original title of s word press   article picked to back this swordpress

another

Nigeria: Averting disintegration (I)

Nigeria has not become a failed state in the true sense of the word. It has only become a very fragile polity. But, speed is required to pull it back from the brink of collapse because fragility is a stepping stone to state failure.

There are two strands of opinion as the trembling, somehow stagnant and confused nation-state seeks the way forward. Extremists have opted for secession, which, for now, may be illusory. The dark side of this approach is that there is a lack of consensus among indigenes of tribes or ethnic groups that are breeding separatist agitators.

Many pan-Yoruba and Igbo socio-cultural groups, for example, share the views and frustration of the agitators. But, they have also openly decried the call for the balkanisation or breakup of the country.

The second approach is to rekindle hope in a Nigeria, whose future may still be bright, if those in authority can reflect on the looming danger and avert an imminent doom by reconfiguring its defective federal structure that has been basterdised by long years of military rule, and with its unitary structure and its Decree 24, which is the 1999 Constitution, upon which the foundation of the Fourth Republic was laid.

The 1999 Constitution is not a solid rock. It is not the act of the Nigerian people, or a product of consensus, or an agreed pact by representatives of the people. It evolved outside the Parliament as the legacy of the last military regime.

This, no doubt, a trying period for the highly heterogeneous country that had endured the impact of lopsided federalism, domination of other nationalities by a single tribe, over-centralisation of power in a supposedly federal state, economic mismanagement, corruption and general maladministration.

Historians will record that terrorism, banditry, kidnappings, open grazing and farmer-herder clashes became the tonic for agitations for the redesigning of the flawed federal structure that has alienated the component units and made Nigeria a laughing stock in the comity of nations.

After the peaceful departure of Southern Cameroon from Nigeria, following the historic referendum or plebiscite, the map of Nigeria, right from the last years of colonialism, has not been disfigured. Efforts by few individuals and groups to dismember the country had paled into day dreaming.

It is not the first that Nigeria, the largest country in Africa, would be threatened by the secessionist agenda in its chequered history. Separatist agitators have confronted the country with the option of secession on six occasions.

The first time was before independence. That was in 1953 when Northern delegates to the pre-independence Constitutional Conference in Lagos and members of the Northern Regional House of Assembly asked for secession from the rest of the country.

The agenda was borne out of frustration and disillusionment. There were irreconcilable differences between the North and the South. There was a huge education, development and infrastructure gap. There was a conflict of political targets.

The quest for independence by the West was resisted by the North. An Action Group (AG) member of the Federal Parliament, the late Chief Antony Enahoro, had moved a motion for independence. In their view, the North was not ripe for independence because of the obvious educational and economic gap between it and the seemingly more prosperous South, especially the educationally advantaged West. For rejecting the motion, the delegates from the North were booed and jeered at in Lagos as they headed for the railway terminal to board the train.

The North came up with the slogan of Arabah. The delegates and members of the Federal Parliament from the North vowed not to return to Lagos. Reflecting on the episode in his book: ‘S. Ladoke Akintola: His life and times’, a historian, Prof. Akinjide Osuntokun, recalled that “British officials were able to persuade the Northerners that it would be economic suicide to consider such a move.” Sir Ahmadu Bello, initially, wanted confederation. Therefore, the Northern Nigeria Congress (NPC)-dominated Northern House passed an eight-point resolution, which manifested the compromise between “outright secession” and “loose federation.” Their resolutions expressed their readiness for a federal structure, which agreed with the clamour for federalism by the defunct Action Group (AG).

The solution was that each region was permitted to seek and obtain self-rule. The West was the first region to savour the option.

The second threat to national unity came during the civil war. The needless war was foisted on the country by the military officers who were locked in competition for power. The military Head of State Major Gen. Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, was assassinated in a coup by soldiers of Northern origin. His Deputy, Brig. Babafemi Ogundipe, was not allowed to succeed him by a section of the polarised military. Rejecting the elevation of the Army Chief of Staff, Col. Yakubu Gowon, to the military Head of State and Commander-In-Chief, the military governor of the Eastern Region, Col. Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, declared the ill-fated Republic of Biafra. In fact, Ojukwu, a highly educated tactician, tricked the Nigerian delegation led by Gowon to Ghana Peace Meeting brokered by Gen. Ankrah, to accede to its clever demand for balkanisation. On returning home, Ojukwu and his men retorted: “On Aburi we stand.” The Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive Council and Federal Commissioner for Finance, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, said, if the East was allowed to secede, the West would have been motivated to follow suit. For three years, Nigeria was up in arms against itself, until the secessionists surrendered on the battle front.

