To Layi Erinosho, a professor of Sociology, the benefits of a united Nigeria outweigh the consequences of a disintegrated Nigeria. In this article, former Executive Secretary, Social Science Academy of Nigeria, Abuja, cautions agitators of autonomous republics out of the federation to pull the breaks.
It is widely believed that the collapse of the Biafran dream in the 1970s will put paid to any talk of secession in Nigeria. Indeed, many have observed that no country can afford more than a civil war which for me a bland statement to make us feel good. Another civil war is feasible if responsible national authorities fail to respond to troubling challenges underlying nation building.
As example, Yugoslavia, a country that was held together for thirty-five years by Marshall Tito went down and is now subdivided into nearly ten republics. Czechoslovakia is today broken into two countries. Canada nearly broke up into the English-speaking provinces on the one hand and the French on the other in the 1970s but for restructuring that gave greater autonomy to the French-speaking Province of Quebec which felt marginalised. Today, French is the first language in Quebec all sign posts in the Province are in French. Nearly all universities in Quebec are required to use the French language while English and French are Canada’s official languages.
The United Kingdom consisting of England, Wales, and Scotland has had its own share of the threat of secession. By and large, the United Kingdom has managed to stem the threat of secession by granting considerable autonomy to Wales and Scotland. Even then, Scotland is still threatening to pull out of the United Kingdom.
Empires also rise and disappear. The Roman, Greek, and British Empires have come and gone into the belly of history. These empires had to respond to threats and crises within them. Their authorities had no choice but to give way to pressures of their colonies and they (i.e., empires) disintegrated.
What is therefore happening in Nigeria is not new in history. What is important is for us to learn from history and respond robustly to stem the threat of secession by any ethnic group or state or region. There is indeed no point sweeping our problems under the carpet. These problems will not go away.
Nigeria is currently not working optimally and there are sound reasons for this assertion. Insurgency is widespread in the country, – the Boko Haram in the Northeast; the Niger Delta militants in the oil producing states; as well as the renewed demand for the Republic of Biafra. drive this point home. Kidnappings, ritual murders and domestic violence coupled with lack of water and electric power supply; and the remarkably poor networks of roads within and between cities/rural areas point to the fact that Nigeria is not working. Our country can be likened to a forest full of animals in the name of human beings, roaming aimlessly without the wherewithal for good living.
One can discern three schools of thought from various contributions and proposals on the way forward for our country. There is on the one hand a group that believes nothing is really wrong with the current state of affairs in our country. To this school of thought, the 1999 Constitution is flawless and should be allowed to work for the country. The key proponents of this viewpoint come from the Northern part of country. They argue persuasively that all is well inspite of the insurgencies and killings and the weakness of responsible authorities to address security challenges and fast-track development.
The second school of thought calls for restructuring of the country as a way out. The proponents of this proposal are of the view that the solution is to enthrone true federalism which is unfortunately loosely defined by many of the discussants. On the whole, the centre-piece of the contribution from this school of thought is that government should be decentralised (i.e., the Federal Government should shed its onerous responsibilities while allowing states to take many more than they are currently handling).
Finally, there is the third school of thought that is pushing for the breakup of the country. According to this school of thought, Nigeria will be better off if states are merged into zones and they can go different their ways because the country is currently too big to be managed by our leaders. We are stalling the much needed socio-economic development because we busy fighting one another. There is therefore no point forcing ourselves to live together within the geographical boundary called Nigeria.
This short piece is on implications of the proposal calling for the breakup of Nigeria into autonomous republics like Biafra, Oduduwa, Niger Delta republics etc because of our huge problems. Is this proposal feasible in view of the long standing relationship among Nigeria’s ethnic groups? What will the breakup of the country into autonomous ethnic republics mean in practical terms? We need to be well educated on the implications of this proposal which this piece will attempt to discuss below. By the time you go through the piece, it may well be that is easier said than achieved.
Practical implications of
breakup of Nigeria
In the first place, the breakup of Nigeria into autonomous republics will mean forcible drift of members of the various ethnic groups back to their ethnic enclaves. The Yoruba in the Northeast, and Southsouth indigenes will drift or be forcibly ejected back to the Southwest. Similarly, the members of the each group will go back to their tent, (ie., To thy tent O ye Israel as the saying goes). They will become the citizens of the newly-minted republics and will be required to hold travel document like international passport if they intend to travel out to some other republics. They will be treated as foreigners, travelling through borders and going through immigration formalities.
The emerging republics may (or are more likely to) deport those who have inter-married. A Hausa man married to Yoruba woman will be forced to go back to his Republic in the North where he comes from. Similarly, the Igbo man married to a Yoruba woman and resident in Oduduwa Republic will be forced to go back home.
