Political and historical debates have long focused on the identity and impact of the Igbo community in Port Harcourt. The historical identity of Port Harcourt was clarified by a British Colonial Office report from July 1958, which called it “an Ibo town” where the native Ibo population was already outnumbered by Ibos from the countryside.CONTINUE FULL READING>>>>>
In the meantime, the research highlighted the Ibo community’s historical contributions to Port Harcourt’s development and appeared among discussions about the identity and integration of Ibos in Rivers State. According to the text, the Ibo presence is crucial to the urban and commercial growth of the city.
Port Harcourt continuously voted for the NCNC and demonstrated “continued attachment” to the then-Regional Government, according to the report, “Report of the Commission Appointed to Enquire into the Fears of Minorities and the Means of Allaying Them,” which was presented to the UK Parliament by the Secretary of State for the Colonies.
As per the paper, Port Harcourt was “constructed on land that was originally owned by an outlying branch of the Ibo tribe, the Diobus,” but it was now “primarily inhabited by Ibos from the interior who have come to trade or seek employment.”
Igbo in Port Harcourt were vital in trade, education, and the development of the city’s civic infrastructure, according to the British Commission’s 1958 report. According to reports, their business endeavors turned Port Harcourt into a center for trade and industry.
At the time, the Commission observed that 305,000 of the 747,000 residents of the Rivers Province were Ibo, with Port Harcourt serving as “the tip of a tongue of Ibo territory which divides Ogoni from Brass and Degema.”
According to the research, “the main body of Ibos would be most reluctant to lose” Port Harcourt, thereby opposing the establishment of a distinct Rivers State. Additionally, the Commission cautioned that the Ibos of the central plateau would be extremely resentful of Port Harcourt’s inclusion in a Rivers State, which “would create a problem as acute as that with which we are asked to deal at present.”
The Commission said in its thorough report that establishing a Rivers State would have created governance issues because it would have split the region in two by Port Harcourt and “a broad arm of the sea.” Less than 500,000 people would have lived in the planned state, which would have combined Western Ijaws with Brass, Degema, and Ogoni Divisions.
Shifting political allegiances were noticed in the report, especially in Ahoada Division, which first backed the Rivers State notion before turning against it. The text claims that worries about possible Ijaw domination when Western Ijaws were included in the planned state were a factor in Ahoada’s shift of stance.
Including Ahoada and Port Harcourt would “create a problem as acute as that with which we are asked to deal at present,” the Commission said, adding that “to create such a state would cut off the inhabitants from their most probable sources of supply.”
The geographical and socioeconomic challenges of Port Harcourt were similar to those of Ibo Town. The Commission recognized the particular difficulties faced by coastal areas, which were frequently disregarded by inland administrations. These difficulties included inadequate infrastructure, a lack of educational opportunities, and expensive development expenses. It however point out that there would be major logistical and financial challenges if coastal minority like the Ijaws and Ogonis were given their own state.
Rivers State Proposal: Disagreements among local groups over the proposed Rivers State were noted in the study. Ahoada and Port Harcourt were adamantly against the plan, while other units, notably the Brass and Degema Divisions, were in favor of it. Notably:
Concerns about Ijaw supremacy caused Ahoada locals to change their stance against the Rivers State concept. Ibo-majority Port Harcourt showed loyalty to the NCNC government and opposed breaking away from the Eastern Region.
Ethnic Tensions: Ijaws’ Viewpoint: They wanted a united Ijaw-dominated region and wanted their unique identity and development demands to be acknowledged. Ogoni and Additional Groups: More discontent with the current state of affairs than specific ideas for government served as the foundation for support for regional autonomy.
Problems with New States: The paper made the case against the creation of new states such as Rivers State because of their economic impracticability and the split of communities brought about by Port Harcourt’s advantageous location.
The Ibo-majority NCNC’s political and economic dominance is a common fear among non-Ibo populations, according to the survey. This anxiety was stoked by:
a belief in Ibo political cohesion and electoral supremacy. worries about marginalization and authoritarian rule. suspicion of cultural hegemony, especially in relation to political appointments and trade.
Historical conflicts led to the Efiks and Ibibios in Calabar and Ogoja Provinces expressing hostility toward Ibo leadership. Tribal conflicts and divergent agendas prevented concerted action, despite their shared hostility to perceived Ibo dominance.
The election scene in the Eastern Region demonstrated the NCNC’s stronghold, which is dominated by Ibo people, especially in the provinces of Onitsha and Owerri. Opposition parties like the Action Group and UNIP, which gained a lot of popularity in the COR (Calabar, Ogoja, and Rivers) region, provided representation for minority communities.
The Commission rejected the idea of establishing a new state in the Eastern Region but suggested other ways to address the problems of minorities, such as better representation and development programs that were specifically designed for them.CONTINUE FULL READING>>>>>
