January 15, 1966 and January 15, 2026 in Africa: Dynamics of 60 Years of Recidivist Political Instability
Bola A. Akinterinwa
Africa is like a beautiful damsel any good gentleman can seek to court by all means because Africa is beautiful in various ramifications. It is a region in the eyes of the United Nations, but a continent of five regions in the eyes of the Organisation of African Unity and the African Union. President Donald Trump not only sees Africa as ‘disgusting and crime ridden,’ but also as a continent of ‘shitholes countries.’ For many European countries, Africa is a terra cognita for mineral resources that should be exploited for the development of Europe but to which Nigeria, under General Yakubu Gowon as Head of State and Dr Okoi Arikpo as Commissioner for External Affairs, was vehemently opposed. Dr Arikpo made it clear that, under no circumstance, would Nigeria accept the exploitation of African mineral resources for the exclusive development of Europe and to the detriment of Africa’s development. Europe also sees Africa as its former colony where its influence should be preponderant and not allowed to be challenged. Consequently, when African leaders are perceived to be acting contrarily to their interests they are removed by foreign-aided coups d’état, poisoning, or political destabilisation.
Like the Europeans, the Chinese see Africa as a big strategic market, a major ally within the framework of the Global South and with which a relationship of solidarity should be defined. Emphasis is placed on a win-win narrative, and self-presentation as another Third World country. As such, while Africa-European ties are seen as exploitative, relationship with China is seen as mutually beneficial, especially in light of strings not being attached to Chinese development loans. In short, China sees relationship with Africa as an economic opportunity.
Besides, the late President of Zimbabwe, Dr Robert Mugabe, once said Africa without Nigeria was a pothole, a vacuum. And true enough, Nigeria has the biggest population and arable land in Africa. It is the land of ‘fantastic’ corruption where nothing is impossible. Without any jot of doubt, Nigeria is also a place where the more you look is the less you see. This is the background of today’s narrative on January 15 in 1966 and 2026, and dynamics of the recidivist political instability in Africa.
January 15, 1966 and January 15, 2026
January 15, 1966 was an important date in international relations because of its impact on the nascent democracy in Nigeria that had just acceded to national and international sovereignty on October 1 and 7, 1960 respectively. January 15, 1966 not only marked the first military intervention in political governance, but also put an end to the pioneering experimentation of parliamentary democracy in Nigeria. It also not only laid the foundation for ethnic animosity and intra-regional rivalry, suspicion, and national disunity, but also served as the beginning of a recidivist political instability and chicanery in Nigeria.
In spite of these considerations, January 15, 1966 was set aside not simply to recall the time of military intervention that led to civil war, but also to remember, and remind of, the victory of the Armed Forces of Nigeria (AFN), following the end of military hostilities on January 12 and handing over by a Biafran military General, Phillip Effiong, of the instrument of surrender to Olusegun Obasanjo. Put differently, January 15, 1970 witnessed the change of date of the Armed Forces Remembrance Day from November 11, internationally referred to as ‘Poppy Day’ by the Commonwealth or Armistice Day to commemorate the end of World War I.
Additionally, November 11 can refer to many historical and diplomatic events in international relations: the November 11, 2025 G-7 Foreign Ministers’ Meeting held in Japan; the November 11, 2025 Japan-France Security Cooperation; the November 11, 2024 bilateral diplomatic meetings between South Africa Minister, Roland Lamola and German Minister, Johann Wadephul; the November 11, 2025 defence and security discussions on European defence. In fact, November 11 is generally reserved in military diplomacy for various security-related ceremonies as it is the case with the 2024 homecoming ceremony organised for the Japan Maritime Self-Defence Force’s overseas training cruise and the Wesson Lecture at Stanford on International Relations in practice.
