Opinion: Nigeria’s unity is negotiable!
President Muhammadu Buhari while tending to visitors who went to the presidential manor for the Sallah festivity has said that Nigeria's solidarity is not debatable.
Chido Onumah contends with the president saying that for survival of Nigeria the issue of rebuilding the nation must be talked about.
Rebuilding for Nigeria's national solidarity
Since people in general presentation of the book We Are All Biafrans and the intercession of a previous VP of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, who led the occasion and conveyed a discourse titled "Rebuilding for Nigeria's national solidarity"
– a discourse I prescribe to everybody intrigued by the solidarity and survival of Nigeria – the issue of rebuilding Nigeria and arranging its solidarity has by and by taken the middle phase of national talk. Offer on Facebook Share on Twitter Atiku buhari Former VP Atiku Abubakar and President Muhammadu Buhari No less a man than President Muhammadu Buhari has needed to say something regarding the verbal confrontation.
Amid his Eid el-Fitr message to Nigerians on Wednesday, July 6, 2016, he was accounted for to have said: "I guarantee them (in reference to the Niger Delta 'aggressors') that when we were exceptionally junior officers, we were told by our pioneers, by the Head of State, Gen. Gowon, that to keep Nigeria one is an errand that must be done… we never considered oil. What we were after is one Nigeria. If you don't mind pass the message to the aggressors that one Nigeria is not debatable. What's more, I ask they better acknowledge it. The constitution is clear… I guarantee them there would be equity.
" Before President Buhari's counsel, Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, had noted amid a conference with The Punch on Tuesday, June 28, 2016: "I am in favor of the individuals who say we should do everything to maintain a strategic distance from breaking down. That dialect I get it. I don't comprehend (ex-President Olusegun) Obasanjo's dialect. I don't comprehend (President Muhammadu) Buhari's dialect and every one of their forerunners, saying the sway of this country is non-debatable. It's ridiculous well debatable and we would do well to arrange it. We better arrange it, not even at gatherings, not at meetings, but rather consistently in our behavior towards each other."
A preventative note to one side, progressives and honest to goodness nationalists in Nigeria
The suppositions of these two conspicuous Nigerians mirror the two disparate sentiments on the issue of rebuilding Nigeria or arranging her solidarity. I had arranged this article – that was before President Buhari's comments – as a preventative note to one side, progressives and bona fide loyalists in Nigeria. I trust they are the main ones inclined and truly open to unraveling the present emergency. Lamentably, this is one issue that has separated the Left, progressives and nationalists in Nigeria. This division has characterized the sort of reaction – extending from muddling and doublespeak to by and large disavowal and confrontational tendency – that has made it difficult to have a sound national story and activity arrangement. Since the individuals who should stand up and act have kept up criminal hush and lack of interest, they have yielded the space to traditionalist experts of each tint, wolves in sheep's clothing, blackmailers, revolutionaries, and fifth journalists.
Nigeria is not working for Nigerians
So what are the issues in conflict? There is by all accounts a general assention, even among the individuals who conveyed us to this close grievous end that Nigeria is not working for Nigerians. Be that as it may, and this is the place the disparity of assessments sets in, Nigeria is not working not on the grounds that it is not workable, but rather in light of the fact that it has been fixed to come up short. Take the issue of the common war (1967-70) which President Buhari insinuated. That war was battled to some degree in view of characteristic assets (oil particularly). That was the main thrust of the purported government hostile and to some degree it additionally characterized the geo-legislative issues of what might turn into the secessionist Republic of Biafra. Following 30 months of battling and a great many lives lost, there was an "arranged" settlement. A ceasefire was announced with the catchphrase "No victor; No vanquished." Unfortunately, 46 years after the end of that internecine war, low-power clashes by state and non-state performing artists are seething the nation over, from Boko Haram in the North-east, Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) and Arewa People's Congress (APC) in the North-west, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and different gatherings in the South-east, the Niger Delta Avengers and Bakassi Strike Force (BSF) in the South-south to the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) in the South-west and potential vindicators in the North-focal. What this lets us know is that that war didn't generally end and hasn't finished.
What then do we do to alter Nigeria?
