AGITATIONS FOR SECESSION IN NIGERIA: AUGURIES OF A TICKING TIME BOMB



AGITATIONS FOR SECESSION IN NIGERIA: AUGURIES OF A TICKING TIME BOMB



  
AGITATIONS FOR SECESSION IN NIGERIA: AUGURIES OF A TICKING TIME BOMB
            The propagation of hateful and divisive rhetoric via the (social) media, terrorism, militancy, reinforced threats from Arewa Youths (in the North), agitators for Oduduwa Republic (in the South West), the Niger Delta Avengers (who agitate for Niger Delta Republic), The Movement for the Actualization of Sovereign State of Biafra (led by Ralph Uwazuruike), Indigenous People of Biafra (a younger generation, impatient with what they see as the snail pace at which MASSOB has been moving) led by Nnamdi Kanu all loom large on the socio-political horizon of Nigeria. The last three are stroking different chords in galvanizing a new symphony for the actualization of the Biafran dream through secession.
             Secession is the act of a group’s withdrawal from the membership of an alliance or political union with whom such a group shares territorial connectedness. Crawford puts it succinctly when he notes that secession is the process by which a group seeks to separate itself from the state to which it belongs, and to create a new state on part of the territory of that state.[1] Agitation for secession is beginning to have physical manifestations out of the potent imagination of the agitators. The unveiling of a multi-million naira cenotaph built in memory of dead Biafran heroes, launching of a new Biafra motorcycle plate number and International passport by MASSOB, the announcement of a 25-stage plan by which the group hopes to peacefully actualize its aim as well as the resistance against the recent Operation Python dance in the East underscores this point. Arms and other dangerous weapons like machetes, petrol and beer bottles have been intercepted by the police during demonstrations with casualties resulting from such. Demonstration in celebration of Biafra day and to demand for Nnamdi Kanu’s release turned bloody in South East states where over 40 people, including a soldier were reportedly killed and over fifty people were arrested. [2] It doesn’t take a soothsayer to tell that the combination of these little demonstrations will one day escalate to a mickle destruction, if unchecked. As the saying goes, the human mind once stretched to another limit never returns to its initial state.
            This bring to mind the apt dictum of James Ajibola Idowu Ige, SAN (a renowned politician and lawyer) who, in the year 1994, gave a poetic and prophetic rendition of Nigeria’s two faces thus: “ On the radiant but anxious face, you can read quite clearly that the various peoples of Nigeria can and do want to stay together and  move forward together in unity, peace and progress if they are allowed to take decisions about their future calmly and without being harassed; the other face is squirming frantically, and the bloodshot eyes which stare so fearfully from that face seem to say that those eyes would rather bleak and scatter the peoples of Nigeria than allow them to decide their own future.”
            A walk down the aisle of history would reveal that agitations for secession are not new phenomena in Nigeria. Prior to independence, the Yoruba-dominated Action Group threatened secession if Lagos was maintained as the Federal Capital Territory. [3] In 1960, the north openly threatened secession unless it was guaranteed that a moiety of the seats in the federal parliament would be allocated to it. All these remained threats until May 1967, when the former Eastern Region of Nigeria formally seceded thus resulting in almost three years of a devastating war which is referred to by the Igbo as a genocide perpetrated by the North (Hausa-Fulani) and supported by the south-west.[4]   The period of war was notorious for the starvation of the besieged South Eastern region that led to more deaths than the actual fighting itself. The images of malnourished and stricken children became a cause celebre in the international media. No doubt, this had an indelible imprint on the Nigerian state even fifty years after.
            As gleaned above, independence from colonial rule set Nigeria on a rollercoaster ride of chaos, instability and destruction in which ethnicism, nepotism, thuggery and political brinkmanship were the order of the day thus creating a very fertile ground for secessionist agitation. In fact, the Igbo, like every other nationality in Nigeria still claim to be forcefully annexed (under colonial imperialism) into Nigeria which is felt by some people as just a mere geographical expression[5].  Sadly, till today (fifty years after the war) virtually all circumstances that led to the horrid images painted above have remained. There are still complaints of marginalization and hindered development of the South-East. The presidency has eluded the Igbo since the 1966 coup (the closest ever since was when Alex Ekwuemen was vice president in the second republic). The core Igbo south east zone has the least number of states (five). The lopsided appointments by the President Buhari against the south-east have also been perceived as deep rooted hatred for the Igbo nation.  In addition, the anti-corruption fight of this present administration is perceived as a move to portray a particular ethnic group as corrupt. Moreover, the present economic policies of banning the importation of some items is been view as a plot against Igbo economic interest. The political economy theory is to the effect that the presence of natural resources (oil, in this case) in a region this may breed the quest for secession to promote indigenous control of natural resources.[6]  This view appears to be another reason to spur on the agitations.
