Eculaw Group

24/05/2026

THE QUESTIONS YOU MUST ASK

1. Is what he said true?

If you answer that it is not true, you must have concrete evidence to confirm that. Let's say you are not sure. Then move on to the next question.

2. Is what he said logical?
3. Is it likely to be the truth?

At the very least, everything I told you was logical and likely to be the truth.

I can never say something that is neither logical nor likely!

The fact that you don't like what I said, or that it is not pleasant to you, or that it is different from what your parents told you—none of that answers the questions.

24/05/2026

So Sad that We Have to Disagree

24/05/2026

It wasn't me that said it. Obj, Babangida, Gowon, Ademoyega, Ojukwu, Gbulie all said the coup plotter were working to install Awo.

24/05/2026

Whichever way you look at it, the January 66 coup plotters were working for Awolowo. Their goal was to put Awo in power. Simple!

24/05/2026

Do you agree that war crimes were committed which led to the death of a million Biafran children? How can we address that?

24/05/2026

The Bigotry Is Sickening

24/05/2026

WHAT IS YOUR DEFINITION OF BEING DETRIBALIZED?

A. Joining you in hating the people of my tribe?

B. Joining you in hating people from other tribes?

C. Joining you in believing that your tribe is somehow superior to every other tribe?

D. Joining you in believing that all Igbos are criminals?

E. Joining you in promoting the idea that xenophobia in South Africa is simply about “chasing out Igbos”?

F. Joining you in claiming that over 40 million Igbos, including generations yet unborn, should bear collective guilt for a coup planned by a few soldiers who happened to be of Igbo ancestry?

I do not subscribe to any of these definitions of being detribalized.

For me, being detribalized means maintaining objectivity, fairness, and equal treatment toward people regardless of tribe or ethnicity. It means refusing to judge entire populations by the actions of a few individuals. It means rejecting collective guilt, ethnic hatred, and tribal supremacy.

For example, when IPOB referred to Igbos as “Umuchineke” (children of God), I openly disagreed because I believe all human beings are children of God. No tribe has exclusive ownership of God.

Yet now, some people expect me to accept a different form of ethnic superiority, one in which some tribes are treated as inherently righteous while others are permanently stigmatized and condemned. I reject that completely.

Your definition of being detribalized is deeply offensive to me because it appears to demand self-hatred, tribal submission, and silence in the face of unfairness. That is not enlightenment. That is not justice. And that is certainly not detribalization.

God forbid that I should ever become “detribalized” under such a definition.

True detribalization should produce fairness, empathy, balance, and intellectual honesty: not selective outrage, ethnic stereotyping, and inherited hostility.

Indeed, from what I have observed over the past two weeks, many of those loudly attacking IPOB have themselves displayed attitudes that are equally tribal, intolerant, and extreme. That realization has honestly been disappointing.

24/05/2026

NOW, LET'S FACE THE FACTS:

WHY WAS FAJUYI KILLED ALONG WITH IRONSI?

This is one of the more poignant and telling episodes of the July 1966 counter-coup, and the reasons Fajuyi died alongside Ironsi are layered.

(1) The Immediate Circumstance:

Fajuyi was killed simply because he was there. He was Military Governor of the Western Region, and Ironsi was his guest at Government House, Ibadan, on the night of July 29, 1966. The mutineers came for Ironsi and took both men.

(2) The Deeper Reasons:

(a) He refused to abandon Ironsi:
When the mutineers arrived, Fajuyi, a Yoruba officer, had every possible "ethnic cover" to step aside and let them take only the Igbo Supreme Commander. He did not. By accounts of survivors and subsequent testimony, Fajuyi physically stood with Ironsi and was taken because he would not separate himself from his guest and commander. This was a matter of personal honour (the Yoruba concept of "omoluabi") and military loyalty.

(b) He was seen as complicit in Decree No. 34:

The May 1966 Unification Decree (No. 34), which abolished the federal structure and created a unitary state, was enormously resented in the North and among Middle Belt officers. Fajuyi, as a regional governor under Ironsi, was identified with that administration and its policies, even though the decree originated from Ironsi's inner circle.

(c) He was not neutral: he was Ironsi's man:

The mutineers were not simply killing Igbo officers. They were killing the command structure of the Ironsi regime. Fajuyi represented that structure in the West. Leaving him alive risked a loyalist rallying point.

(d) The logic of the coup required eliminating witnesses and resistors:

The mutineers could not afford to leave alive a senior officer who had witnessed the abduction of the Supreme Commander and who (given his character) would likely resist or expose them.

