When fighting ended in January 1970, peace arrived without clarity for millions in the former Biafran territory. Families returned to towns and villages expecting recovery, only to discover locked homes, erased savings, and systems that no longer recognised them. Buildings still stood, but ownership was disputed. Banks reopened, but deposits had vanished. The war was officially over, yet everyday life offered few answers about how normality would return.
It was into this uncertainty that General Yakubu Gowon announced the policy that would define Nigeria’s post war posture: “No Victor, No Vanquished.” The declaration rejected triumphalism and promised national reintegration rather than punishment. To give the words institutional meaning, the Federal Military Government adopted the framework of Reconstruction, Rehabilitation, and Reconciliation.
EXPLORE NOW: Democratic Nigeria
The ambition was clear. The outcome was far more complex.
Rehabilitation and the Immediate Aftermath
Rehabilitation was the most visible and fastest moving aspect of post war policy. Relief operations, supported by international agencies, expanded across war damaged areas. Food distribution, medical aid, and emergency support helped stabilise communities weakened by blockade and displacement. Refugees were encouraged to return home. In a country emerging from mass suffering, this phase prevented further humanitarian collapse.
Yet alongside relief came one of the most enduring shocks of the post war period. Eastern Nigerians returning to banks were issued a flat payment of twenty pounds, regardless of the amount held before the war. For families who had accumulated savings through years of trade and labour, the policy effectively wiped out financial histories overnight.
What was presented as administrative closure was experienced as dispossession. Economic recovery began not from continuity, but from sudden erasure.
Homes Without Owners
Material loss extended beyond money. In cities such as Port Harcourt, returnees found homes labelled “abandoned” during their wartime absence. Temporary flight had been transformed into permanent forfeiture. Panels established to address the issue, including the Daramola Panel in Rivers State, later provided legal justification for reallocating these properties.
The resulting White Paper endorsed the sale of many abandoned houses to new occupants, largely excluding original owners. The policy followed state authority, but its impact resonated nationally. For those affected, reconciliation felt theoretical when exclusion had been formalised into law.
Reconstruction and Uneven Recovery
Reconstruction promised longer term repair. Through the Second National Development Plan from 1970 to 1974, the federal government committed resources to rebuilding infrastructure damaged by war. Roads reopened. Schools and hospitals resumed operations. The oil boom of the 1970s provided unprecedented funding for national development.
However, progress varied sharply by region. In many Eastern communities, reconstruction lagged or failed to reach rural areas entirely. Delays became routine. Projects stalled. Faced with limited state presence, communities relied on collective effort. Families pooled resources. Kinsmen rebuilt houses. Farming resumed through shared labour rather than government intervention.
In places such as Eastern Ibibioland, recovery was driven more by communal resilience than national planning.
Reconciliation and Its Limits
Reconciliation proved the most difficult of the three promises. On its most basic level, “No Victor, No Vanquished” succeeded. Nigeria avoided mass reprisals. The country remained territorially intact. The cycle of vengeance was broken.
Yet reconciliation required more than the absence of violence. It demanded inclusion. Over time, many in the Southeast perceived that inclusion remained partial. Representation in federal employment and senior appointments was limited. Structural arrangements created during and after the war left the former Eastern Region with fewer states and local governments than other zones, reducing political leverage and federal allocation.
Infrastructure reinforced these perceptions. Decades after the war, the region lacked a fully functional international cargo airport or seaport operating at national scale. Port Harcourt and Calabar remained underutilised relative to their historical roles. For a population long anchored in trade and mobility, these gaps shaped livelihoods and reinforced a sense of marginalisation.
The Long Shadow of Unresolved Grievance
Policies designed to promote unity sometimes deepened frustration. Admission into federal Unity Schools through unequal cut off marks generated resentment. The Federal Character Principle, intended to balance representation, appeared inconsistently applied, particularly in high level appointments.
These issues were not created by the 3Rs alone, but they shaped how its success was judged. Over time, disappointment hardened into distrust. The grievances that had contributed to the civil war were never fully resolved. Instead, they reemerged in new forms.
Separatist movements such as the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra drew strength from this unresolved past. Their appeal reflected a belief that reconciliation had ended at rhetoric, without addressing structural inequities.
A Peace That Arrived Before Trust
The legacy of “No Victor, No Vanquished” remains divided. It achieved what urgency demanded: the war ended, the killings stopped, and the nation survived. But where patience, equity, and sustained inclusion were required, progress thinned.
For many in the Southeast, the war ended in 1970, but the waiting continued. People rebuilt without certainty. Communities adapted to uneven attention from the centre. Authority returned quickly. Trust followed slowly.
Peace arrived. Belonging remained unfinished.
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
Author’s Note
This article examines how Nigeria’s post civil war promise of “No Victor, No Vanquished” shaped life in the Southeast, highlighting relief efforts, economic loss, property dispossession, uneven reconstruction, and the enduring challenges of reconciliation that continue to influence national cohesion.
References
- Toyin Falola and Matthew Heaton, A History of Nigeria
- Max Siollun, Oil, Politics and Violence: Nigeria’s Military Coup Culture
- Tekena Tamuno, The Nigerian Civil War and the Question of Reconciliation