            J.S Mill’s National Self Determination theory is to the effect that in multinational states; there can be no feeling of sympathy, commonality and ergo no representative government. In consonance with this theory, the flames of secessionist agitations have been fuelled by paucity of rectitude in governance and the triumph of injustice, fear of domination, political, economic, ethnic, cultural and religious tensions, violence and divisions, kidnapping and high rate of thievery, economic sabotage through pipeline vandalism, militancy and most recently terrorism, repeated and repeatable agitations over electoral processes, bloodshed and the asymmetrical distribution of power among the various ethnic and geopolitical groups inter alia.  
            As a result, Mill, in his self-determination theory, concludes that the boundaries of a state should be in line with the boundaries of a nation.[7]  However, the Action Group’s request for voluntary secession was refused in the early years of independence. Consequently, the right to secede is non-existent in the existing legal framework. The European Union has suggested the conduct of a referendum and due process under international law. However, if this peaceful attempt fails, armed secession (which is unilateral) will have debilitating and violent consequences on the Nigerian landscape which may reverberate in many generations to come.          
            The position of the federal government over the years has been that of the non-negotiability of the country’s unity. It was stressed by Dr. Goodluck Jonathan during his opening speech at the 2014 confab as a “no go area” and has recently been reiterated by Buhari and his vice, Osinbajo. Unfortunately, mechanisms and policies of federal government which were thought to secure national unity like the National Youth Service Corp, unity schools, federal character (which has guaranteed nominal but not substantive equality), National sport festival, Catchment Area and so on have had little or no effect on national integration. Again secessionist agitations may be exacerbated by the burgeoning unemployment rate which, no doubt is a growing security concern. It portends a fertile ground for rebellious acts by unoccupied young men who may be perceived as “potential raw materials” for developing the Biafra and other secessionist sentiment.
            The downside of secession is that once a group successfully secedes, it may cascade into an avalanche of crisis and threats of further secession. For instance, in the Sudanese situation above, after the south Sudan seceded, local voices in the Dafur Region (Western Sudan) followed by international voices were raised. All these pointed to another threat of secession in Sudan. The same view was expressed by the late sage, Obafemi Awolowo, who indicated the view that following Biafra’s 1967 secession, the Yorubas would not wish to remain a truncated federation.
            Even if there is no further break up after secession, terrible suffering, massive loss of lives, of hope and fortunes of so many cannot be justified. Furthermore, Nigeria would be a much less interesting, much less colourful space, were secession to be the case. Imagine for a moment that a diligent student had to apply for a visa to travel to Enugu in order to further his studies, or that a creative entrepreneur from Aba had to apply for visa to travel to Ibadan to pursue his dreams. Again, these agitations if actualized would represent a devastating blow on the Nigerian socio-economic landscape due to the peculiar and enterprising nature of the Igbo tribe. The economy will be grinded to a halt if the Igbos are made to secede due to their notable contribution in transportation and the trade of foodstuff, clothes items, electronics among others.
            It is admitted, however that Unlike the 1967-1970 attempted secession, the agitation is still inhibited by lack of formal recognition by a substantial number of the international community, lack of high profile government officials overtly supporting the new agitation for Biafra, the reduction of territorial influence of Biafra to the five (5) core Igbo south Eastern states, the unwillingness of the former oil rich minorities to join Biafra, representative democracy that guarantee membership into the federal executive council, National Assembly and so on. It is noteworthy that these inhibitions pale significantly on a quotidian basis while the agitations continue with renewed fervor. Hence, dismissing the agitations as the result of sheer ignorance will certainly not suffice. Debate and disagreements are fundamental aspects of democracy and this necessity must be acknowledged. especially in view of the United Nations’ common country analysis for 2016 which revealed a deeply divided society on the basis of plurality of ethnic, religious and regional identities and gloomy economic woes [8]. The combination of the little violence looming in front of our very eyes portends mickle dangers. Shall we wait until these actions, inactions and reactions, interactions, reach boiling point?