The straightforward answer would be to come back to the transaction table. What we ought to do to alter Nigeria To be clear, Nigeria has dependably been arranged. The issue has been that the "victors" or the individuals who control power at each round of arrangement have singularly characterized the structure and governmental issues of the nation going ahead. Once more, I come back to the issue of oil. Before freedom in 1960, this was the "sharing" recipe for raw petroleum incomes: Oil creating states (district) held 67.4% of incomes, the government got 20%, non-oil states (locales) got 12.6%. After the common in 1970, the administration of Gen Yakubu Gowon through Decree No. 13 "arranged" another equation: Oil creating states held 45% of incomes; the government got 55% while non-oil states got 0%. In 1975, the administration of Gen Murtala Muhammed in another round of transaction through Decree 6, thought of this recipe: Oil creating states would hold 20% of incomes, the national government got 80% and non-oil states got 0%. In 1976, Gen Obasanjo, then military despot, in his omniscience, gave oil creating states 0% of incomes while the national government got 100% and the non-oil states got 0%. President Shehu Shagari who came to control in 1979 conveyed a strange turn to the "sharing" equation. He held the Obasanjo recipe of 0% distribution to oil creating states and 100% to the national government to be partaken in a specific order: half shared similarly among states, 40% shared in view of populace and 10% taking into account land mass. By 2000, amid the rebirth of Gen. Obasanjo as non military personnel president, another income sharing equation was arranged which gave oil delivering states 13%.
Pro-Biafra activists
As Prof. Yakubu Aboki Ochefu notes in the prologue to the book Nigeria is Negotiable, "Starting from the Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-85, the "arranged" presence of what in the long run got to be Nigeria in 1914 (tragically, arranged without the contribution of the individuals who might in the end get to be Nigerians) has dependably been a piece of its chronicled experience. Under British pioneer lead, the financial and regulatory structures of the nation were persistently rejigged until autonomy in 1960.
"Between the official variants of the decolonisation history that gives a conspicuous part to our patriot saints for winning freedom from the British, to other people who have faith in the 'fear inspired notion' of decolonisation, the procedure of how the area with the minimum fair qualifications wound up as the driver of another popularity based endeavor typifies parts of the arranged experience. As a nation on its 'third preacher' adventure to a genuinely popularity based country, the basic inquiries of country building that started more than 100 years prior have not been completely as well as legitimately replied. We should on the whole arrange to guarantee that we hold the guide (of Nigeria) however change the way we exist under that guide." On April 22, 1990, a gathering of youthful Nigerian armed force officers – basically from an area of the nation (the same armed force President Buhari let us know a week ago battled to keep Nigeria one) – endeavored to oust the military administration of Gen Ibrahim Babangida. While that unsuccessful overthrow kept going, the defiant fighters extracted five conditions of the organization – Sokoto, Borno, Katsina, Kano and Bauchi. That upset and the extraction request were mainstream and generally welcomed in numerous parts of the nation. Obviously, if that upset had succeeded, the result would have been another common war. Gen. Babangida reacted to that rebellion by separating Nigeria into 30 states from 21 (generally as Yakubu Gowon isolated Nigeria into 12 states from four areas in 1967 to debilitate the Biafra withdrawal).
At the point when individuals call for rebuilding Nigeria, they decide for a reason
Having let ourselves know a couple of recorded home truths, let us rapidly profit ourselves of one more chance to recover Nigeria. At the point when individuals call for rebuilding Nigeria, they decide which is as it should be. What's more, it ought not be released authoritatively. The leaders of the nation utilize each chance to talk about the solidarity of Nigeria and scarcely do anything to construct or improve that solidarity. I don't think the issue truly is about the solidarity of Nigeria. Without a doubt, numerous Nigerians need to live in a unified Nigeria. It is critical, in this manner, that we don't conflate the issues. The call for rebuilding Nigeria has nothing to do with the "disintegration" of Nigeria. You can trust that "Nigeria is non-debatable" and still backing the call for rebuilding the nation. That call is essentially about building a comprehensive and evenhanded country; one in which your value and position are resolved not by where you originate from or your religion; a country established on a prominent constitution approved by "we the general population". On a last note, let me underline that rebuilding Nigeria has turned into a "straight out basic" for the nation. It is possibly we rebuild or die! Rebuilding Nigeria is not an elitist idea (regardless of the possibility that it is some of the time utilized by areas of the decision tip top to arrange power) nor is it about part Nigeria. We can rebuild (or arrange) Nigeria without changing the inside guide of the internal map of the country; it is more about resource control rather than resource allocation; more about devolution of power and, therefore, responsibilities. It is about enhancing citizenship rights and the existential confidence in the country. Of course, restructuring Nigeria is not a silver bullet or cure-all for our problems. But we can’t take on our problems as a nation without a generally acceptable and workable structure. In a sentence, we MUST “re-federalize”
Chido Onumah contends with the president saying that for survival of Nigeria the issue of rebuilding the nation must be talked about.
