By late 1966, Nigeria stood on the edge of collapse. The tensions that would later lead to the Aburi meeting were already visible in the chaos of coups, counter-coups, and communal violence. The January coup, the counter-coup of July, and the ethnic killings that followed, especially the massacres of Igbo civilians in the North, had destroyed what remained of interregional trust.
After the January coup, Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi assumed power and sought to stabilise the country. His Unification Decree No. 34 (May 1966) replaced Nigeria’s federal system with a unitary structure. While Ironsi saw it as an administrative reform, many northern officers and politicians viewed it as centralising too much power in an Igbo-dominated federal administration.
The counter-coup of July 1966 brought Lieutenant Colonel Yakubu Gowon to power, but unity was already fractured. In the East, Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, the region’s Military Governor, demanded constitutional guarantees of autonomy and safety for Easterners before recognising Gowon’s government.
The Supreme Military Council (SMC), Nigeria’s top governing body comprising the Head of State and all regional governors, was paralysed by suspicion. Communication between Lagos and Enugu nearly ceased, and mutual distrust made reconciliation increasingly difficult.
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
The Aburi Meeting (4–5 January 1967)
To avert total collapse, Ghana’s leader, Lieutenant General J.A. Ankrah, offered his country as neutral ground for dialogue. On 4–5 January 1967, delegations from all four regions met in Aburi, near Accra. Gowon led the federal delegation; Ojukwu headed the Eastern team.
Discussions were intense, emotional, and often fraught. Yet they produced several key understandings, collectively known as the Aburi Accord or Aburi Declaration, intended to restore confidence and redefine Nigeria’s governance framework.
Key points included:
- The Supreme Military Council would remain Nigeria’s highest policy-making organ, with decisions reached collectively.
- Regional governments would have control over internal affairs, including public order and internal security.
- Military postings and promotions would require consultation across regions.
- Displaced officers would be reinstated, and no force would be used to resolve political disagreements.
In spirit, the Aburi resolutions re-emphasised Nigeria’s federal character, limiting unilateral actions by the central government. However, they also contained serious ambiguities, particularly regarding command of the armed forces, the scope of emergency powers, and whether “collective decision-making” required unanimous consent.
Even during the meeting, notes and transcripts reveal uncertainty about whether the resolutions were legally binding or provisional understandings to be formalised later.
From Aburi to Decree No. 8: The Rift Widens
Upon returning to Lagos, the federal authorities instructed legal officers to convert the Aburi resolutions into law. The outcome was the Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 8 of 1967, promulgated in March.
While Decree No. 8 retained Aburi’s recognition of the SMC as the top decision-making organ, it introduced additional clauses defining the Head of the Federal Military Government’s powers. Notably, it authorised the Head of State, acting with at least three governors’ consent, to declare a state of emergency and legislate for any region.
Federal officials regarded these provisions as necessary safeguards to prevent paralysis in crises. But for Ojukwu and the Eastern leadership, they contradicted Aburi’s emphasis on collective control and equality among the regions.
Consequently, Ojukwu rejected Decree No. 8, describing it as a distortion of the Aburi understanding. He refused to attend the Benin SMC meeting of 10 March 1967, which approved the decree.
Gowon maintained that Aburi was a political understanding, not a constitutional revolution, and that Decree No. 8 merely formalised its outcomes. Ojukwu viewed this as evidence that Lagos intended to retain unilateral authority, proof, in his view, that Aburi’s core spirit had been compromised.
Escalation and Breakdown
Tensions deepened after March 1967. The Eastern Region began to withhold federal revenues, assumed control of regional institutions and ports, and prepared for self-administration.
On 27 May 1967, Gowon announced the creation of twelve new states, replacing the four regional structure. Many Nigerians interpreted this as a decentralising reform, but in the East it was seen as an attempt to divide the region, especially as the new Rivers and South-Eastern States carved out non-Igbo areas from Ojukwu’s domain.
Three days later, on 30 May 1967, Ojukwu declared the Republic of Biafra, citing the federal government’s breach of Aburi and the continuing killings of Easterners as justification.
Within weeks, military confrontation erupted. The Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970) lasted thirty months, claiming more than a million lives, most of them civilians. What began in Aburi as an effort to preserve peace instead became a turning point toward war.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
What We Know – and What Remains Disputed
- Established facts:
- The Aburi summit took place in Ghana on 4–5 January 1967, hosted by the Ghanaian government.
- The Aburi resolutions stressed consensus in governance, regional autonomy, and limited central intervention.
- Decree No. 8 of March 1967incorporated parts of the accord but added clauses on emergency powers not explicitly agreed upon in Aburi.
- Ojukwu rejected the decree and did not attend the Benin SMC session that ratified it.
- The state creation of 27 May and Biafra’s declaration on 30 May directly followed the breakdown of Aburi.
Points still debated:
- Whether the federal government deliberately reneged on Aburi or acted under pressure to preserve national unity remains contested. Some archival sources suggest Gowon faced internal resistance from senior officers wary of decentralisation.
- Scholars differ on whether Aburi represented a confederal The term does not appear in the meeting minutes, but the emphasis on regional self-control allowed later interpretations in that direction.
- Claims that foreign or oil interests directly influenced the breakdown remain speculative; no decisive archival evidence confirms such involvement.
Legacy and Lessons of the Aburi Accord
The collapse of the Aburi Accord remains one of Nigeria’s defining political tragedies. It demonstrated how peace agreements built on ambiguous language and mistrust can unravel under competing interpretations.
Aburi was not just a legal matter, it was about trust and perception. Gowon viewed it as a framework for cooperation; Ojukwu saw it as a guarantee of regional sovereignty. Once these perspectives diverged, the accord’s survival became impossible.
In retrospect, the tragedy of Aburi lay in its potential. For a brief moment, dialogue seemed capable of healing Nigeria’s divisions. But without a shared legal mechanism or neutral enforcement process, goodwill collapsed under the weight of political suspicion.
Author’s Note
Today, the Aburi Accord endures as a cautionary lesson in nation-building: that peace must rest not only on negotiation, but also on clarity, sincerity, and enforceable commitments. Otherwise, as Nigeria’s experience shows, the road from peace talks to war can be perilously short.
Reference:
Ire Journals, “African Peace Initiatives to Avert the Nigerian Civil War: Aburi Accord and the Prospects for Peace.”
Foreign Relations of the United States, 1964–1968, Vol. XXIV: Nigeria – U.S. Office of the Historian.
Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree No. 8, 1967 – Official Gazette text.
Max Siollun, Oil, Politics and Violence: Nigeria’s Military Coup Culture (1966–1976).
Alexander Madiebo, The Nigerian Revolution and the Biafran War.
