By Nwankwo T. Nwaezeigwe, PhD
I want to begin by informing the likes of Mr. Chukwuemeka Onyesoh and his Agukwu-Ugbene kinsmen that the business of writing history by professional historians is guided by a set of professional ethics. This set of ethics is founded on the fundamental principle of truth based on evidence. Indeed, as Prof G.T. Garranghan put it:
“Zeal for the truth is as indispensable to the historian as passion for beauty is to the artist. It postulates sincerity and frankness in stating the facts, however much the writer’s feeling or those of others may be ruffled in the process.”
Even the Roman Catholic Pontiff Pope Leo XIII made this fact clear when he wrote: “It is the first law of history that it dares say nothing which is false nor fear to utter anything that is true, in order that there may be no suspicion either of partiality or hostility.”
This was the basic principle of historicism Prof Michael Angulu Onwuejeogwu failed to apply in his account of the history of Nri people, and which Agukwu-Ugbene people have often relied upon to reel in their often provocative improvable historical fabrications. The art and science of writing historian are far beyond mere storytelling which is domiciled in the discipline of literature.
As an anthropologist whose research methodology is hinged fundamentally on observation and situational analysis, or what is referred to as synchronic approach, rather than periodical analysis or diachronic approach as in the case of a historian, Prof Onwuejeogwu might not have known the gravity of falsification of the historical accounts of a people. To a historian, the deliberate cover-up of historical facts is like a physician knowingly dispensing the wrong drug to a patient.
The danger of a professional historian not telling the truth is that a time will definitely come when the same truth will be revealed by another historian. A good example of exposed historical forgery was the “Donation of Constantine”, a false diktat said to originate from Emperor Constantine used by Medieval Europe Roman Catholic Church to support the claim by the Pope to possess the power to coronate and depose European Kings and Emperors. This fabrication that lasted many centuries was later debunked in A.D. 1440 as a forgery by a historian called Lorenzo Valla who also served as adviser to the Pope.
One thing is to write in ignorance as many people do today with respect to Igbo history, which is forgivable and, another is to write knowing the truth but covering it up with falsehood which is unforgivable, as in the cases of Prof Onwuejeogwu and Agukwu-Ugbene people. So a professional historian worth his professional integrity can only be paid to either unearth the truth or expand the already known truth of a people’s past.
Outside this objective every other historical account is equated with intellectual banditry and robbery. This was what Prof Onwuejeogwu engaged in his account of Nri history, and it is the same intellectual banditry and robbery the likes of Chukwuemeka Onyesoh and his Agukwu-Ugbene kinsmen are currently engaging in their devious attempt to veneer the authentic account of Nri history with mendacious fabrications.
Indeed I had confronted several weird situations related to Prof Onwujeogwu’s attempt to falsify Igbo history in favor of Agukwu-Ugbene people, including my hometown Ibusa in favor of his Ogboli Village which traces its origin to Agukwu-Ugbene in the course of my fieldwork.
This relates to the missing of some vital colonial intelligence reports in both National Archives Enugu and Ibadan. In fact, it was at National Archives Ibadan that a staff told me that if I wanted some of the missing files, I should contact Prof Onwuejeogwu.
At National Archives Enugu, which housed archival colonial documents relating to the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria from 1900 when Calabar was the Capital of the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, to 1906 when Lagos took over as the Capital of Southern Protectorate, I could not locate some vital colonial intelligence reports on the Nri and Ibusa, even though the records showed they were supposed to be in the files. I equally experienced similar situation concerning Ibusa at the National Archives Ibadan which housed colonial documents relating to the town from 1906 to 1963 when Midwestern Region was created out of Western Region.
Today, Igboland is not only faced with grievous political and security crises, but socio-cultural and religious crises and blatant abuse of time-honored customary norms engineered by gross fabrication of the people’s history. The case of the present fictitious Obu-Gad of Umuezeora kindred of Aguleri is a resounding example, because the account of Umuezeora history and priestly role I was told in 1991 is very far apart from the present trending fabrication anchored on Igbo-Jews origin. I will however revisit the matter in a coming work.
This is the fundamental reason every bit of historical fabrication by Agukwu-Ugbene people should be debunked with audacious historical precision. Towards this end, I am going to prove to Chukwuemeka Onyesoh and his Agukwu-Ugbene pseudo-historical cohorts that Nri Ifekuanim was neither the first Eze-Nri nor the founder of Agukwu-Ugbene but a fabrication lifted from a familiar name in the middle of Northcote Thomas’ Eze-Nri version of Nri King-list.
To get to the root of this forgery called Nri Ifikuanim, I will just take a comparative look at the four versions of the list of the names of past Nri kings or what is known in history as king-lists. The first among these versions is the one recorded by Northcote Thomas between 1910 and 1912. This particular list of past Eze-Nri has 18 Eze-Nri.
