Foreign organisations have predicted that Nigeria may break up next year, following its inability to resolve the national question and its speedy drift to state failure. Now, fears about its likely fulfillment are rife among Nigerians as some political gladiators prepare for next year’s general elections in a do-or-die manner, reports Group Political Editor EMMANUEL OLADESU.
Nigeria, the largest country in Africa, has been threatened by the secessionist agenda thrice in its chequered history.
The first time was in 1953, when Northern delegates to the pre-independence Constitutional Conference in Lagos and members of the Northern Regional House of Assembly asked for secession from the rest of the country. The agenda was borne out of frustration and disillusionment. An Action Group (AG) member of the Federal Parliament, the late Chief Antony Enahoro, had moved a motion for independence. In their view, the North was not ripe for independence because of the obvious educational and economic gap between it and the seemingly more prosperous South, especially the educationally advantaged West. The delegates were booed and jeered at in Lagos as they headed for the railway terminal to board the train, after rejecting the independence motion.
Reflecting on the episode in his book: ‘S. Ladoke Akintola: His life and times’, a historian, Prof. Akinjide Osuntokun, recalled that “British officials were able to persuade the Northerners that it would be economic suicide to consider such a move.” Therefore, the Northern Nigeria Congress (NPC)-dominated Northern House passed an eight-point resolution, which manifested the compromise between “outright secession” and “loose federation.” Their resolutions expressed their readiness for a federal structure, which agreed with the clamour power federalism by the defunct Action Group (AG).
The second threat to national unity came during the civil war, which was foisted on the country by the competition for power by the military class. Rejecting the elevation of the Army Chief of Staff, Col. Yakubu Gowon, to the military Head of State and Commander-In-Chief, following Major-General Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi’s assassination by soldiers of Northern origin, the military governor of the Eastern Region, Col. Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, declared the ill-fated Republic of Biafra. In fact, Ojukwu, a highly educated tactician, tricked the Nigerian delegation led by Gowon to Ghana Peace Meeting brokered by Gen. Ankrah, to accede to its clever demand for balkanisation. On returning home, Ojukwu and his men retorted: “On Aburi we stand.” The Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive Council and Federal Commissioner for Finance, the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo, said, if the East was allowed to secede, the West would have been motivated to follow suit. For three years, Nigeria was up in arms against itself, until the secessionists surrendered on the battle front.
The third attempt at disintegration also came during the military rule. A coup plotter, Major Gideon Okar, during a failed coup, announced that eight states have ceased to be part of the federation. He said they should come and negotiate with the new government, which never came into existence. Lamentably, the military President, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, who survived the coup, later annulled the most transparent and credible presidential election. It was an unprecedented milestone that adversely affected the unity of Nigeria.
However, subsequent developments have also not averted the fear of disintegration, even after the restoration of civil rule in 1999. Although some Nigerians have carried on with the optimism that the national unity is non-negotiable, critical minds, especially foreign observers, have thought otherwise.
Last week, a political scientist and former Foreign Affairs Minister, Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi, alerted the country to an impending doom; a horrendous post-2015 electoral violence, which may be precipitated by sponsored armed thugs. He complained about the massive importation of arms in an alarming proportion. “The certainty of violence after the 2015 elections is higher than it was in 2011. If president Jonathan wins, the North would erupt into violence as it did in 2011. If Gen. Buhari wins, the Niger Delta will erupt into violence. I don’t think we need rocket science to make this prediction,” he said.
Akinyemi, who was the deputy chairman of the Constitutional Conference called for tolerance among political gladiators. He urged the two presidential candidates to sign an undertaking that campaigns would be peaceful and devoid of threats, and that post-election protests would be peaceful. The former university don, whose father, Canon. Akinyemi, was one of the actors when the first civilian regime collapsed, appealed to eminent traditional rulers, former heads of state and influential religious leaders to facilitate the pre-election rapport between the flag bearers and the management of post-election conflicts.
