The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Amalgamation

  • 100 years of amalgamation: a country or a nation?

    100 years of amalgamation: a country or a nation?

    While the words, nation and country are often used interchangeably, according to the dictionary, they are not really synonyms semantically speaking.  Google has this to say about the two, “A nation is a large group of people with similar characteristics and culture. A country is a geographic region that has boundaries and borders. The important thing to remember is that a country has its own national government while a nation has its own national character”.

    Nigeria as it exists today was an economically expedient creation of the British colonial government with Lord Frederick Lugard the then governor of both the Northern Nigeria Protectorate and the colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. Socially, the word Nigeria has been explained as, ‘Niger Area’ having been suggested by the then partner of Lugard, Flora. There are two prominent rivers in Nigeria, rivers Niger and Benue with a confluence in Lokoja in the present day Kogi state. The amalgamation took place on January 1, 1914.

    The amalgamation is now a century old and the independence of Nigeria 64 years old. Looking back at the amalgamation, nothing prompted the action besides political economy. The Southern Protectorate then had a very buoyant economy and the colonial administration sought to balance out the Northern deficit with the Southern surplus. In economic terms, the situation has not really changed. The poverty index still tilts heavily against the North.

    Read Also; FULL LIST: 22 sacked, suspended Ministers in Nigeria from 1999 – 2024

    Out of school children in Nigeria seems to be the global highest with more than 50% of the number that stands at about 20million in the northern region of the country. Malnutrition, maternal and child mortality, illiteracy and other major indices of underdevelopment weigh heavily against the North. Presently, the economy of the region is not faring better either as social crimes like insurgency, banditry, kidnapping and herdsmen attacks on farmers have not only impacted socio-economic lives of the region but invariably the whole country.

    Since the amalgamation, there have been debates both at forml and informal fora about the viability and value of the amalgamation.  Given the google definition of the words, nation and country, Nigeria seems straddled on the fence of both terms. Even more than six decades after independence, the constituent units of Nigeria seems to be the proverbial oil and water – difficult to mix.

    The Roundtable Conversation believes that the political elites before and after independence have contributed in the alienation that has happened between the people of the two regions. In 1952, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa had said  ““…the Southern people who are swarming into this region daily in large numbers are really intruders. We don`t want them and they are not welcome here in the North. Since the amalgamation in 1914, the British Government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people are different in every way including religion, custom, language and aspiration. The fact that we`re all Africans might have misguided the British Government. We here in the North, take it that `Nigerian unity` is not for us.” (As cited by A. Adeleye, “Amalgamation of 1914, Was it a mistake”? Vanguard, Lagos, May 18, 2012).

    He went on to become the post-independence Prime Minister from 1960 – 1966. Even though he voiced his opinion, politicians from other regions possibly shared his views about their own regions especially after the first and subsequent coup d’etats that seems to have poisoned the political space. Even the first coup was seen as a regional agenda and the pogrom that preceded the civil war cannot be said to be unconnected with spoken and unspoken regional alliances.

    The post-civil war political rhetoric and the inability of the then head of state, Gen. Yakubu Gowon (Rtd.) to keep to his promise of the three Rs; Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation did little to reunite the amalgamated people. This in a way set the pace for further divisions as the regions started being split into states trying in a way to isolate the Igbo speaking areas. The creation of the twelve states led to the creation of 19 states then to 36 states all by military governments. The reasons were as political as they were divisively incoherent as most of the states are insolvent and not viable. While there has been political capital from the splitting of the amalgamated regions into 36 states, the economic value has been a total disaster a Nigeria is seemingly the poverty capital of the world with governments not serving the people.

    Have there been benefits from the amalgamation 100 years after? This is debatable.  To many scholars, in reality, the regions seem to have been disempowered economically as the regional economic viability seems to have waned. The centralization of power has economically weakened the constituent regions as attention seems to be on oil that came following the discovery of oil in commercial quantity in Oloibiri in Bayelsa state. Nigeria made so much money from oil that the then head of state, Yakubu Gowon had in what many saw as a juvenile exuberant rant boasted then that money was not Nigeria’s problem but what to do with it.

    The regions became very indolent and deviated from their areas of economic advantage and focused on oil money. Mismanagement of government structures by successive governments, whether military or civilian has led to the impoverishment of the entity called Nigeria. The political class seemingly corrupted by the military has done nothing to upgrade the country economically. Nepotism based on regional patronage and weaponization  of ethnicity and religion have been the bane of Nigeria as a country.

    Nations are not divine gifts, they are made by humans who value the human family in ways that encourage them to bring people together and optimally manage the values of differences. It needs leaders with vision and a defined mission to coalesce a people with differences in language, culture, religion and history to work in unity and with a view of building a nation rooted in mutual respect, economic growth and political equity.

    The myopic nature of successive governments in Nigeria since 1960 has continued to inspire divisive tendencies amongst the general population. Leadership has really been lacking and most leaders have lacked the will and charisma to see beyond ethnic and religious affiliations. Nigeria has lacked a sense of unity in real terms because even though there is a working constitution, in practical terms, the leaderships often have worked in breach of the constitution.

    The upholding of law and order is a sine qua non to the building of a cohesive nation. The abuse of power and the monopolization of political structures by certain groups in the Nigerian states continue to push the country towards the edge. Progressively, the political class at local ,state and federal levels keep finding areas of differences to project as far as they can get political advantages to exclude others.  

    While the Roundtable Conversation believes the British was not fair in arbitrarily amalgamating the country in 1914, it might have turned out better and more prosperous were the successive leaders nationalistic enough to unite the country sincerely rather than speaking from both sides of the mouth. At some point when their political ambitions are at stake, they talk unity, when they access the power, they resort to ethnic and religious patronages.

    Even though Nigerian politicians often pride themselves in the adoption of the American presidential system, in practice, they bring in personal idiosyncrasies that are often as negative as they are highly divisive. No nation seems as diverse as the United States when it comes to the population. However, America has at least one of the highest citizen’s sense of citizenship than any other nation on earth.  This is not a divine gift. It is the product of the foresight of the founding fathers of America and the architects of the constitution.

    It therefore says something of the successive leaders of Nigeria that at least 60 years after independence, the country is more divided than expected. The poverty level translates to underdevelopment that must not continually be attributed to colonialism. Nigeria as a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious country can be guided into the path of nationhood with the willingness of the political class to focus on the people and see more value in the diversity than in pushing the difference rhetoric.

