“There are two basic questions that
must be answered by all Nigerians. One, do we want to remain as one country?
Two, if the answer is yes, under what conditions?” – Chief Bola Ige
Introduction
To paraphrase
the historian, mathematician, journalist, Marxist, and progressive thinker,
Edwin Madunagu, every political history has its significant dates, landmarks or
turning points. In Nigeria’s political history, for instance, landmarks would
include October 1, 1960, (the day Nigeria gained independence from Britain),
January 15, 1966, (when the first of what would become a tradition of military
coups occurred), July 6, 1967, (the official start of the 30-month
Nigeria-Biafra war) and January 15, 1970, (the official end of the civil war).
To these
dates, I will add January 1, 1914, (the amalgamation of the Southern and
Northern Protectorates by the British to create Nigeria), May 27, 1967, (the
beginning of state creation in Nigeria), and May 30, 1967, (the official
declaration of the secessionist state of Biafra). The latter dates, May 27 and
May 30, 1967, are significant in many ways. On May 27, 50 years ago, Yakubu
Gowon, who served as head of state of Nigeria from 1966 to 1975, perhaps in
anticipation of the audacious move by the Military Governor of the Eastern
Region of Nigeria, Lt. Col. Emeka Ojukwu, announced the division of Nigeria
into 12 states from four regions. The division of Nigeria into 12 states and
Ojuwku’s declaration of Biafra were decisions that would change the country
forever.
Gowon’s
action did not only alter the structure of Nigeria, it led to the
reconstruction of the nascent nation through the lenses of the so-called
Nigerian military; a military that was provincial in outlook as it was
ill-equipped for leadership. The military centralized economic and political
power and moved Nigeria from a federal republic to a unitary state. In many
ways, we can conveniently say May 27, 1967, was the day Nigeria began to unravel
and any attempt to understand the current crises and our inability to make
progress as a nation must necessarily return to the action of the military
junta on May 27, 1967.
The road to Biafra
Three days
later, May 30, 1967, Lt. Col Ojukwu, a Nigerian soldier of Igbo extraction
declared an “independent sovereign state of the name and title of Republic of
Biafra,” officially excising the Eastern Region from Nigeria. Ojukwu based his
action on the resolution, four days earlier, on May 26, 1967, of a joint
conference of the Eastern consultative assembly and leaders of thought that
asked him to declare the Eastern region as separate republic at an “early
practicable date”.
The
declaration of Biafra was the culmination of a series of tragic events. First
was the bloodletting that started with the January 15, 1966, military coup.
That coup led to the assassination of Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Belewa, the
country’s first and only prime minister and Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Premier of
the Northern Region, among other high-profile casualties. Some recollections by
Edwin Madunagu in “Settling account with Biafra” (The Guardian, May 4,
2000) are apposite here: “One, the politics of the First Republic
(1960-1965) was heavily characterised by ethnicity, especially towards the end
of that tragic period. Two: Of the five army majors that are more frequently
mentioned as leading the coup attempt, only one, Major Adewale Ademoyega, was
non-Igbo by ethnic origin. Three: No Igbo political leader died and the only
Igbo military casualty occurred not because he was a target but because he was
considered a ‘nuisance’. Four: The attempted coup was the culmination of a long
period of political crisis in Nigeria, a crisis whose centre of gravity was
Western Region where, before the military intervention, the crisis had become
an armed popular uprising.”
On July 29,
1966, there was another military coup led by officers from Northern Nigeria and
Lt. Col Yakubu Gowon became head of state. According to Madunagu, the coupists
“first made a move to pull the Northern Region out Nigeria, but when they were
advised that they were now in a military situation to rule the whole country,
instead of a part of it, they dropped the idea of secession and became
champions of ‘One Nigeria’. Lt. Col Ojukwu refused to recognise Lt. Col Gowon
as head of state.”
