LECTURE – 2017 INDEPENDENCE ANNIVARSARY:
RESTRUCTURING NIGERIA AND CURRENT SOCIOLOGICAL TENSIONS IN THE COUNTRY – Udi Profs. Associationn. of Nigeria, 2nd Oct. 2017 at Nike Social Centre, 5 Igwe Nnaji Palace Road, Abakpa Nike, Enugu
Nigeria goes by the name, “Federal Republic of Nigeria,” which presumes it is a Federation.
The talk of restructuring of the federation admits that either the federal structure is not there or if it is there, it is defective or malfunctioning. Therefore it becomes vital to understand what a federation and its structures should be.
FEDERATION DEFINED:
Federation” according to Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, the well-known and respected French social theorist, politician, founder of the Mutualist philosophy, economist, libertarian socialist and ‘father of anarchism’ (1809-1865), “derive from the Latin word foedus, genitive foederis, which means, covenant, pact, contract, treaty, agreement, alliance etc. and as a social unit, is an agreement by which one or more groups of towns or states, assume reciprocal and equal commitments to perform one or more specific tasks, the responsibility for which rests exclusively with the officers of the federation.”
A federation in a political organization of humans can therefore be defined as a political entity characterized by a union of partially self-governing states or regions under a central (federal) government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states, as well as the division of power between them and the central government, are typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of either party, the states or the federal polity. The governmental and constitutional structure found in a federation is known as federalism.
In federations, therefore the contracting parties, whether heads of families, towns, cantons, provinces, states, regions or zones, not only undertake bilateral and commutative obligations, but in making the pact, reserve for themselves more rights, more liberty, more authority, more property than they abandon. And that was exactly what Nigerian founding fathers did in the 1960/63 Nigerian Constitutions which the Nigerian Military terminated and unilaterally imposed on Nigeria, the 1979/199 unitary Constitutions by decrees.
Essentially the principle of federation has the purpose, in general terms, of guaranteeing to the federated states their sovereignty, their territory, the liberty of their subjects; of settling their disputes; of providing by common means for all matters of security and mutual prosperity; thus, despite the scale of interests involved, it is essentially limited. The authority responsible for its execution can never overwhelm the constituent members; that is, the federal powers can never exceed in number and significance those of local or provincial authorities, just as the latter can never outweigh the rights of and prerogatives of man and citizen. If it were otherwise, the community would become communistic; the federation would revert to centralized monarchy; the federal authority, instead of being a mere delegate and subordinate function as it should be, will be seen as dominant; instead of being confined to specific tasks, it will tend to absorb all activities of and all initiatives. The federated states would then be reduced to administrative districts, branches, or local offices. Thus transformed, the body politic may be termed republican, democratic, or what you will, but will no longer be a state constituted by a plenitude of autonomies and therefore no longer a federation. The republic will become unitary, not federal, and will be on the road to despotism.
This is where Northern Nigeria Army Generals have driven Nigeria to with their 1999 Decree 24, which they disingenuously termed the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999. The worst of all is the fraudulent pretence that introduced the military decree into being and the pretence of being a peoples’ Constitution in these words:
“We the People of the Federal Republic of Nigeria: Having firmly resolved: . . . .
DO HEREBY MAKE, ENACT AND GIVE TO OURSELVES the following Constitution:"
The Federalism Structures Removed: The 1999 Nigerian Constitution created a monster of a presidency with no clearly defined federating units (structures) between states and local governments. It created the states and local governments as dependencies of the federal government, some of them awarded to the Army Generals, friends and relatives, following no criteria. The most controversial aspect of these outrageous creations is that, contrary to the most elementary principle in a federation, which is that the federating units create the central government, the central government of Nigeria, under the north-dominated Army generals, unilaterally created the states and local governments as federating units. Again unlike in the 1963 Constitution of the Federation, which had only 45 items in its Federal Government Exclusive Legislative List (Section 69 Part I, pp. 167-9) and 29 items in the Concurrent Legislative List (Section 69 Part II, pp. 170-171); the 1999 Constitution has 68 items on its Excusive List (Second Schedule Section 4, Part I, pp.130-133) and 30 items in Part II of same Section 4, in the Concurrent Legislative List, (pp. 133-138). There are very limited residual powers left to the federating units and that is, if and whenever the 1999 Constitution defines which body is really federating; and defines the powers of the federating units in their separate Constitutions, as it is typical in all true federations. Unlike in the 1960 and 1963 Nigerian Constitutions, the 1999 Constitution has no separate Constitution for States it portrays as federating units. This is understandably so, since the federating units are, perhaps deliberately, ill-defined (States and/or Local Government Areas), and creations of the central authority. Speculation is rife that the mix-up is deliberate and designed to ensure allocation of federal funds to local government areas so as to sustain feudalism which is dominant in Northern Nigeria.
