Tag: Renaming Nigeria

  • Renaming Nigeria

    Renaming Nigeria

    “Man is history after his demise. Therefore, endeavour to be a pleasant history for others to read after you might have left the stage”. – Arab poet

    Preamble

    Man is both a product and a producer of history. He lives by history and leaves history behind as his legacy at the time of his departure from this ephemeral world. This confirms the fact that man and history are like Siamese twins. The one cannot do without the other. History makes man just as man makes history. The synergy between the two makes them look like a pair of scissors in which one blade cannot effectively function without the other.

    This is a period in Nigeria when recalling history is a necessity. How did Nigeria come into being a country and has a name? Is this name fitting and appropriate for the country that bears it? Can the name be changed and can changing it make any reasonable difference? These are some of the questions that ‘The Message’ seeks to answer today.

    Accident of history

    On January 8, 1897, an article appeared in Financial Times which suggested a name for the vast land around river Niger which had then been colonised by the Royal Niger Company on behalf of the British Empire. The suggested name was Nigeria (from Niger Area) and the author of the article was one Miss Flora Shaw, a 45-year-old journalist. She was then the colonial editor of Financial Times as well as the writer of a weekly column named ‘The Colony’ in that newspaper.

    In coining the name ‘Nigeria’, Flora Shaw logically took many facts into consideration. One: the area in question had no specific name by which it could be called other than a protectorate of the ‘Royal Niger Company’. Two: She considered an earlier suggested name ‘Central Sudan’ as aberrational since that name already belonged to an area around the Nile River occupied by a population of Black Africans now called Sudan. She equally considered the name ‘Slave Coast’ which the colonialists had attempted to give to this area as derogatory and finally settled for ‘Nigeria’, which she coined from ‘Niger Area’.

    Born at 2, Dundas Terrace, Woolwich, England on December 19, 1852, Miss Flora Shaw (fourth of her parent’s fourteen children) was a novelist and frontline, versatile female journalist who gained fame through her pungent analyses of African colonial economy. She was later to become ‘The Honourable Dame Flora Lugard, the wife of Frederick John Deatry Lugard of Abinger who colonised and amalgamated the southern and northern parts of what came to be known as Nigeria in 1914.

    Flora was six years older than Frederick who was born in India on January 22, 1858. The two historic personalities married in 1902 and lived together without children for the rest of their lives.

    Four historical facts are manifest here. First: the name Nigeria had come into existence far away in England long before the country that now bears that name became a country.

    Second: the name was coined five years before Flora Shaw married Frederick Lugard. Therefore, contrary to the general erroneous belief that it was Mrs. Lugard who named our country Nigeria, Flora was Miss Shaw and not Mrs. Lugard when she coined the name.

    Third: it can be said that Nigeria came into existence through the efforts of a bachelor and a spinster who later became a couple.

    Fourth: by sheer coincidence, Nigeria’s second First Lady, Flora Azikiwe, the wife of Nigeria’s first President, shared the same first name with the wife of Lugard: FLORA.

    Lord Frederick Lugard

    Baron Frederick Lugard was a military adventurer and an ardent administrator who played a major part in Britain’s colonial history between 1888 and 1945, serving in East Africa, West Africa, and Hong Kong. His name is particularly associated with Nigeria, where he served as High Commissioner (1900–06) as well as Governor and Governor-General (1912–19). He was knighted in 1901 and raised to the peerage in 1928.

    As at the time of Lugard’s incursion, most of the vast region of over 300,000 square miles (800,000 square km) was still unoccupied and even unexplored by Europeans. In the southern areas were mostly animists and in the northern areas were multitudes of Muslims with city-states and large walled cities.

    Lugard’s intention was to merge these two people with diverse cultures and spiritual inclinations and manage them as a single people in a single nation. Within three years of his expedition, he had established a British control of the large territory by diplomacy or by swift use of his meager force.