The second
coup led to the assassination, among other high-profile casualties, of the
country’s first military head of state, Gen. Aguiyi Ironsi, an Igbo, as well as
the military governor of the Western Region, Lt. Col. Adekunle Fajuyi. This was
followed by, as Madunagu notes, “mass killings not only in the North, but all
over the country, except the Eastern Region. Now, multiply the May 1966 tragedy
by a factor of 50, add to it the fact that the killings were now led by armed
soldiers whose commanders were now in power and add to this the fact that the
killings did not abate for at least five months and you begin to have an idea
of what happened.”
The criminal
indifference of the Nigerian state to the manifest pogrom against people from
Eastern Nigeria, particularly Igbos, the repudiation by the Nigerian contingent
(and the “unilateral implementation” by the Eastern regional government) of the
agreement on decentralization of power reached at a meeting in Aburi, Ghana,
involving the main protagonists, Yakubu Gowon and Emeka Ojukwu, at the instance
of Gen. Ankrah of Ghana, finally paved the road to Biafra.
The accounts
of what took place in those turbulent days are as varied as there are ethnic
groups in Nigeria. But one thing is certain: the effects of those events,
particularly the actions of May 27 and 30, 1967, are still being felt today. In
one fell swoop, the military unilaterally restructured Nigeria according to its
dictates. While Ojukwu drafted “unwilling” minorities in the Eastern Region to
create a Biafran state where Igbos were in the majority, the Nigerian military
which was nothing but the armed wing of a reactionary feudal class that had
power thrust on it at independence began the implementation of an agenda of
conquest. Interestingly, barely a year earlier, the section of the military
that seized power after the January 15, 1966 coup had attempted to reconstruct
Nigeria as a unitary state with the promulgation of the unification decree 34
of 1966. That attempt was opposed fiercely by those (including a section of the
military) who felt they had lost out in the power equation. The rest is history.
When history repeats itself
Unfortunately,
Nigeria is on the cusp of that tragic history repeating itself. Regrettably, 50
years after the declaration of Biafra many young Nigerians of Igbo descent are
trying to recreate Biafra. In a few days, there will be events in Nigeria and
around the world to mark the 50th anniversary of the
declaration of Biafra on May 30, 1967. Forty-seven years after the end of the
Nigeria-Biafra War, Biafra still resonates with individuals and groups within
and outside the country; perhaps, a testament to the fact that the war hasn’t
ended in the minds of the protagonists and victims and the reality that many of
the issues that propelled the civil war are still with us today.
So, how do we
deal with this conundrum? Is Biafra the solution? In other words, can we solve
the problems of 2017 Nigeria using the tragic solution of 50 years ago? As S.M.
Sigerson noted in The Assassination of Michael Collins: What Happened
at Béal na mBláth? “A nation which fails to adequately remember
salient points of its own history, is like a person with Alzheimer's. And that
can be a social disease of a most destructive nature.”
Seventeen years ago, Edwin Madunagu,
in the piece referenced above, admonished “the young Nigerians now threatening
to actualise Biafra (to) forget or shelve the plan. In place of ‘actualisation’
they should, through research and study, reconstruct the Biafran story in its
fullness and complexity and try to answer the unanswered questions and supply
the missing links in the story. This is a primary responsibility you owe
yourselves: you should at least understand what you want to actualise. If 30
years after Biafra, you want to produce its second edition, you need to benefit
from the criticism of the first. History teaches that a second edition of a
tragic event could easily become a farce—in spite of the heroism of its human
agencies. On the other hand, those who enjoy ridiculing Biafra—instead of
studying it—are politically shortsighted. My own attitude to Biafra is neither
‘actualisation’ nor ridicule. I propose that accounts should be settled with
Biafra.”
Madunagu’s
admonition needs no elaboration. It is clear enough for the young people
pushing for the actualisation of Biafra, many of whom were born after the end of
the Biafra war 47 years ago. The aspect of his position on Biafra that I want
to focus on is the aspect that warns of the “political shortsightedness of
ridiculing Biafra”.