In a federation what is called federal authority is any agency created by the states for the joint execution of certain functions which the states abandon, and which thus become federal powers. This is contrary to present day Nigeria where the federal authorities created the states and deliberately limited their functions.
The Most Essential Principles of Federation: The most essential and inherent principles of federation are therefore federalism which guarantees the self-governing status of the federating units; equality and mutual respect between the peoples comprising it; unrestricted movement throughout its territories, with the right to set up home or business anywhere within its boundaries, together with provisions for all the other fundamental human rights.
It is up to you to count your teeth with your tongue and tell me whether those principles are really alive in Nigeria.
All honest and critical observers of Nigeria accept that true federalism as a concept died in Nigeria with the pogrom of 1966 and that the federation of Nigeria is a vacuous concept fraught with deadly ironies.
The arrogance being displayed by the political elite of the North-West and North-East to the rest of Nigeria is very unhealthy for the sustenance of any federation. The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria is anti-federation. It is essentially an enslavement ordinance, set up for a unitary republic and for the sole purpose of a section enslaving the rest. There are no clear dividing lines as to who is federating – the States or the local governments. There are no federating units’ constitutions except one national constitution. Almost all residual functions of the federating units have been emasculated into either exclusive functions of the centre and/or concurrent functions of the federal government and the administrative units, otherwise branded states.
Nigeria is indeed a unitary despotism created by a military decree. The mischievous intensions are clear – to allow the section in whose favour the Constitution intentionally skewed power, to effectively and permanently dominate the rest. The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria was never designed to give effect to the inherent principles of federalism, equality and mutual respect among the federating peoples of Nigeria. It was designed for one or two zones to dominate the rest and this is the background of the imbalance and consequent instability in Nigeria.
Against the above background, Nigeria, at best, is a masquerade of a unitary state answering the name, Federal Republic of Nigeria, when indeed it is a ‘unitary republic’.
RESTRUCTURING
Restructuring, in the context of Nigeria, therefore would mean restoring all the structures of federalism removed from the only democratic Constitution given to Nigeria by Nigerians.
As Nigeria’s foremost Constitutional lawyer, Prof. Ben Nwabueze, did postulate:
“A democratic constitution is defined more essentially by the process by which it is adopted. It connotes primarily a constitution adopted through the democratic process of a referendum or of a constituent assembly specially elected and specifically mandated in that behalf by the people or a combination of the two. Unless it is adopted through this process, a constitution is not truly a democratic one simply because it establishes a democratic form of government.”
The 1959/60 Nigerian Independence Constitution which was ratified by the people’s representatives in the House of Representatives on October 1, 1963 as the 1963 Republican Constitution was originally hammered out between Nigerian people’s leaders and the Colonial Authorities in six Constitutional Conferences over a seven-year span of conferences. Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe admitted that much in a statement he made to the Press on 16th January 1966, in England, a day after the 1966 coup d’état.
“. . . After six constitutional conferences in 1953, 1954, 1957, 1958, 1959, and 1960, Great Britain conceded to us the right to assert our political independence as from October 1, 1960.”
It was not like the 1999 Constitution contrived by a group of ethnic chauvinists in Army uniforms sitting in secret meetings and fraudulently decreeing a Constitution which favours only their own people out of the 379 ethnic sovereignties in Nigeria; and claiming that the people did give themselves the Constitution without their representatives’ name appearing in the document with their signatures.
