IT is my humble opinion that a union of diverse peoples – if - TopicsExpress



          

IT is my humble opinion that a union of diverse peoples – if voluntarily negotiated in good faith, and with all fears – real or imagined – and interests taken account of on the basis of realism, mutual respect and empathy, equality, justice and fair play – affords a much greater chance of securing a finer quality of life for its constituent members than a collection of independent states possibly could. In view of this broad generalization, the obvious question that arises then, is why have so many of such unions failed [as, for example, in Yugoslavia] or failed to achieve their potential, and simply limped along [as in the case of Nigeria]. My answer to this is that political unions fail when they do not fulfil the caveat attached to my broad generalization : in our case, the union of Nigeria’s diverse ethnic nationalities – the building blocks of the Nigerian state – was not based on free will, realism, mutual respect and empathy, equality, justice and fair play. The critical series of constitutional conferences in the 1950s were a pale imitation of the sort of profound negotiations that were needed. These conferences were nothing but a deal done between the Colonial Office and the political parties representing, primarily, the major ethnic nationalities (even though they had members from some of the larger minority ethnic nationalities, added for effect), in which the narrow, selfish interests of the larger groups and, in particular, the British were paramount. For evidence of this, one need not look beyond the unsatisfactory way in which the Willink Commission resolved, in 1958, the question of the fears, aspirations, and interests of the minority ethnic nationalities. The late Justice Fatai Williams, a former Chief Justice of Nigeria, recounted his experience before this Commission in his memoirs (Faces, Cases and Places, pp. 50-51) : “...The Commission was ‘to ascertain the facts about the fears of minorities in any part of Nigeria and propose means of allaying those fears whether well or ill-founded.’...Chief Rotimi Williams, T.A. Bankole Oki and I appeared for the Government of Western Nigeria during its hearings in Lagos, Ibadan, Oyo, Benin City, Ilorin, Enugu and Calabar. In accordance with our briefs, we pressed hard for the creation of more states in the country, pointing out, with supporting evidence, that the Federation as it was then was too lopsided. All our pleas fell on deaf ears. At one of the sittings, I think it was in Benin City, we got fed up at being so blatantly ignored and ridiculed by the members of the Commission, that we decided, with the approval of the Premier (Chief Awolowo), to withdraw from further proceedings of the Commission. It took some time before we were persuaded to go back... Even though we returned, we had no doubt in our minds, partly because of the subtle caveat entered by the British Government in the Commission’s terms of reference, and partly because of the impatient attitude of the members of the Commission to our case, that they would make no recommendations for the creation of any more States in the Federation. We were, therefore, not surprised at the Commission’s Report which came out later in the year. Although the members of the Commission did say in their report that they found the existence of genuine fears on the part of the minorities, they, nevertheless, did not think that the creation of more States in the Federation the best means of allaying those fears. Instead, they recommended a series of ineffective palliatives. One wonders whether, if the Minorities Commission had recommended the creation of more States in the country, the stress which the Federation later found unbearable and resulted first in rigged elections, later in the final collapse of the First Republic, and finally the military takeover and the civil war would have appeared at all.” This tendency, on the part of the British government, create political unions from among disparate peoples, whilst under-estimating or glossing over the vast differences existing between them, was a consistent theme in colonial administration throughout the British Empire. It occurred in Africa, the Middle East, the Indian sub-continent and in the Far East, and, consequently laid the ground for much future instability in these parts of the world. A former British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, admitted this in the 4th volume of his memoirs, Pointing the Way, p.125 : “Nigeria, like many parts of Africa, has suffered from the careless, some might even say criminal, methods by which the different portions of the newly discovered parts of Africa were divided during the grab for colonies by rival European powers. One has only to look at the map to see how little account was taken of natural features or tribal groupings. There was thus imposed upon a large part of the continent an artificial system for which there was no basis of national loyalty....When the troubles began involving assassination and attempted secession, one could not be surprised.” I therefore believe that the Nigerian Union has not delivered on its promise because the colonial power, the United Kingdom, handed us at independence a “broken vessel”; we have since lived with “the curse of this broken vessel” that has completely proved unfit for the use for which it was meant. In order to undo the devastation wrought by this singular omission in our historical evolution, we need to understand, and sincerely come to terms with, the reality of our situation since 1947, when the representatives of all the Nigerian peoples, for the first time, sat in the same legislative body. If we engage in this honest soul-searching, the following facts will emerge : (1) “If the