The Tragedy of Reality Denial describes situations in which individuals or groups refuse to accept factual information or evidence, often to the detriment of themselves or their societies. This phenomenon can be observed in various contexts, including politics, science, and history. Psychologists believe that the factors underpinning reality denial include cognitive dissonance, self-motivated reasoning, confirmation bias, identity, and group affiliation, among others. Sociologists, on the other hand, suggest that reality denial is rooted in issues like socialization, convoluted social norms, fear, uncertainty, and social pressure. Historians argue that reality denial can be caused by historical revisionism, propaganda, deliberate forgetting, selective remembering, ethno-nationalism, and more.

As history shows, the expected coalition government in the post-independence era was supposed to be formed between Chief Nnamdi Azikwe (referred to as Zik) and Chief Obafemi Awolowo (referred to as Awo). Following the 1959 election, Ahmadu Bello’s NPC won 142 of the 312 seats in Nigeria’s Federal House of Representatives, Zik’s NCNC won 89 seats, while Awo’s AG won 73 seats. Since none of the parties could form a government, Awo approached Zik, proposing that, given the circumstances, a coalition between NCNC and AG would serve Nigeria best. Awo offered Zik, as the leader of the supposed coalition with more members in parliament than Awo’s AG, the role of Nigeria’s first independent prime minister, while Awo would become the finance minister.

However, instead of joining forces with Awo, Zik formed an alliance with the NPC. Zik did not inform Awo of his decision; Awo heard about it in a public broadcast by British Governor-General James Robertson. In that announcement, Robertson appointed Tafawa Balewa as Prime Minister, citing that he represented the largest party in the House of Representatives, and appointed Zik as Governor-General, stating he was a “junior coalition partner.” Zik’s decision, which he justified as an attempt to prevent the North from breaking away from Nigeria, resulted in him receiving a ceremonial post as Governor-General, devoid of real power.

As things turned out, Zik’s betrayal marked the end of his ambition to lead Nigeria, which he never realized in his lifetime.

As a historian, we often confront “What if?” scenarios.

“What if?” scenarios in historical scholarship involve the exploration of alternative outcomes or events that did not occur but could have shaped history differently. These scenarios are often speculative and serve as a thought experiment rather than a rigorous analysis of actual historical events. What if the American Revolution had failed? What if the Industrial Revolution had not happened in England? What if World War I had been avoided? What if Awo and Zik had teamed up to lead Nigeria at independence in 1960? While these “what if” questions can stimulate historical thinking and discussion, it’s important to recognize that they fall into the realm of counterfactual history, which doesn’t adhere to the conventional standards of historical research. Nonetheless, “what if” questions can be valuable for considering the complexity of historical causality and the interconnectedness of events.

What if Awo and Zik had teamed up to lead Nigeria at independence in 1960?

Certainly, there would not have been the first military coup and the Biafran Civil War. In other words, Igboland and its history would certainly have been different than it is today. If there was no military coup and no Biafra War, the history of Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu would have been different, too. There would have been no Nnamdi Kanu, no IPOB, no ESN, and the turmoil that now defines Igboland, thanks to Nnamdi Kanu and his group of terrorists, would not exist.

When I wrote that Nnamdi Kanu orchestrated the burning of Lagos in the name of ENDSARS, many Nigerians of Igbo extraction took to Twitter, Facebook, and other social media platforms to harass and bully me, but it had no effect. They even appealed to my university to terminate my employment. They left hundreds of messages on my phone in their efforts to silence me – to no avail.

In essence, they accused me of lying, compelling me to provide evidence to support my claim. Even when I provided incontrovertible evidence of Nnamdi Kanu, IPOB, and ESN as the masterminds behind the burning of Lagos, they did not stop to reconsider their stance for once.

Clearly, these Igbos and their cohorts, wherever they may be found, are in a state of reality denial. The cognitive dissonance they are experiencing prevents them from seeing how their self-concept and their actual state, particularly in the context of Nigeria, are in dissonance with reality. To them, the only person in Nigeria is one who selectively processes information to support their preconceived notions while ignoring or downplaying information that contradicts them.

When tracing the problems of Nigeria, Chinua Achebe blamed others but not the Igbos, a theme that defined his scholarship. In “There Was a Country,” he unabashedly claimed that he and his peers were brought up with a promise: the promise of ruling Nigeria. Regrettably, rather than blaming Zik and Ojukwu for their greed, he adulated himself by scapegoating others. This reality denial has since been embraced not only by Chimamanda Adichie but also by many of Peter Obi’s followers.

Today, October 20, 2023, marks the three-year anniversary of Nnamdi Kanu’s hijacking of ENDSARS and the orchestration of the burning of Lagos. In these past three years, there have been repeated calls for justice for the victims of highhandedness by security forces in their efforts to disperse protesters. However, there has not been a single call for justice for Lagos State, various individuals whose properties were burnt and destroyed, and members of the different security forces who lost their lives during ENDSARS protests.

While the ENDSARS protests were ongoing, Nnamdi Kanu was coordinating members of IPOB and ESN, all of whom were Igbos, on his Biafran Radio and on YouTube. On different occasions, Nnamdi Kanu detailed which properties purportedly belonged to Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, Sanwo-Olu, Sanwo-Olu’s mother, and their respective addresses. He also named police officers leading various formations, their children’s names, and the schools their children were attending, broadcasting this information to protesters. Protesters from different locations submitted reports in real-time and demanded arms and ammunition during the live-radio broadcasts.

Acts like the ones described above are not the actions of protesters but those of terrorists. No nation, regardless of its wealth or poverty, would sit idly by and allow such perfidy to continue unchecked.

Despite the fact that evidence of all these actions is publicly available, those who delight in denying reality have not stopped blaming the government for deploying soldiers to quell the ENDSARS protests. In their view, the government should have allowed the protests and the burning of Lagos to continue.

No amount of reality denial can erase the fact that Nnamdi Kanu allegedly orchestrated the burning of Lagos, the killing of security operatives, and more during the ENDSARS protests.

Reality denial can have significant and far-reaching consequences, including misinformed decision-making, polarization, economic impact, erosion of trust in institutions, inadequate crisis response, social division, loss of empathy, and historical distortion.

What if Kanu and his group of terrorists had not hijacked the ENDSARS protests? The history of Nigeria, particularly with regard to the ENDSARS protests, would have been different. Would Sanwo-Olu have won reelection as Governor of Lagos? Even though “what if” scenarios are counterfactual, they serve as a means of accepting reality rather than denying it.

Isn’t it ironic that, just as was the case in 1959/60 when Zik betrayed Awo and brought a shame on himself, most Igbos see nothing wrong in what Nnamdi Kanu and his group of terrorists are doing to Igboland. They continue to shift blame elsewhere.