    Nationhood stems from the sense of belonging each citizen feels. The fire of patriotism is always lit by the leadership of nations stirring the ship of state that leaves no one behind either based on boundaries,  religion, or ethnic background. The agitations for  ethnic nationalities and the multi-faceted regional advocacy groups are pointers to the inequity and the sense of injustice and exclusion by various groups. Sadly, the architects of the divisions are politicians and not the regular people .

    On the social levels, Nigerians from the North and South have always co-existed together. They have lived together with intermarriages and election victories outside their regions. Today, the narrative is different. Politicians in Nigeria must have some introspection. What has nepotism and ethnic bigotry benefited the people? Nigerian politicians keep widening the trust deficit gap with the people across the country because they do not work hard enough to inspire patriotism and development.

    The amalgamation of 1914 is not the reason for the present state of affairs in Nigeria, the lack of a truly uniting force in the political class from independence is to blame. A country can be nurtured to a nation by the sheer will power of the leaderships to see value in diversity. Britain through Lord Luggard might have had an economic intent but after independence, Nigerian leaders ought to have founded a system of national integration that can inspire development harnessing all the human and natural resources the country is blessed with.

    The dialogue continues…

  • Amalgamation at 110

    Amalgamation at 110

    • Still divided as ever

    One hundred and ten years ago, on  January 1, 1914, British colonial hegemons welded together the deeply disparate Southern and Northern Protectorates and Lagos into a socio-culturally and socio-politically complex entity called the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. The amalgamation was effected by Lord Fredrick Lugard who was the Colonial Governor of the erstwhile protectorates. It is widely believed that the amalgamation was a cynical colonial convenience “not intended to help Nigerians” in any major way.  

    In fact, to the question “How has social interaction evolved in Nigeria from 1914 to 1960?”, SciSpace (an online information service) replied: “Social interaction in Nigeria underwent significant changes from 1914 to 1960. During this period, there was an acceleration of contacts between Nigerians and the wider world, leading to the emergence of new ideas, languages, and relationships.”

     However, unable to shed the sectional, cultural and religious influences of their origins in different parts of Nigeria, the new local elite engaged in fierce regional, ethnic and religious contestations. 

    Justifying the secession of the Igbo part of Nigeria arising from these conflicts, the Biafra war leader Chukwuemeka Odumegu Ojukwu said, around four months into the civil war which started on July 6, 1967: “Over the years, our erstwhile compatriots have made it clear, in unmistakable terms, that they did not want us in the federation… Furthermore, the experience of the three harrowing waves of remorseless genocide in 1945, 1953, and especially in 1966, involving a total of nearly 40,000 dead and countless others maimed or destitute provided an object lesson which could not but be taken seriously… And it is this that has compelled the harassed and persecuted people of Eastern Nigeria to seek refuge in their own home and amongst their kindred.”

    In the 1945 Jos riots, which led to deaths and the destruction of property, fighting broke out, mainly between the Hausa-Fulani and the Igbo, due to ethnic, political, economic and religious tensions. Moreover, the 1953 Kano riots and the Araba (or secession) threat by the North arising from disagreements on whether self-rule should be granted from 1956 (as Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s Action Group proposed) or “as soon as practicable” (as Sir Ahmadu Bello’s Northern Peoples Congress preferred) also recorded heavy casualties. Controversies also trailed the 1959 elections which were to lead to independence from Britain in 1960, with some people believing that the elections were manipulated by the British to give ascendancy to Northern Nigeria over the South.

    Intra-regional conflicts in the Western Region arising from the 1962 elections were also an unsavoury carryover from the 1959 elections. 

    Lingering ethnic, regional and religious mistrust which can be traced to post-amalgamation and pre-independence Nigeria led to the January 1966 coup which many believe was an Igbo coup, and the coup of July 1966 which is widely believed to be a retaliatory Hausa-Fulani coup. These coups led to the civil war of  July 6, 1967 to January 15, 1970, that followed the declaration of the Igbo-dominated Eastern Region as the independent nation of Biafra on May 30, 1967. Millions of lives were lost in the war.

    The legacy of the 1914 amalgamation has as such largely been one of war, death and destruction for Nigeria. Deep divisions and mistrust continue even till today. This manifested in, for example, the formation of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) seeking the breakaway of Igboland from the Nigerian federation and Yoruba Nation agitators seeking the creation of a separate Yoruba entity. Even Northern groups also join the fray as they did on June 6, 2017, when they asked Igbos to leave the North within three months.

    Read Also: Amalgamation of Fulani groups endorse Tinubu

    Some are of the view that the amalgamation of 1914 was carried out with the proviso that after 100 years, if the amalgamated parts of the country believed that it was no longer worthwhile, the union could be dissolved. There was therefore palpable anticipation of the break-up of Nigeria in 2014, just as there was in 1966. In fact, an August 12 , 1966, article of TIME magazine ominously titled, “Nigeria: Toward Disintegration?”, cited this December 1964 entreaty by President Nnamdi Azikiwe: “If Nigeria must disintegrate, then in the name of God, let the operation be short and painless. It is better that we disintegrate in peace and not in pieces.”

    The foregoing raise the questions: “What have we done that have made such dispiriting sentiments to remain strong, in spite of the complex and growing web of social interrelationships through inter-ethnic marriages, intimate inter-ethnic personal friendships and cross-ethnic business relationships? And what do we need to do to end the simmering ethnic and religious distrust? Would fixing the economy and reconfiguring the Nigerian federation to allow for more socio-cultural expression help?” Providing the right answers to these questions would lead Nigeria to fulfill its destiny.      

  • Calls for restructuring hinged on faulty 1914 amalgamation

    Some historians have attributed growing calls for restructuring to the faulty amalgamation of the Southern and Northern protectorates by the Governor General of the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria, Sir Lord Lugard, in 1914.

    Lugard was governor general until 1919.

    Prominent historians – Professors Bolanle Awe and Olutayo Adesina – agreed with British journalist-turned historian, Richard Bourne, that a faulty foundation was laid for the structure of Nigeria when the then British governor announced the amalgamation of both protectorates to become one country in 1914.

    The historians and other experts spoke yesterday in Ibadan, Oyo State capital, at the presentation and review of a book, by Bourne, at the Ibadan School of Government and Public Policy (ISGGP).

    Titled: Nigeria: A New History of a Turbulent Century, Bourne’s book gives account of events that led to the 1914 amalgamation and challenges the country has been grappling with since then.

    The author posits on page 21 of the book: “What had Frederick Lugard achieved? He retired as the first governor general of the colony and protectorate of Nigeria in January, 1919, two months after the First World War had ended. He always had his critics in London but the widespread British view that he was a great proconsul, the empire builder of West Africa, looked rather different on the ground. He had made Nigeria a fact, but it was still really two Nigerias, North and South.

