The Nation Newspaper

Tag: self-determination

  • Re-federalisation: majoritarianism, consensus, and self-determination (2)

    But the legislator has, of himself, no authority. He is only a guide who drafts and proposes laws, but the people alone (that is, the sovereign or general will) has authority to make and impose laws—Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion—John Stuart Mill in On Liberty

    I concluded last week’s column thus: ‘But if none of the country’s institutions is likely to be changed because individuals in power are likely to be beholden to the interests of their specific sections of the country or to their source of livelihood, it becomes logical to listen to those who have been calling for establishment of a constituent assembly to work on a new structure and a new constitution to encode a new political reality. Such approach may move the emphasis on majoritarianism to consensus, a value that has historically been inseparable from the process of making democratic constitutions.’

    The point of today’s piece is not whether Nasir el-Rufai has a right to view what he calls political realities of the country into an albatross around the neck of Nigerians who do not think that it is politically legitimate in a multinational democracy for some sections of the country or groups of citizens to hold down others who they estimate have minority vote. He also has every right to expect and even recommend that legislators vote against meaningful changes that such lawmakers believe can endanger whatever privilege the status quo accords them. It is perfectly within the democratic rights of the Chairman of APC’s True Federalism Committee to express his personal opinions freely. What appears troubling is that Mallam el-Rufai left fellow citizens and fellow party members or sympathisers in the dark as to who spoke to the youths; el-Rufai the person, or the Chairman of APC’s committee on true federalism.

    Undoubtedly, many citizens must have voted for General Buhari to become president on the strength of the pledge of APC to nudge the country to migrate from business as usual model to change of many aspects of the polity and economy that had ceased to function profitably for benefits of the citizenry. More specifically, the manifesto pledge to ‘entrenching the Federalist Spirit in the constitution’ must have attracted the presidential candidate and his party to voters across geographic divides. Should el-Rufai have been understood by citizens as sacralising the status quo on behalf of the APC committee, such understanding or misunderstanding is capable of disturbing voters in various parts of the country who voted for APC in 2015. I could be wrong in my reading of el-Rufai’s speech to the youths in Abuja. I could not catch any hint that he separated his own voice from that of the committee that he chairs and on whose behalf the event at which he spoke was organised. It should not be too late for him to make this importation distinction or clarification.

    Now to Political Science 101 of el-Rufai’s sanctification of Nigeria’s political reality. To pontificate that that lawmakers have the power to vote any issue down or out, even on the basis of self-interest, and in the process create a situation of ‘conflicting argument without consensus’ is to imply that lawmakers, rather than the people, are the sole owners of sovereignty, a situation that has necessitated invoking Rousseau’s words: “But the legislator has, of himself, no authority. He is only a guide who drafts and proposes laws, but the people alone have authority to make and impose laws.”

    Furthermore, the notion that if majority of voters opt for something that is in their interest and that may not be in the interest of minority of voters in a multinational democracy, does this make minority nationalities (voters) that call for a new political structure that they believe can facilitate improvement of the living standards of citizens in their own constituencies and communities irrelevant? Does such use of majority electoral power make the status quo citizens (with minority vote) perceive to oppress them inviolable? Sovereignty in a multinational democracy is not exclusive to majority of voters; it belongs to all citizens. Those who feel they are victims of tyranny of the majority and who desire to be free from such oppression do have the right to seek redress in the name of self-determination. An important matter to worry about as the APC works towards its report on true federalism is whether all Nigerians can be sovereign when a part feels (as those demanding for re-federalisation of the country currently do) to be living in a system that prevents them from self-actualisation?

    It is the danger inherent in flaunting the power of majority of voters on a matter as fundamental as determining the crafting of a constitution to serve as a charter for a multi-nation federal state that needs to be avoided in speaking to youths in a country in search of change. Just like the status quo (or existing reality) is part of the human condition, so is change or alterability of the status quo an aspect of human experience. To insist or believe that the status quo is sacrosanct is to deny Nigeria of claim to a universal experience, the value of creative destruction. With over 50 years of various forms of unitary governance, the whole country or sections of it that feel degraded have a right to demand change and they need not be discouraged by over privileging of the status quo.