Balkanizing the
nation
When the
military regime headed by Gowon divided Nigeria into 12 states, it sought to
weaken the prospect of the different groups in the Eastern Region uniting
against the Nigerian state. Of course, that action was music to the ears of
minority groups, particularly those in the Eastern Region, who had long demanded
their own state. With the creation of states, however, the military not only
unilaterally abrogated the geo-political structure that existed then, it went a
step further to destroy the principle of federalism on which Nigeria gained
independence in 1960 and which had sustained and kept the country together. We
need to understand that this principle was adopted not only to assuage the fear
of domination by a single group in the country but as recognition of the
differences (multi-ethnic and multi-lingual) of the various “ethnic
nationalities” that were brought together to create Nigeria.
Part of Gowon’s broadcast on May 27,
1967, signalling the breakup of Nigeria into 12 states is pertinent here: “The
main obstacle to future stability in this country is the present structural
imbalance in the Nigerian Federation. Even Decree No.8 or Confederation or
‘loose association’ will never survive if any one section of the country is in
a position to hold the others to ransom.
“This is why
the first item in the political and administrative programme adopted by the
Supreme Military Council last month is the creation of states for stability.
This must be done first so as to remove the fear of domination. Representatives
drawn from the new states will be more able to work out the future constitution
for this country which can contain provisions to protect the powers of the
states to the fullest extent desired by the Nigerian people.
“As soon as
these are established, a new revenue allocation commission consisting of international
experts will be appointed to recommend an equitable formula for revenue
allocation taking into account the desires of the states. I propose to act
faithfully within the political and administrative programme adopted by the
Supreme Military Council and published last month. The world will recognise in
these proposals our desire for justice and fair play for all sections of this
country and to accommodate all genuine aspirations of the diverse people of
this great country.
“I have
ordered the re-imposition of the economic measures designed to safeguard
federal interests until such time as the Eastern Military Governor abrogates
his illegal edicts on revenue collection and the administration of the federal
statutory corporations based in the East. The country has a long history of
well-articulated demands for states. The fears of minorities were explained in
great detail and set out in the report of the Willink Commission appointed by
the British in 1958. More recently, there have been extensive discussions in
Regional Consultative Committees and leaders-of-thought conferences.
Resolutions have been adopted demanding the creation of states in the North and
in Lagos. Petitions from minority areas in the East which have been subjected
to violent intimidation by the Eastern Military Government have been
publicised.
“While the present circumstances
regrettably do not allow for consultations through plebiscites, I am satisfied
that the creation of new states as the only possible basis for stability and
equality is the overwhelming desire of the vast majority of Nigerians. To
ensure justice, these states are being created simultaneously. To this end,
therefore, I am promulgating a decree which will divide the Federal Republic
into 12 states. The 12 states will be six in the present Northern Region, three
in the present Eastern Region, the Mid-Western will remain as it is, the Colony
Province of the Western Region and Lagos will form a new Lagos State and the
Western Region will otherwise remain as it is.”
What the military regime of Gowon
gave with one hand it took with the other. And that would become the hallmark
of subsequent military regimes in Nigeria. Gowon failed to realise, or
deliberately ignored the reality that the issue wasn’t the division of the
country but the reluctance or inability of the military to keep its promise,
viz., “This must be done first so as to remove the fear of domination.
Representatives drawn from the new states will be more able to work out the
future constitution for this country which can contain provisions to protect
the powers of the states to the fullest extent desired by the Nigerian people.”
Unfortunately, that never happened.
It couldn’t have, considering the rapacious and parasitic nature of the
Nigerian military so-called and the interest it represented and still
represents. Once the military couldn’t deliver on that promise, it also meant
that the second part of its declaration that, “The world will recognise in
these proposals our desire for justice and fair play for all sections of this
country and to accommodate all genuine aspirations of the diverse people of
this great country,” was nothing but meaningless soundbite by a rampaging
military sub-class in desperate search for legitimacy.
Since then, there has neither been
“justice nor fair play for all sections” of Nigeria. There hasn’t been any
serious attempt to “accommodate all genuine aspirations of the diverse people
of this great country.” The sham of a federation that the military created has
evolved into a Frankenstein's monster. Fast forward 50 years. Cleary,
it is the nebulous federal government that is holding the country to ransom.