    “He had rejected the ideas of administrators like Charles Temple, lieutenant governor in Northern Nigeria from 1914 to 1917, to break up Nigeria into four or seven provinces. By prohibiting Christian missionaries in the North and not doing much to promote modern education in that large region, he had disadvantaged northerners. Their culture and religion led them to look northwards across the Sahara, along the old trading routes and east via Cairo and Khartoum towards Mecca. They shared little with their neighbours to the South.

    “Apart from tackling slavery and sending punitive expeditions when required, Lugard did little to challenge the autocracies of the North: he was an autocrat himself.”

    The historians and other discussants agreed that the time was right for Nigerians to dialogue on how to restructure the country to quench the flame of mutual suspicion, distrust amid imbalances in the system, as the country is currently structured.

    According to them, restructuring will correct the faults in the foundation Lugard and his advisers laid down.

    They contended that Nigerians are willing to continue to live together, adding that they only wanted the imbalances corrected.

    Prof. Awe, who chaired the book reading, said the event was apt because it came at a time calls for restructuring were reaching a good height.

    The renowned historian noted that calls for restructuring and gender equality would unify the citizens the more, irrespective of religious or ethnic background.

    She hailed the return of History as a subject in schools, saying it is one of the best decisions the government has taken.

    Prof. Adesina called for books that simplify history for school children and assist to sustain their interest in the subject.

    Mr Ademola Adesola of Tech University in Ibadan insisted that Nigerians should not be afraid to discuss their future.

    Dr Sharon Omotoso of the University of Ibadan (UI) stressed the need for reorientation before things get worse.

    Welcoming participants to the programme, the Executive Vice Chairman, ISGPP, Dr Tunji Olaopa, noted that the additional aim of the project is to raise the bar for public discourse in Nigeria through books.

    Bourne is a senior research fellow at the Institute of Commonwealth Studies at the University of London. He was a journalist and an active participant in Commonwealth affairs since 1982.

    He was education correspondent of The Guardian of London, assistant editor for New Society, and deputy editor of the London Evening Standard.

    Bourne entered Nigeria as a journalist in 1981. Since then, he has bonded with the country and some citizens through who he acquired a deep knowledge of Nigeria and its history, besides the knowledge garnered through his work at the Commonwealth.

    He also worked on some other African countries.

  • Amalgamation menu

    Ironically, Nigeria’s formal celebration of the centenary of its1914 Amalgamation, scheduled to run throughout 2014, is happening at a time of mounting discontent over the very composition of the union. However, this cannot be a good reason for non-recognition of the anniversary, or a perfunctory acknowledgement of the historical juncture.

    To employ a biological metaphor, a centenarian is a newsmaker any day; and by the same token, a 100-year milestone in a country’s affairs cannot be un-newsworthy. When all is said and done, there is no doubt that the amalgamation was both historically significant and historically consequential.

    It is notable that the ultimate merger followed earlier combinations that were similarly of historical import and consequence. While the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria, which comprised the pre-colonial states of the Sokoto Caliphate, the Bornu Empire and the Kano Emirate, took shape in 1890, the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, made up of the Niger Coast Protectorate and the colony of Lagos, was concretised in 1900. It was these northern and southern protectorates that became the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria in 1914 by the creative licence of Sir Frederick Lugard who became the country’s first Governor General and ruled in the name of colonial Britain until 1919.

    In reality, therefore, the name “Nigeria” even predated the amalgamation, which is a point to ponder in the divisive debate over the nationhood of the political entity that resulted from the merger. If the name was shared by the northern and southern protectorates before the union, it implied that they were already notionally linked, meaning that an actual combination was always a possibility. Questions: Could the amalgamation have been avoided? If so, would the different protectorates have retained their common identity? How would the issue of independence have been tackled in the separate protectorates?

    Interestingly, the name is a coinage credited to Dame Flora Louise Shaw, who became Lady Lugard by marriage to the man who welded the mix. A British journalist and writer who reportedly had an abiding interest in imperialism, Shaw provided an argument for the name in The Times of 8 January, 1897. According to her: “The name Nigeria applying to no other part of Africa may without offence to any neighbours be accepted as co-extensive with the territories over which the Royal Niger Company has extended British influence, and may serve to differentiate them equally from the colonies of Lagos and the Niger Protectorate on the coast and from the French territories of the Upper Niger.” In other words, the name, which was adopted in 1898, was conceived as a novel brand.

    It is remarkable that the thought of a change of name did not come up in the boiling build-up to the country’s independence from Britain in 1960, and even in the post-colonial era, which is perhaps a statement about its local acceptance, despite the fact that it was a foreign creation and imposition.

    It is food for thought that the singular instance of nomenclatural rejection had devastating implications for the union, speaking of the Nigerian Civil War of 1967 to 1970 following the declaration of the independent Republic of Biafra by the then Eastern Region headed by the military governor Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu. The rest of Nigeria, which was then under military rule, firmly rejected the secession, and the ensuing conflict reportedly consumed over 1 million lives before the secessionists surrendered. For both sides, it was a huge price indeed to pay for preserving the union as well as the integrity of territorial designation.

    In the context of alternative history, it is interesting to contemplate the consequence of a victory for the rebels, the sovereignty of Biafra and the redefinition of Nigeria’s political space. Forty four years after the war, it is apparent that wounds have not fully healed and the spectre of dissolution is alive with the campaign by the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), which continues to remind the country of the failure of the union.

    Certainly, there are other faces of centrifugal energy. What about the threat by Boko Haram, which is pursuing an Islamic theocracy in direct contradiction to the constitutional secularity of the state? What about militants in the oil-rich Niger Delta, who have not been tamed by official amnesty, and insist on resource control or hell for the country? Or, excuse the reduction to absurdity, what about Ijaw loudmouths who continue to shout that President Goodluck Jonathan’s re-election is non-negotiable, even if the electorate says “No”?

    The union is obviously disunited. Perhaps the most symptomatic element of the disharmony is the contentious idea of a conference to reimagine the country. The pros and cons of such confab, its character, its reliability, its acceptability and its practicability, among other critical aspects, are nowhere near any conclusion. It is a sign of foundational dysfunction that the fundamental issues of nationhood are yet unsettled after a century of blurred togetherness.

    Curiously, there are allegations that it was on account of British machinations that the northern part of the country enjoyed political dominance in the immediate post-colonial era and well beyond. However, the undeniable fact is that those who continue on such a slippery path of reasoning may be guilty of scapegoating. One especially striking strand of this argument is that the North has been the weak link in the country’s development chain, and that the rest of the nation space could do without the drawback. Evidently, such superficiality tends to shrink the wider picture and, perhaps unwittingly, provides a cover for general elite misrule, which no one can pin on the long-gone colonialists.