    There should be no political reality in Nigeria that is not subject or amenable to change, once the will to give change a chance is there. We need not overlook that modern political organisation provides a space for those who are made to feel impotent by the sheer force of numbers or majority votes in a democracy. Embarking on restructuring requires more user-friendly vocabularies than electoral tyranny of the majority. After over half a century of conflicting views about the architecture of governing our multinational federation, we need to migrate from the force of majoritarianism to that of consensus.

    Our country is too important for its citizens and development of Africa for it to be subjected to the tension of conflicting arguments that can wear the country down by valorising unnecessarily the power of any majority—be it of individual lawmakers or of states or regions. The dichotomy between majority and minority is only capable of accentuating demand for self-determination, which in most cases, always ends up in bigger conflicts for both majority and minority. Insisting on using provisions of the 1999 Constitution to make changes in the architecture of governance and in creating a constitution that citizens feel reflects their values and aspirations may be endangered in the context described by el-Rufai as Political Reality; one that may be resistant to change for reasons of sheer self-interest of persons or groups.

    If by any stretch of imagination, Mallam el-Rufai’s speech to youths in Abuja two weeks ago had (or still has) any connection to the perspective of APC’s Committee on True Federalism, it behoves the party and party leaders to give Consensus the prime of place, rather than the power of majority to dismiss new ideas perceived to be coming from minority of voters. It is consensus that eases conflicts faster and more tearlessly than majoritarianism. A time that our country is at the intersection of status quo and change, it is necessary to recall Josiah Gilbert Holland’s poem about leadership: GOD, give us men! A time like this demands; Strong minds, great hearts, true faith and ready hands; men whom the spoils of office cannot buy; men who possess opinions and a will; men who have honour, men who will not lie….

    Concluded

  • Re-federalisation: Majoritarianism, consensus, and self-determination 1

    All the institutions under the current constitution are part of what need to be changed.  B

    But the legislator has, of himself, no authority. He is only a guide who drafts and proposes laws, but the people alone (that is, the sovereign or general will) has authority to make and impose laws—Jean-Jacques Rousseau

    He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion—John Stuart Mill in On Liberty

    In the last two columns, this writer observed that Nigerians are getting positive about restructuring. I based my assessment on comments from many people and groups ranging from those who were hitherto hostile to restructuring and those who made a religion of the polysemy or ambiguity of the word. Those that I characterised as doves included the Chairman of the All Progressives Congress Committee on True Federalism, Mallam Nasir el-Rufai. Even before the official release of the APC report, the chairman of the party’s Committee on True Federalism has in a post-Chatham House lecture released a new doctrine that can be called the Doctrine of Political Reality, a doctrine that revives the stasis of the past few years spawned by claims of ownership of sovereignty by people in legislative and executive power.

    In a special Youth Consultation organised by the APC in Abuja recently, el-Rufai venerated the status quo in Nigeria so religiously that he gave the impression of status quo as destiny for the country and all its citizens. El-Rufai acknowledged the power and authority of individual lawmakers to stop any wheel of change in the country, for no other reason than self-interest, while cataloguing six items under his doctrine of political reality: a) The people of oil and gas-producing areas cannot have 100% resource control; b) there can be no equal number of states between the North and the South; c) Nigeria cannot be restructured without the approval and support of the North; d) there can be no change to the status of the Senate; e) the current constitution cannot be replaced and may not be amended unless 2/3 members of federal and state legislatures feel comfortable with such change, and f) there can be no coup to make intransigent lawmakers irrelevant.

    Of course, many of the ideas of el-Rufai’s Principle of Political Reality should not be scary to ‘restructuralists’ or true federalists. One idea is that there can be no coup. This should in fact gladden the hearts of those referred to as agitators for restructuring, more so that it was coups that got the country out of federalism into unitarism which has now become a bone of contention between different sections of the country. Another is that people in oil-producing communities should not expect 100% control over revenue from the black gold. At no time in the history of oil in the country did the regions or states in which petroleum is produced have 100% control of revenue earned from the product. The highest control for mineral resources was 50% of revenue allowed in the 1960 and 1963 constitutions duly negotiated by representatives of all sections of the country. These constitutions allowed 50% to regions, 35% to the federation, and 15% specifically to the central government.

