WHY NOT HAVE ONE NIGERIA?
WHY NOT HAVE ONE NIGERIA?
The idea of “One Nigeria” is one multifarious, notorious as well as controversial issue, even up to the international scene. In 2005, the United States’ Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) published a report warning that Nigeria, the seventh most populous country in the world, could disintegrate within 15 years. At the time, that prophecy was dismissed by most Nigerians as baseless alarmism. However, recent events have prompted a re-evaluation of that gloomy forecast. Sometime in January 2012, Nigerian Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka stated that Nigeria is "already progressing towards a defacto break up." Many have begun questioning the result 1914 British colonial decision to lump together more than 250 ethnic groups, differing in culture and social structure. What seemed to be a blessing in disguise is turning out to be disguised curse!
A number of snags seem to plague the current structure, as well as the very existence of the country. One of these problems, and perhaps the predominant, is the surge in ethnic and religious hostility fuelled by the bigoted violence, a problem which the “central government” has been incapable of quelling. The Independent People of Biafra as well as the Boko Haram will be taken as case studies to shed more light on this scorn.
On 30 May, 1967, the eastern part of the country, dominated by the Igbo ethnic group (including Efik, Annang, Ibibio, Ijaw), announced secession under then Colonel Ojukwu after a pogrom of Igbos living in the north, and referring to themselves as The Republic of Biafra. The state was given official recognition by Gabon, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Tanzania and Zambia and even received assistance from Israel, France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Rhodesia, South Africa and the Vatican City, to mention but a few worldwide support the Republic acquired (as at that time). However, the central government eventually battled the breakaway republic into submission, at the cost of more than 1 million lives. In the fantasy that these idealists had laid to rest their cravings to secede, around the early parts of 2015, the whole Biafra talk resurfaced amidst the political, economic and ethnic tensions in the country. Ralph Uwazuruike of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), a rogue group, is said to have been the tool in rekindling this movement. One Nnamdi Kanu of the Independent People of Biafra, another Biafran compatriot, who afforded the movement greater impetus was since charged to court until recently when the ECOWAS court cleared him of all charges. This has also led to another imminent tribal clash as the Northern Youth Coalition wrote an open letter, dated on the 19th of June, 2017, to the Acting President, Prof Yemi Osinbajo, formally demanding that the Igbos be allowed to form Biafra, but that they must “vacate our (North) land peacefully”.
On another pedestal, the north-eastern based Boko Haram Islamic extremist are currently wreaking havoc in Nigeria, posing menace against western education, ramping up their terrorist attacks and demanding that Sharia law be implemented throughout a country where roughly half the population is Christian. Since its insurgency started in 2009, it has killed about 20,000 persons and displaced about 2.3 million from their homes and was even ranked as the world’s deadliest group by the Global Terrorism Index in 2015. Its most notorious action was the abduction of the 276 schoolgirls from Chibok in April 2014, for which the federal government received worldwide criticism. Boko Haram has said, per its former leader, Abubakar Shekau, that those originally from the south who are now living in the north should return to where they came from or face death. In response, some southern leaders have threatened retaliation against the northerners living in their region.
The question at this point is whether, in the face of all these, we really require a breakup? Many Nigerians have opined that we should engineer a peaceful breakup and let new nations build more functional political entities with rulers who share the same values as their citizens. This sounds simple and straight forward, but on reflection, the belief of a breakup improving the state of things is based on false premises. The first of these is that there is a viable configuration under which Nigeria could split today in a peaceful manner. In reality, even a simple north-south divide or even a north-east-west divide simply won't fly. In light of the "winner-takes-all" mentality that pervades modern-day Nigerian society, no ethnic group will want to accept the role of "second fiddle" in a new entity. Prima facie, there are 3 major tribes in Nigeria, but under these major tribes are other major and minor ethnic strata. With the “second to none” mentality of these various major ethnic groups, a division will have to see a couple of new countries, posing a threat of anarchy. The Former Minister of Aviation, Femi Fani-Kayode, a supporter of Biafra’s movements for secession recently stated that “Oduduwa Republic shall be established no more than 6 months after Biafra has been created. Then we shall be free. Time for referendums!”
How many of these regions will eventually be able to subsist independently? Are conflicts between and among them not inevitable, such as between Ethiopia and Eritrea for example? At least, the post-Yugoslavian states could count on the European Union for help. Post-Nigerian states would have no such luxury has many states and bodies international on the international have shown displeasure to secession. On the 6th of July 2017, Mr Paul Arkwright, the British Envoy in Nigeria, in dismissing the claims by some secession agitators in parts of Nigeria that the British government is backing their agitation to break Nigeria stated, “In a word, No. We have nothing to do with any agitations and acts to break up Nigeria. We strongly support the unity of Nigeria.”