    The theme of the Nigerian Centenary Project, One Nigeria, Great Promise, positively insists on oneness, which, however, cannot be taken for granted. According to the organisers, the 12-month long festivity will “highlight the key concepts of unity, indivisibility, virility, progress and the promise of the Nigerian federation.” The vision is “to project a united, vibrant and progressive nation that is ready to be a world leader;” while the mission is “to re-inspire a sense of unity in all Nigerians.” Among the objectives of the project, one important aspiration holds a promise for future generations, specifically, to “institute legacy projects that will serve as a lasting reference for the Centenary.”

    More importantly, with the country’s decisive 2015 general elections ahead, and the political class already playing with dangerous fireworks, the historic celebration should be accompanied by sufficient sobriety. The leaders must keep their heads on their shoulders, and ensure that it does not turn out to be a merriment that precedes disaster.

  • Amalgamation: When will Lugard rest in peace?

    Amalgamation: When will Lugard rest in peace?

    Amalgamation was a contingency of history. Nigeria was, and still is, a contraption of the incompatibles. Frederick Lugard was the lord of the confusion. The likes of Prof. Richard Olaniyan and Dr. Kayode Fayemi who are theorizing on amalgamation and the national question, are constructionists engineering a change that may appear complex.

    Aside from his major crime-converging or amalgamating ‘the strange assorted’ into the Nigerian state, Lord Lugard’s other offence was to commit a historical sin, the kind of sin that will be difficult to forgive and forget. Nay, his sin was to fall into the trap of history and historians whose major preoccupation is the persecution and over-reporting of historical offenders. Men of evil and errors like Hitler and Lugard can hardly rest in peace because historians like Profs Olaniyan and Akin Alao will keep reminding them in their graves, of their past evil and blunders. What blunder did Lord Lugard commit? Let’s hear Olaniyan and Alao in their re-packaged book: The Amalgamation and Its Enemies: “As the first governor of Northern protectorate of Nigeria, Sir Frederick Lugard failed in the development of the economic potentials of the North. He became too excited, fascinated and obsessed with the means (indirect rule and power) at the expense of the end (an economically viable Northern Nigeria). When he therefore proposed the amalgamation of the two protectorates, he probably wanted to conceal his failure and inadequacies…”

    Olaniyan and Alao’s imperial judgement must have been influenced by what Antrobus wrote about Lugard: “Sir F. Lugard has many good qualities. He has plenty of goals, he is full of ideas and he is not afraid of taking responsibility. But he is not a prudent or farseeing administrator, his schemes are not well thought out and he has more than once involved us in heavier expenditure than contemplated.”

    I know that the historian’s main responsibility is to commence his investigation from reasons for an action and causes of an event, I submit humbly that Olaniyan’s generalist approach to the Lugardian blunder was conceptually inappropriate. Accusing a man, a dead man for that matter, of covering up his “failure and inadequacies” with an idea he thought was in the best interest of his colonial office, and the people of Nigeria, without taking into cognizance some “vast impersonal forces” that might have compelled his action, was incorrect.

    This is why I am inclined to agree with Prof. Segun Gbadegesin’s argument when he wrote that “there are three possible approaches to the evaluation of the act of amalgamation.” He submits: “First, it is not self-contradictory for one person to hold both verdicts. One may renounce the act of colonization and amalgamation as a morally reprehensible deed because it violates the principle of justice. On the other hand, one may look at the outcome of the amalgamation in terms of the overall good it supposedly produces, from a utilitarian perspective, and consider it an act of GOD.”

    Second, one may see amalgamation as well as its outcome as an act of GOD. From a fatalistic point of view (what will be will be), if GOD did not want it, Lugard and his British constabulary would not overpower the forces of resistance in the north and south. Whatever GOD allows to happen is good, no matter our human understanding. Therefore, the amalgamation was not only an act of GOD, it was also good. This is the spirit of theodicy. But it may also be argued that the outcome of the amalgamation was good for the peoples of the north and south. And since GOD is the author of whatever is good, it was an act of GOD.

    This is his third approach. One may see first, the amalgamation in itself as a morally heinous deed for the reason stated above, and second, its consequences for the people of the north and the south as terribly bad. In this case, the motivation for and the outcome of amalgamation is morally obnoxious, whatever small mercies proceed therefrom.

    I maintain that the issue of amalgamation transcends what history alone can explain except it is willing to extend the frontiers of its search and discourse to the philosophical realm. Agreed Lugard was the actor of the amalgamation and should be made to carry the responsibility of its “unworkability”, what role do we assign the “vast impersonal forces” that possibly influenced Lugard’s action? It must be understood that important as the role of the great man is in the historical process, this role is just one of the several factors facilitating historical process. And any attempt to interprete the historical process exclusively on the basis of the declared motives or intentions of the principal historical actors or on the basis of options made by these actors, or from the actors, deriving from these actions, is doomed to futility.

    Again, Lugard is morally permitted to justify or defend his action by blaming it on “determinism” which imposes limitations on man and his actions. If we assume, rightly or wrongly, that actors’ choices and therefore, actions, are pre-determined and therefore such actors are exonerated from their actions, why do we still haunt Lugard in his grave for a mistake that was “pre-determined”? Trying to look at determinism and other possibilities that compelled Lugard’s action is not to automatically exclude him, as a historical actor, from the consequences of his action, but to explain that, with determinism, events that happened as they have happened could not have happened differently unless something in the cause or causes have also been different. This is why some writers believe that amalgamation was a contingency of history that has placed a moral and patriotic burden on us all in ensuring that we do not negate it. The challenge we have as a nation and as a people, is to accept our present predicament as a condition deserving of a clinical resolution.

    The discourse on national question which is one of the burdens imposed on us by amalgamation is one way of creating the energy and mental capacity for an enduring resolution. The beautiful thing about Olaniyan’s book is that it attempts a comprehensive recording of the debate on national question, capturing both the sensible and the ridiculous, with a view to reflecting the totality of the arguments from north to south. This forms the concluding chapter of this must-have book which contains a heavy dose of intellectual capsules.