The moment the military government took economic powers from the states, there
was no way we could ensure justice and fair play. And once you can’t ensure
justice and fair play, there is no way you can stop the concomitant disquiet.
The politics of state creation
When Gen Murtala Muhammed created
additional seven states—three in the “South” and four in the “North”—bringing
the total to 19 states, and a new federal capital territory, Abuja, on February
3, 1976, ten days before his assassination on February 13, he left no one
in doubt that the conquest was real. While Gowon showed an inclination to
balance Nigeria geo-politically, Muhammed ensured that the “North” had ten
states while the “South” had nine. It has been alleged that the decision was to
create four new states in the “North” and four new states in the “South”, but
when Muhammed announced the creation of states, instead of creating two states
(Cross River and Akwa Ibom States) out of the old South-Eastern State, he
simply announced the transformation of South-Eastern State into Cross River
State.
Subsequent military regimes continued
the conquest, not just on the political front, but on the economic front as
well. Ten years later, in 1986, when the self-professed evil genius, Gen
Ibrahim Babangida, set up a Political Bureau to review the country’s political
and democratic system, one of its recommendations was the creation of an
additional state (Akwa Ibom State) in “South” to create a geo-political balance
of ten states each between the “North” and “South”. Babangida spurned that
recommendation. He did create Akwa Ibom State, but he added another state
(Kastina State) in the “North” to maintain the imbalance. It was the same
pattern that was adopted in subsequent state creation in 1991 (under Gen
Babangida) and 1996 (under Gen Sani Abacha). Geo-politically, today, Nigeria is
composed of 36 states: 19 states in the “North” and 17 states in the “South”.
Ordinarily this should not matter.
After all, in a federation, the federating units (states) are supposed to
manage their affairs substantially and contribute to the sustenance of the
federation. Therefore, only those who feel their states can sustain themselves
would clamour for the creation of such states. Of course, more self-sustaining
states would mean more opportunities for the national government to benefit
from the exploration and exploitation of resources in every state.
Unfortunately, that is not the case with Nigeria.
In a country where the military had
hijacked and centralized the control of economic resources and political power
by, for example, arrogating to itself the authority to create local governments
as well as placing itself in the position of chief dispenser of funds based on
its own criteria, including population, land mass, number of local governments,
derivation principle, etc., the dog eat dog demand for states was inevitable.
Thanks to the military—the armed wing of Nigeria’s dominant power bloc—Nigeria
has a weird federation where states can’t create their own local governments;
where local governments are listed in constitutions that have been nothing but
military decrees writ large. Thanks to the military, Nigeria has spurned
justice and fair play and disregarded the genuine aspirations of the diverse
people of this great country.
It is not for nothing that Nigeria is
described as a federal republic. It was a choice made by the three regions in
Nigeria preceding independence. Both the Eastern and Western regions obtained
internal self-government (independence) in 1957, while the North got same in
1959. Each region could have opted to go its own way in 1960. We could have had
three countries as opposed to one at independence. The decision by the regions
to be part of a shared territory called Nigeria came with some obligation and
expectation. There is little to suggest that the federating region were willing
to jettison the greater part of their economic and political independence for
the sake of “one Nigeria”.
In 1963, the regions (the precursor
of our current states) controlled 50 percent of the revenues accruing from
their region; today we are quibbling whether the states have right to as little
as 13 percent. In a sense, this manifest heist by the federal government has
perpetuated injustice in some sections of the country while condoning indolence
in others. It is this quest for control, or lack of, that is at the heart of
the Nigerian crisis.
Biafra of the mind vs Biafra of the
field
What is Biafra? If that question was
tough to answer in 1967, it is even more difficult today, fifty years after. As
a nation, Biafra was going to be difficult to sustain even if it had been
actualized. Was Biafra a nation made up of ethnic nationalities? In other
words, was Biafra a microcosm of Nigeria? One of the things those who are
agitating for Biafra have not been able to define or communicate effectively is
answer to the question: What is Biafra? The answers to this question are as
varied as there are agitators.