Few years back, a foreign body aroused Nigerians to the reality that the country stood the risk of a break-up next year. The warning was dismissed with a wave of the hand. Also, in 2009, the former American Secretary of State, Senator Hillary Clinton, peeped into the future, warning that Nigeria may become a failed state because of soaring corruption. Her warning may have been informed by the persistent struggle for self-determination by ethnic organisations, which thought that loyalty to a central government that cannot defend the interests of component units was illusory.
“The most immediate source of disconnect between Nigeria’s wealth and its poverty is a failure of governance at the federal, state and local levels. Lack of transparency and accountability has eroded the legitimacy of government and contributed to the rise of groups protesting the injustice and challenging the authorities of the state”, she submitted.
Another United States organisation, the ‘Fund for Peace’, had listed Nigeria among the failed states. In the list are war-torn Somalia, Iraq, Yemen, Chad, Afghanistan, Congo, Ivory Coast and Haiti. In the last decade, peace has eluded these countries. Their citizens are in disarray. The growing number of refugees there is a major concern to the United Nations and some regional organisations.
In 1994, a former university don, Prof. Adebayo Williams, warned that Nigerian federalism had become a compelling and comprehensive failure. Dissecting the polity, he alluded to frightening memoranda and manuals for disintegration flying all over the place. “What we are witnessing is a man-made disaster of epic proportions. The Nigerian State has, so far, become a compelling and comprehensive failure”, he submitted, adding that the consequence may be the price for the failure of leadership. At that time, the country was facing serious economic challenges and the transition programme was on the reverse.
There are three major puzzles, ahead of 2015. These are the economy, which is nose diving, the insecurity, which appears to have defiled solution, and the general elections, which has provoked passion.
According to observers, there are clear signals that Nigeria’s economic problems may be compounded by the drop in the anticipated earnings from oil, which is the mainstream of the economy. Already many states cannot pay salaries. In a country that has not embraced the economic imperative of diversification, the reality stares the government in the face. According to a rights activist, Comrade Joe Igbokwe, “this times calls for value engineering and uncommon management of resources.” But, he doubted the capacity of the Federal Government to offer a creative leadership required in the period of grave economic crisis.
The intense struggle for presidential power is on the front burner. The All Progressives Congress (APC) National Chairman, Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, has warned against rigging, saying that it is in nobody’s interest. He said the opposition will resist it. One of the President’s backers, Senator Edwin Clark, has chided the opposition for desperation. In a rather inflammable tone, he said, if the opposition has its way, it would poison or kill the President to take power. Another supporter of Dr. Jonathan, Alhaji Mujaheed Asari-Dokubo, said there will be blood on the streets, if the President is not re-elected. “We will not take any prisoner of war. It will be total battle,” he added.
Will next year’s election be free and fair? If there is power shift through the instrumentality of the ballot box, will there be orderly transfer of power? If the opposition is not endorsed by the majority of voters, will it accept the result? If the struggle shifts from the ballot box to the temple of justice, will the jurists live up to expectation?
Many commentators believe that state failure may be a prelude to disintegration. But, opinion is divided on the categorisation of Nigeria as a failed state. Some scholars, who believe that the problems confronting the country have been exaggerated, explained that, Nigeria is not yet a failed state; it is a fragile state. A political scientist, Prof. Eghosa Osaghae, said that state fragility expresses a tendency towards state failure. However, he stressed that this condition can still be mitigated by stakeholders, if they find a common ground for building a nation-state. In his opinion, state failure and disintegration can be averted.
Osaghae acknowledged that the Nigerian federation is facing the most challenging test of survival. Ethnic militant groups are threatening its existence. In the North, the Boko Haram sect is on the prowl. The members are demanding a Muslim state. Why they are on rampage is now known. In the Middlebelt, the Ombatse Group is unleashing terror. There is no solution in sight. In the Southeast and Southsouth, militants and kidnappers have made life unbearable for people. In the Southwest, there is armed robbery and pockets of kidnapping are on the increase.