It is noteworthy that the issue of secession is not one peculiar to Nigeria alone. One example was where David Cameron, the former British prime minister, allowed Scotland to hold an independence referendum in 2014, although Scots voted against independence. Another was in Spain, where Catalonia held a nonbinding independence vote in November 2014. However it has been declared by Carles Puigdemont, the President of the region, that Catalonia will hold a referendum on independence on October 1, 2017.
In my humble opinion, a solution to the socio-political and economic problems in this country is not a break up, but true Federalism. For a state to work out, its socio-political structure must match and be in tandem with its legal system. We often refer to Nigeria as a federal state, as the provisions of the constitution gives us reason to do so. Nevertheless, what we operate is a superficial federalism, or to put aright, a unitary system of government, where the center wields powers, over and above other component parts. True Federalism is unity in diversity. This system allows for division of power between two or more levels of government with equal status. Both the federal and the state governments would have power to make laws and both governments would be autonomous of the other. This means that States should be given authority to manage some local concerns affecting themselves such as police, schools, hospitals, road maintenance, mineral resources, a level of the judiciary and so on. Under this arrangement, the Federal Government will be expected to manage other affairs such as the army, diplomatic/consular issues, citizenship, railways, Airways, Foreign Affairs, certain aspects of banking policy, and Judiciary.
Until and unless the Federal government of Nigeria becomes less powerful than it is now, we will continue to have the existing clashes that have become so prevalent and obvious in the country. Powers should be shared between the Federal and states to the extent that centre will be less lucrative than it is now. What we have in Nigeria now is purely unitary system where authority rests with the national government and the state is only able to exercise those authorities handed down to them by the national government.
In the words of the Apostle of the gospel of Restructuring in Nigeria and former Vice-President of the Federation, Alhaji Atiku Abubarkar, the most potent catalyst of ethnic disharmony is the over-concentration of powers in the Federal government. On the first reported case of the attacks in the East by Fulani Herdsmen, the state governor, was incapable of gearing up the police into action as the power to control the police is vested in the President and him alone. The Niger Delta Militants rose up because they felt the federal was to corrupt in handing “their oil” and the sharing of resources. These and many other examples can be likened to excessive powers in the federal government.
Although it will be efemira to dwell on rhetorics when practicability is required, it’s pertinent to point out the popular saying which states that "united we stand, divided we fall". The call for the country's break up should not be seen as a solution but collective wisdom and effort of her citizens.
Fabusiwa Tayo O.
Faculty of Law
400L
The idea of “One Nigeria” is one multifarious, notorious as well as controversial issue, even up to the international scene. In 2005, the United States’ Crime Investigation Agency (CIA) published a report warning that Nigeria, the seventh most populous country in the world, could disintegrate within 15 years. At the time, that prophecy was dismissed by most Nigerians as baseless alarmism. However, recent events have prompted a re-evaluation of that gloomy forecast. Sometime in January 2012, Nigerian Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka stated that Nigeria is "already progressing towards a defacto break up." Many have begun questioning the result 1914 British colonial decision to lump together more than 250 ethnic groups, differing in culture and social structure. What seemed to be a blessing in disguise is turning out to be disguised curse!
A number of snags seem to plague the current structure, as well as the very existence of the country. One of these problems, and perhaps the predominant, is the surge in ethnic and religious hostility fuelled by the bigoted violence, a problem which the “central government” has been incapable of quelling. The Independent People of Biafra as well as the Boko Haram will be taken as case studies to shed more light on this scorn.
On 30 May, 1967, the eastern part of the country, dominated by the Igbo ethnic group (including Efik, Annang, Ibibio, Ijaw), announced secession under then Colonel Ojukwu after a pogrom of Igbos living in the north, and referring to themselves as The Republic of Biafra. The state was given official recognition by Gabon, Haiti, Ivory Coast, Tanzania and Zambia and even received assistance from Israel, France, Spain, Portugal, Norway, Rhodesia, South Africa and the Vatican City, to mention but a few worldwide support the Republic acquired (as at that time). However, the central government eventually battled the breakaway republic into submission, at the cost of more than 1 million lives. In the fantasy that these idealists had laid to rest their cravings to secede, around the early parts of 2015, the whole Biafra talk resurfaced amidst the political, economic and ethnic tensions in the country. Ralph Uwazuruike of the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), a rogue group, is said to have been the tool in rekindling this movement. One Nnamdi Kanu of the Independent People of Biafra, another Biafran compatriot, who afforded the movement greater impetus was since charged to court until recently when the ECOWAS court cleared him of all charges. This has also led to another imminent tribal clash as the Northern Youth Coalition wrote an open letter, dated on the 19th of June, 2017, to the Acting President, Prof Yemi Osinbajo, formally demanding that the Igbos be allowed to form Biafra, but that they must “vacate our (North) land peacefully”.