    The third idea that is not likely to scare autonomists is that nobody should expect equal number of states between regions, namely north and south and east and west. This does not seem threatening because the number of states is not necessarily synonymous with federalism. In addition, proliferation of states is one of the reasons for demand for re-federalisation, a situation that had frittered billions of dollars from petroleum on maintaining bureaucracies in 36 mini states across the country, not to mention the central government and its inordinate number of agencies. In the event of re-federalisation, it may not matter the number of states in a region, especially once the country moves away from gathering resources from all states to share on the basis of criteria that have nothing to do with productivity of states to a federal model in which it is the subnational units that provide funds to run the central government, just as it was in the 1963 republican constitution.

    The other ideas of el-Rufai that should be worrisome to lovers of fundamental change to the polity and the economy of the country are those concerning the power of individuals currently in legislative positions to act as capriciously as they desire and the view that the 1999 Constitution is sovereign, even when the constitution is the principal instrument of de-federalisation of the country. El-Rufai makes himself very clear on the power of lawmakers to scuttle any restructuring: “We have a political process and so, we are not over-throwing the government and starting afresh. So, we have to work with what we have in a sensible and pragmatic manner and reform what need to be reformed.”

    What is worrisome is not the view that restructuring should be about what is good for Nigeria:   “We must think for once what will be of interest to the country. We must think of what will be of interest to Nigeria because what will work in one part of the country may not work in another. If we don’t think first of what is of interest to all of us before the individuals, we will only have series of conflicting argument without consensus. Whatever consensus comes into being must of necessity be good for Nigeria.” What is troubling is the valorisation of the status quo in a context that is about creating a new reality. It is worrying that there are sections of the country that derive special advantages from the status quo, as such possibility smacks of lack of equity.

    There is nothing strange about Mallam el-Rufai’s recognition of the power of majority of voters in the senate or in state assemblies. Majority rule is part and parcel of democratic culture, especially those aspects that rely on election. This veneration of majoritarianism is not totally unexpected in a context in which re-federalisation is believed in different parts of the country as removing advantages of one section, rather than as creating equality of opportunity for all sections. What is overlooked in the privileging of majoritarianism in respect of restructuring is that those agitating for a federal Nigeria are calling for a new political reality, as distinct from the existing political reality or status quo. If there is any group or section of the country that believes that it is the current assembly—national or subnational that will make re-federalisation possible, such section or group should think anew. The reason that citizens do not expect sitting lawmakers to create a new constitution is not just because they were not voted directly for that purpose. It is because citizens agitating for change know that self-interest will prevent lawmakers from doing a meaningful job at amending the constitution to bring far-reaching changes. Democracy believes in ethical behaviour as crucial to consolidation of democratic culture. All the institutions under the current constitution are part of what need to be changed.  A striking aspect of our country’s political reality is that the 1999 Constitution that drives the country’s political and economic process is a fundamental law that does not enjoy the consent of the citizens directly by way of referendum or indirectly by way of consensus reached by duly elected representatives of the people.

    But if none of the country’s institutions is likely to be changed because individuals in power are likely to be beholden to the interests of their specific sections of the country or to their source of livelihood, it becomes logical to listen to those who have been calling for establishment of a constituent assembly to work on a new structure and a new constitution to encode the new political reality. Such approach may move the emphasis on majoritarianism to consensus, a value that has historically been inseparable from the process of making democratic constitutions.