    If Olaniyan’s narratives and investigation of amalgamation are tangentially theoretical, Kayode Fayemi’s treatment of the National Question in his book, Regaining the Legacy, is understandably technical. Exhibiting his expertise in theoretical constructs, Fayemi called for a collective reflection on the future of the nation and how we can evolve the institutional mechanisms to manage our diversity and difference. He posits: “Since the dawn of independence, Nigeria has been driven by numerous dissensions and crises that have exacerbated the fault-lines of our plural, multi-ethnic society where diverse groups were yoked together by our erstwhile colonial warlords, the British, for their own administrative and pecuniary interests.”

    This is the big difference between the historian and the political scientist. While Olaniyan was talking about “Lugard’s failure and inadequacies” and how the mistake was made, Fayemi was talking about “reflecting on the future”. But Fayemi’s reflection on the future was made easy because the historian, Olaniyan, was able to provide him the “historical cause(s)” for our diversity and difference. To reinforce this, Fayemi explains: “…the status of the National Question and which troubles the national consciousness is traceable to the structural deficits and imbalances evolving from the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates of Nigeria to from a unified colony by colonial Governor-general, Lord Lugard in 1914.”

    Another historian Prof. Siyan Oyeweso, the ubiquitous intellectual of histo-politico vocation, is contemplating using his birthday to do a “reflection” on the illusions and the realities of the amalgamation. The intervention, which is his own contribution to nation-building, is to generate additional materials for the literature on amalgamation and raise the bar of national discourse especially on the national question.

    Oyeweso’s intervention captivates me for certain reasons. First, it will be stimulating to know the interpretive context in which “illusions” and “realities” will be enclosured. Is the discourse going to adopt a traditional approach to interpreting illusion as “a historical mishap or a failed vision,” in which case, Lord Lugard will be persecuted as usual? Or is it going to look at “illusion” as a philosophical concept which becomes paralysed after a head-on collision with geographical and political realities? Then what are these realities? Fayemi attempts a political description: “These imbalances have deepened and become entrenched to the point of enabling certain groups within the emergent state to persistently thrive and hoard benefits to the exclusion of others from what ought to be a national communion. This has transpired, even when the privileged groups did not necessarily possess the material base or the merit to justify the privileged advantage.”

    I have deliberately labeled Fayemi’s description “political” because his articulation of “realities” seems at variance with another reality; which is that the phrase “certain groups” contains some ambiguities. Is he talking about the political class and its subsidiaries or is he talking about ethnic nationalities and their militias or is he talking about the social stratification whereby the decadent discontents feel excluded from the nation’s Commonwealth by the privileged groups? Whatever it is, the reality of our political situation is that every group, every ethnic nationality and every social group can justify abandonment, exclusion, marginalization and neglect. The way our political system is structured provides justification for perpetual complaint, acrimony and agitation. This position is also supported by Fayemi when he attributes the reasons for the national question to the “faulty political architecture of the country passed down from colonial rule and deepened by a self-serving and rapacious postcolonial elite, which not only privatized the state for personal gains, perpetrated bad governance and played up divisions to sustain its base, but promoted an authoritarian ethos that enabled poverty, violence and crime.”

    I am not too sure if this paper was written before or after Fayemi had regained the ‘Ekiti’ legacy, but I want to believe that now that he too has joined the league of “postcolonial elite” or “postcolonial ruling class”, he may have a rethink on this statement which looks more like an indictment of the elite and the ruling class which he belongs.

    Though Prof. Olaniyan has never held any political office nor has he ever been the governor of any State like Fayemi, this does not exclude him from sharing in the blame for the failure of the elite to rectify “the mistake of 1914”. I agree that he is playing his role in nation-building by his active participation in the development of the human mind as a university teacher and judging by the quality of books he churns out. But he may reduce the level of his frustration about the nonchalance of the political class to nation-building if he considers active political involvement especially in the backroom where he can operationalise what he has been theorizing. The political space no longer condones intellectual enterprise that lacks palpable practicality.

    My final appeal to our egg-heads is that in the course of showing ourselves as thorough professionals, we must refrain from judgements that tend to excoriate the dead, for the simple reason that they are handicapped by eternal silence which prevents them from justifying their actions or explaining their inaction. The advantage the living have over the dead should not be abused to the point of “flogging a dead man” who has no right of reply. Nothing could be more wicked than this. As a historian myself, I know history deals with the past actions of historical actors but must we lose our sense of decency and morality because we want to report the past? We can avoid judgements in reporting the past especially when there is no evidence to vilify the dead. Unlike Hitler whose actions led to the deaths of millions of people, Lugard was a man whose “mistake” led to the birth of a great nation with potential for global prominence. The elite, or the political class, should be held responsible for failing to rectify this “mistake” because it was, and still is, convenient for them to keep exploiting it to achieve both political and economic expediency.

    Nigerians should allow Lugard to rest in peace. The mistake he made was rectifiable and correctable. If our leaders lack the political will to correct “the mistake of 1914” we the people can force them to come up with “the correction of 2014” if we are not comfortable co-existing together as a nation and as a people. This can be the national answer to the national question. Why keep blaming the dead for what the living can correct?

  • Was amalgamation of Nigeria a mistake?

    Before the advent of the British colonialists and not colonial masters, Nigeria as a socio-political entity was neither in existence nor contemplated; the territories that now make up Nigeria existed in fragments. We have the Benin Empire, the Lower Niger Kingdoms (popularly referred to as the Oil Rivers), the Fulani Empire of Zodge (later referred to as Sokoto), and the Kanem-Borno Empire. In addition, there were the Oduduwa Empire of the Yoruba, and the Aro-Chukwu Empire of the Ibo. Another was the Aboh Empire that sprang from the Benin Empire.

    However, there was no systematic contact between one empire and the other. There were isolated trade contacts among the people of the Lower Niger Kingdom and the Benin Kingdom. Different names were used for the territories now incorporated in Nigeria and the whole area was referred to as the Hausa territories, the Niger Empire, the Niger Sudan and the Niger Coast Protectorates.

    The Nigerian state, created in 1914, as an act of British colonialism, by the amalgamation of two existing British colonial states, the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria and the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria was 100 years old on the 1st day of January 2014. It is most appropriate at this point to define the meaning and effect of ‘amalgamation’. Obviously, amalgamation means the fusing or merging of two bodies or entities into one, with the result that both cease to exist and are replaced by the new body or entity. In other words, on their amalgamation in 1914, the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria and the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria ceased to exist as separate legal entities and were replaced by a single entity called the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria.

    Many Nigerians have aired their views on the amalgamation that is now 100 years. A former Minister of Petroleum Resources, Professor Tam David-West, stated without mincing words that the country exists along ethnic and religious divides, insisting that there was nothing to celebrate because the amalgamation was a mistake. This is because from 1914 till date, Nigeria cannot showcase any tangible achievements.