There are those who will tell you
that Biafra encompasses the area that used to be the Eastern Region of Nigeria
and beyond, including parts of Southern Cameroon and stretching to Equatorial
Guinea and Gabon. Some define Biafra as simply the former Eastern Region of
Nigeria that was given the name Biafra on May 30, 1967. Some say it is the five
states (Abia, Anambra, Ebonyi, Enugu and Imo) in south-east Nigeria where the
Igbos are the major ethnic group. Yet, others define Biafra as encompassing all
the Igbo speaking areas of southern Nigeria, including parts of present-day
Rivers, Bayelsa, Delta, Akwa Ibom, Cross River and Benue States. The issue of
definition is important because the lack of understanding and agreement can
pose great problems.
Of course, up until May 30, 1967, there was nothing like Biafra as
nation or political territory. The only thing that bore the tag Biafra was a
bight off the West African coast, in the easternmost part of the Gulf of Guinea,
stretching to Cape Lopez in Gabon, over which Britain established a colonial
protectorate in 1849. Biafra as a nation was a child of circumstance that would
become a child of necessity.
What if the
bloody January 15, 1966, coup and the attendant assassinations didn’t happen;
if Igbo political leaders had been killed alongside their counterparts from the
“North” and “West”; if the “revenge coup” of July 29, 1966, and the attendant
murders didn’t occur; if the Nigerian state had reined in the murderous groups
(military and civilian) that had targeted Igbos after the July
29 coup; if Gen Aguiyi Ironsi—the first indigenous general and leader of
the Nigerian Army—an Igbo who was not part of theJanuary 15 abortive coup,
had not been a major beneficiary by seizing power and becoming head of state;
if Gen Ironsi had executed the coup plotters of January 15 as
military tradition dictates; if the regime of Gen Ironsi did not promulgate
Decree No. 34—which abrogated the country's federal structure in exchange for a
unitary one; if the “January 15 boys” had completed their “project” either by
one of them becoming head of state or as some have alluded, released the
imprisoned leader of the national opposition, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, and
installed him as prime minister; if the Nigerian government led by Gowon had
implemented the agreement reached at Aburi?
We can raise many questions and speculate as much as we like, but we
will never know. Of course, a few things are known. Madunagu reminds us that,
“In Eastern Region, a militant group in the present Bayelsa State, led by Isaac
Boro, rose in armed rebellion against the (January 15) coup. They wanted
political autonomy for the minorities, not the replacement of (the premier) Dr.
Michael Okpara (an Igbo) by Col. Ojukwu (an Igbo). Boro’s rebellion was
defeated after 12 days. My studies and reflections convince me that this
rebellion was the authentic position and voice of the minorities of Eastern
Nigeria at the time.”
I don’t think
that position has changed even though many advocates for Biafra would say
otherwise. My own research convinces me that if the minorities in the Eastern
Region wanted “political autonomy” from the Igbos 50 years ago, today that
feeling is even stronger today. If this is the situation, how then do we
construe the renewed clamour for the actualization of Biafra? If the minorities
refuse to be part of the renewed Biafra experiment, will they be forced to be
part of it? Some Biafra activists believe that should be the case. If we equate
Biafra to the Igbo ethnic nationality, how do we define Igbo (or any other
ethnic nationality) in a country where ethnic borders have become amorphous and
miscegenation has taken place for over a 100 year?
Clearly, once the Biafra experiment
failed, it was going to be difficult to put it back together again. Perhaps,
that was why Ojukwu, the man who led the Biafra war of independence many years
later spoke about “the Biafra of the mind” as opposed to “the Biafra of the
field”. On January 9, 1970, shortly before the end of the Nigeria-Biafra War on
January 15, 1970, Ojukwu handed over
power to his second in command, Chief of General Staff, Major-General Philip
Effiong, and went into exile in Ivory Coast where he lived for 12 years.
Ojukwu was granted political asylum by President Félix Houphouët-Boigny whose
country had recognised Biafra on 14 May 1968. He returned to Nigeria to a
hero’s welcome in 1982 after he was granted state pardon by the civilian
government led by Shehu Shagari. He joined the ruling party at the federal
level, the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), to the disappointment of many who
had hoped or wanted him to join the party that was in power at the state level,
the Nigerian Peoples Party (NPP). Unfortunately, he couldn’t receive enough
support (or was sabotaged by his own party as some have alluded) from his
kinsmen to represent them at the Senate.
