The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Unity

  • I was motivated by need to promote unity between Nigerians and their hosts abroad —Dublin-based Nigerian banker behind Miss Africa Ireland pageant

    WHILE the Nigerian government labours to enhance the image of the country at home and abroad, one Nigerian is making success of representing the country in far-away Dublin, Ireland.

    Realising that culture remains one of the greatest assets of the black race and the vision for a multicultural society, investment banker, Tina Akinola-Junaid, started a project aimed at promoting cordial relationship between Africans and their hosts abroad.

    Tina doubles as the chairperson of Miss Africa Ireland, a pageant that has grown into a household name in the European country and one aimed at uniting Nigerians in the Diaspora. “My passion for African culture and my vision for a multicultural Ireland informed the Miss Africa Ireland beauty and fashion show in the year 2000,” she said in response to an online question.

    Sixteen years down the line, Tina’s ambition of creating a platform for Nigerians, nay Africans resident in Ireland, to help showcase their rich culture while maintaining a peaceful relationship with their hosts has largely been achieved.

    “The aim is to interweave the two cultures and promote integration by portraying Africa in a positive and beautiful way. And to a very large extent, this has been achieved. Nigerians and Africans generally live in peace with the Irish without any fear or suspicion. I think that is a good way of selling our country to the rest of the world.”

    The only girl in a family of eight, Tina grew up understanding the feelings of the opposite sex and how to deal with them. In spite of her glamorous life as a banker and showbiz personality, Tina disclosed that she has no problem dealing with male admirers. “I am an only girl in a family of eight, so I relate to the opposite sex with ease. Therefore, I really have no problem dealing with my many male admirers. You’ll agree with me that growing up among men should be enough to teach any female how to deal with men.”

    Though Tina works as a successful banker in a foreign land, the foundation was laid in Nigeria where she grew up and started her education. “I grew up in Nigeria. I went to the Federal Government College Ilorin, Kwara State. I later proceeded to Kwara Polytechnic for my A Levels and then to the University of Benin where I bagged my degree in Economics and Statistics. I did my youth service programme with the World Bank-assisted Agricultural Development Projects in Lagos State. The experience I garnered during the period has been very valuable for me.”

    Tina moved to Ireland in 1997 permanently in search of the proverbial green pasture. Almost two decades after the move, she says that she can look back with a smile. However, whatever success she may have achieved was not without some challenges.

    According to her, the basic challenges that confront young people seeking better life in foreign countries include cultural differences, beliefs and adaption, among several others.

    “There are different kinds of challenges that young Africans encounter in foreign lands. But the most challenging ones include missing your loved ones back home. This one is usually very tough and not easy to deal with. Of course, there is also the problem of racism and difference in culture. Our beliefs and integration are also another form of challenge. But perhaps the toughest are adaptation and acceptance. If you are not able to adapt, then there is nothing that anybody can do to help. Aside from that, your host must also accept you.”

    Between 2004 when she started work in Dublin, Ireland, Tina has worked with the State Street International bank; Bank of Ireland Securities Services and Northern Trust. She recently moved to a new bank, which she is holding close to her chest.

    On what it takes to practice as a successful banker in a foreign land, Tina listed hard work and commitment. “Making success of a professional career, especially for a foreigner, takes a lot of hard work and commitments. But the main thing is that you need to study here at any level. And doing that will make it easier to get into the system. This is one thing that most of our people need to know about the system here,” she said.

    For long now, the media has been awash with the sad tales of young Nigerians easily lured into a life of servitude and prostitution in Europe. Speaking on the plight of young Nigerian girls in Europe, Tina warned the girls. “If something is too good to be true, it’s probably isn’t,” she said. “My advice to the young girls is that they should be focused and that they should pursue a career path that is attainable to them given the resources available to them.”

    For her efforts towards the promotion of Nigerian culture, Tina was rewarded with a chieftaincy title in Araland. Her love for culture and fashion, she said, was to make a statement.

    “I love good taste in fashion, innovation and making statements with everything I wear. I cut my head gear in a certain way, because that’s my logo. I am the Yeye Ogee of Araland in Ife Kingdom. And I believe you know that the title is only bestowed on those who are thought to merit it.”

    In furtherance of that effort, she started the Ankara Carnival in Ireland in 2007. “This is an annual event where all attendees are urged to wear Ankara to promote our culture and the African fabric. All are encouraged to be creative with the fabric and the best creative design wins a cash prize,” she explained.

    Asked if she would accept a bank job in Nigeria, having lived the better part of her life in Ireland, Tina said yes, but added that she would only accept the job if the conditions are right. For her, the conditions include a job in the Central Bank of Nigeria or the Stock Exchange.

    “Well, I would accept a banking job in Nigeria if the terms are right. But I will be more interested in the central bank or stock exchange, where I would be able to bring my experience on board.”

    Despite her long stay in Ireland, Tina said she has never suffered any form of culture shock. She, however, explained that she was spared of any ugly experience because she had visited the country several times before she finally decided to settle down there.