It is therefore deceitful for any Nigerian who knows that Nigeria had a democratic people’s Constitution to say that restructuring means any other thing than restoring those federalism structures in the Federation’s 1963 Constitution, without which Nigeria became a unitary Republic, only federal in name.
Restructuring would therefore mean returning to a revised version of the 1963 Constitution with six zones, as already demarcated, with all the items removed from the Concurrent List and moved to the Federal Exclusive List, returned to the Concurrent List, to enable the Centre and the Zones or Regions to have Concurrent powers to legislate on them. Secondly Zonal and or Regional Constitutions must define the powers of the federating units. Nigeria should therefore return to less abusive, less expensive, less corruptible Parliamentary Democracy with a Prime Minister/premiers and ceremonial President/Governors.
Restructuring Details in Yoruba “Ibadan Declaration” of September 8, 2017
On 8th Sept. 2017 the Yoruba held a Summit at Ibadan and after due deliberations issued what they termed ‘Ibadan Declaration’ spelling out the details of Yoruba restructuring agenda and the future of Nigeria.
After recalling with nostalgia the great strides the years of self government of 1960-66 enabled their region to achieve in human development, they noted how Nigeria is careering dangerously to the edge of the slope and called for urgent steps to be taken to restructure it from a unitary constitution to a federal constitution as negotiated by Nigeria’s founding fathers at independence in 1960. There were 16 definite proposals in their restructuring agenda which was in line with pre – Conference proposals of Ohanaeze during the 2014 President Jonathan’s Conference. I reproduce 15 of the 16 points with my comments in bold Italics. Items not commented on are acceptable:
1. That Yoruba insists that Nigeria must return to a proper federation as obtained in the 1960 and 1963 constitutions. This has been our position since 1950 Ibadan conference and developments in Nigeria over the last fifty years reinforce our conviction. (Except that in 1967-70 they won the war for the oligarchy to Islamize and enslave Nigeria)
2. That Yoruba are clear that restructuring does not mean different things to different people other than that a multi-ethnic country like Nigeria can only know real peace and development if it is run ONLY along federal lines.
3. That the greatest imperatives of restructuring Nigeria is to move from a rent- that the federating units are free to own and develop their resources. They should pay agreed sums to the Federation purse to implement central services. (1960-67, derivation was 50% to the regions, 13% today – FRAUD)
4. That the federating units- whether states, zones or regions must themselves be governed by the written Constitution to curb impurity at all levels.
5. Nigeria shall be a federation comprised of six regions and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja.
6. The Federal Government shall make laws and only have powers in relation to items specified on the legislative list contained in the Constitution of the Federation.
7. The Regions shall, in turn, be composed of states. (I will rather call them provinces)
8. Each Region shall have its own constitution containing enumerated exclusive and concurrent legislative lists regarding matters upon which the regions and the states may act or legislate.
9. Contiguous territories, ethnic nationalities or settlement shall be at liberty through a plebiscite, to elect to be part of any contiguous region other than the region of which the current geopolitical zone or state boundaries places them.
10. States as presently comprised in the geo-political zones into which they fall, which shall become regions, shall continue to exercise the executive, legislative and judicial functions currently exercised at that level of government. (I do not agree with this. With the exception of Lagos, Ogun and perhaps, Rivers, no other state in Nigeria today is viable. Once LGAs become regional institutions as they were 1960-66 and are all over the world, Kano State will crash. The economies of the South-East and South-South, including seaports were held down to grow Lagos. Obviously the distortion in this section is the handwork of Lagos State which rejected the zonal proposals in the 2014 Conference).
11. The States with a region shall determine the items on the legislative lists in the Regional Constitution for the purpose of good government and the administration and provision of common inter-state social, economic and infrastructural requirements. Residual powers shall be vested in the states. (The states shall be provinces of the regions – No Governors, Assemblies, Courts and Police. Most cannot afford these unnecessary duplications with zonal arrangements, merely because jobs have to be found for politicians).
