Nigeria’s history is shaped by a series of political events, ethnic tensions, and economic struggles that have repeatedly tested the nation’s unity. Among these events, the 1966 coup remains a pivotal and controversial moment that continues to influence contemporary discourse on national cohesion. Former military ruler General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (IBB) has recently revisited the coup’s characterisation, dispelling narratives that portray it as an ethnic-driven conspiracy against the Nigerian state. His intervention raises fundamental questions about historical reconciliation, national identity, and the pathways to a truly united Nigeria.
The 1966 coup and its impact
The first military coup in Nigeria occurred on January 15, 1966, led by Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu and other young officers. The coup resulted in the assassination of prominent politicians, including Prime Minister Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, Northern Premier Sir Ahmadu Bello, and Western Premier Chief Samuel Akintola. While some of the coup plotters were from the Eastern region, their stated aim was to rid Nigeria of corruption and misgovernance, not to advance ethnic interests.
However, the coup was widely perceived—particularly in the North—as an Igbo-dominated plot to sideline other ethnic groups and impose Igbo hegemony. This perception fueled a counter-coup in July 1966, led predominantly by Northern officers, which culminated in the assassination of General Aguiyi-Ironsi and widespread reprisals against Igbos across the country.
The events of 1966 set Nigeria on a path of prolonged instability, including the Nigerian Civil War (1967–1970), military rule, and deepened ethnic distrust.
To this day, the narrative surrounding the coup remains contentious, with many Nigerians interpreting it through ethnic and regional lenses rather than nationalistic objectives. Babangida’s recent attempt to dispel the notion of the coup as an ethnic conspiracy presents an opportunity to re-examine Nigeria’s history with greater nuance and objectivity.
Babangida’s Perspective: Rewriting the 1966 Narrative
Babangida, who played a significant role in Nigeria’s military and political history, has often positioned himself as an advocate for national unity. In his recent remarks, he challenges the conventional view that the January 1966 coup was an Igbo-led attempt to dominate Nigeria.
Instead, he argues that the coup was driven by young, idealistic officers who sought to address corruption and misgovernance. He emphasises that among those who planned and executed the coup, there were officers from different regions, and that their actions were not representative of any ethnic group’s collective will. This reframing is significant because it challenges the deep-seated ethnic suspicions that have lingered in Nigerian politics for decades. By advocating for a more historical and less ethnically charged understanding of the coup, Babangida opens the door for a more constructive national conversation on unity and reconciliation.
A truly united Nigeria
To achieve a truly united Nigeria, the nation must address the historical grievances and structural imbalances that continue to fuel division. Babangida’s position on the 1966 coup should not just be an exercise in historical revisionism; it should serve as a catalyst for broader reforms that promote national integration. Nigeria needs a more inclusive and objective approach to teaching history. The narratives that dominate national discourse have often been shaped by ethnic and regional biases.
A revised historical curriculum that presents multiple perspectives on key national events—such as the coups, civil war, and military regimes—will help younger generations develop a more balanced understanding of Nigeria’s past. National leaders should actively promote truth and reconciliation initiatives. Countries like South Africa and Rwanda have demonstrated that acknowledging past injustices while fostering dialogue can help heal national wounds. Nigeria must create platforms for open discussions where historical grievances are acknowledged, but in a manner that fosters unity rather than division.
One of the lingering effects of the events of 1966 is the perception of marginalisation among different ethnic groups. The military era introduced a governance structure that centralised power in Abuja, weakening regional autonomy. Today, many Nigerians still feel that their regions do not get a fair share of political representation and economic resources. To correct these imbalances, Nigeria must embrace a more decentralised system of governance—whether through restructuring or constitutional reforms. A restructured Nigeria, where states or regions have greater autonomy over their resources and governance, could reduce ethnic tensions and encourage more equitable development.
A key factor in Nigeria’s political instability has been the weakness of national institutions, which have often been manipulated for sectional interests. For Nigeria to achieve unity, its judiciary, electoral commission, security agencies, and anti-corruption bodies must be strengthened to function independently and fairly. Citizens must see these institutions as impartial arbiters of justice, not tools for ethnic or political domination. The judiciary, in particular, must be reformed to ensure that legal redress is accessible and effective.
When individuals and groups feel that the legal system can address their grievances fairly, the likelihood of resorting to violence or ethnic agitation diminishes. Nigeria’s political system has been plagued by exclusionary practices where certain regions or groups feel systematically shut out of power. This has led to agitations for secession, militancy, and other forms of unrest. To counter this, political parties must be structured in a way that promotes national rather than sectional interests.
A rotational presidency, while controversial, has been proposed as a temporary measure to ensure that different regions feel represented at the highest level of governance. However, beyond zoning arrangements, there should be a greater emphasis on meritocracy, where the best candidates—irrespective of ethnicity—are given opportunities to lead. A major obstacle to national unity is the absence of a strong Nigerian identity that supersedes ethnic affiliations. Many Nigerians still identify primarily with their ethnic groups rather than the nation.
This is reflected in political decisions, economic preferences, and social interactions. To build a stronger national identity, there must be deliberate efforts to promote Nigerian culture, values, and symbols that unite rather than divide. National orientation programs, cultural exchanges, and inter-ethnic collaborations can help foster a sense of belonging among Nigerians. The government must lead by example in promoting inclusivity. Appointments, policies, and national projects should reflect the country’s diversity, reinforcing the idea that Nigeria belongs to all its citizens, not just a privileged few.
Babangida’s effort to dispel the ethnic characterisation of the 1966 coup is a welcome step in the journey toward national reconciliation. However, true unity requires more than historical reinterpretation—it demands bold institutional, structural, and cultural changes. Nigeria must confront its past honestly while building a future that is inclusive, just, and equitable.
By addressing historical grievances, decentralising governance, strengthening institutions, fostering inclusivity, and promoting a strong national identity, Nigeria can move toward genuine unity. Babangida’s remarks should serve as a starting point for a broader national dialogue on healing, reconciliation, and the reinvention of Nigeria as a truly united nation.
Udenka is a social and political analyst. He can be reached via: #AfricaVisionAdvancementTrust.
