Former Minister of Aviation, Femi Fani-Kayode, has delivered a scathing rebuttal to those claiming that the January 15, 1966, coup was not an Igbo-led operation, after a series of misinterpretations surrounding the contents of former military Head of State Ibrahim Babangida’s autobiography, A Journey in Service.
In a detailed post shared on his X handle, Fani-Kayode unequivocally stated that there is no passage in Babangida’s memoir where he denies that the coup was orchestrated predominantly by Igbos. He argued that the text, in fact, supports the view that the coup had a distinct ethnic undertone, specifically tied to the Igbo ethnicity, as confirmed by Babangida’s own words on the “unmistakable ethnic coloration” of the plot.
Fani-Kayode took particular aim at what he described as a “misguided” narrative being pushed by some who, according to him, either misread Babangida’s autobiography or deliberately misrepresented its content to downplay the involvement of Igbo officers in the coup. In his critique, he highlighted a particular passage from A Journey in Service, in which Babangida described the aftermath of the coup, pointing to the infiltration of “outsiders” in the plot, particularly after the execution of Northern political leaders like Sir Ahmadu Bello. According to Fani-Kayode, these “outsiders” are clearly the Igbo officers who planned and executed the coup, an interpretation that Babangida subtly hints at in his writing.
The former aviation minister stressed that the facts surrounding the coup were indisputable, referencing the overwhelming role played by Igbo officers in the coup and its aftermath. He noted that 99% of those who plotted and executed the January 15 coup were Igbo, and the majority of those murdered in its wake, including military and political figures from the North, were not Igbo. Fani-Kayode’s argument centered on the undeniable ethnic nature of the coup, particularly the targeting of Northern leaders, and he chastised those who sought to “sanitize” the narrative for political or revisionist purposes.
He went on to call out those who, he said, either failed to read Babangida’s book in its entirety or preferred to rely on misleading social media snippets and “disinformation” rather than engage with the full historical context. Fani-Kayode’s call to action was clear: those seeking to revise the historical understanding of the 1966 coup should return to the source material—Babangida’s autobiography—and stop spreading half-truths and fabricated narratives.
The former minister also acknowledged that Babangida had been “charitable” in his depiction of the Igbos in his book but made it clear that this charitable tone should not be misused to whitewash the realities of the coup. Babangida’s decision to frame the coup as one with an ethnic undertone was, according to Fani-Kayode, an honest reflection of the historical facts, not an invitation to ignore the ethnic dimensions of the plot.
Fani-Kayode’s argument concluded with a stern warning to those who, in his view, had misrepresented Babangida’s words. He reiterated that the coup of January 15, 1966, was undeniably Igbo-led, a position that Babangida himself did not deny in his autobiography. He called on the public to respect the truth of history and stop using selective readings of historical texts to perpetuate false narratives or discredit the significance of ethnic dynamics in Nigeria’s early political history.
Ultimately, Fani-Kayode’s statement was an unambiguous defense of the historical record, challenging those who, in his view, have attempted to obscure or distort the truth of one of Nigeria’s most pivotal political events.