    By: Charles Ikedikwa Soeze,

    Petroleum Training Institute (PTI), Effurun, Delta State.

     

  • The amalgamation and its enemies

    In recent times, a lot has been written and said about the amalgamation of British protectorate of Southern Nigeria and the Colony of Lagos with British protectorate of Northern Nigeria. The reason for this recent interest in what the then Governor General Sir Frederick Lugard did is because it was a century ago that he translated his political memoranda into political reality. After retiring from Nigeria and having been ennobled as a Lord, he settled down to reflect on his mission in Africa in what he called the Dual Mandate which was subsequently published. The way he explained the Dual Mandate was that tropical colonies in the British Empire were acquired for two purposes, namely; for British commercial interest and secondly, for spreading western civilization. This is not an original idea because Joseph Chamberlain, the industrialist from Birmingham, who in the 1890s emerged as Secretary of State for the colonies had justified acquisition of colonial territories on the grounds that even though they might not have been useful initially, they were some kind of investment which British enterprise could make profitable in the near or distant future. The second idea of spreading western civilization has been earlier enunciated in the book “The White man’s Burden” written by an imperialist writer Rudyard Kipling.

    It is common knowledge that the reasons for the amalgamation were economic rather than political. The Southern protectorate was economically viable because it derived a lot of revenue from customs duties largely levied on what was called “trade din”, which was cheap alcohol made from potatoes by Dutch people and exported to West Africa for local consumption. The British forbade the export of this to Northern Nigeria because of their respect for Islamic feelings. Secondly revenue also accrued to the Southern protectorate from export of palm oil and palm kernels as well as hard wood timber, whereas in the North revenue was only derived from export of tin and columbite, as well as hides and skins. The days of the groundnut pyramid in Kano were still in the distant future. In order to save the British exchequer of money being sent to the Northern protectorate as subvention, amalgamating the two protectorates became a reasonable way out. British political tradition overseas supported amalgamation. In Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, separate colonies were usually pressured and encouraged, for the purpose of protection to merge into larger units. When there was considerable distance among them the merger always took the form of federations. Hence Sir Lugard was following the British tradition when he brought the two protectorates together in 1914. He had no illusion about what he was doing. He did not set out to unite the newly created Nigeria neither did he set out to merge the Civil Service of the two protectorates. What he did was to leave the Northern administration as it was while trying to bring the Northern system of indirect rule into the Southern protectorate. The British officials in the South were of course not happy with the Lugardian system to the extent that a cynic said “if it were possible for the native Nigerians to withdraw from Nigeria, civil war would have broken out between British officials in the South and North”. Southerners who ventured to go to the North were made to live outside the Birane in what was called Sabo gari or new towns outside the native cities. Northerners who also came to the South were subjected to the same social isolation from their compatriots in the South. This of course was deliberate because Lugard did not want Southerners to infect their Northern counterparts with what he called seditious and radical ideas. The Governor-General’s younger brother Major Edward Lugard whom he appointed his political secretary dismissed the educated Southerners as “trouserd niggers dressed in Bond street attires” and “who send their laundry to London every forth night for dry cleaning. This social division of northerners and southerners was to determine the future political and economic development of the country. The question now is should we celebrate the centenary of the amalgamation? There is no agreement on this. Some feel there is nothing to celebrate; others feel since the experiment has lasted a hundred years there is something to celebrate. The country that we have may not be a country of our dream but it is worth noting that if we leverage the size of our population both locally and internationally, there would be more dividends that will be accrue to Nigeria. What is wrong with Nigeria today is that it is not well configured and there is too much power centralised in the centre. We have had 53 years to change this imperfect edifice but we have not been able to do so because there is vested interest in the status quo. It is not Nigeria that something is wrong with, it is the people of Nigeria. Some have argued that Nigerian peoples are strangers to themselves. This is not outrightly true. Before the advent of the British, there were economic and cultural contacts between the Yoruba and the Nupe and among the Yoruba, Kanuri and Hausa. The artistic tradition of the Yoruba, Nupe, Igala and the Igbos of Igbo-Ukwu is the same. The Igbo for example and the Igala were in political contacts before the coming of the British and the dynasties in Benin and Yoruba land originated from the same source. The Jukun of the middle Benue valley had cultural and political influences in wide areas of Northern Nigeria as well as in the Cross River Valley. The point I am making is that if the British had not come to Nigeria, the people of Nigeria may have evolved into some kind of polity built on the then existing cultural and economic ties.

    I am using the title The Amalgamation and its Enemies from a book edited by Professor Richard A. Olaniyan, retired Professor of History from the renowned Obafemi Awolowo University. Professor Olaniyan has put together in this book under reference 11 chapters dealing with all the issues on the amalgamation and how the project has been seriously subverted by socio-political, economic and ethno-religious contradiction and this subversion has made the search for an enduring national cohesion at best a tantalising possibility. The contributors to this book under reference include Professors Dauda Abubakar, Adewale Adebamiwi, Adigun Agbaje, Akin Alao, W. Alade Fawole, Ehimika A. Ifidon, Leo E. Otoide, Rufus T. Akinyele and Richard A. Olaniyan himself as well as the late Professor Adiele E. Afigbo and with a forward by the distinguished Professor Tekena Tamuno. Coming from different parts of Nigeria, and straddling history and political science gives the book under reference its great value and I advice all those who want to make contributions to the discussion of the amalgamation to purchase a copy of this book and read it.

    Our peoples’ frustration with the politics and economy of this federation is unfortunately undermining the development of nationalistic fervour which swept off the British from Nigeria in 1960. Since independence and the removal of a foreign target or political enemy, Nigerians have not had the fortune of the right kind of political leadership that could galvanise the country into greatness and leadership position on the continent. The result of this is the dissatisfaction of most Nigerians with the political monster of a country that cannot guarantee development and security for its people. After all the reason for the existence of any polity must be for the happiness of the people. No one can seriously tell fellow Nigerians that all is well when the cancerous sickness of corruption, inequity, insecurity and underdevelopment is apparent for all to see. This is why there are many enemies of the “mistake of 1914” as arrogantly stated by the late Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sarduna of Sokoto and his counterpart, Obafemi Awolowo who dismissed in 1947 Nigeria as a “mere geographical expression”. The challenge before all of us is to prove these two political titans wrong.

  • Alien-Nation (1)

    Alien-Nation (1)

    (One Hundred Years of Solipsism)

     

    Solipsism is a condition in which a person regards his own thoughts, deeds and interests as the sole determinant of reality to the exclusion of everything else. Nothing else matters apart from this self-absorption, and the entire universe can go to hell. It is a situation of abysmal and irredeemable egotism.

