The pictures shows Chukwuemeka Odimegwu Ojukwu and Yakubu Gowon in Aburi, Ghana in 1967 where the famous Aburi accord was signed.Gowon and Ojukwu are seen sharing a meal while Ghana’s then head of state, Joe Ankrah watches on.
The meeting was billed to be the last chance of preventing all out war. It was held between 4 and 5 January 1967. In spite of this effort, Nigeria still witnessed a civil war from that same 1967 to 1970 where millions perished.
Had anybody including Gowon and Ojukwu denied that this meeting took place and an accord was struck? If at any point one or the other side could no longer understand or correctly interpret this accord anymore or had reservations, why did he not go back to Ghana, since our brothers in Ghana had offered to mediate( quasi the Judge here) instead of discarding the accord outrightly? To the best of my knowledge Ghana did not close the mediation door.
This has been the gravest example in our history of professional recklessness, when one assumes the position of the accuser, the accused, and the Judge at the same time.
I hope something could be learnt from this by the present administration, so that the rule of law is always allowed to prevail. Because, in a dispute there is an accuser with his convictions, the accused also with his own convictions, and the Judge as the neutral person with the law of the country for guidance. The decision the Judge makes over the case at hand is binding on all the parties, irrespective of whose position it suits. If one has a problem later with the decision, he seeks redress in a higher court.
It looks very childish, if not outright stupid, as it happens now in many cases, when one goes to even level new charges against an accused because the outcome of the previous Judgement does not suit his position.