    Although in hastening to take the major states of Kano and Sokoto he engaged the hands of his more cautious home government, only two serious local revolts marred the widespread acceptance and cooperation that he obtained. His policy was to support the native states and chieftainships, their laws and their courts, forbidding slave trading and severe punishments as well as exercising control centrally through the native rulers.

    Historic marriage

    After his marriage to Flora Shaw in 1902 and the latter could not stand the Nigerian climate, Lugard felt obliged to leave Africa and accept a junior position of the governorship of Hong Kong which he held from 1907 to 1912. It was like stepping down as president to accept the position of a governor. Only a very few Africans would accept such.

    But the bushwhacker from Africa achieved a surprising degree of success and, on his own initiative, founded the University of Hong Kong. Thereafter, Lugard and his wife joined the Southern and Northern parts of Nigeria in an historic marriage that is yet to prove union right.

    How far so far?

    Ever since the exit of the British colonialists in 1960, Nigeria has remained a country without focus, despite the enormous resources at her disposal. In less than half a decade after independence, the crude hands of African inexperience began to show vividly in her administration as ethnic and religious flavours were added to her republican ethos. Then came the insuperable mountain of corruption that kept overwhelming the citizenry and drowning all hopes till today. Then, a military incursion was introduced with sweet tongue to right the wrong but which eventually turned forlorn.

    Now, after 100 years of absurdity called merger, Nigeria continues to wallow hopelessly in a paroxysm of despair as the last four years became unprecedented in the country’s history of corruption. Today, the language is no longer mere corruption but corruption with unbridled impunity.

    As if in a nightmare, we suddenly found ourselves in a situation where figure 16 is said to be higher than figure 19 and theft is officially defined and treated as to outside the framework corruption. Billions of dollars are said to be missing from our treasury just as our foreign reserves are daily being depleted even as ministers and other governmental cronies are living like princes and princesses under an unquestionable emperor.

    Now, Nigeria is at a crossroads over where to go from here. Like Laurent Gbagbo’s tenure in Cote d’Ivoire Nigeria is anxiously waiting for a period of uncertainty but fervently praying that such period never comes. Typical of African greedy leaders, we now have a situation at hand where ‘the monarch must not be deposed democracy or no democracy. The rule of the game is either ethnicity or religion.

    And to prevent the deposition of the monarch, the military must be mobilised against the ‘bloody armless civilians’ for the purpose of election. Thus, election has become a war that must be fought and won with massive arsenal by the government in power no matter whose ox is gored. Where are we going from here?

    Democratic tenure

    Four years is a long period in a democratic tenure of a nation. It is long enough to lay a solid foundation for a nation. It is long enough to build a formidable edifice that can be inherited from generation to generation. If 16 years of democracy cannot do any of these in Nigeria can one century do any? If a journey of one year cannot take a traveller anywhere who says 10 years will take him anywhere?

    Read Also: Organic garden leads Nigeria’s shift toward natural, sustainable beverage choices

    As an OPEC country, we have abundant oil wealth but we must import refined fuel for domestic consumption. We have a massive army of unemployed youths and we cannot provide electricity to enable them to be self-employed. Yet, we are insisting that we must continue like this even as billions of dollars are being stolen daily. Where are we going from here?

    Obama’s counsel

    In his direct presidential address to Nigerian populace on Tuesday, March 24, 2015, the American President Barrack Obama said of tomorrow’s elections and the subsequent ones as follows: “Hello.  Today, I want to speak directly to you—the people of Nigeria.

    Nigeria is a great nation and you can be proud of the progress you’ve made.  Together, you won your independence, emerged from military rule, and strengthened democratic institutions.  You’ve strived to overcome division and to turn Nigeria’s diversity into a source of strength.  You’ve worked hard to improve the lives of your families and to build the largest economy in Africa.

    Now you have a historic opportunity to help write the next chapter of Nigeria’s progress—by voting in the upcoming elections.  For elections to be credible, they must be free, fair and peaceful.  All Nigerians must be able to cast their votes without intimidation or fear.