     

    • To be continued
  • Promoting self-determination campaigns by default

    Promoting self-determination campaigns by default

    DESPITE Acting President Yemi Osinbajo’s protestation to the contrary, and the continuing lambast of the sometimes disruptive activities of self-determination groups by many Nigerians, the meeting last Thursday between leaders of the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), led by Edwin Clark, and the presidency is the clearest demonstration that the nation’s binding cord has been stretched to its elastic limit. The group had insisted that if the region’s 16-point agenda was not met before November 1, it would pull out of discussions on peace and development. In the said meeting, the government responded with a 20-point agenda for the region, with a visibly impressed Chief Clark declaring satisfaction with the government’s plans. A few supposedly militant Niger Delta groups have, however, upped the ante, indicating that without devolution and restructuring, there could be no peace in the region.

    If last Thursday’s meeting between the government and PANDEF was an acknowledgement of the general unease in the land, the continuing dissension between youth groups in the North and agitators from the South, mainly the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and the Movement for the Actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), indicate why the nation must urgently grapple with alienation and restiveness in many parts of the country. Indeed, while IPOB is still blowing hot and Arewa youths remain adamant about the October 1 quit notice given to the Igbo in the North, a Yoruba group, the Yoruba Liberation Command (YOLICOM), has come out with a declaration on Southwest independence, complete with flags and symbols. Indeed, self-determination is now very fashionable, but nonetheless troubling.

    The presidency has been reluctant to acknowledge the real factors animating these self-determination groups and propelling their separatist campaigns. Yet without identifying and grappling with the factors responsible for these campaigns, the government’s mollifying tactics are bound to be short-lived. Even if self-determination campaign is noticeably popular in the Southeast, it is inaccurate to think that the youths in that region inevitably want war or that since those under 50 did not feel the impact or bear the brunt of the last war, they ineluctably find it easy to promote divisiveness and self-determination. This kind of analysis is unhelpful.

    The first question to ask is why all of a sudden self-determination campaigns have assumed urgency in most parts of the South. While the economic downturn Nigeria faces is critical in understanding the problem, it does not explain why the Southeast, for instance, deprecates its exclusion from President Buhari’s first 30 or so appointments. The region did not vote for him in the last presidential election, but it does not explain why the Igbo seemed to have been excluded from key decision-making echelons, especially in the security sector. The economic downturn does not also explain why Southwest groups, including Afenifere, now strongly advocate and emphasise the concept of restructuring as a means of promoting the enthronement and practice of federalism. Nothing also explains why despite economic problems the presidency took so long in responding to the menace of herdsmen in the middle belt, southern Kaduna, parts of the Northeast and elsewhere.

    The problem of running a unitary government under the pretext of federalism is a long-standing one in Nigeria. If more groups are suddenly becoming so agitated as to adopt desperate and hardline attitude towards the country’s dysfunctional political structure, it may be because the Buhari presidency has been unable to run an inclusive government, display genuine and convincing patriotism, and demonstrate an understanding of what the country’s problems are and the vision required to mend or even eliminate the exposed fault lines. Indeed, with political leaders like Nasir el-Rufai, in whom herdsmen, regardless of their brutality, find enthusiastic eulogist, the country appears in short supply of eminent citizens able to offer profound leadership.

    Prof. Osinbajo has rightly dialogued with every agitated group that attracted his attention. But fine words butter no parsnips. Together with President Buhari, the acting president working with a revamped presidential team should recognise the fundamental problems undermining national unity and stability. If they can summon the brilliance, courage and dispassion needed to enact and execute the necessary remedies, they may finally put to rest decades of agitations set to get worse as the years roll by. It is sheer lack of wisdom to think that by merely saying the unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable, and sermonising and appealing to sentiments, and frightening the populace out of their wits with war stories, peace would be restored. It won’t. Worse, whether Nigerian leaders admit it or not, the country is running out of time, given the rash of self-determination groups mutilating the national psyche.

    The times call for an ingenious, committed, brilliant, courageous and selfless leader, someone completely inured to religious and ethnic manipulations, someone with a transcendental and arcane sense of justice and social and political engineering. Neither the seemingly distant Buhari presidency nor the irresolute and self-seeking National Assembly understands the spirit of the age.

