US Mayor Exposes Shocking Reasons Why Britain Doesn’t Support Creation of Biafra

A former mayor in the United States has stirred fresh controversy over the long-running Biafra debate, accusing the British government of deliberately opposing the creation of an independent Biafran state over fears of massive financial liability.

Mike Arnold, a former mayor of Blanco City in Texas, made the claim in a post titled “Britain’s bill is due,” which he shared on his verified Facebook page, as sighted by POLITICS NIGERIA.

In the post, he argued that Britain’s position on Nigeria’s unity is tied to what he described as a potential $6 trillion reparations claim that could arise if Biafra gains independence.

According to Arnold, an independent Biafran government would have the legal backing to demand compensation from Britain over its role before, during, and after Nigeria’s civil war.

He claimed the amount could become the largest reparations demand in modern history, noting that it is about twice the United Kingdom’s annual economic output.

The former mayor strongly criticised Britain’s historical involvement in Nigeria, tracing the roots of the crisis back to the 1914 amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates by Lord Frederick Lugard.

He described the union as forced and fundamentally flawed, alleging it created deep divisions that continue to affect the country.

“In 1914, Lord Lugard drew a line around two incompatible civilizations — the Islamic Caliphate of the North and the Christian and traditional peoples of the South — called it Nigeria, and handed it to the Crown. Nobody was asked. The contraption was designed from birth to keep the Caliphate in administrative control and the oil flowing to London,” Arnold wrote.

He further alleged that Britain’s actions during the Nigerian Civil War between 1967 and 1970 were driven by economic interests, particularly oil.

Citing declassified British documents, Arnold claimed the UK’s priority at the time was to protect its investments and regain access to oil facilities located largely in the Eastern region.

“When the Southeast tried to leave in 1967 — after tens of thousands of Igbos were slaughtered in northern pogroms — Britain showed its hand,” he stated, referencing what he described as documented evidence of British support for Nigeria’s federal government during the war.

Arnold also accused the British government under then Prime Minister Harold Wilson of secretly supplying weapons to Nigeria while publicly denying such involvement. He claimed that arms, including ammunition, aircraft, and armoured vehicles, were provided during the conflict.

“So Harold Wilson’s Labour government secretly armed the Nigerian federal military. Millions of rounds of ammunition. Hundreds of machine guns. Thousands of mortar and artillery bombs. Aircraft. Armored personnel carriers. While standing in Parliament and lying about it,” he wrote.

He went on to blame the humanitarian crisis that followed on deliberate wartime strategies, including blockades that restricted food and medical supplies into Biafran territory.

“Nigeria imposed a blockade on Biafra. Food couldn’t get in. Medicine couldn’t get in. The famine was not an accident. It was the strategy,” Arnold said, adding that millions of lives, mostly children, were lost during the conflict.

He added, “Britain pocketed the oil. They have never apologized. Never acknowledged it in a school textbook. Never paid a single penny.”

Arnold also outlined how he arrived at the estimated $6 trillion figure, breaking it down into oil revenue, loss of lives, structural damages, and other related claims. He argued that much of Nigeria’s oil wealth originated from the former Biafran territory and should be factored into any compensation.

“Oil Revenue — Biafran Territory: Nigeria has earned approximately $600 billion in oil revenue since the 1960s. Two thirds of Shell-BP’s operations were in Biafran territory. At a 60% territorial share — $360 billion. Adjusted for inflation from 1967 dollars to today — conservatively $2.5 trillion,” he explained.

He continued, “Wrongful Death — Up to 3 Million People: International wrongful death precedents — Holocaust reparations, ICC awards, comparable genocide settlements — range from $100,000 to $500,000 per life. At a conservative $500,000 per person — $1.5 trillion.”

“Structural Damages — 112 Years of the Contraption… Conservative estimate — $1 trillion.”

“Obstruction of humanitarian aid. Arms supply to an aggressor. Compounding interest on all of the above — add $500 billion minimum.”

“The Total: Approximately $6 trillion. Twice Britain’s annual GDP. The largest reparations claim in human history,” he concluded.

Arnold insisted that any recognised government representing the South-East could take the matter before the International Court of Justice, adding that this possibility explains why Britain remains opposed to discussions around Biafran independence.