    “I didn’t really have any form of culture shock. Long before I decided to settle down here, I had been travelling on holidays. I was familiar with most things. So, I was already at home with the country and its people.”

    Would she be willing to come back home? Tina was affirmative in her response. “Definitely, I am looking at coming back home in the nearest future.”

    Describing herself, she said: “I am a freelance journalist, TV presenter/producer of the Tritees Show and a compere extraordinaire.”

  • PDP’s unity is my priority, declares Adeniran

    PDP’s unity is my priority, declares Adeniran

    As the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) prepares for its August 17 National Convent, a leading National Chairmanship aspirant, Prof. Tunde Adeniran has said that his major mission was to forge unity among the various groups within the party.

    He said that he had the requisite qualification to achieve that goal given the mutual respect he enjoyed across the membership of the party, including its current and past leaders.

    Speaking through his media aide, Yemi Akinbode, the former Minister of Education said it was because of the bridges he had built across all the party’s divides that eminent citizens of the country from part of the country had backed his candidacy.

    His words: “I am a friend of all, leaders and followers. I don’t have enemies. The truth is that when they have nothing to say, my warm relationships with eminent Nigerians become the story.”

    Prof. Adeniran also hinted of a strong move by PDP leaders in the southwest to unite and collectively demand that the National Chairmanship be formally zoned to the region.

    According to him, the southwest party leaders “want the zoning committee meeting in Port Harcourt to bear in mind that equity and justice demand nothing less than a southwest National Chairmanship of the PDP.”

    He said the other zones in the south should concede the National Chairmanship to the southwest, being the only zone yet to lead the party; adding that many party leaders in the southeast had already backed the southwest for the position. The southeast had in the past thrown up several National Chairmen for the party.

    Prof Adeniran, a founding member of the PDP, recalled that the south-south recently produced the President for the country and also led the party as acting national chairman until recently.

    “We have had a long period of acting national chairmanship and the occupant of that office was from the south-south after serving as deputy national chairman for a long time,” he explained, adding: “So looking at the equation, even our brothers from the southeast, many of them believe the chairmanship should go to the southwest. But for the sake of robust politics whoever is interested can come out and at the end we are all brothers and sisters. When they see that the majority has taken a position that it should go to the southwest, they will key into it and the national chairman will be Tunde Adeniran.”

    Prof Adeniran, who has received the endorsement of several party leaders across the six geo-political zones, said that he was determined to tackle the major malaise with the party, which he identified as lack of internal democracy, disorientation and the ugly image acquired as a result of commission and omission on the part of the leadership.

    He further said: “We believe that there is the need at this point to restore the dignity of the party and broaden the base of participation so that there will be inclusiveness and quality leadership. We have decided to come in so that we will leave a worthy legacy.  The PDP was turned virtually into an electoral vehicle; a vehicle that you all get elected into a particular position or get appointment into a particular office without really performing the oath of the office. We have to check that.”

    On the reported interest of PDP southwest members in the Vice Presidency in 2019, the former Ambassador to Germany said that that should not distract the zone from producing the National Chairman at this time. He said he would not be a sit-tight National Chairman as he would be willing to relinquish his position in the interest of the party.

    He explained: “As far as I am concerned the motivation for aspiring for this office is service and when you are serving people, you have to be directed. If by any reason the party decides that it will go another direction, why should I say I want to sit tight on anything? That has been the bane of our politics in this part of the world. People must be ready to make sacrifices and bear in mind the very essence of service.”

  • Nigeria’s unity not negotiable? – 3

    This is my third and last intervention on President Buhari’s statement that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. In my first two articles, I made the point that it is understandable for any president – especially a president under pressure as Buhari has been – to make the statement that his country’s unity is not negotiable or questionable. In our experience in this country, a statement like that by any president does not amount to anything. We have heard it in one form or another, again and again, from all our past presidents. What would amount to much, what we Nigerians want from any president – especially from our current president who expressly promised us change – is a plan to keep our country harmoniously together by removing the perennial reason why various ones among our indigenous nationalities have been questioning Nigeria’s unity and Nigeria’s existence as one country.

    Since Nigeria became a self-governing country in 1960, various Nigerian nationalities, or at least persons claiming to act on behalf of their nationalities, have, under certain circumstances painful to their nationalities, questioned Nigeria’s unity as one country and threatened (and tried) to terminate it. They are perpetually pushing, and forcing Nigeria’s unity to be renegotiated.

    Young Ijaw patriots led by Isaac Boro, and others subsequently led by Ken Saro-wiwa, did it. Youths of the Ijaw and other peoples of the Niger Delta are doing it now with methods that are hurting Nigeria very decisively. These youths are united by a common reaction to the horrible degradation of their Delta environment under the impact of the petroleum industry, by a rejection of the iniquitous sharing of the benefits of their homeland’s petroleum resources, and by the neglect of their part of Nigeria by an apparently uncaring Federal Government.

    The Hausa-Fulani political elite did it in May-October 1966 when they mobilized crowds of their people to demand Araba (separation) and to seek to enforce Araba by killing Igbo citizens in Northern cities.  They did these things partly because of their painful losses in a Nigerian military coup, and partly because the consequent Federal Military Government seemed determined to destroy all regional autonomy, to seize control of all power over Nigeria, and especially to subdue the Northern Region.