     

  • UPP: Self-determination through restructuring

    Not even a sworn enemy would succeed in discountenancing the contribution of Chief Chekwas Okorie, to the struggle of Ndigbo for political reckoning in Nigeria. Such, would be a long, weak, tortuous and hectic struggle.

    A young man who began to attend the meeting of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, the umbrella socio-cultural organisation and apex decision-making body of the Igbo people in 1976 as an undergraduate, he must have been bitten by a certain bug which apparently injected into his bloodstream a certain virus, which impelled him to take up the gauntlet of the Igbo struggle without looking back. Today, 41 years later, he is still in the struggle, despite the ups and downs, contradictions and downright upheavals on his way.

    However, unlike the table banging strategy, which has created the present noise and chaos in the country, he chose a different course, the political solution as an option in his approach and has since gone ahead to tread that path, with a concomitant attempt to first pursue the unity of the Igbo in his own way.

    Having adopted this strategy and apparently compelled by other factors, such as his young age and perhaps limited financial resources to take it slowly, he began with Nzuko Abia na Imo, a socio-cultural association seeking to bind the people of Imo and the newly-created Abia State under one umbrella and when Ebonyi State was also carved out of Abia, changed the name to Nzuko Abia, Imo na Ebonyi.

    With the success of the organisation and the mileage or traction that it attracted, he upped his ante with the establishment of Igboezue Cultural Association (ICA), another body that now comprised the entire Igboland.

    Yet, unlike many similar Igbo outfits that many times spoke and acted out of variance and in many cases tried to tip the balance as a result, this organisation appeared quite sober and restrained. Instead, it became the intellectual and ideas backbone of Ohanaeze, with the Igbo body always adopting the ICA positions, not only for their depth and originality, but for being in sync with the thinking and belief of the larger Igbo community.

    Again, with the ostensible success of the ICA, came the idea to move into yet another and bigger platform – a political party. First, was the Peoples Democratic Congress (PDC), between 1996 and 1998, which failed to fly, because the authorities then denied it registration.

    But, three years later, the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), was born through the same instrumentality. In fact, by that singular act, Okorie became the first Igbo man to found a registered national political party in the history of Nigeria.

    Of course, this particular feat was not only celebrated within the South-east particularly, but became the veritable vehicle for transporting the Igbo political ideology and aspiration, just as was originally conceived by its promoter.

    In fact, the belief in many quarters is that APGA, actually won all the governorship elections in the South-east, in its first outing in 2003, but was denied the enjoyment of the benefit of that feat by the powerful Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) forces at that time.

    Apart from the perceived rigging culture of the party then, it is also believed that then President Olusegun Obasanjo, a veteran of the Nigerian civil war, was alarmed at the implication of such a political milestone that he actually did everything to stymie the party, if not kill it outright.

    The subsequent leadership crisis that suddenly erupted within its fold which lasted for almost a decade was seen as the handiwork of the clandestine federal government’s effort to do it in, by sowing a seed of discord among the contending parties, fearing the security implication of such a sharp rise.

    However, even if the government angle is unfounded, what seemed quite obvious is that those who took over the leadership of APGA from Okorie, either lacked the vision, tenacity or the gusto to propel and grow it beyond a certain limit, or were simply distracted by individual aspirations that they simple forgot the raison d’etre for its formation.

    The result is that the party, which even by official records, was the third in ranking at the end of the 2003 exercise, soon became quite diminished and relegated. It suddenly lost the passion and drive, which made it a sort of movement, whilst its original leaders traversed beyond the nooks and crannies of the South-east to such places as Sabo Ngeri, Kano, Central Market, Kaduna, Alaba International Market and Olowu Spare Parts Market in Lagos, and even as far as Adamawa and Maiduguri, died almost immediately, to raise the consciousness of the Igbo people, its target.

    Such is the irony that today, whilst the leaders of the South-west, which successfully moved the political momentum of the South-west from the Alliance for Democracy (AD), through the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), to the All Progressives Congress (APC), are enjoying power at the national level, their South-east counterparts appear to be groping in darkness like a herd of blind cattle left in the wilderness.