    So I call on all leaders and candidates to make it clear to their supporters that violence has no place in democratic elections—and that they will not incite, support or engage in any kind of violence—before, during, or after the votes are counted.

    I call on all Nigerians to peacefully express your views and to reject the voices of those who call for violence.  And when elections are free and fair, it is the responsibility of all citizens to help keep the peace, no matter who wins.

    Successful elections and democratic progress will help Nigeria meet the urgent challenges you face today.  Boko Haram—a brutal terrorist group that kills innocent men, women and children—must be stopped.

    Hundreds of kidnapped children deserve to be returned to their families. Nigerians who have been forced to flee deserve to return to their homes.  Boko Haram wants to destroy Nigeria and all that you have worked to build.  By casting your ballot, you can help secure your nation’s progress.

    I’m told that there is a saying in your country: “to keep Nigeria one is a task that must be done”. Today, I urge all Nigerians—from all religions, all ethnic groups, and all regions—to come together and keep Nigeria one.  And in this task of advancing the security, prosperity, and human rights of all Nigerians, you will continue to have a friend and partner in the United States of America”.

    Ordinarily, such a cross-Atlantic presidential speech would have been unnecessary if we had learnt from the examples of great African leaders such as Nelson Mandela of South Africa, Sam Njoma of Namibia, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Ahmadu Ahidjo of Cameroun.

    But since the uncheckable greed in us will not allow us to learn from good examples we must to listen to an American Obama who talks to Nigerians rather than talk with Nigerians. Whatever name we now give Nigeria, positive or negative; we shall not relent in saying: God save Nigeria!

  • Renaming Nigeria

    Renaming Nigeria

    What’s there in a name? That is the rhetorical question brought to the fore by a recent advocacy by the president of African Development Bank (AfDB), Akinwunmi Adesina.

    He had at a lecture as the recipient of the 2024 Obafemi Awolowo Prize for Leadership, called for a change of name from the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the ‘United States of Nigeria’. This change in nomenclature in his view “would change the relational mind-set between the states and Abuja: the fulcrum would be the states, while the centre would support them, not lord over them”.

    Adesina further contended that with good governance, better accountability systems and zero tolerance for corruption, more economically stronger constituent states would emerge.

    It is hazy how a mere change in nomenclature would elicit concomitant change in relational mind-set between the states and Abuja to obviate the control and dominance of the centre over the constituent units. Equally uncertain is how good governance, more accountability and zero tolerance for corruption will ensue through renaming Nigeria.

    So what point was Adesina really driving at? What is there in the suggested new name that is lacking in the old one that has the magic wand for these envisaged fundamental relational and mind-set changes? Or, are we being fed with the notion that once we rename the Nigerian federation in the fashion of the United States of America, USA, our brand of federalism will begin to deliver public goods and services optimally? Does the hood make the monk?

    Read Also: Proposed NLC stakeholders meeting a jamboree, says LP

    These are the immediate posers that confront the suggestion that renaming Nigeria will bring about a change in relational mind-set between the states and the central authority.  That association or linkage is hard to fathom. So what is the hidden message of the AfDB boss?

    The thesis of his presentation appeared clearer when he said, “the achievement of economically viable entities and the viability of the national entity require constitutional changes to devolve more economic and fiscal powers to the states or regions. The stronger the states or regions, the stronger the federal units”.

    His further intervention to the effect that for Nigeria to get out of economic quagmire, there is the compelling need for restructuring driven, not by political expediency but economic and financial viability says it all.

    Herein lies the message. So it is not just a case of mere renaming of Nigeria in the mould he advocated eliciting attitudinal and relational mind-set changes between the states and the federal government. Neither does the level of economic and political development that give allure to the American federal system lie in the order in which that country’s name is arranged. No!