Rebuilding for Nigeria's national solidarity
Since people in general presentation of the book We Are All Biafrans and the intercession of a previous VP of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, who led the occasion and conveyed a discourse titled "Rebuilding for Nigeria's national solidarity"
– a discourse I prescribe to everybody intrigued by the solidarity and survival of Nigeria – the issue of rebuilding Nigeria and arranging its solidarity has by and by taken the middle phase of national talk. Offer on Facebook Share on Twitter Atiku buhari Former VP Atiku Abubakar and President Muhammadu Buhari No less a man than President Muhammadu Buhari has needed to say something regarding the verbal confrontation.
Amid his Eid el-Fitr message to Nigerians on Wednesday, July 6, 2016, he was accounted for to have said: "I guarantee them (in reference to the Niger Delta 'aggressors') that when we were exceptionally junior officers, we were told by our pioneers, by the Head of State, Gen. Gowon, that to keep Nigeria one is an errand that must be done… we never considered oil. What we were after is one Nigeria. If you don't mind pass the message to the aggressors that one Nigeria is not debatable. What's more, I ask they better acknowledge it. The constitution is clear… I guarantee them there would be equity.
" Before President Buhari's counsel, Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole Soyinka, had noted amid a conference with The Punch on Tuesday, June 28, 2016: "I am in favor of the individuals who say we should do everything to maintain a strategic distance from breaking down. That dialect I get it. I don't comprehend (ex-President Olusegun) Obasanjo's dialect. I don't comprehend (President Muhammadu) Buhari's dialect and every one of their forerunners, saying the sway of this country is non-debatable. It's ridiculous well debatable and we would do well to arrange it. We better arrange it, not even at gatherings, not at meetings, but rather consistently in our behavior towards each other."
A preventative note to one side, progressives and honest to goodness nationalists in Nigeria
The suppositions of these two conspicuous Nigerians mirror the two disparate sentiments on the issue of rebuilding Nigeria or arranging her solidarity. I had arranged this article – that was before President Buhari's comments – as a preventative note to one side, progressives and bona fide loyalists in Nigeria. I trust they are the main ones inclined and truly open to unraveling the present emergency. Lamentably, this is one issue that has separated the Left, progressives and nationalists in Nigeria. This division has characterized the sort of reaction – extending from muddling and doublespeak to by and large disavowal and confrontational tendency – that has made it difficult to have a sound national story and activity arrangement. Since the individuals who should stand up and act have kept up criminal hush and lack of interest, they have yielded the space to traditionalist experts of each tint, wolves in sheep's clothing, blackmailers, revolutionaries, and fifth journalists.
Nigeria is not working for Nigerians
So what are the issues in conflict? There is by all accounts a general assention, even among the individuals who conveyed us to this close grievous end that Nigeria is not working for Nigerians. Be that as it may, and this is the place the disparity of assessments sets in, Nigeria is not working not on the grounds that it is not workable, but rather in light of the fact that it has been fixed to come up short. Take the issue of the common war (1967-70) which President Buhari insinuated. That war was battled to some degree in view of characteristic assets (oil particularly). That was the main thrust of the purported government hostile and to some degree it additionally characterized the geo-legislative issues of what might turn into the secessionist Republic of Biafra. Following 30 months of battling and a great many lives lost, there was an "arranged" settlement. A ceasefire was announced with the catchphrase "No victor; No vanquished." Unfortunately, 46 years after the end of that internecine war, low-power clashes by state and non-state performing artists are seething the nation over, from Boko Haram in the North-east, Islamic Movement in Nigeria (IMN) and Arewa People's Congress (APC) in the North-west, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and different gatherings in the South-east, the Niger Delta Avengers and Bakassi Strike Force (BSF) in the South-south to the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) in the South-west and potential vindicators in the North-focal. What this lets us know is that that war didn't generally end and hasn't finished.
