A new generation of young Nigerians of Igbo extraction has rejected what it described as the continued weaponisation of the 1966 military coup for ethnic and political manipulation, insisting that they would no longer submit to narratives portraying the January 1966 coup as an exclusively “Igbo coup.”
The position followed a recent interview on Arise Television involving Ojy and the Nigeria Democratic Congress presidential candidate, Peter Obi, which, according to Jonathan, revived what he considers a misleading narrative surrounding the coup and its aftermath.
Jonathan argued that the rapid succession of events surrounding the January coup, the counter-coup of July 1966 and the subsequent pogroms made it difficult for Nigerians at the time to distinguish between fact, propaganda and politically motivated narratives.
He maintained that the continued description of the January 1966 coup as an “Igbo coup” has contributed significantly to ethnic suspicion and political divisions in Nigeria, particularly the recurring argument that Igbos should be denied political leadership because Igbo officers were among those who participated in the coup.
“To the journalists who keep asking us ‘what do you think about the 1966 coup?’ and framing it as an ‘Igbo coup’ where ‘Igbos killed Sardauna Ahmadu Bello and should not be allowed to lead’, this generation of young Igbos takes strong exception to that,” Jonathan said.
According to him, reducing the events of 1966 to ethnicity ignores the composition, ideological motivations and political circumstances surrounding the young military officers who participated in the failed coup.
He pointed out that the Nigerian Army had a relatively small number of majors at the time and that a significant proportion were Igbo, making the involvement of several Igbo officers at that rank statistically unsurprising.
Jonathan listed officers including Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu, Emmanuel Ifeajuna, Timothy Onwuatuegwu, Donatus Okafor, Humphrey Chukwuka, Chris Anuforo, Ben Gbulie and others among those associated with the coup plot.
However, he stressed that officers from other ethnic and regional backgrounds were also involved, citing Major Adewale Ademoyega and other Yoruba officers, as well as officers associated with the Middle Belt, northern Nigeria and the former Mid-Western Region.
He argued that the participation of officers from different parts of Nigeria challenges the simplistic interpretation of the coup as an exclusively Igbo operation.
Jonathan further contended that the political and ideological environment of the First Republic must be considered when analysing the coup. He said corruption allegations, the disputed 1964 federal election, the controversial 1965 Western Region election and growing dissatisfaction among sections of the younger military generation were central to understanding the events.
He also cited claims attributed to former military officers and prominent Nigerians, including former military ruler Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, retired Major General Ishola Williams and General Galma, who have questioned the characterisation of the coup as purely ethnic.
Jonathan specifically referenced Babangida’s autobiography, A Journey in Service, published in 2025, saying the former military ruler rejected the description of the January coup as an “Igbo coup” and argued that the label was subsequently weaponised.
He also referenced accounts concerning Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna’s ideological relationship with the political ideas associated with Chief Obafemi Awolowo and his involvement in the University of Ibadan intellectual environment.
According to Jonathan, such accounts suggest that some of the officers were influenced by broader political and ideological currents rather than acting simply on the basis of ethnic identity.
He further invoked the role of Lt. Col. Francis Adekunle Fajuyi, the then Military Governor of the Western Region, who was killed alongside Head of State Major General Aguiyi-Ironsi during the July 1966 counter-coup.
Jonathan said Fajuyi’s conduct and death were among the historical episodes demonstrating that the events of 1966 cannot easily be reduced to an Igbo-versus-other-ethnic-groups narrative.
He also cited Professor Wole Soyinka and other former military officers and statesmen who have, at different times, challenged the ethnic interpretation of the January coup.
Jonathan said the persistence of the “Igbo coup” narrative has had consequences extending far beyond historical debate, arguing that it became intertwined with the violence and reprisals that followed the first coup and eventually contributed to deeper ethnic distrust.
He warned that repeatedly resurrecting the issue during contemporary political contests could further damage national cohesion.
“Continuing to recycle it is dangerous to the future and progress of Nigeria. If we keep using ethnic hatred to settle political scores, it will be catastrophic for the country in future,” he said.
He therefore called on journalists and political commentators to interrogate the historical record more rigorously instead of presenting the 1966 coup as an inherited ethnic accusation against an entire people.
“We, this generation of young Igbo people, reject that labelling. We will not keep answering questions built on lies, ethnic hatred planted by a few people and used for electoral manipulation,” Jonathan declared.
He argued that contemporary Nigeria should be able to discuss the First Republic, the January and July 1966 coups, the pogroms and the civil war without turning historical tragedy into a permanent instrument of ethnic exclusion.
“1966 was not an Igbo coup. Nigeria deserves better conversations than this in 2026,” he said.
Jonathan challenged those who dispute the alternative interpretation of the events to present historical evidence rather than relying on ethnic stereotypes.
“If you can dispute these former Nigerian leaders, please come with your receipts. But please leave your cheap propaganda and dirty ethnic bias behind,” he added..