    Stewed in its continuous and consistent internal crisis, which seems to find new fervour and flavour each passing day, APGA is now being threatened with total extinction, by the obvious possibility of losing the November 18 Anambra State governorship election.

    Therein lies the fresh attraction for the United Progressives Party (UPP), yet, another of Okorie’s attempt at achieving his dream Igbo political emancipation. One only needs to be in the South-east to experience the loud, deafening din as it roars into contention as the party to beat in any election from now onwards.

    Though, established in 2012 after Okorie returned the APGA certificate to the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), indicating the end of his battle to reclaim the leadership of the party, the UPP has suddenly assumed a phenomenal role in South-east politics, especially with the texture and tempo of the current agitations in Nigeria at the moment.

    With the Biafran spirit raised to the optimum, it has become a platform through which those convinced about the political option in the quest for the distinct Igbo identity are finding ambience.

    In fact, many of its supporters and members have renamed it the Biafran National Party, to underscore its impact and place in the current Igbo political undertaking in the Nigerian polity.

    Nonetheless, Okorie, though does not see anything wrong in such a corruption of the party’s name, explains that its ideals go beyond the Igbo to the fight against every form of oppression in the country.

    This, he says is because the party is founded on the ideology of self-determination and restructuring, which has become a national singsong. “Today, we’re the only political party of the 45 that exists at the moment that has come out with this bold initiative. So, as we approach the campaigns for 2019, we’ll take this message to every nook and cranny of this country, so that they will not see it as an Igbo agenda, but an agenda that will liberate Nigeria. Because what is holding Nigeria down is the type of structure it is operating and that structure must be dismantled and a new one put in place and you will see Nigeria experience a quantum leap in its development. So, this is what Nigerians should expect from us.

    “The party is therefore as important to the people of the Southern Borno, the Middle Belt, the Southern Zaria, and the Niger Delta, as the people of the South-east, because of the common feeling of oppression,” he says.

    Will the current momentum in Nigeria find expression in UPP? Something must certainly give.

     

    • Igboanugo, a journalist, writes from Abuja.
  • The pitfalls of self-determination struggles

    The pitfalls of self-determination struggles

    E jo laa ko; a kii ko ija” is, for the Yoruba, one of the fundamental principles of a good fight. Simply put, for a successful fight, the trick is not just to be a good fighter, but rather it is important to be adept in the art of stating one’s case effectively. If you are a lousy combatant but an eloquent narrator of events, you are likely to have the sympathy of the judge and jury. On the other hand, even when you are a good fighter but your recounting of the issues is defective, the risk of your losing the case is pretty high.

    All oppressed people have good cases in the court of world political opinion. But not all oppressed people have made a good impression on the world. Many factors are responsible for this, not least of which is that the world itself is a veritable centre of great injustice that has not always been moved by the plea of the oppressed for justice. But even when oppression is so morally outrageous that many are moved to help, the misfortune of the oppressed is that they play into the hands of the oppressor with the manner of their approach to the fight and with their poor narratives of the issues.

    The principle of self-determination was Clause 3 of the Atlantic Charter adopted at a meeting between the British Prime Minister and the United States President and issued by them in August 1941. It was the agreement that got the United States involved in the war of the greatest generation. The principle of self-determination may have been strategically invoked to assure subordinated groups that they too had something important, namely their freedom, to gain at the end of the war and with victory over the adversaries. But originally it wasn’t meant to apply to African colonies. Who were Africans, after all?

    Africans adopted the principle anyway, and vigorously and effectively deployed it to expose the inconsistency and duplicity of the allied powers. The 1945 Pan African Conference made it its focus and dispersed the conferees with the instruction to fight for their self-determination. It worked.

    The self-determination battles of the 1940s to 1960s could have finished the job by insisting on new boundaries for the new states. For pragmatic reasons, they did not because they didn’t want a delay in the granting of independence to their states by the European powers. The self whose determination was the object of the struggle turned out to be the colonial-imposed boundaries and independence from colonial rule was the goal.