12. The power to create states shall be within the exclusive powers of the region which shall be obliged to create a state provided a plebiscite is conducted, following a request by an agreed percentage of the residents of the ethnic nationality within a state. The procedure for conducting a plebiscite and the percentage of any ethnic nationality shall be out in the regional constitution. (Provinces, not states - YES)
13. The power to create local governments and assign functions to them shall be vested in the states. (Initiated by the provinces but legislated by the Regions),
14. States shall be entitled to manage all resources found within their boundaries and the revenue accruing therefrom. The issue of the entitlement of littoral states to offshore resources and the extension of such rights from the continental shelf and rights accruing to the federal government shall be determined by the national assembly. ((Recipe for permanent Conflicts. Regions should manage resources within their boundaries; otherwise there would be no justification for their existence and economies of scale foreseen. States/zones/ on which the coastal boundaries the oceans wash and pollute, should earn the 50% derivation on off-shore resources from their continental shelf and beyond, and no legislator from Sokoto or Maiduguri should be allowed to determine that)
15. The sharing ration of all revenues raised by means of taxation shall be 50% to the states, 35% to the regional government and 15% to the government of the Federation. (This is against the spirit of Federalism - The States, now provinces are not federating units and so should not share in the Federal allocation. Such sharing formulas within the regions should be in the regional Constitutions).
Extracts Prof. Ben Nwabueze’s Exposition on Restructuring:
I belong to Professor Ben Nwabueze’s School of Constitutional Law although I have never been his student in any formal class. When I opted for three courses in Law – Principles of English Law, Law of Contract and Company Law, an my minors between 1964 and 1966, to enable me graduate in Business Administration in 1967, Prof. Nwabueze was still a staff the University of Lagos, Faculty of Law. However I have immensely benefited from serving in the planning committee of his Igbo Leaders of Thought, from 2014 to date.
On 27th Sept. 2017, he as the Chairman of the ‘Project Nigeria Movement’ and ‘The Patriot’, issued a press statement on ‘Restructuring’’ to mark Nigeria’s 57thanniversary.
I seek your permission to conclude this hurriedly assembled paper (in two days only) with extracts from that press statement by Nigeria’s foremost constitutional lawyer:
“. . . the object (of restructuring) is, by reforming the governmental structures and attuning them to the needs and wishes of the people, to ensure that the immense diversity of ethnic nationalities comprised in the state will continue to co-exist together in peace, prosperity and progress as citizens of one country united by common interests, common aspirations and a common destiny. The clamour for Re-structuring must therefore be seen as a clamour for the setting up of appropriate platforms or fora to renegotiate suitable governmental structures for the pursuit and realization of our common needs for development, good governance and national transformation.
In short, the clamour for re-structuring is more than a clamour for the reform of our governmental structures. This is only its primary focus. In its wider, more fundamental focus, it is a call for Nigeria to “make a new beginning” under a new Constitution approved and adopted by the people at a Referendum, a new politico-legal order that will cleanse the country of the rottenness that pervades it and enable to “chart a road map for its destiny” or what has been referred to as “re-structuring of the mind” (Vanguard Newspaper, Saturday Sept. 30, 2017 pp. 16 & 17).
My Serious Reservations that Restructuring will Restore Equality, Equity and Justice to the Igbo People of Nigeria
In my reaction to the very moderate restructuring proposals in the speech made by Chief Nnia Nwodo, President General, Ohanaeze Ndigbo at Chatham House, London on Wednesday, 27th September 2017 titled, “RESTRUCTURING NIGERIA: DECENTRALISATION FOR NATIONAL COHESION,” I fully aired my grave reservations on whether Restructuring per se, howsoever extensive, can indeed solve Igbo real problems in Nigeria, which I identify as ‘Enslavement’ and total ‘Exclusion.’
My post of 28th September 2017 on the internet is hereunder reproduced:
OKPALAEZENRI EMEKA ONYESOH REACTION TO OHANAEZE SPEECH AT CHATHAM HOUSE, LONDON
Beautiful speech! No boats rocked. Very diplomatic and polite!
But one thing worries me. The issue driving the ordinary Igbo man on the street and which he is mad about, and which alienates him from Nigeria is not marginalization. It is indeed enslavement and exclusion.