ADVERTISEMENT
The third attempt at disintegration also came during military rule. A coup plotter, Major Gideon Okar, during a failed coup, announced that eight states had ceased to be part of the federation. He said they should come and negotiate with the new government, which never came into existence.

After eight years of political experimentation by the military President, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, who survived the coup, he later annulled the most transparent and credible presidential election. It was an unprecedented milestone that adversely affected the unity of Nigeria.

While Nigerian leaders were aloof to the threats to national unity in the past, foreign organisations have always predicted that the country may break up, following its inability to resolve the national question and its speedy drift to state failure. Also, fears about its likely fulfillment were rife among Nigerians as some political gladiators prepared for next year’s general elections in a do-or-die manner in 2015.

The country was enveloped in tension. A political scientist and former Foreign Affairs Minister, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi, alerted the country to an impending doom, which he described as a horrendous post-2015 electoral violence, which may be precipitated by sponsored armed thugs. He complained about the massive importation of arms in an alarming proportion. “The certainty of violence after the 2015 elections is higher than it was in 2011. If President Jonathan wins, the North would erupt into violence as it did in 2011. If Gen. Buhari wins, the Niger Delta will erupt into violence. I don’t think we need rocket science to make this prediction,” he said.

Akinyemi, who was the deputy chairman of the Constitutional Conference set up by former President Goodluck Jonathan called for tolerance among political gladiators. He urged the two presidential candidates, Gen. Mohammadu Buhari and Dr. Jonathan, to sign an undertaking that campaigns would be peaceful and devoid of threats, and that post-election protests would be peaceful. The former don, whose father, Canon Akinyemi, was one of the actors when the first civilian regime collapsed, appealed to eminent traditional rulers, former heads of state and influential religious leaders to facilitate the pre-election rapport between the flag bearers and the management of post-election conflicts.

However, Akinyemi’s prediction never came into fulfillment.

Few years back, a foreign body aroused Nigerians to the reality that the country stood the risk of a break-up either in 2014 or 2015. The warning was dismissed with a wave of the hand. Also, in 2009, the former American Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton, peeped into the future, warning that Nigeria may become a failed state because of soaring corruption.

Indeed, there were at that time persistent struggles for self-determination by ethnic organisations, which thought that loyalty to a central government that cannot defend the interests of component units was illusory.

Senator Clinton said: “The most immediate source of disconnect between Nigeria’s wealth and its poverty is a failure of governance at the federal, state and local levels. Lack of transparency and accountability has eroded the legitimacy of government and contributed to the rise of groups protesting the injustice and challenging the authorities of the state,” she submitted.

Another United States organisation, the ‘Fund for Peace’, listed Nigeria among the failed states. In the list are war-torn Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Chad, Afghanistan, Congo, Ivory Coast and Haiti. In the last decade, peace has eluded these countries. Their citizens were in disarray. The growing number of refugees there is a major concern to the United Nations and some regional organisations.

In 1994, a former don, Prof. Adebayo Williams, warned that Nigerian federalism had become a compelling and comprehensive failure. Dissecting the polity, he alluded to frightening memoranda and manuals for disintegration flying all over the place. “What we are witnessing is a man-made disaster of epic proportions. The Nigerian State has, so far, become a compelling and comprehensive failure,” he submitted. The eminent scholar contended that the consequence may be the price for the failure of leadership. At that time, the country was facing serious economic challenges and the transition programme was on the reverse.

The 1994 experience is now a child’s play compared to the difficulties of today, despite civil rule. Nigeria is more divided, by politics, by religion, by ethnicity, by nepotism of the leadership, its inaction, and glaring lack of capability.

In 21st Century Nigeria, law abiding traders and spare parts dealers from the East are equated to armed, wicked and killer herders from the North.

Terrorists are on the prowl. Kidnappers are smiling to the banks. Bandits are having a free rein.

In the East, there are extreme reactions by IPOB to long years of injustice, marginalisation and oppression.

In the Southwest, restless youths are calling for the Oduduwa Republic out of frustration. They want to liberate themselves from the yoke of oppression. Herders invade Southwest farms and destroy crops. Their activities are legitimised by those who support open grazing, to the consternation of their victims of horror.

Disintegration is not the best option for any ethnic group. The solutions to all these separatist agitations are not too far sought.

The proposed constitution review is a big opportunity. It is the third attempt. The last two efforts amounted to tokenism.

The six zones have made cogent proposals to the National Assembly Committee on Constitution Review. The suggestions are not new. They revolve around state police, review of the federal structure and revenue allocation, control of the local government and devolution of power to states, which are component units of the federation that are, in the words of K.C Wheare, coordinate with the centre.

If all these proposals are collated and the National Assembly summons the courage to amend the 1999 Constitution to reflect true and proper federalism, separatist agitations will fizzle out and there will be peace in Nigeria.