    On the other hand, alienation can be regarded as a social condition in which the degree of estrangement is so severe that people become and feel like aliens in their own land. The nation itself comes to resemble an alien contraption, a medieval torture wrack, designed to torment its hapless citizens to submission.

    In an engrossing historical replay of the dramatic technique of estrangement and the literary theory of defamiliarization, what is familiar suddenly becomes unfamiliar. It is a war of all against all, and alienated nationals become enemy combatants in their own fatherland. The national fabric is fractured in an irreversible manner. Radical anarchy reigns supreme.

    One hundred years after Amalgamation, Nigeria has become a classic example of an alien nation. There is no disputing the fact. Everywhere you turn, you are confronted by the social pathologies arising from alienation: a deviant post-colonial culture of unprecedented impunity, anti-social behaviour ranging from armed robbery, kidnapping, ritual killing for money, official extortion, state burglary of the Exchequer all compounded by elite political delinquency.

    This is as close to hell on earth as it can get, more so since there are extant glimpses and vestiges of the paradise Nigeria could have been for the Black person had things gone alright and not awry. Even more so, when there is a persistent belief that there is an immanent rationality, a higher divine logic, which quietly guides human history to a higher and more beneficial order irrespective of the collective death wishes of certain societies and people.

    Although originating from the West after the horrors of the Dark Age, the modern nation-state paradigm is supposed to be a radical advance on earlier forms of human organisation of territorial space such as empires, fiefdoms, principalities, parochialities and kingdoms. The old monarchical states are forcibly and radically restructured and democratised to accommodate new talents and vibrant emergent energies.

    As more and more people clamour to have a better say in the way and manner they are governed and consequently as the divine sovereignty of monarchies gave way to the secular sovereignty of the people, human governance is infused with a new rationality in which the pulse of the people becomes the pulse of power itself. New institutions are put in place which emphasize the separation of power and which act with impersonal rigour and objectivity, recognising neither prince nor pauper in the pursuit of social justice, law and order.

    Unfortunately, modern Nigeria has failed woefully and lamentably in all the indices of modern governance. It is sad to note that the ancestors of modern Nigerians who lived in the territorial space cobbled together by colonial fiat would have been happier in their pre-colonial fiefdoms despite the wars, famines and internal slavery. For example by 1904, the Egba city-state had solved the problems of sanitation and misappropriation of state funds.

    Although premised on a dubious civilising mission, the colonial conquest and subsequent amalgamation of the territories that make up modern Nigeria was not done to ameliorate the living conditions of the natives. It was principally an act of imperialist aggression designed to expropriate the abundant resources of the periphery for metropolitan prosperity.

    But let us be brutally frank with ourselves. This was also an act of compulsory globalisation which was virtually inevitable in the absence of a local, African or West African, seafaring global power which could have validated these local resources in the international market. Without such inter-continental validation, these native resources to which no human value and labour have been added are next to useless, a paradoxical tribute to nature’s subversive generosity and ability to play a spoiling mother to her tropical children.

    Globalization in one form or the other has always been the first condition of mankind, depending on the stage of history and the state of technology. The caravan route that stretched from ancient Kano to Baghdad was an earlier and rudimentary form of globalisation. It brought the wonders and magic of Mesopotamia to the African hinterland. At a point in history, the basin of the great rivers of Babylon was at the centre of human civilization and advancement.

    Centuries later when Mansa Musa set forth on a journey to Mecca taking all the gold in his empire with him like a footloose vagabond, he was obeying the logic of globalisation albeit with ruinous consequences. But from the eleventh century, it was the emergent seafaring powers of Portugal, Spain, Holland and England that led the rest of the world in the race to modernity.

    Sweet indeed are the uses of adversity. Although colonisation originated from base economic motive, it did leave some beneficial effects and benign legacies. Among these are modern literacy arising from the alphabetisation of the local languages, modern educational systems, modern communication system, a good road network, a modern railway system and above all a desirable ethos of transparency and accountability in fiscal management. The post-colonial conquerors of Nigeria must go into hiding when their achievements are compared with those of the colonial interlocutors.

    In some ways, then, Nigeria, despite the inglorious circumstances of birth, is , and remains, a tribute to the colonial imaginary and its profoundly self-subversive genius. Although often described in colonial exchanges as an arbitrary block hewn out of the heart of Africa, there is also evidence of a romantic colonial vision which saw the creation of such a large, sprawling Black conurbation as the possible future catalyst and saviour of the entire continent.

    In other words, if the idea of a huge and formidable African country like Nigeria did not exist in colonial imagining, it would have had to be willed into existence by the post-colonial imagination. The heroic efforts of some visionary African leaders in this respect, notably Kwame Nkrumah and his pan-African dream, Sekou Toure, the early Zik, Julius Nyerere and even Muammar Ghaddafi and Gamel Abdel Nasser, despite their pan-Arabic narcissism, cannot be easily ignored.

    One in every four persons of the Black race happens to be a Nigerian. With its huge and largely arable landmass, its prodigious human and natural resources, the vibrant collective memory of its people and their sheer spunk when compared to other Africans, Nigeria ought to become the Mecca of the Black race and a medicinal haven for its tortured psyche.

    But something went catastrophically wrong. We are still searching for the Black box of the most astonishingly talented Black nation. Even if we ignore the discreet obituaries already making the international round, we cannot ignore the telltale signs all around us that this nation is about to collapse and die.

    Once again, the international community is concerned not because they love Nigeria but because its huge carcass will constitute a catastrophic global health hazard. If you don’t dispose of a dead person on the basis of sanitary hazard, you must do it on the basis of enlightened self-interest. In sheer magnitude, the humanitarian catastrophe arising from Nigeria’s possible disintegration is better than verbalised.

    The good news is that unlike biological organisms, dead nations can actually be revived and resurrected. But it will take a colossal willpower on the part of the doctors and the doctored. While most nations are willed into existence by a few individuals, it usually takes the collective efforts of many to transform the imagined community into an organic reality. Few are called but many must volunteer.

    No matter the nature and manner of its coming to be, a nation is never given. It is usually defined and refined in process, a process which is a Homeric battlefield; a site of perpetual conflicts and ceaseless overcoming of contradictions. In order to properly focus on what went wrong, we must go back to where the rains started beating us. (To be concluded next week).

  • Envoy: Nigeria’s amalgamation done in good faith

    The British High Commissioner in Nigeria, Mr. Andrew Pocock, has said the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates by Lord Frederick Luggard in 1914 was done in “good faith”.