Consequently, can someone explain to me how the VERY MODERATE RESTRUCTURING OF NIGERIA AS PROPOSED BY OHANAEZE SOLVE FOLLOWING PERSEVERING AND GNAWING ISSUES FOR NDIGBO IN NIGERIA:
Enslavement of the Igbo by the Nigerian oligarchy - killing anyhow; raping and defiling Igbo women anywhere, anyhow; cattle Fulani herdsmen Islamic militants even in our ancestral homes; indiscriminate deployment of troops and Police to Igbo homeland and harassment/killings by these Security agents; indiscriminate massacre of the Igbo all over the North and even in Abuja - the Federal Capital; abduction, rape, forced conversion to Islam, marriage, pregnancy of under-aged girls without parental consent and in violation of constitutional provisions (adult women sometimes included). What about holding no one to account for all these atrocities? It is common knowledge that one act of impunity unaccounted for, yields many. We have all witnessed how "Quit Notice,"(apparently inspired by the oligarchy and the Federal Government) condoned by Igbo leadership, which preferred to nurse "hate speech" protection, whilst sitting on crime against humanity -"Threat to commit Genocide" on 11.5million Igbo in the North, metamorphosed into open declaration by State authorities of all Igbo who might ordinarily mouth rejection of present Enslavement and Exclusion of the Igbo by Nigeria, as "Terrorist act" in its IPOB Prohibition as Terrorist Order.
How does restructuring, restructure the mindset that has restructured Nigeria by over 60% into an Islamic Republic? What about the 12 Islamic Republics in the North fully under Sharia Law? Sharia is widely known to be antithetical to fundamental human rights, National Constitutions and Common Law. How do Igbos in the North live there as free citizens, except as slaves; whereas Northerners live in our homelands as over-lords? What about the activities of Hisbah Police in the North? What about two levels of citizenship rights all over Nigeria? Can any of the 600 resolutions of President Jonathan's 2014 Conference MEANINGFULLY address any of the above troubling Igbo issues? I have my grave reservations from an in- depth study of all the resolutions. (The Review is in print).
The cure for any Health condition begins with correct diagnosis. Igbo ailments have not been correctly diagnosed by Igbo leadership.
James Madison, Jr.1751 – 1836) political theorist, American statesman, who served as the fourth President of the United States (1809–17), otherwise hailed as the "Father of the U.S. Constitution" for his pivotal role in drafting and promoting it; and the U.S. Bill of Rights, knew the weaknesses in mankind when he enthused:
"Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives."
Mahatma Gandhi knew what freedom meant for colonial peoples when he advised his people during the Indian independence struggle, as follows:
“The moment the slave resolves that he will no longer be a slave, his fetters fall. He frees himself and shows the way to others. Freedom and slavery are mental states.”
The Igbo nation must stop pretending that Ndigbo are free people in Nigeria. The moment Igbo accept that they are indeed slaves in Nigeria, they will begin to talk and reason like slaves who value liberty and wish to be free. They will begin to boldly demand it; politely, persistently and peacefully too.
I am by all standards an elder and therefore bound to unreservedly speak the truth as I see it.
Another 25 to 50 years, it will require a Crusade to save the Igbo from total annihilation.
OkpalaEzeNri Chukwuemeka I. Onyesoh
Enugu
28th September, 2017.
Alhaji Sanusi Lamido Sanusi now His Highness, Alhaji Muhammad Sanusi II, the Emir of Kano, summarized the mission of the Fulanis who dominate Nigerian political affairs in concluding an article he wrote in year 2000, titled “The Fulani in History: A response to Critics” whilst he was a top executive of United Bank for Africa plc (UBA plc).
. . . The Fulbes (Fulanis) are present-day zealots, not for “modernisation”, but for the Islamization of Nigeria and West Africa. The question is not if History will repeat itself in the future. It is if History is already repeating itself as we live.21
His Royal Highness Muhammad Sanusi II is not only a royal father, 3rd in rank in the Caliphate, but also a learned Islamic scholar.
I accept that the Islamization of Nigeria and/or attempts to Islamize Nigeria engineers over 80% of Nigeria’s problems.