What then do we do to alter Nigeria?
The straightforward answer would be to come back to the transaction table. What we ought to do to alter Nigeria To be clear, Nigeria has dependably been arranged. The issue has been that the "victors" or the individuals who control power at each round of arrangement have singularly characterized the structure and governmental issues of the nation going ahead. Once more, I come back to the issue of oil. Before freedom in 1960, this was the "sharing" recipe for raw petroleum incomes: Oil creating states (district) held 67.4% of incomes, the government got 20%, non-oil states (locales) got 12.6%. After the common in 1970, the administration of Gen Yakubu Gowon through Decree No. 13 "arranged" another equation: Oil creating states held 45% of incomes; the government got 55% while non-oil states got 0%. In 1975, the administration of Gen Murtala Muhammed in another round of transaction through Decree 6, thought of this recipe: Oil creating states would hold 20% of incomes, the national government got 80% and non-oil states got 0%. In 1976, Gen Obasanjo, then military despot, in his omniscience, gave oil creating states 0% of incomes while the national government got 100% and the non-oil states got 0%. President Shehu Shagari who came to control in 1979 conveyed a strange turn to the "sharing" equation. He held the Obasanjo recipe of 0% distribution to oil creating states and 100% to the national government to be partaken in a specific order: half shared similarly among states, 40% shared in view of populace and 10% taking into account land mass. By 2000, amid the rebirth of Gen. Obasanjo as non military personnel president, another income sharing equation was arranged which gave oil delivering states 13%.
Pro-Biafra activists
As Prof. Yakubu Aboki Ochefu notes in the prologue to the book Nigeria is Negotiable, "Starting from the Berlin West Africa Conference of 1884-85, the "arranged" presence of what in the long run got to be Nigeria in 1914 (tragically, arranged without the contribution of the individuals who might in the end get to be Nigerians) has dependably been a piece of its chronicled experience. Under British pioneer lead, the financial and regulatory structures of the nation were persistently rejigged until autonomy in 1960.
"Between the official variants of the decolonisation history that gives a conspicuous part to our patriot saints for winning freedom from the British, to other people who have faith in the 'fear inspired notion' of decolonisation, the procedure of how the area with the minimum fair qualifications wound up as the driver of another popularity based endeavor typifies parts of the arranged experience. As a nation on its 'third preacher' adventure to a genuinely popularity based country, the basic inquiries of country building that started more than 100 years prior have not been completely as well as legitimately replied. We should on the whole arrange to guarantee that we hold the guide (of Nigeria) however change the way we exist under that guide." On April 22, 1990, a gathering of youthful Nigerian armed force officers – basically from an area of the nation (the same armed force President Buhari let us know a week ago battled to keep Nigeria one) – endeavored to oust the military administration of Gen Ibrahim Babangida. While that unsuccessful overthrow kept going, the defiant fighters extracted five conditions of the organization – Sokoto, Borno, Katsina, Kano and Bauchi. That upset and the extraction request were mainstream and generally welcomed in numerous parts of the nation. Obviously, if that upset had succeeded, the result would have been another common war. Gen. Babangida reacted to that rebellion by separating Nigeria into 30 states from 21 (generally as Yakubu Gowon isolated Nigeria into 12 states from four areas in 1967 to debilitate the Biafra withdrawal).
At the point when individuals call for rebuilding Nigeria, they decide for a reason
Having let ourselves know a couple of recorded home truths, let us rapidly profit ourselves of one more chance to recover Nigeria. At the point when individuals call for rebuilding Nigeria, they decide which is as it should be. What's more, it ought not be released authoritatively. The leaders of the nation utilize each chance to talk about the solidarity of Nigeria and scarcely do anything to construct or improve that solidarity. I don't think the issue truly is about the solidarity of Nigeria. Without a doubt, numerous Nigerians need to live in a unified Nigeria. It is critical, in this manner, that we don't conflate the issues. The call for rebuilding Nigeria has nothing to do with the "disintegration" of Nigeria. You can trust that "Nigeria is non-debatable" and still backing the call for rebuilding the nation. That call is essentially about building a comprehensive and evenhanded country; one in which your value and position are resolved not by where you originate from or your religion; a country established on a prominent constitution approved by "we the general population". On a last note, let me underline that rebuilding Nigeria has turned into a "straight out basic" for the nation. It is possibly we rebuild or die! Rebuilding Nigeria is not an elitist idea (regardless of the possibility that it is some of the time utilized by areas of the decision tip top to arrange power) nor is it about part Nigeria. We can rebuild (or arrange) Nigeria without changing the inside guide of the internal map of the country; it is more about resource control rather than resource allocation; more about devolution of power and, therefore, responsibilities. It is about enhancing citizenship rights and the existential confidence in the country. Of course, restructuring Nigeria is not a silver bullet or cure-all for our problems. But we can’t take on our problems as a nation without a generally acceptable and workable structure. In a sentence, we MUST “re-federalize”
he internal map of the
country; it is more about resource control rather than resource
allocation; more about devolution of power and, therefore,
responsibilities. It is about enhancing citizenship rights and the
existential confidence in the country.