    The Igbo people did it by striking for a separate country of Biafra in 1967-70. They did it because their security as a people had become seriously compromised in Nigeria, and because the then Military Government under the North’s dominant control seemed to them to represent even greater   threats to their security in Nigeria.

    Youths of Kanuri and related peoples, choosing the banner of Islamic fundamentalist terrorism and the name Boko Haram, have been doing it since 2009. We have been led to believe generally that their sole reason is religious and that their sole objective is an Islamic caliphate, and we miss the fact that Kanuri nationalism (with a strong dose of rejection of Fulani hegemony and a desire for a separate country) is a major motivation of theirs – and we fail to see the fact that their revolt derives much of its strength from indigenous local support in their homeland in the North-east.

    Youths of the Arewa North, led by highly educated young men, did it in 2014 by holding street demonstrations and demanding that the North should cut relations with Nigeria, that “the failed experiment of Nigeria” should be terminated, and that all Southerners should quit the North within two weeks and all Northerners resident in the South should return home immediately. They did these things because they felt that their Arewa North was being disrespected, neglected and marginalized by the Nigerian Federal Government of that day, and that the Nigerian Federal Government was incurably corrupt and incompetent.

    Among the large and considerably literate Yoruba nation of the Nigerian South-west, very many youth groups, called ‘self-determination groups’, have long been itching to do it, only restrained by their adult population and the cultural sensitivities of their nation. They are itching to strike for their Yoruba nation because their Yoruba nation has been losing too much, and declining too sadly, and becoming ever poorer, as a result of the excessive concentration of power and resource control in the hands of a Nigerian Federal Government that is always inclined to resist and frustrate the progress and development of the Yoruba nation, a Federal Government  that is characterized by stunted desire for modern development, by horrific incompetence, and by mind-boggling corruption – a Federal Government that seems to be on a mission to dampen development and spread corruption and poverty all over Nigeria.

    Yes, Nigeria’s unity is being questioned and threatened all the time by various Nigerian peoples. No presidential threats, no number of amnesties, no amount of presidential bribes, no security agency’s menace, and no amount of military violence, has succeeded in shutting up our nationalities – or is likely ever to succeed in shutting them up. The passion for Biafra is much more popular today among the masses of ordinary Igbo people than in 1967; Delta militants are sharper and more difficult to subdue today than in the time of Isaac Boro or Saro-wiwa; Yoruba self-determination groups are better informed today and much better ready to promote their nation’s interests, etc. And let us not deceive ourselves –  it is these peoples that hold the final say, and that will wield the ultimate knife, on the fate of Nigeria’s unity and Nigeria’s existence as one country – no matter what presidents may say, threaten, intend to do, or do.

    Moreover, while the international community was, on the whole, more inclined to support Nigeria’s unity against Biafran separation in 1967-70, the international community is today much more likely to arise and protect any Nigerian nationality being militarily attacked by Nigeria for demanding a Biafra or a Niger Delta Republic or an Oduduwa Republic. In recent decades, the world has become quite strongly, sensitized towards protecting its weaker peoples who, because they are trying to exercise their right of self-determination, are being subjected to brutalities and oppression by strong countries or stronger neighbours. The doctrine that weak nationalities have the right to protection by the world, and that the world has the ‘Responsibility to Protect’ (cryptically put as R2P) is now a vital reality in our world.

    It is very probable, therefore, that, given the present trends, more and more Nigerian peoples will demand self-determination and separation (and a renegotiation of Nigeria’s unity) in no distant a future. It is also probable that they will do so with increasing intensity and capability. And, if some of them happen to do it together or even merely simultaneously, it seems probable that Nigeria would buckle under the pressure.

    Because more and more Nigerians worry about these probabilities, and because more and more Nigerian nationalities painfully reject the poverty, corruption, crookedness and impunity that the Nigerian Federal Government represents, more and more well-meaning Nigerian voices are being raised for the restructuring of the Nigerian federation. Meanwhile, leaders of a section of Nigeria, the Arewa North section, choose to oppose restructuring with all their might, for no other reason than to make the point that they ae dominant in Nigeria, and that only what they want has any chance of being chosen and done in Nigeria. They may appear to be winning their victory; but they are likely soon to be labouring under the terrible historic guilt of being responsible for Nigeria’s disappearance from the map of the world.

    The special point about President Buhari is that he belongs to the leadership of this Arewa North section of Nigeria, and that Nigerians, and the whole world, have the right to presume that he has the ability to persuade his people to change their stand on the all-important question of restructuring of the Nigerian federation. He has a historic duty here; and his place in history will obviously depend on what he does with that duty.

  • Nigeria’s unity not negotiable? – 2

    Here is my second response to President Buhari’s statement that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. When he made that statement, he was obviously worried about the potent threats to Nigeria’s unity arising in various parts of Nigeria. He was saying in effect that he would not let Nigeria’s unity be renegotiated under his watch – that he would hand Nigeriaintact to his successor. It was a statement of intent, the kind of statement to be expected from any president.