The Historical Significance:

Fajuyi's death is often under-examined. It demonstrates that the July counter-coup, while ethnically coded as a Northern revenge for January, was not purely an anti-Igbo pogrom at the command level: it was an elimination of the Ironsi power structure.

NOTE: Fajuyi died for loyalty, not ethnicity. That nuance matters enormously for how one reads the civil war's causation.

It also left a moral stain that many Northern officers privately acknowledged: that an innocent Yoruba officer of honour was killed because he would not betray his commander.

WAS FAJUYI EVER SUSPECTED OF INVOLVEMENT IN THE JANUARY COUP?

This is a question where one needs to be careful to distinguish between what the historical record establishes and what was "perceived or alleged" by the Northern mutineers, because those are two very different things.

What the record shows:

Fajuyi was not among the named plotters of January 15. The operational core was predominantly Igbo junior officers - Nzeogwu, Ifeajuna, Onwuatuegwu, Ademoyega (who was notably Yoruba), Chukwuka, and others. Fajuyi does not appear in the conspiracy's documented command structure.

Where suspicion could have attached:

There are angles worth examining:

- His appointment as Military Governor of the West by Ironsi immediately after the coup could be read (by hostile eyes) as a reward, suggesting prior alignment or at least complicity by silence.

- The coup benefited Ironsi, and anyone Ironsi subsequently elevated was potentially seen by Northern officers as part of the same network, whether or not that was fair.

- Ademoyega's Yoruba identity may have cast a general suspicion on Yoruba senior officers in some Northern minds, though that logic was never consistently applied.

My final, honest assessment:

I do not have strong evidence that Fajuyi was specifically named or credibly suspected as a January conspirator. The more defensible reading is that the Northern mutineers conflated loyalty to Ironsi's regime with complicity in January, a convenient but analytically sloppy equation that served their purposes.

FINAL NOTE: I have always believed that Fajuyi was NOT involved in the coup, just as I knew that my parents (and millions of igbo people) were not involved in the coup. But if it makes you happy to accuse my parents, I can find a better way to accuse your own parents anyone i know you hold in high regzrd. Nigerian history is too complicated and nuanced for anyone to sit on his fat bu**um and blame a whole ethnic group.

Let us move forward and fix Nigeria. Stop looking for people to blame. First, you won't succeed. Second, everybody, including people you hold in high esteem, will be blamed too. Again, a whole tribe cannot carry out a coup. Targeting the whole Igbos for blame will offend neutral and objective Igbos like me. I'm not related to Nzeogwu or Ifeajuna or Ironsi. There is no reason to blame my family for what they did. They were not working for the Igbo people. The Igbo people did not send them. Therefore there was no Igbo coup. There was Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna coup: not igbo coup. If you don't get this, then prepare to trade blames.

23/05/2026

HISTORY LESSONS: A CALL FOR PEACE AND RESPECT.

I am actually happy that we had all these posts and exchanges over the past two days. One thing has become very clear: many people do not know Nigerian history well enough. The following ten historical facts appear to be unknown to many of you.

1. The first time a Nigerian was arrested for allegedly plotting to overthrow the government by force was in September 1962. The suspect was Chief Obafemi Awolowo.

2. The first time in Nigerian history that any person was convicted of treason was in 1963. The person convicted was Awolowo, alongside nine of his associates. The majority of them were Yorubas.

3. Was Awolowo properly tried? The answer is yes. The judge who convicted him was a fellow Yoruba man. The Chief Justice who affirmed the conviction on appeal was also a fellow Yoruba man.

4. There were indeed allegations that Colonel Adekunle Fajuyi was sympathetic to, or connected with, some of the planners of the January 1966 coup. Those were allegations, and they partly explain why he was killed. If the soldiers truly intended to spare him, they knew how to separate him from General Ironsi. Let nobody pretend that he forced them to take him along. There were also allegations that Colonel Victor Banjo and Awolowo remained in communication while Awolowo was in prison.

5. Ojukwu never recognized Gowon as his Commander-in-Chief. Therefore, he could easily have blocked any attempt to release Awolowo from Calabar Prison. But he did not. In effect, Ojukwu allowed Awolowo’s release.

6. The only time a civilian effectively served as Number Two in a military government was when Awolowo joined Gowon’s administration. Most senior civilian politicians of that era were either dead, imprisoned, or politically displaced. Yet Awolowo chose to work with the military government. That is a historical fact. He could have refused participation.

7. The use of starvation against civilians and children as a weapon during the Nigerian Civil War occurred under the watch of the Gowon government in which Awolowo played a central role. Under modern international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions, the deliberate starvation of civilians can constitute a war crime.