In this regard, Nigeria, being a Member State of the Commonwealth organisation, has been observing November 11 as an International Armistice Day. However, in Nigeria, November 11 was removed as a holiday from the calendar of the Commonwealth in favour of January 15 in commemoration and honour of the Armed Forces of Nigeria for their sacrifices and preventing national disintegration.
Even though General Gowon declared that there was no victor and no vanquished, there is no disputing the fact that Armed Forces Remembrance Day is an expression of victory in the Biafran War. For Biafra, it was a war of secession. For Nigeria, it was a war national unity by manu militari. After all, the war slogan was ‘to keep Nigeria one is a task that must be done.’ Since there was no secession at the end of the military hostilities, there cannot but be victory. More important, many countries recognised the new military government led by Major General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi. The recognition was largely predicated by the promise of the regime to honour Nigeria’s existing treaty obligations. It is therefore not at all surprising that Nigeria’s Constitution subsequently provided for the respect of international and treaty obligations as one of Nigeria’s foreign policy objectives.
Put interrogatively, is the act of respecting international law and treaty obligations sufficient a reason to make it a foreign policy objective? By seeking to respect international law and treaty obligations, can that sustain the recognition of every government of Nigeria in international relations on a permanent basis? Whatever is the case, there is no disputing the fact that January 15, 1966 putsch laid the foundation for the eventual restructuring of Nigeria and the AFN Remembrance Day as explicated above.
In this regard, to what extent is the AFN Remembrance Day not a major dynamic of the successive coups d’état in Nigeria and Africa? In Nigeria, after the January 15, 1966 coup, there were the 1966 counter-coup of July 1966; the 1975 coup that ousted General Gowon; the December 31, 1983 that brought the Muhammadu Buhari regime to an end; the August 27, 1985 palace coup that brought in Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida to power; and the November 17 1993 palace coup that brought General Sani Abacha to power.
These coups are different from the attempted and failed coups: the February 13, 1976 coup that led to the killing of General Murtala Muhammed, the April 22, 1990 Gideon Orka coup, which could have easily succeeded if the intention of ostracising the northernmost states of the North from Nigeria had not been announced during the making of the coup, the December 1985 alleged General Mamman Vatsa coup and the alleged 1997 General Oladipo Diya coup plot. In 2025, there were media reports of coup attempt in Nigeria which the Bola Ahmed Tinubu administration openly denied but which has continued to generate more questions than answers. Questions are always raised bearing in mind that 16 officers were arrested allegedly for salary and welfare reasons purportedly raised by some soldiers. The troubling question is that the media first reported that there was a coup and not that some soldiers complained. It was the Government that came up with the argument of soldiers’ complaints. Many public commentators do not buy the idea of the argument, especially in light of the toughening situation of economic life which already pointed to the possibility of a coup in the making. Public thinking is that Government’s eagle eye surveillance cut up with the coupists before they could act.
Whatever is the case, to what extent is the AFN Remembrance Day not taken advantage of by Russia in deepening its ties with Africa, in general, and Nigeria, in particular? It is useful to recall here that Russia considers Africa as a special region for the projection of its global power and not only to contain Western influence, but also to secure strategic raw materials for its own development.
It should not be forgotten here that General Yakubu Gowon sought the support of the former Soviet Union when the United Kingdom and the United States initially refused to sell arms and weapons to prosecute Nigeria’s war of national unity. Russia, as a successor state to the Soviet Union, following the policies of glasnost and perestroika, began to enhance its international standing by also providing security assistance, energy, and diplomatic support to several African countries, all in an attempt to counter western influence, especially that of France and the United States.