The second king-list is the one recorded by Prof Michael Onwuejeogwu between late 1960s and early 1970s and which was indeed adopted from that of Northcote Thomas but grossly doctored to serve Agukwu-Ugbene sectional interest. This list has 15 Eze-Nri. The third version is the official Agukwu-Ugbene king-list which has 16 Eze-Nri. The fourth king-list on the other hand is the official Akamkpisi-Nri king-list which has 19 Eze-Nri. One can see that even from the above lists of past Eze-Nri there are already disagreements among the people. This is where the task of a professional historian comes in. These different versions include:
Nri King-list by Northcote W. Thomas
Nri Namoke
Nri Buife
Nri Fenenu
Nri Ainyaboa
Nri Jimofor
Nri Apia
Nri Alikenri
Nri Anyamata
Nri Omalo
Nri Ezono
Nri Ago
Nri Obakba
Nri Omalonoinyaso
Nri Ifikanim
Nri Evuzo
Nri Enwenata
Nri Ezimilo
Nri Alike (now Living)
Nri King-list by M. A. Onwuejeogwu
Nri Ifikwuanim
Nri Namoke
Nri Buife
Nri (name forgotten)
Nri Nrijiofo
Nri (name forgotten)
Nri Anyamata
Nri Fenenu
Nri Agu
Nri Alike and Nri Apia
Nri Ezimilo
Nri Ewenata
Nri Enweleana
Nri Obalike
Nri Nrijiofo II
Agukw-Ugbene King-list with Villages
(a) Nri Namoke— (Eze Diodo Akamkpisi) (b) Nri Ifikwuanim—(Eze Agukwu)
Nri Buife— (Obeagu)
Nri Omalor— (Uruoji)
Nri Jifor I— (Agbadani)
Nri Omalonyeso— (Obeagu)
Nri Anyamata— (Uruoji)
Nri Fenenu— (Agbadani)
Nri Agu— (Obeagu)
Nri Apia and Alike— (Uruoji)
Nri Ezimilo— (Agbadani)
Nri Enwenala— (Agbadani)
Nri Enwelani I— (Obeagu)
Nri Obalike— (Uruoji)
Nri Jiofo II— (Agbodani)
Nri Enwelani II— (Obeagu)
Akamkpisi-Nri King-list
Nri Namoke I— (Ogbuodudu Akakomme)
Nri Namoke II— (Edu Anyim)
Nri Namoke III— (Nri Egbobe)
Nri Namoke IV— (Anwu Obele)
Nri Namoke V— (Odunukwe)
Nri Namoke VI— (Agufugo Egbeli)
Nri Namoke VIII— (Ezeagu Akubilo)
Nri Buife
Nri Jiofi I
Nri Anyamata
Nri Fenenu
Nri Agu
Nri Apia
Nri Ezimilo
Nri Enwenata
Nri Enwelani
Nri Obalike
Nri Jiofo II
Nri Namoke VIII
In the analysis of the above four lists of Eze-Nri I will adopt the methodology of historical calculus through the application of the theorem of “Historical Common Factor” (HCF). By this approach my first task will be to determine the Eze-Nri with the Higher Historical Common Factor (HHCF) predicated on the factor of mutual acceptability within the contested position.
In advancing this approach I will limit my scope to what I define as progenitor-Kings, i.e. those Eze-Nri connected with the claim of origin of the kingship, represented in this case by Nri Namoke for Akamkpisi-Nri and Nri Ifikuanim for Agukwu-Ugbene. In other words, we are going to look at the first two Eze-Nri in each of the four king-lists. Under this historical calculus appearance in first position grants two points, second place one point, sharing one position means sharing the point and, absent in the first and second positions garners zero point.
Northcote Thomas ascribed Nri Namoke and Nri Buife to first and second Eze-Nri respectively; while M. A. Onwuejeogwu placed Nri lfikuanim as first Eze-Nri and Nri Namoke as the second Eze-Nri with Nri Buife placed at the third position. So between Northcote Thomas and Michael Onwuejeogwu there is disagreement over the presence of Nri Ifikuanim as the first Eze-Nri. Here Northcote Thomas neither recognized Ifikuanim as first Eze-Nri nor mentioned him among the first two.
The omission of Nri Ifikuanim among the first and second Eze-Nri by Northcote Thomas is fundamental to the legality of Ifikuanim as Eze-Nri, being that Northcote Thomas was the first researcher to record the list of past Eze-Nri at a time when the institution was not infested with dubious traditional politicking. This is one fact Agukwu-Ugbene people and Onwuejeogwu could not address in the course of their importation of Ifikuanim.
Adopting historical calculus from the above, it is therefore right to state that for Northcote Thomas list, Nri Namoke has two points and Nri Ifikuanim zero points. On the other hand, in Michael Onwuejeogwu’s list, while Nri Ifikuanim scores two points, Nri Namoke scores one point. So between Northcote W. Thomas and Michael A. Onwuejeogwu it is Nri Namoke three points and Nri Ifikuanim two points.
In Agukwu-Ugbene king-list, Nri lfikuanim and Nri Namoke are said to have reigned concurrently (at the same time) respectively at Agukwu-Ugbene and Diodo Akamkpisi-Nri. According to this king-list both Nri lfikuanim and Nri Namoke were succeeded by Nri Buife from Obeagu Village, Agukwu-Ugbene, who eventually unified both kingships. From Agukwu-Ugbene king-list therefore, there is no doubt that both Nri Namoke and Nri Ifikuanim have one point each for sharing the same first position.