There is no evidence that these challenges can be resolved before the elections. Akinyemi pointed out that the contest may degenerate into an ethnic contest, or a regional scramble between the North, the birthplace of the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate and President Goodluck Jonathan, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) flag bearer, who hails from the Niger Delta. Already, the struggle for power between the core North and Southsouth is generating tension. The North is demanding for power shift, based on an inexplicable agreement between the President and certain Northern elders. The oil-rich Southsouth has fired back, saying that, if power returns to the North, there will be no oil money to run the country. The implication is that the militants will come out to disrupt mining activities in the coastal region.
A century after, Nigeria is writhing in pains as a colonial legacy. From an amalgam of two incompatible protectorates, the fragile edifice transformed into a country of three diverse regions. Later, it metamorphosed into four antagonistic regions. Today, the federation of 36 states is almost on the edge, with its foundation threatening to collapse.
Despite its oil, other natural deposits and vast human talents, the fledgling nation-state has not yet become an economic miracle. Its democratic institutions are weak, said frontline legal scholar, Prof. Itsey Sagay, who added: “Nigeria is not building institution and a system that can sustain democracy.” The polity is not erected on a strong political culture. Security of life and property is a mirage. The state, in the view of the late statesman, Dr. Pius Okigbo, has become the greatest corrupter of the society. Unemployment, especially among graduates, is increasing. Many elected functionaries are battling with legitimate crisis because they emerged through a colossal assault on the ballot box. The standard of living is declining on daily basis.
Many have attributed the long journey to a difficult future to the mistake of 1914. The foundational error by the first colonial governor, Lord Fredrick Lugard, who forcefully lumped the different tribes together without mutual agreement, may have become Nigeria’s albatross. From the forceful union, through the 46 years of colonial tremor, to a failed start at self rule at independence, the re-colonisation of the free country by its ambitious and restless soldiers and the trial and error process of installing a durable democracy, the involuntary union was boxed into multiple crises of nationhood, development and survival.
The signs were ominous from the onset. The over 450 tribes have been locked in acrimonious relationship as they competed for state power and resources. The development of national outlook has proved abortive, with ethnicity and religion shaping their responses to the socio-political milieu. The Federal Government at any dispensation has always maintained an ethnic focus, with the zones not producing the President nursing a feeling of marginalisation. To observers’ consternation, the tension between theoretical federalism and regional selfishness has been sustained, making the country a victim of ethnic configuration and confrontation.
A former lecturer at the Federal Polytechnic, Ado-Ekiti, Ibukun Falayi, noted that, owing to the successive administrations’ aversion for true federalism, equity and good governance, the country is also permanently assailed by a curious and disturbing distribution crises. “The crisis is triggered by a dubious formula for sharing of the somehow real and somehow elusive national cake,” he stressed.
Paradoxically, Nigeria’s strength is also its main weakness. It is a large heterogeneous society blessed with diverse human assets. Even, the British coveted its vast natural endowments. In fact, at independence, some British statesmen thought that, by mid seventies, the country would have become a medium-ranking world power. But, observers point that its vastness is inversely proportional to its propensity for politics of affection, equity, cooperation and brotherhood.
Frictions and tensions among the ethnic groups are recurrent phenomenon, right from the pre-colonial days. The apathy towards the cultivation of national outlook has inadvertently given way to a continued lukewarm attitude towards nation-building by the frustrated nations whose emotions are stirred by the clandestine tribal organisations coordinating the tribes in the hot race for relevance within the polity. “Nigeria today faces a test, a challenge of continuity and survival. There is a federation on paper, but the federating units are detached and not united by a common destiny,” said Falayi. “Major tribes dominating the six geo-political zones have grudges. They are apparently at each other’s heels; aggrieved and bitter; striving to build on the legacy of ethnicity erected by the founding fathers of Nigeria who promoted tribalism, mistrust and suspicion”, he added.