    The strength of that country’s federal system is in its strong institutions and processes entrenched in constitutional provisions that devolve powers between the federal authority and states such that does not give room for an omnipotent and omnipresent centre. It is hallmarked by fiscal federalism and independence that allows the constituent units control their affairs without undue interference from the centre.

    Their system operates along the principles of federalism characterised by K.C. Wheare as the “method of dividing powers so that the general and regional governments are each within a sphere coordinate and independent”.  A.V. Dicey gave further fillip to this by identifying three leading characteristics of ‘completely developed federalism’ to include the distribution of powers among governmental bodies (each with limited and coordinate powers) along with the supremacy of the constitution and the authority of the courts as interpreters of the constitution.

    These are the principles that give allure to that governance framework. They have nothing to do with the order in which that country’s name is arranged. So changing the Federal Government of Nigeria to the ‘United States of Nigeria’ as Adesina suggested is practically of no value in addressing the glaring imperfections of our federal contraption.

    It has no solution to the disproportionate control and disbursement of the national revenue by the centre. It has no remedy for the deadly political competition our convoluted federal system engenders. Neither is it a therapeutic response to our brand of politics identified by Richard Joseph as prebendalism- the bitter competition to capture political power for the benefit of one’s ethnic group and family members. 

    Renaming Nigeria is of questionable value in addressing the national questions; the aberrant form and structure of the federation and the intense competition between the centre and the constituent units for the loyalty of the citizens.

    The ‘United States of Nigeria’ as a concept, can only draw relevance as a metaphor for true federalism. It strikes as a figurative representation for power devolution, fiscal federalism and restructuring through fundamental constitutional changes. It is a call for federalism in its pristine form.

    Perhaps, that was the link Adesina sought to establish when he called for devolution of powers and restructuring that is guided by economic and fiscal considerations. But he could have gone ahead to marshal his thoughts along these lines rather than hide under a nebulous advocacy for renaming Nigeria. It is not certain why he chose to hide under the call for a change of name for such fundamental change issues.

    One’s guess however, is that he aimed at getting at the same objective through an entirely different channel. His target was to draw attention to the imperfections of our federal order by giving the impression that there is something in that name that works against the spirits and principles of true federalism.

    There is also the possibility that his proposition may have been a subtle way of avoiding controversy. This should not be surprising given the vested interests that easily get jittery each time restructuring, power devolution or fiscal federalism is mentioned.

    But then, how far can we possibly stretch the concept of a United States of Nigeria in the face of the multidimensional challenges that constantly assail the authority of the federal government? That concept would seem a misnomer given the current siege by non-state actors and the ensuing competition for the loyalty of the citizens between the central government and cleavages of primordial, religious and sectional hue?

    Despite his manner of intervention, Adesina did not disappoint in charting the path the country needed to toe, if our federal system of government will not continue to operate in its current aberrant form. He has added his weight to the necessary and sufficient constitutional changes this country must undertake to extricate itself from the debilitating challenges assailing its progress, economic development and political stability.

    But, the issues he raised are not entirely new. They have been recurring decimals on the country’s political chessboard. They were the national questions that led to the 2014 National Conference set up by the Jonathan regime, the National Political Reforms Conference of the Obasanjo regime and the Constitutional Conference of the late Abacha administration.

    Each of these conferences made far-reaching recommendations on the necessary constitutional and administrative reforms the country needed to undertake to position itself on the path to steady progress and even development. Sadly, despite the huge resources and energy injected into these conferences, their recommendations (futuristic as many of them were) have not gone beyond the papers in which they were written.

    That is why agitations have resonated with seeming ferocity. We now have the President Tinubu administration that has been taking hard and painful decisions for the overall public good. These have been evident in the removal of fuel subsidy and the floating of the Naira in the foreign exchange market among others.

    The gains from these sectors can only endure in a politically stable environment. President Tinubu should consolidate the gains of his reforms by mustering the necessary political will to get the Nigerian federalism function in its true spirits. It is time to confront and realistically address the national questions headlong.