    Within a decade of the achievement of the goal in respect of each of those “mere geographical” entities, it became obvious that it was a wrong self that the struggle succeeded in determining and it was clear even to the vision-impaired that the various nationalities which made up the multinational states that the colonisers left behind had been unfairly treated. This was especially the case with the cultural minorities.

    It was clear then that the goal achieved cannot serve the purpose of good governance and self-government. John Stuart Mill is right on target: “Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of the representative government, cannot exist.” In many cases, including ours, it is a truism.

    Yet, two factors have since made it almost impossible to reverse the action. First, the Organisation of African Unity insisted on the principle of non-interference with colonial-imposed boundaries even in cases where those impositions were clearly ridiculous and outrageous.

    Second, the new indigenous powers as beneficiaries of the hand-over from imperialists also saw themselves as keepers of a sacred trust which they were not willing to betray. Of course, the imperialists only retreated to the corner, effectively controlling events of their former colonies from the sideline. Therefore, the new leaders swore to keep their various countries united at all cost. In addition, there was the human fear of the unknown creeping to the subconscious of national leaders, preventing them from taking the bold steps their countries needed.

    Granted that the most extreme of those steps, namely complete separation and/or full-scale boundary redrawing may be traumatic and sometimes counter-productive. But there are less radical approaches, such as true federal or confederal arrangements.

    For the trauma of complete separation and full-scale boundary redrawing, we do not need to go beyond our national borders and reflect on the new struggle for the Republic of Biafra. Assume that it is a genuine struggle based on the fundamental principle of self-determination. Assume also that there is a hundred per cent support for the cause among all Igbo of the Southeast. The snag is this: what about the Igbo in the Northwest, Northeast, Northcentral and Southwest, not to talk of Southsouth? Do they return to the new Biafra? Do they stay put wherever they are and become aliens requiring visas and work permits? What about those in the civil service of other states and the federal? Or in the university system?

    Of course, these issues would have to be part of the details that a more comprehensive approach may need to work out if there is a consensus on a complete separation. But barring such a consensus, there is bound to be severe tension across the land even as we are now witnessing.

    A consensus is not out of the question, but it has eluded us for a long time especially since Aburi. Every now and then, a political crisis rocks the nation and one zone or region feels the pinch, cries foul and demands an out. But somehow the crisis is resolved and with it goes the demand. It happened in 1966, 1967, 1993, and now it appears that the cycle is being restarted by agitators for a new Biafra. What sparked this new agitation is anybody’s guess! Is it marginalisation or electoral shellacking?

    A genuine fight for self-determination doesn’t need to be supported by any defensive justification other than that self-determination is the birth-right of human beings and groups. And where a group was unfairly imposed upon by an external entity, leading to its involuntary incorporation into a larger entity with others, it must retain its right to pull out at any time, provided that all the parties impacted reach a mutually agreeable consensus on the terms of separation.

    A consensus is not impossible. And despite OAU and AU it has happened in Africa. It can happen again. But it cannot be unilaterally achieved by one nationality especially when that nationality has its tentacles spread throughout the nation space.

    A more rewarding approach is genuine negotiation that includes all nationalities. This was the object of the Congress of Nigerian Nationalities (CONN) which the late super patriot, Chief Anthony Enahoro, initiated and struggled to achieve in exile and later upon his return to the country. His demise left a vacuum in the struggle for reform and cultural democracy.

    Hopefully there is a Joshua in the land who will take the people to their desired destination. Let dialogue and negotiations begin in earnest. We know that there are nationalities that are not afraid to go it alone and are capable of standing on their own without encroaching on the space of others.

  • MASSOB: A rough road to self-determination

    MASSOB: A rough road to self-determination

    The Movement for the Actualisation of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), one of the foremost separatist groups in the country, is also one of the most attacked, despite its non-violence stance, writes OKODILI NDIDI

    The movement, founded in 1999 by Chief Ralph Uwazuruike, a soft-spoken but strong-willed lawyer, was initially dismissed with a wave of the hand by prominent Ndigbo as a self-serving militant group. Consequently, it was rejected by the very people it was meant to protect. Even now, schisms exist and some of its initial momentum appears lost. In Enugu State, the group seems inactive, more or less so in Anambra State. Still, MASSOB remains the major platform of agitation for the Igbo Agenda, especially the realisation of an independent Biafran state, a dream since the civil war.