Southerners want unity, let them first of all embrace the religion of the Prophet.” - Sultan of Sokoto (Hassan, 1931-38, or his predecessor, Abubakar) in the 1930s. (2) “If the British quit Nigeria now, at this stage, the Northern people would continue their uninterrupted conquest to the sea.” - Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, budget debates in the Legislative Council on the Appropriation Bill, March, 1947. (3) “Many Nigerians deceive themselves by thinking that Nigeria is one...particularly some of the press people...This is wrong. I am sorry to say that this presence of unity is artificial and that it ends outside this chamber... and we in the North look upon them as invaders.” - Balewa [in reply to Dr Azikiwe’s motion condemning the creation of ill-will among the peoples of Nigeria and urging a united Nigerian outlook]. (4) “We despise each other...we call each other ignorant...the South is proud of Western knowledge and culture; we are proud of Eastern culture...To tell you the plain truth, the common people of the North put more confidence in the white man than in either their black Southern brothers or in the educated Northerners...The Southern press ridicule the Hausa and make disrespectful attacks on the emirs...there is a tendency to take the North for granted and assume that in a self-governing Nigeria the North would in effect be a background protectorate governed by Southerners.” - Abubakar Imam, at a meeting of the West African Students’ Union in the U.K., reported in the Nigerian Citizen, July 1, 1949. (5) “It would appear that the God of Africa has created the Igbo nation to lead the children of Africa from the bondage of ages...” - Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, The West African Pilot of July 8, 1949. (6) “I too, after conquering the South, will also divide Nigeria into two, to be taken charge of by two of my lieutenants.” - Sir Ahmadu Bello, Sunday Express, December. 20, 1959. (7) “...In April, 1966, the same Chief E.O. Eyo [former Chief Whip in the Eastern Nigeria House of Assembly in the 1950s, until he defected to the Action Group following a disagreement with Dr, Azikiwe] told both Ifeajuna and myself that he was first and foremost an Ibibio and then a Nigerian...” - Maj. Adewale Ademoyega, Why We Struck, p.129. (8) “I do not know about other nationalities in Nigeria, but not less than 95 per cent of Yoruba young men and women believe that what they should be working for is their own republic.” - “The Youths are Angry, and Chiefs Mislead Gen. Abacha” by Uncle Bola [Ige], The Sunday Tribune, February. 15, 1998. The foregoing, at first glance, may seem depressing and quite disturbing; however, in a country of many submerged nations such as Nigeria, it is only natural that different ethnic nationalities will have different fears, values and aspirations. It is also natural that they will strive to realize those aspirations regardless of what others may think, believing - and rightly so - that they have the right to control their destinies. This eternal truism explains the numerous crises that have continually bedevilled the Nigerian Union since its inception. Even the ongoing Islamist insurgency in the Northeast is, in its own warped way, an assertion of a community’s right to take control of their destiny [by insisting on realising their aspiration to have their lives governed according to the precepts of their religion]. In that sense, it is the latest in a continuum of events that include the “eight-point programme” of the Northern Nigeria legislature, in 1953, requesting for a confederation, in the aftermath of the bitter recriminations provoked by Anthony Enahoro’s self-government motion of that year; the agitation, in the 1950s, for the creation of states for the ethnic minorities in the Northern, Eastern and Western Regions; the crises in Tiv land and Western Nigeria during the First Republic; the riots in Northern Nigeria of May, 1966, and the Northern military counter-coup de etat of July 29, 1966, both provoked, in part, by the Ironsi’s government’s attempt to transform the country into a unitary state; the attempt to create the sovereign state of Biafra; the struggle for the validation of the June 12 elections; the insurgency in the Niger Delta over the control of the natural resources found there ; the sectarian conflicts in Plateau and Taraba states between the settler Fulanis and the indigenous peoples. With the convocation of a national constitutional conference by the Jonathan administration, the country has a chance – maybe the last one – to redress a 66 year-old omission, and engage, in good faith, in a negotiation that takes into account the fears, interests and aspirations of all ethnic nationalities, and which is based on free will, realism, mutual respect and empathy, equality, justice and fair play. If this is done, I believe the country will finally strike the right balance, and transform into a loose federation of largely autonomous component states, which, in the opinion of many constitutional law experts, is the only form of government that can successfully and happily accommodate a diverse collection of ethnic nationalities - with equally diverse aspirations - within the same country. Such an arrangement celebrates pluralism by allowing the different ethnic nationalities within a country to realise their conflicting aspirations, while, at the same time, partaking of all the advantages that a union of diverse peoples necessarily offers. If we are to be free of the “curse of this broken vessel,” and beneficially and peacefully co-exist, we must recast our federalism along this line. • Adeogun is a practising lawyer in the Ministry of Justice, Lagos State.
Posted on: Sun, 24 Nov 2013 19:39:41 +0000

Trending Topics



Recently Viewed Topics




© 2015