Of course, restructuring Nigeria is not a silver bullet or cure-all for
our problems. But we can’t take on our problems as a nation without a
generally acceptable and workable structure. In a sentence, we MUST
“re-federalize”.
Read more: https://www.naij.com/888229-must-read-dear-president-buhari-nigerias-unity-negotiable.html
Read more: https://www.naij.com/888229-must-read-dear-president-buhari-nigerias-unity-negotiable.html
he internal map of the
country; it is more about resource control rather than resource
allocation; more about devolution of power and, therefore,
responsibilities. It is about enhancing citizenship rights and the
existential confidence in the country.
Of course, restructuring Nigeria is not a silver bullet or cure-all for
our problems. But we can’t take on our problems as a nation without a
generally acceptable and workable structure. In a sentence, we MUST
“re-federalize”.
Read more: https://www.naij.com/888229-must-read-dear-president-buhari-nigerias-unity-negotiable.html
Read more: https://www.naij.com/888229-must-read-dear-president-buhari-nigerias-unity-negotiable.html
President Muhammadu
Buhari while addressing guests who visited the presidential villa for
the Sallah celebration has said that Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable.
Chido Onumah argues with the president saying that for survival of
Nigeria the issue of restructuring the country must be discussed.
Restructuring for Nigeria’s national unity
Since the public presentation of the book We Are All Biafrans and the
intervention of a former vice president of Nigeria, Atiku Abubakar, who
chaired the event and delivered a speech titled “Restructuring for
Nigeria’s national unity” – a speech I recommend to everyone interested
in the unity and survival of Nigeria – the issue of restructuring
Nigeria and negotiating its unity has once again taken the centre stage
of national discourse.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
Atiku buhari
Former VP Atiku Abubakar and President Muhammadu Buhari
No less a person than President Muhammadu Buhari has had to weigh in on
the debate. During his Eid el-Fitr message to Nigerians on Wednesday,
July 6, 2016, he was reported to have said: “I assure them (in reference
to the Niger Delta ‘militants’) that when we were very junior officers,
we were told by our leaders, by the Head of State, Gen. 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. Please, pass the message to the
militants that one Nigeria is not negotiable. And I pray they better
accept it. The constitution is very clear…I assure them there would be
justice.”
Before President Buhari’s admonition, Nobel Laureate, Prof. Wole
Soyinka, had noted during a parley with The Punch on Tuesday, June 28,
2016: “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 this nation is non-negotiable. It’s bloody
well negotiable and we had better negotiate it. We better negotiate it,
not even at meetings, not at conferences, but every day in our conduct
towards one another.”
A cautionary note to the left, progressives and genuine patriots in
Nigeria
The opinions of these two prominent Nigerians reflect the two divergent
opinions on the issue of restructuring Nigeria or negotiating her
unity. I had planned this article – that was before President Buhari’s
remarks – as a cautionary note to the left, progressives and genuine
patriots in Nigeria. I believe they are the only ones predisposed and
sincerely open to solving the current crisis. Regrettably, this is one
issue that has divided the Left, progressives and patriots in Nigeria.
This division has defined the kind of response – ranging from
obfuscation and doublespeak to outright denial and combativeness – that
has made it impossible to have a coherent national narrative and action
plan. Since those who ought to speak out and act have maintained
criminal silence and indifference, they have yielded the space to
conservative analysts of every hue, hypocrites, blackmailers,
anarchists, and fifth columnists.