    Fifteen years after, however, the journey to self-determination has not been rosy. If anything, it has been a tortuous, sometimes deadly, one.

    MASSOB pioneer Director of Information, Mr. Uchenna Madu, described the journey as tedious and taxing.

    “The journey to realise the State of Biafra,” he said, “has not been an easy task because there is no way Nigeria will fold its hands and allow any group to disintegrate the country.

    “So in the last 15 years we have suffered terrible persecution, ranging from imprisonment, killings, stigmatisation, prosecution, infringement of our fundamental human rights but in the face of these we are still very determined to succeed. Today we have succeeded in reawakening the consciousness of Biafra in the minds of Ndigbo, both the ones at home and in the Diaspora”.

    Madu also spoke about some of the effects of the struggle on him, saying:

    “At a personal level I have suffered a lot but I am not deterred and this is also the same with other members. For instance, in 2005 I was arrested and detained for four years. I spent the years at Kuje, Keffi and Suleija prisons.

    “My parents died as a result of the shock they got due to my incarceration. When I was released in 2009 and got married in 2010 I was arrested a few days after my marriage and taken to Abakaliki Prisons from where I was transferred to Onitsha Prisons where I spent another 10 months.

    “The struggle for Biafra has cost me a lot. I have spent a great part of [my] youthful age in the struggle but I am not deterred because I know that the path to freedom is not a smooth ride; I was determined to embark on the journey and we will pursue it until we secure independence for Ndigbo. We have also suffered betrayal and prosecution from among our people.

    Recalling the massacre of members of the movement in 2003 in Okigwe, Imo State and in 2006 in Onitsha, Anambra State, Madu, who now leads a splinter MASSOB group, said:

    “Many of our young men and women were mercilessly massacred in Imo State in 2003 during a MASSOB rally in solidarity with the victims of terror attack in the United States of America in Okigwe Local Government Area. Security operatives ambushed [the unarmed] members and killed about 400 of them.

    “In 2006 in Anambra State, 700 members of MASSOB were killed and as I speak with you their remains are still in the morgue. We also have some of our members in different prisons. Some of them have spent over seven years. For instance, 18 of our members are currently in Awka Prison and five others are in Onitsha Prison but we are more determined than ever to achieve our freedom”.

    Recounting the achievements of the MASSOB in the last 15 years of the struggle of freedom, Madu said,

    “We have been able to realise the Biafra of the mind, which is the basis for the physical Biafra. Today the fear of identifying with Biafra has been erased from the minds of Ndigbo and they can proudly claim the Biafra identity.

    “We have also created global awareness for MASSOB and internationalised the struggle for Biafra and today, many professional and international bodies are showing interest in the struggle. Also in Nigeria today, especially with the current political situation, Ndigbo are looking forward to MASSOB as their last hope in the case of any unforeseen circumstance”.

    However Madu observed that “the struggle for Biafra has been challenged by some internal leadership crisis is affecting MASSOB. Some of the people have been brainwashed. Today some groups that came out of MASSOB are recording more achievements because of the deviation of our leader, Chief Ralph Uwazuruike. His attitude and romance with politicians is diminishing the struggle.

    “Today despite all our sacrifices in the struggle, other groups are taking the glory because our leader does not want intellectuals in the struggle, all he wants are those he can order around and they will not ask questions. Now it does not matter which group that actualizes Biafra because Biafra must be achieved even without MASSOB but as long as we are concerned when Biafra is finally actualized we will be remembered”.

    Today at Okwe, the administrative headquarters of the Movement, scores of disabled Biafra soldiers, who were begging for alms, have been resettled by Uwazuruike and epitaphs have been rected for those that were killed during the civil war.

    However today the MASSOB like every other separatist group has been engulfed in leadership crisis that has pitched some of the members against the founding leader, Uwazuruike.