CURRENT SOCIOLOGICAL TENSIONS IN THE COUNTRY
It is not possible to write a lecture worthy of presentation to the best of Nigerian human capital – University Professors of your caliber - within the time frame I had, barely two days.
I have discussed Restructuring as above but “Current Sociological Tensions,” I am going to give you a reading of the very last section of the last chapter of my 672-page work due from the publisher on 9th October 2017, on the travails of Nigeria titled “TO THE RESQUE – The Right to Self Determination the Pathway to a genuine Federation of Peoples with No Shared Values.”
I do hope you can distill my view of the root of current sociological tensions in the country from that reading hereunder:
“OPTIONS FOR THE RESCUE OF NIGERIA
South Easterners have every reason to seek separation from a country that seems to hate them so much, and treats issues relating to them with so much levity and disdain. The question is why the Igbos must be treated differently. It is because the Igbos are the only group that have demonstrated the willingness to lay down their lives for liberty, equity and justice. That spirit can never be permanently subdued. It is in the Igbo DNA (Details on the inherent Igbo freedom-fighting spirit and disposition to immolate for a course, are available in Chapter Two under sub-head Fundamental Personality Differences Between the Fulani and the Igbo items (v) to (viii)).
Nigeria is therefore permanently at risk of conflict for keeping the Igbos and wishing to subdue their inherent freedom-seeking spirit, without giving them their right to equity, justice and fair play.
Alhaji Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, (now HRH Sanusi II, Emir of Kano), in his contribution to a September1999 conference on the one-sided 1999 Constitution, jointly organized by the Network for Justice and Vision Trust Foundation, at AREWA House, Kaduna, identified this irrepressible spirit of the Igbo in his remarks which the media titled “The Igbo Factor and the Reasonable Limits of Retribution” and I reproduce extracts below from that his incisive presentation:
“. . . this nation must realize that Igbos, have more than paid for their foolishness, They have been defeated in war, rendered paupers by monetary policy fiat, their property declared abandoned and confiscated, kept off strategic public sector appointments and deprived of public services. The rest of the country forced them to remain in Nigeria and has continued to deny them equity”.
“The Northern and the Yoruba Bourgeoisie have conspired to keep the Igbo out of the scheme of things. In the recent transition when the Igbo solidly supported Ekwueme presidency, the North and the South-West treated this as a Biafra agenda. Every rule set for primaries, every gentlemen’s agreement was set aside to ensure that Obasanjo, not Ekwueme emerged as the candidate. Things went as far as getting the federal government to hurriedly gazette a pardon. Now, with this government the marginalization of the Igbo is more complete than ever before. The Igbos have taken all these quietly because, they reason, they brought it upon themselves. But the nation is sitting on a time bomb”.
“After the First World War, the victors treated Germany with the same contempt Nigeria is treating Igbos. Two decades later, there was a second world war, far costlier than the first. Germany was again defeated, but this time they won a more honourable peace. Our present political leaders have made nonsense of History. There is a new Igbo man, who was not born in 1966 and neither knows nor cares about Nzeogwu and Ojukwu. There are Igbo men on the street who were never Biafrans. They were born Nigerians, are Nigerians, but suffer because of actions of earlier generations. They will soon decide that it is better to fight their own war, and may be, find an honourable peace, than remain in this contemptible state in perpetually.”
“The Northern and the Yoruba Bourgeoisie have exacted their pound of flesh from the Igbos.”
