaries, journalists, and aid agencies. These images shocked the global public, appearing on TIME, Newsweek, and Life magazines, prompting humanitarian interventions from organisations such as Caritas, the Red Cross, and church-based NGOs.
Intellectual Diplomacy: Framing Biafra in Moral Terms
Ojukwu employed diplomats and intellectuals to cast Biafra’s struggle as a moral and political cause. Biafran envoys in Europe, including Ralph Uwechue, lobbied governments, religious groups, and media outlets, portraying the conflict as part of the broader struggle against oppression and instability in post-colonial Africa. Through press releases, interviews, and pamphlets, they sought to convert the war into a global humanitarian and political concern.
Nigeria’s Media Strategy: Controlling the National Narrative
The Federal Military Government, led by General Yakubu Gowon, aimed to maintain domestic unity while countering international criticism. Nigeria’s superior communication infrastructure gave it an advantage in shaping narratives.
Federal Radio Corporation of Nigeria (FRCN)
The FRCN and regional broadcasting services projected the message of “One Nigeria.” Early war messaging deliberately downplayed the conflict’s severity by using the term “police action” and emphasising reconciliation. Bulletins focused on federal victories, stability in “liberated” territories, and humanitarian initiatives, while censoring reports of setbacks or civilian suffering.
Press Control and Information Management
Newspapers aligned with federal interests, such as the Daily Times and New Nigerian, operated under strict military censorship. The government also sought to discredit Biafra’s claims of genocide, framing starvation as a consequence of secessionist policies rather than federal action.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
International Diplomacy and Counter-Propaganda
Nigeria leveraged the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), the United Nations, and diplomatic channels to frame the war as an internal affair, discouraging foreign intervention. Nigerian diplomats, such as Chief Anthony Enahoro and Major General Joseph Garba, engaged foreign journalists to highlight the threat of secession to regional stability, while Britain and the Soviet Union were courted to maintain political support.
The Role of Foreign Media and Missionaries
International journalists and missionaries played pivotal roles in shaping the war’s global perception. Reporters such as Colin Legum (The Observer) documented Biafra’s humanitarian crisis, while missionaries sent letters, reports, and photographs to churches in Europe and North America, galvanising humanitarian campaigns.
The Nigerian government, aware of media influence, sometimes expelled correspondents whose reporting seemed biased toward Biafra, highlighting tensions between press freedom and national security.
Evolution Over Time: From Optimism to Desperation
As the conflict dragged on, propaganda strategies shifted. Biafra’s initial optimism gave way to urgent appeals emphasising suffering and religious overtones, portraying the region as predominantly Christian under siege. Nigeria responded by emphasising reconstruction, rehabilitation, and reconciliation, particularly through Gowon’s “Three Rs” policy announced near the war’s end.
By January 1970, when Biafra surrendered, the propaganda war had left lasting psychological and social impacts, including deep regional mistrust and skepticism toward official narratives.
Legacy and Modern Relevance
The Nigerian Civil War’s media and propaganda strategies continue to influence Nigeria today:
- State Control of Media:Government dominance of broadcasting persisted into subsequent decades.
- Mistrust of Official Information:Many Nigerians remain cautious of state-controlled media, reflecting wartime experiences.
- Humanitarian Communication:The use of famine imagery set precedents for reporting crises in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Rwanda.
- Diaspora Advocacy:Biafra’s international lobbying foreshadowed modern diaspora activism, including digital campaigns.
Today, social media mirrors similar dynamics, competing narratives, emotive imagery, and battles over public perception.
Author’s Note
The Nigerian Civil War demonstrated that victory depends not only on military might but also on narrative control. Biafra’s propaganda transformed a regional secession into a global moral cause, while Nigeria’s management of information preserved national unity. The conflict’s legacy underscores the enduring importance of media in shaping history, truth, and national identity.
References:
Doron, R. (2014). Marketing genocide: Biafran propaganda strategies during the Nigerian Civil War, 1967–1970. Journal of Genocide Research, 16(2-3), 227–246.
Wolff, R. (2024). Visual Propaganda and Biafran National Identity: Artists Constructing a Nation During Wartime. African Studies Review.
Ugochukwu, E. (2010). The Nigerian Civil War and its Media: Groping for Clues. ResearchGate.
Bamisaiye, A. (1974). The Nigerian Civil War in the International Press. JSTOR.
McAlister, M. (2023). Picturing the War ‘No One Cares About’. National Endowment for the Humanities.