Ojukwu ran
unsuccessfully for president in 2003 and 2007 under the All Progressives
Grand Alliance (APGA) winning just 3.3% of the votes in 2003. 2015 estimates
put the Igbo population at around 33 million, close to 20% of Nigeria's
estimated 180 million people. Ojukwu died on November 26, 2011, in the United
Kingdom. Does this narrative signify anything? Maybe, maybe not. Until his
death, Ojukwu remained quite vocal about the Nigerian dilemma. He had no
regrets, rightly so, about his role in the declaration of Biafra. But he also
realized that the circumstances had changed. He was concerned about the
injustice in Nigeria, but he was also passionate about the need to deploy new
arsenals, taking into account current realities, in the quest to end injustice
in Nigeria.
I think it
was this realisation that led him to the conclusion in his 1989 book, Because
I am Involved. According to the late warlord, “All over Nigeria, there is
Biafra but that Biafra of today is ‘the Biafra of the Nigerians and not the
Biafra of the Igbos’; the Biafra of the mind not the Biafra of the fields.”
Quite evocative. Clearly, we can hear the shouts of injustice (read Biafra)
across the length and breadth of Nigeria. The question then is what must
we do to get Nigeria out of the current quagmire and ultimately save the
country from self-destruction?
Mythical nation
There are no easy answers,
considering the historical trajectories of Nigeria and the beating the country
has taken from rogue rulers (military and civilian) in the last 57 years. But
we can start from somewhere. A genuine national conversation founded on shared
existential experience can be a good starting point. We must come to the
realization that we have very limited choices and time is of the essence. The
single agenda of such national conversation is to work out an agreeable and sustainable
structure for the country. This is critical for many reasons, the most
important being that it is on such agreement that every other thing, including
the survival of the country, rests. It is this sentiment that the late politician and lawyer, Chief Bola
Ige, expressed when he noted: “There are two basic questions that
must be answered by all Nigerians. One, do we want to remain as one country?
Two, if the answer is yes, under what conditions?”
Undoubtedly, majority of Nigerians
would respond in the affirmative to the first question. The question then is if
we agree to remain together, under what conditions? Do we want a truly federal
nation? Do we want a secular and egalitarian nation where the rule of law
prevails? Do we want a semi-feudal and religious republic that poses as a
modern democratic society? Do we want a nation where some citizens are treated
as second class citizens? Do we want a nation where some people feel
ostracized, marginalized, dispossessed and neglected or an inclusive nation of
equal opportunities, freedom, responsibility and trust? The choice is ours, but
that decision must involve majority of Nigerians. Enter the term restructuring!
To understand Nigeria and why we need
to restructure the country, we need to debunk a few myths and lay bare certain
facts. Myth: God used the British to bring Nigeria together and, therefore, not
only is there nothing we can do about that, we shouldn’t attempt to alter what
the British put together on behalf of God. Fact: Nigeria was brought together
by the British for purely economic and imperialistic reasons. Myth: The size of
Nigeria is an asset. Fact: Of course, size is an asset, but no country is great
simply by the size of its population. Myth: Nigeria has always been one
“united” country. Fact: Nigeria has not always been like this. Nigeria was
basically two different countries (Northern and Southern Protectorates). The
British brought these two countries together for economic, administrative and
expansionist interests as well as its desire to check the burgeoning French
interest in Africa.
The evil colonialists created one country yet did
everything to keep the people divided. The fault lines still exist today. Myth:
Once the British “conquered” the people that would later form Nigeria, they
lost the right to “self-determination”. Fact: The ethnic nationalities that
were “conquered” by the British were not “conquered” collectively as one group
and the fact that they were “conquered” by the British does not in any way
vitiate their right to “self-determination”. Only a hegemonist and internal
colonialist will push such a position. Myth: Nigeria is non-negotiable and
indivisible. Fact: Nations are not eternal constructs; they come into being at
certain historical junctures due to different factors and can likewise go out
of existence for different reasons. Myth: Nigeria is a mere geographical
expression. Fact: Nigeria is not a mere geographical expression. The country is
simply no longer the sum of its constituent parts. There are people and institutions
that are Nigerian.