    However, since President Buhari made that statement, some persons and groups have echoed him affirmatively. They say yes, Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. What these people seem to mean is that, fundamentally, and by certain immutable laws, Nigeria’s unity is sacrosanct, immutable, untouchable – that under no circumstance can Nigeria be dismembered or dissolved. Whoever says this is wrong, flatly wrong. And if the president shares their meaning, he too is very wrong.

    There is no country on earth that is beyond being dismembered or dissolved. Throughout human history, countries have arisen, flourished, and then lost some parts, or broken apart. Countries that are made up of different nationalities, with the different nationalities possessing their different ancestral homelands in the same country, are particularly likely to lose some of the nationalities over time or to break up. It is common human experience that every nationality (or “tribe), no matter how small, is imbued with a fundamental desire and urge to control its own life and determine its own destiny. That is why every multi-nation empire or country in history, no matter how powerful or how long-lasting, breaks up in the end.This universal human experienceis being enacted todayon all continents of the world. No country is above it.

    See what has happened in our world in the course of only the past century – indeed, in the course of only the past 30 years. By 1900, two large and powerful multi-nation countries – theAustro-Hungarian Empire and the Turkish Empire – dominated the map of most of Europe and the Middle East.By 1918, both had broken up.In both cases, though a major Europe-wide war provided the occasion for the breaking up, the powerful and fundamental cause of the breaking up was the desire of the many different nationalities to governthemselves and determine their own futures.

    With the breaking up, many new countries immediately showed up on the world map – Austria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Turkey, Iran, Iraq, Syria, and many others. Of these new countries, some (like Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, and others) still contained some different nationalities. In about 1990, each of such countries broke up, and their different nationalities became separate countries. Yugoslavia broke into seven new countries – Serbia, Croatia, Slovenia, Macedonia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Montenegro, and Kosovo. Czechoslovakia broke into two –Czech Republic and Slovakia.

    For most of the 20th century, another large European country, the Soviet Union, was one of the most powerful countries in the world. It contained the large Russian nationality and many different smaller nationalities. In about 1990, this powerful country suddenly broke up into 13 different countries – Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Moldavia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan, and Tajikistan. The small country of Georgia contained the Georgian nationality and two tiny nationalities (Abkhazia and South Ossetia). Both soon separated from Georgia.

    All over Europe, any country that still includes two or more nationalities today is in trouble, because their different nationalities are agitating for separation. In Spain, the Basques and the Catalans want to separate from the Spaniards and have countries of their own. In Belgium, the Fleming and Walloon nationalities are talking separation. In Britain, the Irish separated in 1921 to have their own Irish Republic; and the Scots and Welsh are close to doing that now.

    In Asia, soon after the independence of India in 1947, the peoples of northern India separated and formed one country called Pakistan; and then, eastern Pakistan separated and became the Republic of Bangladesh. China is increasingly facing agitations for separation by its small nationalities – the Uighurs of Xsinjiang, Manchurians, Lower Mongolians, and Tibetans.

    In the Indian Ocean, the small island country of Sri Lanka consists of two nationalities – the Tamils and the Sinhalese. Since independence, the Tamils have been struggling to have their own separate country.In Indonesia, East Timor broke away in 2002 and became the Republic of Timor Leste, and many other small nationalities are also demanding separation – namely, Aceh, Riau, Ambom, Irian Jaya, and Madura.In America, French Canada is struggling to separate from English Canada and become a separate country.

    InBlack Africa, each of the countries, as created and structured by European imperialists, defies order and stability. Each combines many nationalities; each has boundaries that split up nationalities; each, in its internal structure, refuses to accord respect to its many nationalities.And unfortunately, the leaders of the various nationalities have generally proved wanting in clearly stating the real desires of their peoples.The result has been that most countries of Sub-Saharan Africa are reeling in chaos, conflicts between nationalities, rigged elections and violent protests, primitive attempts by some nationalities to dominate others, violent overthrows of governments, destructive corruption, civil wars, acts of genocide.

    In the light of the worldwide needs and demands for self-determination by nationalities, the world has had to create order – to protect every nationality. The General Assembly of the United Nations Organization adopted a “DECLARATION OF THE RIGHTS OF INDIGENOUS PEOPLES” which affirms the right of every “indigenous people” or nationality to determine its own political status freely and in peace.  Its Preamble states as follows:” – – the Charter of the United Nations, the International Covenant onEconomic, Socialand Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as the Vienna Declaration and Program of Action, affirm the fundamental importance of the right of self-determination of all peoples, by virtue of which they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”. And its

    Article 3 then affirms: “Indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development”.

    The DECLARATION emphasizes that indigenous peoples exercising or seeking to exercise their rights of self-determination may not be subjected to discrimination by the countries to which they currently belong, may not be subjected to any kind of violence, may not, individually or collectively, be denied their human rights or denied justice, may not have military action brought upon their territory without their consent or request, may not have their democratic rights of association or of expression interfered with, etc.