As ethnic tensions degenerate into ethno-religious crises, which have undermined national unity, cohesion and security, leaders, who adorn primordial lenses, are eager to politicise the core issues germane to the solution. The Presidency is not a unifying factor. In the opinion of a political scientist, Boniface Ayodele, it is perceived as a rotational commodity, adding that any region that does not produce the President at a time cannot have confidence in the power base. “Nigerians see themselves, first as indigenes of their tribes, sub-tribes and ethnic nations. There is no sense of attachment and belonging outside your region of origin. A President is perceived as the Northern President, Southwest President and Southsouth President. There is loyalty to the regions, and not the centre,” Ayodele.
He also pointed out that anger and disillusionment ooze from the feeling of domination; real or imagined; neglect and inequality. “Perhaps, no ethnic group has been insulated from the pervading fear of marginalisation, a singular development that has fueled unrestrained calls for confederation, restructuring of the much criticised lopsided federalism and outright secession,” he added.
In the past, many stakeholders argued that Nigeria could overcome ethnic tensions by evolving a virile federation through the breaking the country into smaller units for easy administration. State creation was designed to loosen the tribal bonds and chains. However, the exercise was conducted by partial, partisan and distant military rulers, who imposed a unitary system, which ironically alienated the newly created states and systematically encouraged further regression to tribal enclaves. In fact, the civilian regimes inherited the unitary posture, which has hindered the growth of cooperative federalism.
Besides, in some states like Kwara, Kogi, Benue and Adamawa, different tribes with different identities were lumped together. The states and local governments are not also evenly distributed between the North and the South by the military.
Fifty four years after independence, the national question has remained unsolved. As the APC National Publicity Secretary, Alhaji Lai Mohammed, noted, Nigerians are more divided more along ethnic and religious lines than any time in its history. The unresolved national question revolves around the core crises of development, including identity, legitimacy, participation, and distribution crises. The burning issues arising from these unresolved challenges include citizenship and indigeneship, the secularity of the state, state and community policing, the revenue allocation, the devolution of power, the rotation or zoning of presidential power, and corruption. Although President Jonathan set up a National Conference to resolve these issues, its report has not seen the light of the day. Thus, efforts at resolving the national question through constitution amendment have failed.
Dismissing the 1999 Constitution as a ruse, the legal luminary, the late Chief Rotimi Williams said the document, which is actually a military decree, lied against itself, when it opened with the preface: “We the people”. Another lawyer, Chief Niyi Akintola (SAN), described it as a rebellion to true federalism. Citing two defects of the constitution, he said it is wrong for the Federal Government to have input into the creation of local government, adding that it is also wrong for the governors, who are the chief security officers in their states, to rely on the Abuja-based Inspector-General of Police for maintenance of law and order.
Since the police is beyond reach, governors have been giving support to vigilante groups, ethnic militia and other para-military forces. Irked by this development, a lawyer, Kola Awodein (SAN), said these “emergency and quack security men”, who lack proper training and structure, are dangerous. But, what has also dented the image of the police is its inability to resolve high profile murders. When eminent Nigerians, including former Justice Minister Chief Ajibola Ige, Alfred rewane, Harry Marshall, Abiye Sekibo, Funso Williams, Iyalode Bisoye Tejuoso, and Ayo Daramola were killed, foreign investors started to doubt the prospects of a safe atmosphere for business.
Ethno-religious crises have aggravated the security challenge. So far, the state of emergency in the troubled states have not stopped the killings. Non-indigenes have left for their regions of origin, having lost relations and property. This has generated bad blood. Even, wealthy indigenes cannot visit home because of the fear of kidnapping. For more than 250 days, the Chibok girls kidnapped by the Boko Haram sect have not been rescued by soldiers, who are demoralised on the battle front by obsolete weapons to fight terrorism. Ayodele expressed worry about the “demobilised army”, saying that a state or country is incomplete without a competent military base. “One of the conditions for nationhood is the presence of a standing army ready to protect the territorial integrity of Nigeria. Our soldiers are not equipped to fight internal forces. It is doubtful, if they can defend the country against foreign aggression. The litmus test is the Boko Haram insurgency. It is not their fault. It is the fault of past governments that refused to fund the military adequately, despite the heavy defence budgets,” he said.