    He said: “It is great that at its 53rd independence, Nigeria is still a single country with a positive look for the future.”

    The envoy described Nigeria as a country with good value to the world economy.

    Pocock averred that without the “amalgamation, I think Nigeria would not have become the international chuck it is as well as the regional toss it is today. So, I think it is the right thing to get the positive side of whatever has happened in the last hundred years.”

    The high commissioner spoke at the weekend in Lagos with our reporter at the Toastmasters International Club’s forum, where members bared their minds on the topic: Nigeria at 100: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow.

    Mr Patrick Oluyide won the keenly contested speech competition on the topic.

    Pocock, who shared the view that Nigeria has recorded several achievements in the last 100 years of amalgamation, added: “Some of the good achievements Nigerians can celebrate within these 100 years of amalgamation, I think is its independence 53 years ago. You should know that, being a giant of a region is a giant of a continent. I believe there is quite a lot to celebrate.”

    He highlighted the importance of effective communication and the need for good leadership, not only for the future of Nigeria but also for the corporate world and communities.

    The envoy presented the trophy to winner of the competition.

    A former Nigerian Ambassador to Togo and President of Eagles Toastmasters’ Club, Ambassador Vincent Okobi; Chartered District Governor 94P, Mr. Mike Omotosho; former President of Eagles’ Toastmasters Club, Mr. Amaechi Okobi and President of Eagles Toastmasters Club, Ms Keji Sanni, were among dignitaries at the event.

    Ambassador Okobi, who is the founder of Toastmasters’ Club in Nigeria, said: “Toastmasters is eight years in Nigeria. Nearly 300,000 men and women are improving their communication and leadership skills, using the values and model Toastmaters provide.”

  • Who owns Nigeria: North or South?- The key amalgamation question?

    Who owns Nigeria: North or South?- The key amalgamation question?

    Are Rivers Niger and Benue sinking down the waist of Nigeria towards the Bight of Benin/Atlantic Ocean? Soon there will be no South. The map of Nigeria on NTA demonstrates ‘Sinking or Moving River Disease’. This is a political disease of criminally-minded officials bent on distorting the truth. If it is NTA policy it is punishable as mental terrorism for ‘altering the geographical internal borders of Nigeria’. I checked ‘Nigeria Map’ on Google. You should too! The Rivers Niger and Benue are not quite half way up Nigeria. It seems our lekedi or belt is falsely falling. Nigerians require our own ethnic cartographers to check maps, text and exercise books and almanacs for distortion. It was not so long ago that Europeans could not bear the thought that Africa was bigger than Europe and adjusted the world map to make Africa smaller. The Americans revealed all from the moon in JF Kennedy’s era. Check your map against Google map or Niga SAT2 and complain politically to prevent the South shrinking further or North being made falsely bigger. In 2013, a year from 2014, some say ‘Amalgamation Memorial Day’ not ‘Centenary Day ‘, we cheat each other as if cheating is OK?

    Who owns Nigeria in 2014: North or South or Nigerians? This is ‘The Key Amalgamation Question’. From the manipulated census figures, federal character, true federalism, fiscal federalism, distorted LGA numbers between Lagos, 20, and Kano+ Jigawa States, 77, resource control, oil windfall, choice appointments, the South continues to be screwed under national unity’. ‘National unity’ does not mean ‘Sectional idiocy’ or unilateral emasculation. It should mean mutual respect, equity, justice and transparency.

    How are Nigerians supposed to react to Boko Haram claiming poverty as motivation for mass murder and seeking amnesty and also to react to the fact that the North operated initially nearly 100% of Niger Delta oil blocks down to 82% which translates into multi-billion dollars/annum not used for development? The Forbes billionaires list does not include those with stupendous undeserved civil service and military wealth. They have no right to begrudge the Niger Delta citizens of just 10%.

    ZZZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOOWWAABIA is Nigeria and ZZZOOOOOOOOOOO are the undisputed kings with the controlling share, the leadership position, the master manipulator but failing the true leadership progressive role so desperately needed–a cumulative disappointment for Nigeria. Ask anyone in a marginalised tribe not ZZZZZZZZZZZOOOOOOWABIA. It is true feeling of oppression. As pointed out by Ita Enang all oil well licences could be cancelled and renegotiated with Federal character- a suggestion not popular with those making billions daily merely for possession of an oil block. Commonwealth ownership is only good if it affects someone else’s property. ‘What is yours is mine and what is mine is mine also’ is the secret code which does not bode well for the survival of any country seeking nationhood. We may well stay together but is it a union of the heart and mind or a union of fear and ‘by force’? The fact is that those, Northerners and Southerners, who have with little or no respect for others, have held Nigeria to political and financial ransom, kidnapped, for 50 years must have a change of their own heart. We are not the enemy, slaves won at a high stakes game of power and oil roulette. We must first be set free within the borders of Nigeria and then be allowed to feel fully Nigerian, not slaves. How are we set free? Easy. Constitutional review, true federalism, devolution of more powers to the states, derivation formula, review and reduction of the ‘Federal Excusive List‘. Nigeria has remained almost in the stone age in transport and education. Hurry! Nigerians have suffered a lifetime of suffering in this country so rich in billionaires with God’s gifts of arable land and underground black gold which paradoxically makes billionaires of some and poisons millions in abject poverty. These are the prize and the price of false federalism which has failed to move Nigeria forward. We are where we are today because of those military rulers and their cohorts from all ethnic groups. They were ‘The Occupying Power’ of a conquered Nigeria. What is the role of the CBN past and present in the naira and federal Nigeria? And then came Obasanjo with Odi and Expressway failure and dismantling of some political power bases nationwide.

    I really weep over the Jos crisis having spent a peaceful newly-married NYSC in Jos, Bukuru, Lafia General Hospital Lafia as my very busy base. That so-called ‘peace’ came from those who decided not to, or could not react to provocation and warped policy initiation due to fear or bribery or saw their citizens cheated at Supreme Military Council and Federal Executive Council Meetings. Nigeria has been at war for years before the Civil War and the war continues, with ‘mis-allocation’ of the spoils of war, read ‘sp-oil’, only abating slightly when Obasanjo became President. ‘All Is Not Quiet on Any Front in Nigeria’. Time for ‘An Amalgamation National Conference’?

    Those who owned power –electric, generator and political-, the oil blocks, the customs, the NPA, the armed forces, Abuja for years and the unseen faces behind the cell phone and internet companies should not shy away from their responsibility in the failure of Nigeria. It is time Nigerians, all Nigerians owned Nigeria. This is not a monarchy or a slave state, though it appears to be so.