So, let’s not romanticize Nigeria or
take it for granted. Having said that, it is also important that we understand
that there is nothing special about the way Nigeria was formed. And this is in
response to those who refer to Nigeria as a “fictional nation” or an “artificial
creation”.
Who is afraid of restructuring?
For those who fear the word
restructuring, let it be clear that it doesn’t imply breaking Nigeria into tiny
sovereignties or going back to the status quo ante. That is far-fetched. Of
course, there are many positions just as there is
much misperception and confusion when it comes to restructuring. Many people
genuinely do not understand what is at stake when the issue of restructuring is
mentioned vis a vis the politics of Nigeria, while others, for purely partisan
and ethnic reasons, decide to conflate the issue.
Make no
mistake, the “restructuring” of Nigeria both politically and economically has
been a continuous process since amalgamation in 1914. The restructuring in 1939
saw the division of the South into two regions, the West and East. In 1946, the
country was again restructured to create a federation of three regions: East,
West and North. The process continued in I963 with the creation of Mid-Western Region
out of the former Western Region, the unitary system in 1966 and beyond, the
creation of 12 states on May 27, 1967, etc. Add to this, the emasculation of
the states through the reduction of the percentage of revenue accruing to
states from their resources.
Basically,
what restructuring will do is to create new, workable
and generally acceptable rules on how Nigeria should federate. We need to
reorder the polity for effective governance. Clearly, our fortunes as a nation
is tied to the kind of political, economic and social structure we put in
place. We need to review revenue generation and allocation. We can’t talk or
wish our way to prosperity as a nation. We must end financial irresponsibility
and fiscal rascality by revisiting the issue of fiscal federalism. We must
allow states to share greater responsibility in the policing of their states.
We must abrogate local governments as enshrined in the 1999 Constitution and
allow states to create local governments according to their needs. We must
redefine citizenship rights and banish the indigene-settler dichotomy. This is
what restructuring is about. We must continue to interrogate Nigeria
because our misleaders (past and present) have failed to forge a nation out of
what was bequeathed to us by the colonialists. The nationhood question is never
settled. The way out is to never be afraid to confront it.
Any attempt to understand and tackle
Nigeria’s seemingly intractable problems must go back to the basic principles
of the formation of Nigeria. We may not have it the way it was in 1960 or 1963,
but it is important that whatever way we decide to have it, the decision is
inclusive and acceptable. That is the essence of restructuring. Restructuring
is not a silver bullet. It won’t solve all our problems, but trying to solve
our national crises without restructuring the country effectively will amount
to putting the cart before the horse.
The bottom
line is that Nigeria is not working for Nigerians. It may be working for some
Nigerians, either Igbos, Fulanis, Yorubas, Hausas, Kanuris, Efiks, Tivs or
Ijaws, but for the majority across the country, it is a nightmare living the
Nigerian dream. We can point to poor leadership, bad governance, corruption and
the need for attitudinal change, but these are symptoms of a much insidious
problem, the existential crisis that confronts Nigeria.
Nigeria is
not working not because Nigerians can’t make it work or are not willing to make
it work. Nigeria is not working simply because there is no incentive to make it
work; there is no allegiance to the Nigerian dream, if it does exist. That
explains the mindless corruption in the country, the contempt the rulers have
for the country and its citizens, their eagerness to run it aground and their
willingness to run to the Metropole at the slightest opportunity either for
medical attention, to educate their children or simply to enjoy the good life.
And, the country, the proverbial giant of Africa remains, in the words of Noble
Laurette, Prof Wole Soyinka, “the open sore of a continent”; a nation that made
billions of dollars from oil, yet (with Pakistan and Afghanistan) is one of the
three-remaining polio-endemic countries in the world with one of the highest
cases of out-of-school children and maternal mortality.
