Nyor, G. A., & Tutumlu, A. (2026). Biafra Since 1999: Common Cause Versus a Divided Interest in the Struggle for the Creation of Nationhood. Nationalities Papers, 54(3), 536–554.

In a recent article published in Nationalities Papers, Near East University (NEU) researchers Dr. Gabriel Aza Nyor and Prof. Dr. Assel Tutumlu challenge one of the most common assumptions about independence movements. Looking at the Biafran secessionist movement in southeastern Nigeria, they ask a simple but provocative question: if these organizations all seek the same goal, why have they become so deeply divided?

Since the return of civilian rule in Nigeria in 1999, several organizations have campaigned for the creation of an independent Biafran state. Previous studies blamed disagreements over political strategy between the elites and differentiated relationships of these groups with the Nigerian government as key reasons for the movement’s fragmentation. However, the NEU researchers propose a different explanation. Their findings suggest that the divisions are driven less by ideology than by competition among leaders for influence, resources, and organizational control.

Biafra occupies an important place in modern African history. The region attempted to secede from Nigeria in 1967, triggering a devastating civil war that lasted until 1970. Although the war ended more than five decades ago, demands for Biafran independence have re-emerged since 1999 and manifested through vicious personal struggle between leaders of multiple secessionist organizations claiming to represent the same political cause.

To understand why this has happened, the researchers conducted extensive qualitative fieldwork between 2019 and 2023. They carried out in-depth interviews with 50 participants, including senior members and active supporters of major Biafran organizations across five southeastern Nigerian states. The interview data were complemented by documentary evidence, public records, and organizational statements, allowing the researchers to compare official narratives with the experiences of people directly involved in the movement.

The study finds that many existing explanations focus heavily on collective grievances—such as political marginalization, economic inequality, or ethnic discrimination—but struggle to explain why organizations pursuing the same objective repeatedly split into rival factions. Instead, the authors introduce the concept of political entrepreneurship, suggesting that some leaders establish and maintain organizations not only to advance political goals but also to strengthen their own authority and gain access to financial and symbolic resources.

Using this framework, the researchers describe some secessionist organizations as operating similarly to business enterprises. They argue that leadership positions may create opportunities to attract donations, collect membership fees, build political influence, negotiate with powerful actors, and expand personal prestige. As new organizations emerge, competition intensifies, creating incentives for further fragmentation rather than cooperation since the pool of resources has to be divided between more actors and organizations. In this sense, organizational divisions reflect not simply political disagreements but struggles over leadership, recognition, and access to resources.

Main tools of competition revealed from the interviews consisted of recurring allegations of corruption, internal power struggles, leadership disputes, and public campaigns aimed at discrediting rival organizations. In other words, rather than presenting a united front, many groups appeared to spend considerable effort competing against one another for legitimacy and influence.

The study does not argue that political grievances are unimportant. Instead, it suggests that genuine grievances and elite competition can exist simultaneously. While many supporters may remain motivated by long-standing concerns about political representation and regional inequality, organizational leaders may also pursue personal ambitions that shape the direction and fragmentation of the movement. Recognizing this distinction provides a more complete understanding of how contemporary secessionist movements evolve.

Beyond the Biafran case, the research offers broader lessons for scholars of nationalism, conflict, and political movements worldwide. It highlights the importance of looking not only at the causes that unite people behind a movement, but also at the incentives that may divide its leadership. By shifting attention from collective grievances alone to the internal political economy of organizations, the study opens new perspectives on why movements with a common objective sometimes struggle to act collectively. Therefore, the authors encourage researchers and policymakers to consider how leadership competition, institutional incentives, and resource distribution can shape political movements. Their work demonstrates that understanding the people who lead organizations can be just as important as understanding the causes those organizations publicly defend.

For collaboration and research inquiries, please contact Assoc. Prof. Dr. Assel Tutumlu at [email protected].

About the researchers

Dr. Assel Tutumlu is an Associate Professor of Political Science and International Relations at Near East University (NEU). She received her master’s degrees in International Affairs from the School of International Service at American University (Washington DC, USA) and in Politics from the New School for Social Research (New York, NY, USA). She earned her Ph.D. in Global Affairs from Rutgers, State University of New Jersey. Her research focuses on comparative politics, nationalism, ethnic conflict, democratization, political institutions, and the politics of the Middle East and post-Soviet regions. She has authored numerous publications in leading international journals and actively contributes to interdisciplinary research on identity, state-building, and conflict.

Disciplines: Comparative Politics, International Relations, Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict, Democratization, Middle East Politics, Post-Soviet Studies.

For collaboration and inquiries, she can be reached at [email protected].

Dr. Gabriel Aza Nyor is a Lecturer in the Department of Political Science and International Relations at Nigeria Police Academy, Wudil, Kano State. He earned his PhD in Political Science and International Relations from the Near East University in 2025.

Disciplines: Comparative Politics, International Relations, Nationalism, Ethnic Conflict, Democratization

For collaboration and inquiries, he can be reached at [email protected]

Abstract

This article examines institutional fragmentation among key organisations in charge of Biafra’s struggle for independence since the year 2000. The article argues that contrary to the mainstream explanations, which attribute the split to the differences in tactics between organisations (Duruji 2012) or their relations with the state (Kalyvas 2008; Cunningham 2014), organisational cohesion is largely absent due to the struggle for power and resources among the leaders in charge of the organisations. Supported by the in-depth interviews with key informants, we treat Biafran secessionist organisations as business models through which leading politicians act as political entrepreneurs and engage in predatory rent-seeking practices to maximise profits and power through the institutions that represent the collective struggle.

Keywords: Marginalisation; frustration-aggression; relative-deprivation; secession; political entrepreneurs.