    All countries of Africa are signatories to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. But in addition, the African Union (AU) has a charter on this matter – the African (Banjul) Charter on Human and Peoples Rights. Its Article 19 states:”All peoples shall be equal, they shall enjoy the same respect and shall have the same rights. Nothing shall justify the domination of a people by another” And Article 20:1 affirms:”All peoples shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination”.

    Nigeria is a signatory to all these international laws; Nigeria is bound by them, andno Nigerian law limits, or can limit, their effectover Nigeria. It is therefore not true that Nigerian nationalities are barred from seeking separate countries for themselves out of Nigeria, or that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable.

    The combination of prevailing realities in our world points to the probability that agitations for separation from Nigeria would increase in number, intensity and skills, and that Nigeria would ultimately break up. The horrendous misgovernment of Nigeria reinforces that probability.

    If President Buhari is serious about preserving Nigeria as one, what he has to do, in addition to his anti-corruption war, is to lead Nigeria to restructure its federation, restore to each people the control of their resources, empower each state to fight poverty and disorder competently, cut the Federal Government to a much smaller size, and stop the perpetual strategizing of one Nigerian nationality to hurt and dominate the others. Nobody who leaves these undone can succeed in keeping Nigeria one – even with the best of military capabilities.

  • Gowon preaches unity

    Gowon preaches unity

    Former Head of State Gen. Yakubu Gowon has urged Nigerians to put aside ethnic differences.

    He spoke as guest of honour at the 18th valedictory service and graduation ceremony of Jextoban High School, Ibafo, Ogun State, over the weekend.

    Gen. Gowon said next month would make it 50 years since his regime called for peace and togetherness in the face of incessant crises rocking the nation.

    He said: “My hope and prayer, after the Civil War where we disagreed with one another and had to go into a fight, is that Nigerians would now continue to love themselves and that we do not continue to raise our arms against one another. But with love and charity amongst us, we can be able to build the country to the sort of country that we want it to be.”

    Gen. Gowon cautioned lawmakers against selfishness in their call for the restructuring of the nation.

    “People are saying restructuring, what type of restructuring are they talking about? As long as it is something that is of good of Nigerians, not restructuring to their way of doing things. I think we have to be careful when we talk about restructuring. If it is something good, I am sure the people would be able to give it their blessing. But it must not be restructuring for personal or group interest,” he said.

    Advising the graduates, the 82-year-old major general recalled that when he became Head of State at the age of 32, he had never imagined such responsibility would be thrust upon him, but he rose to the occasion.

    The proprietor of the school, Mr Adedayo Ojo, counselled the pupils.

    Ojo said: “You, our outgoing students, must always remember the sons or daughters of whom you are. You read in the papers everyday how the mighty have fallen… there are people who got to their peak in life through hard work, transparency, honesty and total dependence on God. Such I say you should emulate. Any pursuit of fame, riches or academic success built on false foundation of dishonesty, or corruption is bound to collapse disastrously. Learn to be content with whatever you have, never try to cut corners to get to the top, become the promising leaders that will effect the real change we are yearning for in our nation and build on the Christian values you have learnt.”

  • Nigeria’s unity not negotiable?

    President Buhari says that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable. He means, obviously, that Nigeria must never be dissolved and that no nation that is now part of Nigeria can ever take leave of Nigeria and become a separate country. Well, we must concede that he is saying what a Nigerian president is supposed to say. It is inconceivable that anybody who happens to be the president of any country would say that the country he presides over could break up. No way.

    However, when a president says that his country’s unity is not negotiable, the world has a right to ask him what he intends to do to preserve his country as one. That question is particularly apt if the country is swaying on the verge of breaking up. Nigeria is manifestly swaying today on the verge of breaking up. There is not much of a doubt about that. One only has to take a look at the trouble spots across Nigeria to see this most clearly.

    Take the Igbo South-east. Many Nigerians are used to assuming that the Igbo people are not really serious about Biafra – that the Igbo people are too attracted to (and too spoiled by) the benefits of Nigeria to act definitively to break away from Nigeria and start a separate country of their own. But, today, that assumption about the Igbo no longer stands as solid as before. The many Igbo organizations clamouring for Biafra, the increasing numbers of youths, older adults, and organizations involving themselves, and the fervour, passion and political skill they are increasingly bringing into the struggle (both at home and in the wide world), allseem to point to one probable outcome – namely, that Biafra could indeedbecome a reality someday.

    Take the Niger Delta. Many Nigerians also commonly assume much the same kind of things about the peoples of the Niger Delta as they do about the Igbo. But it is critically important that we should assess the Niger Delta situation correctly. When Isaac Boro started the Niger Delta fight against Nigeria in the early 1960s, he was leading only a handful of passionate youths like himself. His chances of succeeding against the power of the Nigerian Federal Government were nil. Today, with the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND), the Niger Delta Avengers (NDA), and some other less known Niger Delta militant groups, the story is totally different. There are not many other separatist groups in the world today that command the same magnitude of weaponry and financial resources that these Niger Delta groups command. It is very little known to Nigerians that, under the amnesty programmes of succeeding federal governments, many thousands of Niger Delta youths were able to go abroad to acquire various kinds of training in weaponry, combat, and the flying of aircraft.