Reclaiming Nigeria
The purpose of
restructuring, therefore, is to set Nigeria on the path of a civic nationhood,
a modern egalitarian society, and not to create new fiefdoms for ethnic
warlords. It aims to end internal colonialism wherever it exists in the country
and to free the creative and intellectual capacities for Nigerians from the
east, west, north and south, to contribute to the development of the country.
Can we
reconstruct Nigeria? Can we reclaim the country and provide succour to millions
of our countrymen and women in the east, west, north, and south who have
endured decades of misrule, impoverishment, injustice and oppression? This is
the question that should engage true patriots and the current generation of
Nigerians. Can the post civil war generation of Nigerians reclaim the country
and create a new Nigeria that can become a global contender? I think it can.
But nation building is not a tea party. This generation must learn to overcome
the fear and loathing; it mustn’t allow our tragic history to repeat itself.
The future of Nigeria belongs to
young men and men, millions who are unemployed and daily roaming the streets of
major cities across the country. I share your frustration, pain, suffering,
anger and anxiety. But no one feels the pain more than you and, therefore, you
are in the best position to bring about the kind of change you and Nigeria
need.
You must rise to the occasion. You
are the future of this great nation. Nigeria of 2017 is not Nigeria of 1914,
1960, 1966, or 1967-70. John F. Kennedy, the 35th President of the United States, once admonished Americans, “Let us not seek
the Republican answer or the Democratic answer, but the right answer. Let us
not seek to fix the blame for the past. Let us accept our own responsibility
for the future.” Kennedy was speaking to Americans and the “right” answer may
not be in the interest of non-Americans, but the same principle can apply in
our own situation. In seeking solutions to the country’s problems, you must
learn from the past but you should not allow the past to cripple you. You must
accept your own responsibility for the future. You should see yourselves as
Nigerians first before being Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Ibibio, Fulani or Ijaw. And
in seeking to deal with the Nigerian question, that should be your guiding
principle.
Nigerian youth must seize the moment
and define the kind of future they want to create. Nobody will live that future
but you. Don’t let our crooked politicians and so-called statesmen define that
future. You can’t leave the solution to Nigeria’s problems to those who created
it in the first place for, as Einstein poignantly put it, “No problem can be solved from the same
level of consciousness that created it.” Our rulers have
defined themselves and the country for too long; they have no right to define
you and the future.
Our rulers and so-called elders
shouldn’t speak for you any longer. Don’t let a 90-year-old Edwin Clark or Prof. Ango Abdullahi, who as Vice
Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University from 1979–1986, was more of a despot than
an administrator, ruining the future of many students in the process, speak for you.
Don’t let the dishonourable men and women posing as your representatives in the
Senate and House of Representatives speak for you. Afenifere, Northern Elders
Forum, Ohaneze Ndigbo, OPC, Arewa Youth Forum (AYF), IPOB, MASSOB, and sundry
agglomeration of ethnic jingoists and bigots, shouldn’t speak for you.
Your reality and challenges—in the
light of globalization and a world where oil is increasingly becoming
irrelevant and advances in science and communication technology are changing
the way we live and operate—are different from the realities of your forbears.
Don’t let the prejudices of the past hold you down. We have wasted 57 years as
an independent nation, we can’t afford to waste the next 50 years. As we mark
the 50th anniversary of Biafra and the start of the civil war,
we must remember our fellow citizens from the east, west, north and south and
everywhere in between who lost their lives or loved ones, were injured or
maimed for life in that unfortunate 30-month war and resolve to say never
again!
I believe we
can a build a nation where no group or individuals place their ethnic,
sectional, state, regional or religious interests above the national interest.
That is the condition precedent for the survival of Nigeria. That is what
restructuring can do for us.
The eternal words of Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, the great
Pan-Africanist who died on Africa Day, May 25, eight years ago, are apropos: “don't agonise, organise”.
*Chido Onumah is the author of We Are All Biafrans. Connect with him by emailconumah@hotmail.com;
Twitter: @conumah
ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!
