BY CHIDI CHUKWUTEM
The article, “Ned Nwoko’s Roguish Igbo Identity and Why We Don’t Nee Anioma State” posted on Anioma Voice by one Nwankwo T. Nwaezeigwe, a self-exiled figure with a history of inflammatory rhetoric, represents a desperate attempt to sow division among Anioma people and undermine the legitimate efforts of Senator Prince Ned Nwoko.
Far from a scholarly critique, it is riddled with revisionist history, personal attacks, and unsubstantiated claims that ignore overwhelming evidence of Anioma’s Igbo heritage and the senator’s genuine commitment to his people’s advancement and welfare.
This rebuttal dismantles these fallacies point by point, reaffirming Senator Nwoko’s authenticity as a leader and the undeniable Igbo identity of Anioma people, while highlighting the merits of Anioma State creation.
Senator Ned Nwoko’s Genuineness and Leadership
Senator Nwoko is no “pariah” or “roguish” figure, as the article baselessly asserts. Born on December 21, 1960, into the Nwoko royal family of Idumuje-Ugboko in Aniocha North Local Government Area, Delta State, he is a prince by birthright and a distinguished lawyer with degrees from the University of Keele and King’s College London. His career spans legal practice in the UK Supreme Court, philanthropy through the Ned Nwoko Foundation, and environmental advocacy, including an Antarctic expedition.
As senator for Delta North, he has championed malaria eradication, infrastructure development, and cultural preservation—efforts that have earned him widespread respect among Anioma indigenes. The article’s ad hominem attacks, including derogatory remarks on his “alienist dark complexion,” smack of bigotry and distract from his proven track record.
Critics like Nwaezeigwe, whose own writings have been called out for “revisionist narratives and sweeping generalizations,” lack the moral standing to question Senator Nwoko’s integrity. Nwoko’s push for Anioma State is not a “scam” but a visionary step toward equity, supported by over 90 senators and grassroots movements.
The Civil War Narrative: Trauma and Survival, Not “Convulsive Lies”
The article mocks Senator Nwoko’s account of being coerced to deny his Igbo identity during the Nigerian Civil War as “ridiculous and impertinent pettiness,” claiming Idumuje-Ugboko was untouched by federal troops. This is a gross distortion. The war’s atrocities extended across the Anioma region (then Midwest), with federal forces committing ethnic cleansing against perceived Igbo sympathizers.
The Asaba Massacre of October 1967 saw thousands of Anioma civilians—men, women, and children—executed by troops under Major Murtala Muhammed, precisely because they were seen as Igbo. Similar massacres occurred in Ogwashi-Uku, Isheagu, and other areas, fueled by the Biafran invasion of the Midwest, which led to reprisals against Anioma people accused of collusion.
Even if Idumuje-Ugboko avoided direct invasion, the pervasive fear and killings in neighboring communities forced many families to hide their Igbo roots for survival. Nwoko, aged nine at the time, recounting parental advice to deny Igbo identity reflects a collective trauma that persists today. Dismissing this as lies ignores survivor testimonies and scholarly works on the war’s impact, which document how Anioma communities were occupied and terrorized, prolonging the conflict and scarring generations.
Blaming Southeast Igbos for “instigating” the genocide is victim-shaming at its worst; the real culprits were federal forces enforcing “One Nigeria” through violence.
Anioma’s Igbo Identity: Historical Fact, Not “Fake” or “Roguish”
The core of the article’s venom is its denial of Anioma’s Igbo identity, portraying it as a “mercenary” imposition by outsiders and labeling champions like Nwoko as non-Igbo. This is ahistorical nonsense. Anioma people, encompassing Aniocha, Ndokwa, Ika, and Oshimili, are unequivocally part of the Western Igbo, sharing linguistic, cultural, and historical ties with Southeast Igbos.
Colonial records, oral histories, and ethnological studies confirm this: Anioma’s Igbo dialect (Enuani), naming conventions, and traditions derive from ancient Igbo migrations, flavored by interactions with Benin, Igala, and others but fundamentally Igbo. Yes, Idumuje-Ugboko has Edo influences, its name may blend elements like “Idumuje” (Edo) and “Ugboko” (forest-related), and some quarters trace to Benin migrants in the 19th century. But cultural assimilation over centuries has integrated these into an Igbo framework; Anioma speaks Igbo as a first language, celebrates Igbo festivals, and identifies as such in national censuses.
Nwoko himself has embraced this, urging Anioma to reclaim their Igbo heritage post-war distortions.The article’s fixation on “multi-ethnic identity” cherry-picks minority origins to erase the dominant Igbo essence, much like denying Yoruba identity to Itsekiri despite shared roots. Historical figures like Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu and Col. Joe Isichie exemplify Anioma’s Igbo valor in Biafra, countering claims of Southeast “sabotage.” Nwaezeigwe’s views have been critiqued as “deeply inappropriate” and biased, often prioritizing division over unity.
The Case for Anioma State: Equity, Not Division
The article falsely portrays Anioma State as unnecessary, claiming Delta State already suffices and accusing proponents of insulting leaders like the Asagba of Asaba. In reality, the agitation dates to the 1950s, driven by marginalization and the need for balanced federal representation. Creating Anioma as the sixth Southeast state would address inequities—Southeast has only five states versus others’ six or seven—boosting resource allocation, development, and Igbo unity. It aligns with Anioma’s cultural affinity to the Southeast, healing war wounds and fostering economic growth through autonomy. Far from “fatal” to Anioma, it enjoys broad support from indigenes, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, and even non-Igbo stakeholders for national balance. The article’s fearmongering about Southeast “insecurity” ignores Delta’s own challenges and overlooks Anioma’s history of peaceful coexistence while advocating for self-determination.
Addressing Broader Grievances: Unity Over Conspiracy Theories
The piece regurgitates tired tropes of Southeast “conspiracies” against Anioma, from Ojukwu’s alleged neglect to modern exclusions in Ohanaeze. These are overstated; Anioma leaders like Achuzia and Pat Utomi have been integral to Igbo forums, and marginalization stems from broader Nigerian politics, not ethnic malice. Language alone doesn’t define ethnicity, but in Anioma’s case, it combines with shared cosmology, kinship, and history to affirm Igbo ties—unlike the article’s false equivalences with Igala-Yoruba or Hausa speakers. Nwaezeigwe’s threats of “fatal” consequences for unity advocates reveal his isolation; true Anioma patriots prioritize progress over exile-fueled vendettas.
In the final analysis, Senator Ned Nwoko stands as a beacon of genuineness, fighting for Anioma’s rightful place in Nigeria’s tapestry. Anioma people are proudly Igbo, their identity forged in resilience and shared heritage, not diluted by selective origins. Embracing this truth and pursuing Anioma State will usher in equity, healing, and prosperity—rejecting the divisive poison of articles like this written by a rabble rouser.