On another pedestal, the north-eastern based Boko Haram Islamic extremist are currently wreaking havoc in Nigeria, posing menace against western education, ramping up their terrorist attacks and demanding that Sharia law be implemented throughout a country where roughly half the population is Christian. Since its insurgency started in 2009, it has killed about 20,000 persons and displaced about 2.3 million from their homes and was even ranked as the world’s deadliest group by the Global Terrorism Index in 2015. Its most notorious action was the abduction of the 276 schoolgirls from Chibok in April 2014, for which the federal government received worldwide criticism. Boko Haram has said, per its former leader, Abubakar Shekau, that those originally from the south who are now living in the north should return to where they came from or face death. In response, some southern leaders have threatened retaliation against the northerners living in their region.
The question at this point is whether, in the face of all these, we really require a breakup? Many Nigerians have opined that we should engineer a peaceful breakup and let new nations build more functional political entities with rulers who share the same values as their citizens. This sounds simple and straight forward, but on reflection, the belief of a breakup improving the state of things is based on false premises. The first of these is that there is a viable configuration under which Nigeria could split today in a peaceful manner. In reality, even a simple north-south divide or even a north-east-west divide simply won't fly. In light of the "winner-takes-all" mentality that pervades modern-day Nigerian society, no ethnic group will want to accept the role of "second fiddle" in a new entity. Prima facie, there are 3 major tribes in Nigeria, but under these major tribes are other major and minor ethnic strata. With the “second to none” mentality of these various major ethnic groups, a division will have to see a couple of new countries, posing a threat of anarchy. The Former Minister of Aviation, Femi Fani-Kayode, a supporter of Biafra’s movements for secession recently stated that “Oduduwa Republic shall be established no more than 6 months after Biafra has been created. Then we shall be free. Time for referendums!”
How many of these regions will eventually be able to subsist independently? Are conflicts between and among them not inevitable, such as between Ethiopia and Eritrea for example? At least, the post-Yugoslavian states could count on the European Union for help. Post-Nigerian states would have no such luxury has many states and bodies international on the international have shown displeasure to secession. On the 6th of July 2017, Mr Paul Arkwright, the British Envoy in Nigeria, in dismissing the claims by some secession agitators in parts of Nigeria that the British government is backing their agitation to break Nigeria stated, “In a word, No. We have nothing to do with any agitations and acts to break up Nigeria. We strongly support the unity of Nigeria.”
It is noteworthy that the issue of secession is not one peculiar to Nigeria alone. One example was where David Cameron, the former British prime minister, allowed Scotland to hold an independence referendum in 2014, although Scots voted against independence. Another was in Spain, where Catalonia held a nonbinding independence vote in November 2014. However it has been declared by Carles Puigdemont, the President of the region, that Catalonia will hold a referendum on independence on October 1, 2017.
In my humble opinion, a solution to the socio-political and economic problems in this country is not a break up, but true Federalism. For a state to work out, its socio-political structure must match and be in tandem with its legal system. We often refer to Nigeria as a federal state, as the provisions of the constitution gives us reason to do so. Nevertheless, what we operate is a superficial federalism, or to put aright, a unitary system of government, where the center wields powers, over and above other component parts. True Federalism is unity in diversity. This system allows for division of power between two or more levels of government with equal status. Both the federal and the state governments would have power to make laws and both governments would be autonomous of the other. This means that States should be given authority to manage some local concerns affecting themselves such as police, schools, hospitals, road maintenance, mineral resources, a level of the judiciary and so on. Under this arrangement, the Federal Government will be expected to manage other affairs such as the army, diplomatic/consular issues, citizenship, railways, Airways, Foreign Affairs, certain aspects of banking policy, and Judiciary.
Until and unless the Federal government of Nigeria becomes less powerful than it is now, we will continue to have the existing clashes that have become so prevalent and obvious in the country. Powers should be shared between the Federal and states to the extent that centre will be less lucrative than it is now. What we have in Nigeria now is purely unitary system where authority rests with the national government and the state is only able to exercise those authorities handed down to them by the national government.
In the words of the Apostle of the gospel of Restructuring in Nigeria and former Vice-President of the Federation, Alhaji Atiku Abubarkar, the most potent catalyst of ethnic disharmony is the over-concentration of powers in the Federal government. On the first reported case of the attacks in the East by Fulani Herdsmen, the state governor, was incapable of gearing up the police into action as the power to control the police is vested in the President and him alone. The Niger Delta Militants rose up because they felt the federal was to corrupt in handing “their oil” and the sharing of resources. These and many other examples can be likened to excessive powers in the federal government.
Although it will be efemira to dwell on rhetorics when practicability is required, it’s pertinent to point out the popular saying which states that "united we stand, divided we fall". The call for the country's break up should not be seen as a solution but collective wisdom and effort of her citizens.
Fabusiwa Tayo O.
Faculty of Law
400L
Comments
Post a Comment