    In short, Nigeria is being confronted in the Niger Delta today by a series of considerably capable military outfits. These boys are superior to Boko Haram in many respects – and Nigeria has been fighting Boko Haram with only little success since 2009. Also, though the North-east does feature a lot of geographical difficulties for the Nigerian military, such difficulties are minor compared with those of the Niger Delta. To attempt to subdue the Niger Delta, the Nigerian military must be ready to fight endless amphibious battles – against people who are seasoned inhabitants of the creeks, lagoons and swamplands of the Delta. It is in the light of these tough realities that President Buhari has wisely suspended military campaigns in the Niger Delta and chosen to urge various citizen groups to appeal to the Niger Delta militants for peace.

    Moreover, unfortunately, if more serious war were to come, Nigeria does not now command the alliance that fought against Biafra in the civil war of 1967-70. It is no longer possible for Nigeria to amass the hordes of Middle Belt and Yoruba soldiers that won most of the victories of that civil war. The Yoruba and Middle Belt peoples have found that there is hardly any benefit for them in fighting for Nigeria. All the policies put together by the military regimes since 1970 with the support of theArewaNorh elite,all the centralization of power and resource control and its outcome in horrible poverty across Nigeria,  all the federal attempts made to suppress most other peoples of Nigeria and their cultures, all the strange claims of the Arewa North  elitefor sole control of Nigeria’s federal power, all the religion-based killings of Southerners in parts of the North, all the aggression against the peoples of the Middle Belt and the threats against the Yoruba and other peoples of the South, all the weird happenings ofBoko Haram and the Fulani herdsmen’s killings and destruction in the Middle Belt and the South, all the apparently perpetual strategizing to hurt the peoples of the Middle Belt and the South – all these have fragmented Nigeria beyond measure. A country of many peoples like Nigeria can only be sustained by mutual respect, by a common sincere desire to prosper together, and by a general agreement to obey the agreed rules of co-existence. Unfortunately, Nigeria has been trying hard to forge unity through the weakening (and even destroying) of its various peoples, and has been bruised through impunity after impunity. The sense of “common country” has been vitiated.

    Since Buhari has said that the unity of Nigeria must remain, we must understand him to mean that he intends to take steps to mend the wounds of Nigeria in order to ensure Nigeria’s continued existence and unity. We must therefore ask him what the steps are that he intends to take. Until now, over a year since he was sworn in as president, he has said not a single word about such steps.

    Countless Nigerians, from all parts of the country, have been clamouring for a restructuring of the Nigerian Federation – to the ends that viable states might be created, andthat much of the powers and resource control perversely crowded into the hands of the Federal Government be devolved to the federating units in order to empower the federating units to promote socio-economic development again, fight poverty, and restore hope to Nigeria. His answer to these demands has been that restructuring is a no-no with him – even though his election campaign promises had included restructuring as an important piece in his Change Agenda.As blood has been continually shed in most parts of Nigeria by well-trained Fulani herdsmen and foreign Libyan mercenaries all armed with highly sophisticated weapons, President Buhari has chosen not to speak to Nigeria, to explain what is happening, to elaborate what the Federal Government of Nigeria intends to do about it, and thereby to allay the fears of Nigerians. On the contrary, reports keep circulating that the Federal Government is intent on getting state governors across Nigeria to grant land for so-called “grazing reserves” for the Fulani herdsmen, even though most Nigerians are expressing  fears that those grazing reserves are yet another plan aimed at hurting various Nigerian peoples. Finally, from most parts of Nigeria, the protest has been loud that President Buhari’s appointments into his government, especially his appointments into the security forces, have given undue emphasis to his North and even ignored some other parts of Nigeria, but his response has been to continue to do more of the same.

    From no more than the above, it seems very unlikely that the Buhari presidency will do much to redirect Nigeria away from dismemberment or breaking up – and that would be a pity. Of course, he might intend to use force to keep Nigeria together – but, given the realities of our times, that is a step with very doubtful outcomes. And, in any case, what sort of unity can exist in a country that is kept together by wars and the military conquests of its various peoples? If it comes to that, how many Nigerian peoples, large or small, look like weaklings who will surrender perpetually to armedforce – force by either the regular Nigerian military,or force by irregular militias and Mujaheed in such as Boko Haram or the armed herdsmen and their Libyan mercenary support? No, it is to be hoped that President Buhari will yet choose other paths that can lead to sure and sustainable unity for Nigeria.

  • Community urges Ooni to ensure unity

    Community urges Ooni to ensure unity

    The Alahun of Ahun in Efon, Ekiti State, Oba Jacob Adelowo, has urged the Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi to ensure the continued socio-political and cultural well-being of the Yoruba.

    He made the call during a courtesy visit to the Ife monarch recently. He added that the development of Yoruba land should be embraced by well-meaning Nigerians from the Southwest geo-political zone.