“. . . If this issue is not addressed immediately, no conference will solve Nigeria’s problems.”(Punch Newspaper, Lagos, Nigeria 17th October 2013 and Vanguard news of 18th August 2013)
From the end of the Civil War in 1970 till date, Nigeria has treated the South-East as a conquered territory and ex-Biafrans, as subject people. The ideal in any relationship is that when parties reach that point of irreconcilability of differences, the viable option is separation. It is extremely difficult to manage relations between the dominion-seeking Fulanis and the freedom-minded and fighting Igbos. There is a possibility that other ethnic nationalities of Nigeria might have succumbed and accepted permanent dominion, and/or perhaps enslavement, by the oligarchy. Not the Igbo! If Igbo elders do so today, it would barely last a generation or two and cannot subsist. As it is obvious, the re-surfacing of agitation for Biafra by IPOB, brilliantly predicted in 1999 by HRH Sanusi II, Emir of Kano, is on the rise and it does not seem that any amount of contrived treason/secret trials or extra-judicial killings/ arbitrary arrests and detentions by the Nigerian Security Agencies, can quench the fire lit by oppression and the Igbo congenital abhorrence to any form of repression. Igbo political/business elite, who mouth rejection of the activities of Igbo youths, are doing what they know best and should do in the interest of their jobs, appointments and investments. Conquered and enslaved, they have accepted their lots, and perhaps are satisfied with the statusquo. They buckle under as soon as the oligarchy roars a threat of violence because most of them can find placements for their children, relatives and friends in Nigeria’s bigoted public service and/or distressed economy. The most provocative aspect of the activities of this group of Igbo elite is that they merely parrot the threat to violence from the oligarchy as their justification for disowning their people’s innate aspiration for freedom; as if it is normal and acceptable in world best practice to threaten people agitating for independence, with war. Peaceful agitation for rights is in world’s best practice, never classified as violence. They all witnessed recent agitations for independence in Canada and United Kingdom and how the Quebeckers and Scots were placated with several concessions; and granted a right to choose between secession and the statusquo in referendums and they both voted down independence without any threat of violence.
Perhaps Mahatma Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869-1948) had these fellow elders and brothers in mind when, during the Indian struggle for independence, he initiated his popular quote and reminded all his compatriots as follows:
“When a slave begins to take pride in his fetters and hugs them like precious ornaments, the triumph of the slave-owner is complete.”
The Option of Restructuring to Confederation or Separation
However, if Nigeria must hold back a people who have no common interest with the dominating influence in Nigeria, it is advisable that it should be in a confederal arrangement in which the federating units should control all forms of security, in addition to resources; and retain a right to take a walk if such a new arrangement is unable to guarantee safety, justice, equity, fairness, equality, mutual respect and welfare.
Confederation, as proposed in the Aburi accord of January 1967, should be the form and structure of government left to be explored by Nigeria. Any unitary structure is antithetical to Igbo immutable values of liberty and is bound to perpetually generate conflicts.
It is highly immoral to keep a political entity for the sake and interest of a section’s needs for access to the sea, oil blocks and revenue and a ready market for their agricultural products, in spite of their unending and arrogant disdain and disrespect for the values of the other parties bearing the brunt of, and sustaining the union.
Despite the overwhelming clamour for restructuring of Nigeria all over Southern Nigeria, and perhaps even the North Central, Nigeria as per the 1999 Constitution, remains a unitary set-up, deceptively branded a federation. It therefore baffles the intellect that the Sultan of Sokoto, the Serikin Musulumi (Commander of the Faithful) of Nigeria, Chief Jihadist and foremost traditional ruler in the North with enormous influence within the oligarchy, a retired Army Brigadier- General, has such derisive opinion of the need to restructure Nigeria in other to keep the Federation alive. He aired his views while speaking on 3rd November 2016 in Sokoto State Polytechnic at an International Symposium on Sokoto Caliphate to mark his 10th year on the throne as Sultan.
“. . . When I hear people talk about restructuring I just laugh. Nigeria has long been well structured. The best way to move is for individual regions to develop itself. Before we can restructure, let us first restructure our minds and acts. . .” 30
It is remarkable that the Sultan seemed to mock agitators for restructuring because, according to him, “Nigeria has long been well structured and the best way to move is for individual regions to develop itself.” Yet there are no regions in Nigeria’s governance structure. Nigeria has 36 minions as states, most of them, incapable of sustaining themselves except from monthly subventions and hand-outs from the all-powerful centre.
What Nigerian agitators are clamouring for is regrouping these vassal states into more viable regions or zones and the Federal Government releasing all the residual powers of the federating units which it unilaterally confiscated, to the zones. The zones already exist but not as governance structures since they are not entrenched in the Constitution.