8. One of the earliest major allegations of mass civilian killings ordered under a civilian presidency in Nigeria arose during the Odi invasion under President Obasanjo.

9. One of the most controversial ethnic threats ever publicly attributed to a traditional ruler in Nigeria was the statement credited to an Oba of Lagos threatening to drown another ethnic group in the lagoon.

10. The commander who led Biafran forces toward the Western Region was not Igbo. He was a Yoruba officer, Colonel Victor Banjo.

All the above historical facts are matters that can be researched, debated, and historically confirmed.

Why am I saying all this?

Because instead of constantly accusing and demonizing one another, Nigerians need to focus on the future. Many people from different parts of the country were never properly taught Nigerian history by their parents, schools, or political elites. That ignorance often fuels dangerous ethnic hostility.

If some people choose to mock the Igbos by repeatedly and falsely reducing the January 1966 coup to an “Igbo coup,” they should also understand that there are many historical facts others can raise in response. No ethnic group is perfect. Every group has painful chapters in history. That is precisely why mutual respect is necessary.

I support peace, dignity, and mutual respect among Nigerians. Some people may read this and conclude that I sound dangerous. Perhaps. But what I truly want is peace built on honesty and respect.

I do not want anybody insulting Yorubas, and I do not want anybody insulting Igbos.

Respect is all I ask for.

23/05/2026

Join us here!

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1MLn7SNE8V/

WHEN POLITICS BECOMES A REFUGE FOR MEDIOCRITY

There was a time when politics was regarded as the highest expression of public intellect and civic responsibility. In ancient philosophy, Plato imagined the ideal state as one governed by philosopher-kings, leaders disciplined by wisdom, reason, education, and moral responsibility. The idea was simple: society functions best when its most thoughtful and intellectually grounded citizens guide public affairs.

Nigeria has tragically moved in the opposite direction.

Rather than attracting the brightest minds, Nigerian politics increasingly attracts those least prepared for the demands of governance. The country has gradually normalized a political culture where intellectual depth is viewed with suspicion, expertise is mocked as elitism, and celebrity influence often carries more weight than competence.

Nothing captures this dangerous decline more vividly than the recent political ambition associated with Cubana Chief Priest.

The mere suggestion that a nightclub celebrity and social media entertainer could aspire to become a lawmaker immediately provoked national debate, not because Nigerians are hostile to democracy, but because many instinctively understood what the situation symbolized. The concern was never simply about one individual. It was about what Nigeria has turned politics into.

Lawmaking is not entertainment.

A legislature is supposed to be a place where complex constitutional questions are debated, national budgets scrutinized, economic policies examined, security frameworks evaluated, and laws drafted with precision and intellectual rigor. It requires discipline, literacy, analytical ability, institutional understanding, and deep appreciation of governance.

Yet Nigerian politics has become so intellectually hollowed out that popularity alone is increasingly treated as qualification for power.

This is the tragedy.

In serious societies, individuals spend years building expertise before seeking legislative office. They emerge from backgrounds in law, economics, public administration, academia, diplomacy, science, military strategy, or civic leadership. Politics is treated as a continuation of public service.

In Nigeria, politics has increasingly become an extension of celebrity culture, money culture, patronage culture, and street influence.

The result is catastrophic governance.

When legislatures are populated by individuals lacking intellectual preparation, democratic institutions become weakened. Debates become shallow. Oversight becomes compromised. Laws become poorly conceived. National priorities become distorted by ignorance, ego, and populism. Governance turns theatrical rather than strategic.

Worse still, this trend sends a poisonous message to younger generations: that fame matters more than substance, wealth matters more than ideas, and visibility matters more than competence.

That is how nations decline.

Democracy does not merely mean allowing anybody to contest elections. Democracy also depends on a political culture that respects excellence, rewards merit, and demands seriousness from those seeking power.

Nigeria cannot continue normalizing mediocrity in governance while expecting development, institutional stability, or national transformation.

A country governed by entertainers, political contractors, cult influencers, and transactional power brokers cannot compete with nations led by thinkers, technocrats, strategists, and disciplined public intellectuals.

Plato may have idealized the philosopher-king, but his warning remains timeless: when societies stop valuing wisdom in leadership, they eventually become victims of their own ignorance.

Unfortunately, modern Nigerian politics increasingly proves him right.

---
DISCLAIMER:
Naija Power Matrix (NPM) is strictly nonpartisan. Opinions expressed are independent editorial views and do not represent any government, politician, party, or organization.

23/05/2026

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/14aJ6kFb1n6/