    Oba Adelowo explained that Yoruba land looks forward to the Ife traditional institution to ensure peace and progress for the people. He said Yoruba people are among the sophisticated ethnic groups in the world.

    Oba Adelowo said the people of Ahun who came from Ife centuries ago, hold tenaciously to the strong belief that Ife is the cradle of civilisation, stressing that Ahun and other Yoruba people will continue to seek the blessings of Ife for better life.

    He said when Alahun Moka-Moye took members of the Ogbooru Adimula-Ilare Royal House from Ile-Ife to settle at Efon in Ekiti, the historical sojourn led to a well-established cultural tie among the people.

    Presenting a book entitled A Brief History of Ahun Efon to the Ooni, Adelowo said: “Alahun gave Efon its present name ‘Efon’ because the people were catching buffalos alive.

    “The buffalos usually prevented people from settling on the land and embark on their means of subsistence. Alahun Mokamoya was able to suppress the threat from the rampaging buffalos. In view of this exploit, the place became known as Efon land.”

    He added that the socio-cultural and religious links between Ife and Ahun were so enormous that, it will be a disservice to generations yet unborn if the history is not documented for posterity.

    “In fact, the Alahun moved from Ife to Ahun with all the monarchical paraphernalia. They are still replete in the Ahun traditional institution in the present circumstance.

    “I must say we thank your imperial Majesty for granting this delegation audience. We pray for wisdom, knowledge and understanding for you to play your fatherly role in the Yoruba nation.”

    Responding, Ooni Ogunwusi said the visit was timely, adding that he would always respond to whatever would lead to the unity and progress of the entire Yoruba land.

    He commended Adelowo, his wife Olori Olayinka who presented the book and other members, noting that the visit was a home-coming visit.

    He added that the people should feel free to make their proposals because the unity of the entire Yoruba land could not be superseded by any narrow interest.

  • Nigeria’s unity: beyond precepts

    President Buhari seemed to have stirred the hornet’s nest when he told residents of Abuja onSallah visit that Nigeria’s unity is non-negotiable. Apparently worried by rising agitations for self-determination and sabotage, Buhari had said, “When we were junior officers, we were told by our leaders, by the Head of state which was General Gowon, that to keep Nigeria one is a task that must be done. We never thought of oil. What we were after is one Nigeria”.

    By this, he sought to disabuse the minds of people, especially those from oil-bearing states that the foundation of Nigeria was not predicated on oil revenue or what the constituents stood to gain but on the philosophy of the unity and sovereignty of the country.

    But the colonial masters, in amalgamating the country, never lost sight of the potency of the relative economic strengths of the component units for its survival. So, it is incorrect for the president to have conveyed the impression thatthe economic strength and viability of the emergent state was not a serious factor in arriving at that political decision. It was a serious factor.

    That however, is besides the issue. A more contentious matter in the president’s speech is the suggestion that the sovereignty of Nigeria is an end unto itself. That is not correct and cannot possibly be. As a construct, the sovereignty of the Nigerian state remains a means for the pursuit of the common good of the constituents. Its’ appeal and continued justification lie in the capacity of the emergent state to tap and harness the collective energies and resources of the disparate groups for the greatest good of the greatest number.

    That political assemblage is to further the economic benefits and general wellbeing of the various ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious groups that make up the country. So the idea of keeping Nigeria one was relevant to the extent that it was envisaged as the most plausible paradigm to advance and cater for the general interests and wellbeing of the constituents. It was not just one Nigeria for itself but for the common good of all.

    Sadly, 46 years after that unification civil war, we do not seem to have progressed beyond the challenges the nation faced at its budding stages. That is why today, we still talk of the task of keeping Nigeria one as if that is an end unto itself. For the president to be so agitated that he had to recall that civil war slogan in nostalgia is indicative of one or two things. First, it gives the impression that the Nigerian state has over these years been embroiled in a crisis of relevance due to its inability to serve the collective interests of the component units.

    Secondly, it comes with the awful message that not much progress has been made after that war to drum and internalize the import of that unity into the psyche of Nigerians to secure their loyalty through the capacity of the state to do justice, guarantee equity and fairness to all. Those are the unmistakable signals from the president’s message.It also contains a veiled threat to fight another war to keep Nigeria one if it comes to that.

    One can understand the president’s predicament for which he had to remind us that keeping Nigeria one is a task that must be done. Fine! But,for how long shall we continue to fight to keep Nigeria one? And what future is there for a country that has to depend regularly on force to wield its peoples together? These questions are as instructive as they underscore the inevitability of a rethink on the fundamentals of this unity.

    They also instruct that we part ways with stereotypes and fashion out more eclectic and sustainable ways to avoid disintegration. What should concern us more is not this rabid fixation with forced unity but political engineering processes that will allow the idea to be naturally internalized. That is the path to nation building. It involves the psychological reconstruction of the mind to elicit attitudes and dispositions that are supportive of the government. Force has always proved patently defective in this regard.