Ayodele pointed out that “when some sects “annex” part of the component units that make up a federation and hoist a strange flag, sovereignty is threatened and the country becomes fragile and susceptible to failure.” However, he said for a country to break up, it would have been subjected to socio-economic and political stress for a long time. “It would have gone through upheavals and disintegration can only come as a last resort. I don’t think Nigeria has come to that stage,” he stressed.
Had the military not intervened in government, perhaps, the story may have been different. Despite its delicate plurality and the ethnic bitterness of its regional leaders, Nigeria gave birth to a promising First Republic anchored on true federalism, regional autonomy and fair revenue sharing, based on the principles of derivation, need and national interest. The only dark side of that epoch was the lack of national outlook and the promotion of ethnic interests above the national interest. But, the politics of the independence years reflected the image of Nigeria as an amalgam of incompatible, diverse and antagonistic social formations. The leaders recognised the need to build a big, economically viable, politically strong and stable country. The Premier of Eastern region, Dr. Nnamidi Azikiwe, told his Northern counterpart, Alhaji Ahmadu Bello: “Let us burry our differences”. Bello replied: “No, let us understand our differences”. The Premier of Western Region, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, had said: “Nigeria is a geographical expression”. By this, Awo implied that the terms for peaceful co-existence must be agreed upon by the component units.
The coup of 1966 terminated the delicate marriage and compounded Nigeria’s woes. The military, which posed as “modernisers” and “agents of change”rejected the federal principle and foisted a unitary system. According to analysts, the army mirrored the polity, its ethnic bias and cravings for power in regional interest. Thus, under the military regime, the country nearly disintegrated when it was plunged into a three year civil war. In post-war period, the North, more or less, consolidated its control of the federal power, until 1999, when the regions renegotiated for power rotation.
Under the military, economic management was a difficult task. Under the civilian regime, there has been no sign of improvement. The sixth largest producer of oil in the world is going backward, unlike the Asian countries, which were on the same pedestal with Nigeria, almost six decades ago. The manufacturing sector is gone. Churches and residential buildings are sprouting up from the industrial estates. The army of unemployed youths is now a liability instead of asset. Yet, profligacy, theft and graft are peculiar to the privileged few in government. Disturbed by the trend, an Afenifere chieftain, Hon. Wale Oshun, said that “Nigeria is at crossroads”.
Closely related is the integration crisis. This relates to forging cohesion among the tribal units, which differ on sensitive national issues. But, far more challenging is the legitimacy crisis, which is triggered by the abuse of the ballot box and lack of performance by the government. A peaceful, free and fair presidential election won by the late Chief Moshood Abiola was criminally annulled, drawing the country to an edge. But, in this dispensation, democracy has been mocked by the assault on the ballot box. It is a tragedy, said Ayodele, that many unelected governors and parliamentarians have invaded the corridor of power, thereby creating a disconnect between the government and the governed. He pointed out that the extent of the legitimacy crisis manifested in the confession by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua that the election that brought him to power was severely flawed.
How has the country resolved the distribution crisis, in a mono-product economy where oil is the main source of income? There are many questions and few answers: should the national cake be shared among the component units, who are producers and non-producers of oil? Which formula for distribution will foster equity, fairness and justice, and minimise the complaints of the “marginalised” and the “minority?” Is resource control plausible and practicable? Are the regions or states prepared for the challenge of true federalism or guided resource control? Why is diversification ignored? If there is oil theft or disruption of mining activities in the Southsouth, will Nigeria will not be held to ransom?