Without prejudice, and as a Prince of the oldest traditional institution in Nigeria, I respect the views of the Sultan, but will not hesitate to remind His Eminence that his people have ridden the Nigerian horse to near death. The horse is tired and fed up. If the rider must continue the journey with the horse, both horse and rider should do so on foot – a CONFEDERATION in which each unit is responsible for its security and welfare. The alternative is that Nigeria should, like all one-sided federations – Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and others – terminate, no matter how long it takes. How soon and in what manner, no one can predict except perhaps from the lessons of history of unwilling unions that are no more.
“This nation cannot survive half slave and half free,” declared Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865), 16th President of United States (1861-65) as he set about his mission to free slaves of America from bondage and restore the equality of all citizens of USA as articulated in US Declaration of Independence -
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
Above is the credo, which lifted America to the unchallengeable position of number one leader of the world. Nigeria should aspire for nothing less, if it must continue to exist.
Nigeria cannot continue as a nation with multiple citizenship rights – one under the law; the other, above the law. Furthermore, Nigeria as it is constituted, cannot progress to any level of human development until it defines itself in the context of religion which is 90% responsible for its malaise. The choice must be made between a constitutional secular democracy and a religious state. There can be no middle ground. The existing religious state of Nigeria is a muddle and like all muddles, is a confused mess. The Constitution prescribes no State religion at federal or state level. Twelve Islamic fundamentalist states, otherwise Islamic Republics, declared state religion of the extremist type and Nigeria thinks it can muddle on. No! That is not possible in nation-building. It is either the religious extremists go their own separate way or the rest of Nigeria joins them in fundamentalist religious extremism. And that is the tug drawing Nigeria into OIC, D8, IMFAT, Arabic as parallel official language without any authorization whatsoever in law, BOKO Haram and Cattle Fulani herdsmen Islamic insurgency and a host of other troublesome Nigerian issues. Nigeria today is over 60% Islamized. Shall Nigeria allow itself to be 100% Islamized?
Gullible Nigerians would say it is not possible. Such credulous Nigerians should find reasons why Nigeria, and indeed the world, worries about ocean or desert encroachment. It is because if such encroachment is unchecked, it would overwhelm the entity. Encroachment on the fundamental rights of other Nigerians by Islamic fundamentalists is real! Only the mentally blind would miss it, or perhaps see it, but lack the courage to acknowledge and address it. Perhaps the audacity and bigotry displayed by the Islamic fundamentalists in the Federal Ministry of Education in the Christian Religious Knowledge versus Islamic Religious Knowledge syllabus controversy would rouse the most docile non-Moslems of Nigeria from their inexplicable inaction.
Furthermore, the experience of over 56 years has confirmed that the size of Nigeria is beyond the competence of any African to manage from one central point. It is worsened in persistent circumstances when the leader is analogue and therefore constrained by only his limited experiences of the past.
Nigeria therefore needs to go back to more manageable parliamentary democracy as it is in the 1963 Constitution; and should be broken up into autonomous confederal units, on account of its unmanageable size and the absence of any unifying identity or value, particularly in the most fundamental of values – the sanctity of life. The Swiss model of confederal arrangement might need to be built into governance structure so as to accommodate the different values and sharp cleavages of the peoples that make up Nigeria.
That is the kind of governance structure that can endure - allowing each unit to develop according to a pace acceptable to it and with full responsibility for its security, which no group has in the history of Nigeria, failed to reassure.
The alternative is separation. It might be painful but is time-bound. Unless something meaningful, as proposed, is done. Time out!”
(THE ENTIRE SCRIPT ABOVE IS DERIVED FROM SUMMARIES FROM MY 672-PAGE WORK, TITLED “TO THE RESQUE – The Right to Self Determination, the Pathway to a Genuine Federation of Peoples with no Shared Values” WHICH IS COMING OUT OF PRINT ON 9TH OCTOBER 2017)
Posted in my blog: emekaonyesoh.blogspot.com.ng
OkpalaEzeNri Chukwuemeka I. Onyesoh
Enugu.
2nd October 2017.A
No comments:
Post a Comment