    By now, we should have been able to pose question and provide answers to why primordial tendencies have of recent, gained high ascendancy despite several years of platitude on the sanctity of the unity and sovereignty of the Nigerian state. It will be nigh impossible to make real progress as a people if we continue to evade the suffocating dynamics of this challenge. And in answering this question and providing durable solutions to it, we must draw a bold line between precepts and examples.

    It is not enough to preach on the desirability and imperative of the unity and indivisibility of the country. It is also not sufficient to rehearse or remind us of those slogans. We have since gone beyond such catchphrases. What is now direly needed is for that entity to prove its relevance through its ability to attend to the yearnings and aspirations of the constituents. And its capacity to deliver quality public goods and services equitably holds the ace for its continued relevance and survival.

    Ironically, the capacity of the Nigerian state for equity and fairness has come into serious question since Buhari came on stead. In both his appointments and other dispositions of government, his inclination to favor the north over and above other sections of the country has not been in any doubt.

    A situation in which the north now occupies 14 out of 17 key national security appointments with the South-east unapologetically and totally excluded cannot but breed feelings of discontent, alienation and self-help.Neither can it conduce for the sustenance of the non-negotiability and indivisibility of the Nigerian state. And as has been seen from recent events, those notions are facing the greatest challenges of our time.

    When this skewed inclination reared its ugly head at the early stages of Buhari’s appointments, the excuses were that more appointment were coming;  they were his personal staff and he had to work with those he trusted. There were some other trite excuses that will collapse woefully when subjected to empirical evidence including the suggestion that the appointments were based on merit.

    More of such appointments have come and the situation has gone for the worse. The festering impression is that Buhari is a northern president.Yet, in spite ofcomplaints for a redress, we trudge on as if important segments of the country count for nothing within the nation’s political matrix.

    A situation where the president is uncomfortable engaging any personal staff from a population of over 50 million people speaks volumes. It not only reinforces agitations for self-determination but stiff competition for the control of the centre to subject its institutions and resources to primordial advantage.

    Buhari should take very seriously the rising complaints of alienation and shutting out of critical segments of the country from the commanding heights of the military and bureaucracy. If he really means business on the unity of this country, he must be seen to be making concerted efforts to run a more inclusive and all embracing government with an abiding commitment torestructure the country. No group wants to belong to a union where they are consigned to playing a second fiddle and where their views and interests count nothing.

    Wole Soyinka aptly summed up these issues when he said, “I am on the side of those who say we must do everything to avoid disintegration. That language I understand. I don’t understand ex-President Olusegun Obasanjo’s language.I don’t understand President Muhammadu Buhari’s language and all their predecessors, saying the sovereignty of Nigeria is non-negotiable. It’s bloody well negotiable and we had better negotiate it”.

  • Nigeria’s unity negotiable, says ARG

    The unity of Nigeria as a nation is only sustainable by voluntary consent of components ethnic nationalities, the Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG) said yesterday.

    The group condemned the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) for supporting President Muhammadu Buhari’s position that “Nigeria’s unity is non-negotiable”.

    In a statement in Lagos by its Chairman, Hon. Olawale Oshun, the ARG said the problem with Nigeria’s unity has more to do with the conducts and utterances of the President.

    The group said Buhari is portraying himself as a “northcentric President instead of a pan-Nigerian President”.

    Oshun said both the President and the ACF should take lessons on managing an all-inclusive pan-Nigerian government.

    “We wonder on what consensus or authority the so-termed non-negotiable unity of Nigeria stands. Is it based on governments’ ability to silence all dissenters or the capability to manage a diverse society in a manner that makes every component proud?” the group queried.

    The ARG said even though Nigeria was designed as a Federal republic by its founding fathers, its governance structure as dictated by the constitution is akin to a unitary state.

    It said the insistence of the President and the ACF that Nigeria’s unity cannot be re-negotiated has been the cause of many unsolvable agitations in the country.

    “Yoruba people can never agree to becoming slaves in their own country and the peaceful agitation coming from their space on the restructuring of Nigeria, as against the violent agitations coming from other areas, is to carefully underscore our belief in peaceful change – the mantra under which the last election was won and lost.

    “ARG, therefore, conclude that Nigeria’s unity and mode of governance  are negotiable and the earlier  we all start working towards this, the better for the development, peace and unity of the country,” the statement said.

  • Christian group urges love, tolerance, unity

    A Christian interdenominational group, the Christian Conscience, has appealed to Muslim faithful to abide by the lessons of love, tolerance and unity, learnt during Ramadan.

    A statement by its National Chairman Chief Enoch Ajiboso and Publicity Secretary Tunji Oguntuase, admonished Muslims to preach peace and unity to faithful so that religious organisations and other ethnic groups would maintain and sustain the peaceful co-existence enjoyed in the country.

    The statement reads: “Nigeria is destined to be great and we must make it great. We urge that the lessons learnt during Ramadan be adhered to and allow the will of God to prevail on our country.

    “A country will prosper and progress where there is peace and love. The Buhari-Osinbajo led Federal Government deserve our support now more than ever in this trying period to correct mistakes of the past. When we co-exist in peace, love and unity, it is then the will of God will be done.”