Without doubt, glasnost, as openness, is about public accountability, enabling freedom of thought. It is about transparency. Glasnost is about reforming the politico-economic systems. It is about restructuring and well meant by the initiator, Mikhail Gorbachev, in the 1980s. It was meant to strengthen socialism, but the reforms mistakenly exposed some systemic failures that prompted the demands for greater freedom, quest for nationalism, and eventually the collapse of the Soviet Union. Thus, the opportunity of being invited by General Gowon to come and support Nigeria’s quest for national unity partly encouraged the Soviets to seek the use of Nigeria and Africa as a theatre for anti-West war, to promote a Russian new world order in which Russia, along with China and other non-Western powers, would become major players in the conduct and management of global questions. In this strategic calculation, Africa’s support is considered indispensable. While China presents itself as another Third World country, Russia is presenting itself as a major reliable supporter of African liberation and sovereignty. How does this situation help Nigeria as of January 15, 2026?
Dynamics of 60 Years of Recidivist Political Instability
January 15, 2026 made it sixty years after the first military intervention in January 1966 in Nigeria. The reasons given for the military intervention include poor governance: political instability and corruption in which there were contract disappearances, public embezzlement and treatment of public offices as private property; conscious electoral fraud, especially the 1965 election crisis, also referred to as ‘Operation Wetie,’ which the central government could not handle; unhealthy ethnic rivalry, largely predicated and characterised by claims by Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu of military superiority to Lt-Col. Yakubu Gowon and that Brigadier Babafemi Olatunde Ogundipe ought to have been the successor to Major General Aguiyi Ironsi.
And true enough, When Brigadier Ogundipe reportedly gave military order to the presidential guards, first and second time but there was no compliance. He never bothered to try the third time. He ran away immediately for his safety. He reportedly ran to Dahomey, now Republic of Benin, from where he flew out to the United Kingdom. In September 1966, Brigadier Ogundipe was appointed by Lt. Colonel Gowon as Nigeria’s High Commissioner to the United Kingdom. In spite of this, Colonel Ojukwu still believed that Yakubu Gowon was militarily a junior person to be given the status of First Citizen of Nigeria.
All these factors, coupled with the looting by the corrupt political elite led to the coup-making by Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu in January and Yakubu Gowon in July 1966. Not less than 22 people were killed, mostly norther political leaders. This partly and probably explains why the coup is described by some observers as an Ibo coup and the counter-coup of July 1966 as a northern or Hausa-Fulani coup. The coup apparently became an expression of ethnic rivalry.
These reasons have remained the same and are often given for coups-making in Africa. On January 15, 2026, how to end unconstitutional changes of government still remains a major challenge. The way coup d’état has generated ethnic animosity in Nigeria is not different from the way it has disintegrated the ECOWAS and also legitimised coup-making. The 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community consciously provided in its Articles 1(d) and 1(e) for the restructuring of Africa into five regions and the carving out of sub-regions from any part of the new five regions: West, North, Central, East, and southern. It is on this basis that the Alliance of Sahel States, comprising Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger, all of them founding members of the ECOWAS, withdrew their membership of the ECOWAS. The ECOWAS accused them of flouting the organisation’s basic norm of non-acceptance of unconstitutional change of government. The coups in the three countries were prompted by poor governance, largely predicated by corruption and difficult economic life. The ECOWAS has not shown much concerns about the dynamics of coups but is always much eager to sanction. When the ECOWAS threatened to use military force to compel return to democratic rule in Niger Republic, and by so doing, giving a 7-day ultimatum, the three countries gave their own counter-order of their right to withdraw their delegated power to the ECOWAS which made it a supranational organisation and authority. This is how a coup d’état is serving as an agent of disunity, and disintegration.
On January 15, 2026 in Uganda, presidential and parliamentary elections were held. The elections were reportedly fraught with violence because of controversies surrounding the lection results. There were reports that President Yoweri Museveni was leading in the polls but the opposition elements contradicted such reports. The problem was to the extent that internet facilities were cut off nationwide by the Government on January 13. Ugandans saw this already as an attempt to defraud. At least, seven people were reportedly killed on the day of the election.