Lest we forget, this sort of forcible eviction was carried out when we created new states. The non-indigene civil servants married to local women were forced back to their state. The Imo man who was married to an Enugu woman was sent back to Imo along with his wife. Anambra State did likewise to those from Abia State etc. Ladoke Akintola, the late Premier of Western Nigeria deported the Binis people working in the Western Nigeria civil service back to Benin city, old Bendel State. Those of them with Yoruba names who claim affinity to Yoruba and who had worked for years in Yoruba land were also forced out.
Second, a country like Nigeria cannot be likened to a loaf of bread that can be neatly sliced. Nigeria is a large complex country consisting of three major and several other ethnic groups that have co-existed within its geographic space for more than a hundred years. The late Chief Odimedgwu Ojukwu was tempted to secede because he believed he could carry along the Efik, Ibibio and Ijaw in the southern coastal sub-region. But as it turned out, the Efik, Ibibio and Ijaw yearned for their separate state within Nigeria. The Efik, Ibibio and Ijaw were fearful of Igbo domination in a new Biafra. They supported the Federal Government in the war against Biafra. Indeed, the Efik, Ijaw and Ibibio were pro-North during the First Republic and joined the National Party of Nigeria (NPN). They did not remember and appreciate the contribution made by the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo towards their emancipation through his call for the creation state right before independence for them in order to protect them from Igbo domination.
One of the major concerned of ethnic groups is fear of domination by numerically bigger ethnic groups around them. The Idoma loath the Tiv in Benue State and the Igbomina/Okun Yoruba a well as the Igbirra in Kogi State are fearful of Igall’s perpetual domination in Kogi State. Similarly, the Yoruba Igbomina in Kogi or Offa people in Kwara who are inclined to associate with the Yoruba in the Southwest will face challenges due to their spatial location vis-à-vis Yoruba in the Southwest. Furthermore, the Ilorin people (who often claim Fulani heritage) will be inclined to go with their kith and kin in the North. What will be fate of the Itsekiri in the Riverine who share strong affinity with the Yoruba? Will they be allowed through a referendum to become a republic? What will be the situation in Plateau or Benue states that are predominantly Christians and currently facing serious security challenges posed by Fulani herdsmen and settlers? Will they become land-locked republics or would rather feel better protected by a Federal Government? Can Adamawa and Taraba states consisting of very many ethnic groups become autonomous republics or what? Can Taraba and Adamawa survive as autonomous republics?
Fourth, another important challenge that Nigeria will face in the event of a breakup will revolve around the delineation of the boundaries of the emerging republics. Can Nigerians amicably resolve the boundaries of the emerging republics? Can contestation over boundaries between emerging republics be resolved quickly without bloodshed?
The three major rivers could be natural boundaries under the new dispensation if there were to be only three, – Arewa, Oduduwa and Biafra republics. But as was previously observed above, ethnic groups in our country spread across these so-called natural boundaries. Some of those that spread across natural boundaries may choose to go with others that are not within the natural boundaries. As example, the Igbo-speaking in today’s Delta State and Ikwere in Rivers State may opt to be merged with their kith and kin in the Southeast. Moreover, Akwa Ibom, Cross River State, Bayelsa and River may wish to stand alone, forming republic(s).
Land-locked Southeast consisting mainly of Igbo, will be anxious to have access to the coast and will pose continuous serious threat to the coastal republic(s). The point, am making is that a breakup of Nigeria into small republics will constitute the major source of instability and crisis for many years.
Fifth, the armed forces and other paramilitary agencies in Nigeria will be dissolved in the event of the breakup of the country. The emerging republics will constitute their own armed forces, police, customs and immigration. But as we all well know, the facilities of the armed forces and other paramilitary agencies in the country are mal-distributed. Some of the emerging republics will be better endowed than others. Nothing can be done since the facilities are largely immovable. There will be retrenchment in republics that have over-bloated armed forces and opportunities for new recruits in those with small numbers. Retrenchment in republics with too many in the armed forces and other paramilitary bodies will have untoward consequences.
Sixth, the phenomenon of abandoned property will rare its head again. The Igbo in Lagos, North and Southwest who will now be deemed as foreigners cannot move their immovable property like houses or shops and/or hotels and vice versa with the Yoruba or Hausa/Fulani who own property in Abuja, Southeast and the North etc. Everyone in the emerging republics as hold international passport for in and out travels and may be required to obtain visa. Visitors and will be required to leave in 90 days by Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Treaty. Violation of this ECOWAS rule can lead to deportation and/ or incarceration in prison.
The citizens of the republics that are carved out of Nigeria may not be able to repatriate rent from their landed property. The same will apply to the Yoruba living in the North. Students attending schools may be required to pay fees higher than local students because they will be treated as foreigners.
Losers and winners in the
event of a break up of Nigeria
Who are likely to be losers and winners if Nigeria were to breakup? It is important for all of us to address our mind to this extremely important question. Let me start with the losers.
