In a sharp retort to the recent anti-Igbo comments made by Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftain Bode George, the apex Igbo socio-cultural organization, Ohanaeze Ndigbo, has staunchly defended the contributions of the Igbo community to the development of Lagos, asserting that some of the properties were established on previously uninhabitable swampy lands.
Ohanaeze Ndigbo, in response to Bode George’s critical remarks, described his comments as “unstatesmanly and bigoted.”
The organization expressed its disappointment in George’s statements, which questioned the propriety of the Igbo community’s involvement in building houses and fostering development in Lagos, one of Nigeria’s most cosmopolitan cities.
The controversy arose when George, in a statement, expressed dissatisfaction with the focus on ‘who owns Lagos’ amid the challenges facing the nation.
He questioned why the Igbo community did not concentrate on developing their own states, suggesting that individuals like Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu should prioritize the development of Igbo land over Lagos.
In defense of the Igbo community’s contributions to Lagos, Ohanaeze, through its spokesperson, Dr. Alex Ogbonnia, highlighted the historical context of some properties being built on what was once swampy terrain.
The organization argued that understanding the topography of Lagos would lead anyone to acknowledge the transformation of swampy areas into habitable spaces.
Dr. Ogbonnia’s statement countered Bode George’s perspective, stating, “Any person who knows Lagos will agree with the Igbo leader that some of the Igbo properties are standing on what used to be swamps.
The George theory will also query why other Nigerians are obligated to the development of Abuja to give it the required international status.”
Furthermore, Ohanaeze criticized Bode George’s remarks, deeming them not only un-statesmanlike but also narrow-minded and self-serving.
The organization emphasized that George’s viewpoint contradicted the ethical standards expected from someone who had benefited significantly from the collective existence of Nigeria.
The statement from Ohanaeze pointedly addressed George’s selective vocalization on issues affecting the Igbo community.
It highlighted instances where George remained silent, including the destruction of parts of the Alaba International Market and voter intimidation in Lagos State. Ohanaeze underscored the need for fair and objective commentary, irrespective of ethnic considerations.
As the verbal exchange unfolds, the clash of perspectives brings to the forefront broader questions about inclusivity, diversity, and the collaborative effort required for the nation’s development.
The discourse not only delves into the historical context of Lagos but also scrutinizes the responsibilities and contributions of various ethnic groups in shaping the destiny of Nigeria’s vibrant and diverse society.