The over-dependence on oil has implications. There is the feeling that Nigeria is being fed by one region. The zone is devastated by exploration and mining activities. Former Lagos State Governor Lateef Jakande said: “It is ironic that the region has suffered monumental regret and deprivation in the past.” This is injustice, he added. The offer of amnesty to the restless Niger Delta youths have only temporarily doused the tension. There are still cries of despondency in the Niger Delta. When militants strike occasionally, the oil will cease to flow. One of the measures being adopted now is the PIB, which has become a bone of contention between the goose that lays the golden egg and the North.
For long, citizens have been denied of comfortable living. In the last 14 years, lack of electricity has crippled business operations, especially by artisans. The cost of doing business has gone up because people have shifted to generators as the alternative source of power. Efforts to fix the electricity has not succeeded. Generally, government seems to have lost the infrastructure battle. Roads are full of potholes. Schools are on their knees because education is underfunded. Nigeria is the only oil-producing country without a functioning refinery. “Poverty is on the increase and those in government swim in opulence,” said Igbokwe, who chided the government for profligacy.
A group, Transparency International, has listed Nigeria among the most corrupt countries in the world. Activist-priest Dr. Mathew Kukah, the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, blamed the elite for the cankerworm. “Greed will always stand on the way of national interest”, he said. In fact, corruption is the greatest problem. Frontline social crusader Dr. Tunji Braithwaite lamented that the resources for development have been carted away by those in power, making infrastructural development to suffer. Even, pensions are stolen by government officials.
During his visit to Ghana three years ago, United States President Barack Obama pointed out that no corrupt country can make progress. In an obvious reference to Nigeria, he said: “No country is going to create wealth, if its leaders exploit the economy to enrich themselves or the police can be bought off by drug traffickers. No business wants to invest in a place where the government skims 20 percent off the top or head of the port authorities is corrupt. No person wants to live in a society where the rule of law gives way to the rule of brutality and bribery. That is not democracy; that is tyranny and now is the time to end it”.
The anti-graft bodies are in dilemma. The Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (ICPC) have their limitations. While it is relatively easier to fight corruption outside government, it is difficult to curb corruption in the corridor of power. In the early nineties, foremost economist Dr. Pius Okigbo cried out that “the government has become the greatest corrupter of the society.” In the past, critics alleged that the anti-graft bodies were used by government to intimidate and witch-hunt perceived foes.
The preoccupation of those power is the 2015 polls. More attention, energy and resources are devoted to the scramble for power than good governance and commitment to national survival.
If Nigeria disintegrates, Africa will be in big trouble. “One in every Africa is a Nigerian. How will neigbouring countries in West Africa cope with refugees from Nigeria?” asked Ayodele. “a calamity of monumental proportion may befell Africa,” he added.
To the stakeholders, disintegration is not the answer. They are of the opinion that the restoration of true federalism, with its elements of regionalism, state police, devolution of power and restructuring, may save the country from doom. In the past, Afenifere leader Chief Ayo Adebanjo said: “We need to convene a Sovereign National Conference to discuss the basis for peaceful co-existence.” A legal luminary, Prof. Ben Nwabueze (SAN), agreed with him. He said: “We need the conference now more than before.”
However, when the conference was convoked in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), observers contended that it paled into a decoy and a jamboree. The report is still hanging. “It was difficult for delegates to agree on common grounds of the national question. It was more difficult for them to iron out differences,” observed Lateef Raji, a historian, who added: “The conference became another avenue, not only for airing regional grievances, but fuelling pre-existing bitterness among competing political leaders, who debated issues in an atmosphere of mutual suspicion.”
Will the report, if implemented, restore hope? Will is restore moral value and stop corruption? Will it ensure free and fair elections? Will it resolve the national question? Will it rejuvenate the economy? Will it restore national security and foster national unity? Will it avert disintegration? Will the report pave the way for a new Nigeria? More questions, few answers