The first among the losers will be Nigeria and Nigerians. Nigeria is among the first 15 most populous countries in the world. One in every black person in sub-Sahara Africa is a Nigeria. Large population means big markets. We are in the same ball park with the United States (US), Russia China, Brazil, and India. We have a huge market and can also readily attract foreign investors. This is one of the reasons Nigeria has overtaken South Africa as the biggest economy in Africa even though South Africa has better infrastructures than Nigeria.
Breaking Nigeria into small republics will mean losing this comparative advantage and none of the emerging republics into which Nigeria is sub-divided will be able to rise up to our present level.
Nigeria is also blessed with large expanse of land characterised by rich vegetation. The country is not too hot or too cold and Nigeria is also richly blessed with fertile soil for agriculture. We are therefore in a position to be self-sufficient in farm produce if we honestly and ably work our land. Our country can produce nearly all that we need. We have abundant cattle, potatoes, pepper tomatoes among others in the North while the South is blessed with tree crops.
Moreover, Nigeria will also lose its competiveness in Africa in skill acquisition. We currently produce the largest number of graduates in Africa (never mind if many of them are not so good). Similarly, we have the largest number of students of African origin in the United Kingdom, US, Canadian etc universities. This credit will no longer go to Nigeria if the country breaks up into small republics.
We must also recognise the fact that Nigeria will no longer have an authoritative voice in international affairs. Big countries with big population and skilled manpower as well as resources command bigger respect than small republics in world affairs. Even though Singapore is a technologically developed country that is at par with the US and UK and can also boast of high standard of living and GDP, she cannot be nominated as Asia’s representative in an expanded UN Security Council. Rather, the world will settle for any of the big Asian countries like India or Pakistan.
Other major losers if Nigeria breaks up will be the small ethnic/religious groups that cannot survive on their own. Pockets of Christians/ethnic groups in the North will be land locked and too small to survive as republics. They may be invaded or swallowed by more populous nearby republics.
We must also remember that not all emerging republics will easily have access to the sea. The landlocked republics with no access to the sea/ocean in the North and South will be at the mercy of republics that are located along the coast in the south. This means that the importation of goods through the coastal republics northwards or eastwards will involve payment of tariffs, high cost of transportation of goods and above all, the cooperation of coastal republics. For instance, Southeast that will be landlocked will have to deal with its southern neighbuors in a responsible way in order to have access to the sea. Are those agitating for the breakup of Nigeria taking all of the above into consideration? If not, they had better have a rethink.
Fellow Nigerians, it is also important to point out that ethnic groups with more visible investment outside their ethnic enclave will be major losers in the event of a break up of Nigeria. Here, I can see the Igbo as the major losers because they have more visible investment outside their ethnic enclave than other Nigerians. The Yoruba and Hausa/Fulani on the other hand are more of invisible investors. The landed property like houses or shops or hotels owned by the Yoruba and Hausa/Fulani outside their enclaves are few and far between. The Igbo who cannot carry their houses or shops or hotels in Kano, Lagos Abuja and Kaduna back home to Biafra. This immovable investment will be taken over by the host republics. The host republics can and/or will impose prohibitively non-resident tax on property of foreigners. The Igbo have not been able to retrieve their property in Rivers State since the end of the civil war.
Having said this much about losers, who are likely to be winners in the event of the breakup of Nigeria? This is the age of conspiracy theories and this give me ample of opportunity to discuss winners if the country breaks up into several republics.
The first among the winners will be the elite with neurotic need for power and money. Either by omission or commission, the elite seem to agree among themselves to plunder our resources and also repatriate the stolen funds to foreign countries. This behaviuor is likely to destroy the corporate existence of the country and result in the demise of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Governance has been trivialised and is being taken for a ride by our elite be they politicians, high ranking civil servants or high ranking military personnel. Already many governors have no clue on how to run their states. They have bankrupted their states and are now unable to pay the salaries of civil servants for months. These characters (i.e. the elite) will disappear into the thin air if there is a breakdown of law and order. They will be on the run to safe havens where they have kept stolen monies to enjoy their loot. Nigeria and Nigerians at home will be left to carry the can. So, in a sense these class of Nigerians who are stealing our commonwealth relocate to overseas countries to live a good life. These people will be the first and foremost the winners in the event of a breakup of our country.
In the second group will be African countries – whether small and big who have always been threatened by our overbearing and swaggering stance in African/world affairs. Nigeria’s image and role looms large not only on the continent but in the world. No vital decision is taken or can be reached without the support of Nigeria. Nigeria played a leading role in the liberation of African countries from colonial rule. We assisted to dismantle apartheid to the chagrin of world powers who invested greatly in South Africa. Nigeria assisted Sierra Leone and Liberia during their civil wars. We normally deploy our troops to troubled countries in Africa/world with commendable ease and praise from all and sundry. As painful as it may be, the collapse of Nigeria will also be heart-warming among many African countries. The collapse will create an opportunity to fill the vacuum created by a disintegrated of Nigeria. These countries will by default become winners if Nigeria disintegrates.