The problem of concern is that President Museveni has been in power since 1986, that is, he had served for about forty years and he still wants to serve at the age of 81. What knowledge does he have that is new or fresh that will make him perform better? The son of opposition leader reportedly claimed that his father, Bobi Wine, and mother, Mrs. Wine had been arrested in their home and taken away in helicopter. The opposition party similarly corroborated the claim. However, the BBC explained that the mere fact of the shut down of internet facilities has not enabled the verification of the reports.
On the one hand, the African Union is talking about zero tolerance for unconstitutional change of government but the Ugandan president is reportedly using the power of incumbency to sustain his sit-tight presidency. Why are elections an issue in Africa? Why should people be killed as a result of election controversy? Why do African leaders never accept a truly fair election? When people know that democracy is only a song in which the opposition elements do not have faith in, why will there not be contemplations for coup-making?
In January 1966, there was a general respect for international law and treaty obligations by the big powers. In January 2026, the general respect has disappeared. International law meant nothing when Crimea was to be taken away from Ukraine and annexed to Russia in 2014. It also meant nothing when Russia engaged in what it called special military intervention in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. In the same vein, Israel does not have any due regard for international humanitarian law. Bombing internationally-protected people by Israeli forces is considered normal.
What about the United States? The father of all anti-international law is the United States, particularly under President Donald J. Trump. In terms of strategic calculations, the United States is vehemently opposed to any foreign interventions in its area of influence in the Western hemisphere. This is a reflection of the 1823 Monroe Doctrine. International law clearly prohibits interventions in whatever falls within the domestic preserve of other sovereign states. International law prohibits any forceful acquisition of land or territory following military occupation. Even if the UN Charter still allows for military intervention in the context of self-defence (Article 51), which still subjects such intervention to UN Security approval, the bottom line is that the UN Charter in its Article 2(4) vehemently provides for non-intervention in the domestic affairs of other countries.
What is noteworthy here is that the cases for possible intervention under the International Responsibility to Protect (IR2P) (genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and war crimes) are not at all relevant for any intervention justification at the level of the big powers. US aggression on Venezuela is not about any of the foregoing infractions. The United States simply does not want any country in its hemisphere to be friendly with US enemies, basically Russia and China. The US is hostile to socialism. The American environment should not play host to perceived enemies. Enemies should not have access to strategic resources. The US greatness in international relations has declined and Donald Trump wants to restore the greatness. This is the truth. The US is no longer able to do and undo in several international organisations, hence the need to withdraw US membership of 66 organisations.
Perhaps more disturbingly, last Friday, President Trump made it clear to the whole world that any country that is opposed to the United States quest to annex the Greenland, which is located between the Arctic Ocean and the Atlantic Ocean in the northeast of Canada and northwest of Iceland, will face US imposition of 25% tariff.
The same was true under President Joe Biden who threatened African countries that did not vote for the UN resolution condemning Russian invasion of Ukraine. In fact, he put it more pungently that any country that votes against US foreign policy interests at the UN would be sanctioned. This is the situational reality of global politics as of today. If this is so in global politics, should African countries, for fear of being sanctioned by the United States, accept to always dance to the whimsical and capricious tunes of the United States? When African leaders accept to be used as instruments for the promotion of extra-African development to the detriment of the interests of their own countries, there is no way coup-making would not be contemplated. Coup-making cannot but be recidivist with this type of situation, especially when African governments are, at best, irresponsible to their people. In Nigeria, for example, the Federal Government placed an advert to build houses in April 1994 and collected deposits from the public for buildings to be allocated by December 1994. In January 2026, otherwise 32 years ago, no building of house, no refund of deposits, no information on the building project, yet, Nigerians are being told to be patriotic and to condone political chicanery in Nigeria. What about government houses in the FCT? Why are Certificates of Occupancy (CofO) not easily given to their owners after full payment to Government? I made a full payment in 2004 for a 4-bedroom flat in Wuse Zone 1 but no C of O has been given. Why should I lobby or give bribe in order to get my C of O? Why should people keep quiet when the system is fantastically corrupt to borrow the words of David Cameron?