If we therefore go by Agukwu-Ugbene tradition, Akamkpisi-Nri and Agukwu-Ugbene were two different towns with two separate kings before the claimed unification by Nri Buife. In other words, while Onwuejeogwu claimed that Ifikuanim reigned before Namoke, Agukwu-Ugbene claims that both Ifikuanim and Namoke reigned at the same time as Eze-Nri in their respective communities. Here we are requesting Chukwuemeka Onyesoh and his Agukwu-Ugbene kinsmen to tell us which to accept. Shall we accept the position of Prof Onwuejeogwu whose book has turned to historical Bible for Agukwu-Ugbene people, or the official Agukwu-Ugbene position?
Indeed the hallmark of Agukwu-Ugbene list is its disagreement with Onwuejeogwu’s list on the positions of Namoke and Ifikuanim. Can we therefore say that this a case a house divided among itself? If Agukwu-Ugbene people could disagree with Prof Onwuejeogwu’s view-point over the contentious Nri Ifikuanim then there is problem somewhere.
On the other hand, the list of Akamkpisi Eze-Nri shows the first seven reigns dominated by Nri Namoke the first to Nri Namoke the seventh, before the subsequent enthronement of Nri Buife. Akamkpisi-Nri tradition according to their list of Eze-Nri therefore agrees with both Northcote Thomas that Nri Ifikuanim is not legitimately among the first two Nri Kings. Here we will award two points to Nri Namoke and zero point to Nri Ifikuanim.
Furthermore, apart from the seven Eze-Nri bearing the name, “Namoke”, the Akamkpisi-Nri tradition is in agreement with Northcote Thomas that Nri Namoke was the first Eze-Nri. Akamkpisi-Nri list also agrees with Michael Onwuejeogwu that there were never two separate kingdoms or Kings at the beginning of the town but one town with one king.
But most remarkable in Agukwu-Ugbene and Akamkpisi-Nri respective lists of Eze-Nri is the absence of assigned village to Nri Ifikuanim. While all the Eze-Nri, beginning from Nri Namoke had villages of origin assigned to them, only Nri Ifikuanim has no Village assigned to him. This is where we again expect Chukwuemeka Onyesoh to explain why Nri Ifikuanim has no Village of origin if he was a fictitious Eze-Nri.
This is because if Nri Namoke was from Diodo Village in Akamkpisi-Nri and succeeding Eze-Nri were associated with villages of origin, including the Adama found in Umudiana Village of Akamkpisi-Nri, then there should be something wrong with Nri Ifikuanim if there is no village associated with him among three Agukwu-Ugbene villages of Obeagu, Uruoji and Agbadana. Against this background, we can therefore award two points to Nri Namoke and zero point to Nri Ifikuanim.
However, one revealing fact about Northcote Thomas’ king-list is the name “Ifikanim”, which is insignificantly placed as the fourteenth Eze-Nri. Unfortunately we are not told if this Ifikanim stands for the same lfikuanim of Onwuejeogwu and Agukwu-Ugbene lists of Eze-Nri. It is therefore probable that it was from this Ifikanim that both Onwuejeogwu and Agukwu-Ugbene lifted their fictitious Nri Ifikuanim, otherwise, Northcote W. Thomas who conducted the first detailed research on the Nri and Igbo in general should have recognized Ifikuanim as the first Eze-Nri and founder of Agukwu-Ugbene Eze-Nri dynasty?
Or are Chukwuemeka Onyesoh and his Agukwu-Ugbene co-fabricators of Igbo history telling us that Eze-Nri Oba Alike who was interviewed by Northcote W. Thomas lied to him? Please Chukwuemaka Onyesoh let us know if Nri Oba Alike lied by telling Northcote W. Thomas that Nri Namoke was the first Eze-Nri and not Nri Ifikuanim.
Going through the analysis of the above four king-lists through the application of historical calculus, the Higher Historical Common Factor (HHCF) is in favor of Nri Namoke with eight points against Nri Ifikuanim’s three points. One can therefore affirm that Nri Namoke possesses a stronger factual authenticity as Eze-Nri than Ifikuanim.
In conclusion therefore, it is an unquestionable truism that Ifikuanim was a fictitious Eze-Nri forged by Prof Onwuejeogwu on behalf of Agukwu-Ugbene to counter the historical advantage of Akamkpisi-Nri on the unquestionable position of Nri Namoke as the first and founder of Eze-Nri institution. This position will be further substantiated in the next part where we will look at the origin of the Eze-Nri institution through the origins of the various villages of the present Nri town made up of Agukwu-Ugbene and Akamkpisi-Nri Quarters.
Odogwu Nwankwo T. Nwaezeigwe Phd, Odogwu of Ibusa is the President, International Coalition against Christian Genocide in Nigeria, Pioneer Director, Centre for Igbo Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka and can be reached on Email:Nwaezeigwe.genocideafrica@gmail.com