            In view of the debilitating consequences of the increasing number of unoccupied youths, the government must as a matter of urgency, fast track efforts at shrinking the unemployment rate. Also, basic amenities should be distributed to the South-East region.  A state or two should be created in order to foster a greater sense of inclusiveness and equality while dousing the flame of tension. In addition, there should be a broader participation in the currently viable structure and better leadership anchored on transparency of the electoral process, integrity, absence of corruption and a strong sense of nationhood. Nigeria need not endure the revolutionary throes experienced by Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and South Sudan. She can be turned into a safe haven if she learns from history and particularly how Slobodan Milosevic’s advocacy for Serb hegemony led to the violent breakup of Yugoslavia in 1991 In contrast, USA has been able to thrive for centuries due to the agreement by constituent states on power sharing.
            Restructuring (based on a committed political will, openness, tolerance, and transparency) will provide security, promote tolerance for the civil and civic rights of aggrieved ethnic majorities and marginalized ethnic minorities, ensure political stability, lasting peace, and confidence in leadership. The views of Professor K.C Wheare that both state and federal authorities must control its separate resources since true federalism is best sustained by coordinate rather than subordinate relationship is apposite. It is the self-expression and self-fulfillment of the constituent states and local governments (within a framework of national unity)[9] that will provide political stability for Nigeria’s large size and complex culture.  This restructuring should take the form of political decentralization. When secession is a real risk, central governments can use political decentralization as a substitute for costly violence to reduce the risk. Political decentralization" refers to the granting of local autonomy over policies important to local identity such as education and culture, as well as over policies important to local welfare such as environment and health, combined with the buttressing of self-government by allowing local voters to elect their own representatives. This assuages ethno nationalist minorities' symbolic fears of being swamped, or "losing ownership" of their region[10]
            In conclusion, the political elite should drop their self-serving posture and avert their minds to the warning signs of a state’s socio-political and economic collapse (such as waning of political, social and economic institutions, flourishing of crime and violence, monopolization of national wealth by an increasing narrow elite and excluded groups becoming desperate) so as to prevent war since it is not a romantic ideal. In view of the high cost for nation building, national unity, political and economic development, secession should be averted. If this is done, we can through thick and thin forge unity in diversity and refuse to fall into the lure of secession. Not even the National Conference, reconciliatory commissions nor press statements made by the presidency over the years will effectively tackle secessionist agitations. The power brokers and rulers of Nigeria should no longer quote the experience of “Biafra secession” to scare people into submission, while holding them hostage in a failing, sick and totally inept, morally bereft Nigeria. Leaders must realize that although democracy consists of many seductions, it is also an excruciating activity of the development of any deficient status quo.   Will the most populous country in Africa and one of the most diverse countries of the world (both in ethnicity and religion) retain its glory as the giant of Africa or will the story be told of a towering nation, now balkanized and bulldozed into the trash can of history? Time will tell.


[1] This definition was given by Crawford, J. (1997) in his book; “State Practice and International Law in Relation to Unilateral Secession.”
[2] Vanguard Newspapers, 31 May 2016": “South-East burns as Biafra Day turns bloody.”

[3] Ojeleye, O. (2010) in “The Politics of Post-War Demobilisation and Reintegration in Nigeria”
[4] Chinua Achebe (2012).  There was a country: A personal history of Biafra, page 228.
[5] Obafemi Awolowo (1966). Path to Nigerian freedom, page 48.
[6] This is expressed by Collier, P., & Hoefffler, A. (2002) in their work, “The Political Economy of Secession”

[7] Mill, J.S. (1991) On Nationality, as connected with Representative Government, John Gray (ed.) Oxford University Press.

[8] Opejobi, S.(2016). Nigeria one of the poorest countries in the world, over 80m living below
poverty line- UN report, Daily Post, 5 September


[10] Horowitz, Donald L. (1985) Ethnic Groups in Conflict, pp 129-31, 216-19




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

TIPS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION

GOAL SETTING AND GO GETTING; THE EAGLE EXAMPLE (PART FOUR)

WHERE YOU ARE IS NOT WHO YOU ARE