Nigeria is not working for Nigerians
So what are the issues in contention? There seems to be a general
agreement, even among those who brought us to this near-tragic end that
Nigeria is not working for Nigerians. However, and this is where the
divergence of opinions sets in, Nigeria is not working not because it is
not workable, but because it has been rigged to fail. Take the issue of
the civil war (1967-70) which President Buhari alluded to. That war was
fought in part because of natural resources (oil specifically). That
was the driving force of the so-called federal offensive and to some
extent it also defined the geo-politics of what would become the
secessionist Republic of Biafra. After 30 months of fighting and
millions of lives lost, there was a “negotiated” settlement. A truce was
declared with the catchphrase “No victor; No vanquished.”
Unfortunately, 46 years after the end of that internecine war,
low-intensity conflicts by state and non-state actors are raging across
the country, from Boko Haram in the North-east, Islamic Movement in
Nigeria (IMN) and Arewa People’s Congress (APC) in the North-west, the
Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) and other groups in the South-east,
the Niger Delta Avengers and Bakassi Strike Force (BSF) in the
South-south to the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) in the South-west and
potential avengers in the North-central. What this tells us is that that
war didn’t really end and hasn’t ended. What then do we do to fix
Nigeria? The simple answer would be to return to the negotiation table.
What we should do to fix Nigeria
To be clear, Nigeria has always been negotiated. The problem has been
that the “victors” or those who control power at each round of
negotiation have unilaterally defined the structure and politics of the
country going forward. Again, I return to the issue of oil. Before
independence in 1960, this was the “sharing” formula for crude oil
revenues: Oil producing states (region) retained 67.4% of revenues, the
federal government got 20%, non-oil states (regions) got 12.6%. After
the civil in 1970, the regime of Gen Yakubu Gowon through Decree No. 13
“negotiated” a new formula: Oil producing states retained 45% of
revenues; the federal government got 55% while non-oil states got 0%. In
1975, the regime of Gen Murtala Muhammed in another round of
negotiation through Decree 6, came up with this formula: Oil producing
states would retain 20% of revenues, the federal government got 80% and
non-oil states got 0%. In 1976, Gen Obasanjo, then military dictator, in
his omniscience, gave oil producing states 0% of revenues while the
federal government got 100% and the non-oil states got 0%.
President Shehu Shagari who came to power in 1979 brought a bizarre
twist to the “sharing” formula. He retained the Obasanjo formula of 0%
allocation to oil producing states and 100% to the federal government to
be shared in this order: 50% shared equally among states, 40% shared
based on population and 10% based on land mass. By 2000, during the
reincarnation of Gen. Obasanjo as civilian president, a new revenue
sharing formula was negotiated which gave oil producing states 13%.
Share on Facebook
Share on Twitter
biafransaus
Pro-Biafra activists
As Prof. Yakubu Aboki Ochefu notes in the introduction to the book
Nigeria is Negotiable, “Beginning from the Berlin West Africa Conference
of 1884-85, the ‘negotiated’ existence of what eventually became
Nigeria in 1914 (unfortunately, negotiated without the input of those
who would eventually become Nigerians) has always been a part of its
historical experience. Under British colonial rule, the economic and
administrative structures of the country were continuously rejigged
until independence in 1960.
“Between the official versions of the decolonisation history that gives a
prominent role to our nationalist heroes for winning independence from
the British, to others who believe in the ‘conspiracy theory’ of
decolonisation, the process of how the region with the least democratic
credentials ended up as the driver of a new democratic enterprise
epitomizes aspects of the negotiated experience. As a country on its
‘third missionary’ journey to a truly democratic nation, the fundamental
questions of nation building that began over 100 years ago have not
been fully and or properly answered. We must collectively negotiate to
ensure that we retain the map (of Nigeria) but change the way we exist
under that map.”
On April 22, 1990, a group of young Nigerian army officers – mainly from
a section of the country (the same army President Buhari told us last
week fought to keep Nigeria one) – attempted to overthrow the military
regime of Gen Ibrahim Babangida. While that abortive coup lasted, the
rebellious soldiers excised five states of the federation – Sokoto,
Borno, Katsina, Kano and Bauchi. That coup and the excision order were
popular and well-received in many parts of the country. Clearly, if that
coup had succeeded, the aftermath would have been another civil war.
Gen. Babangida responded to that mutiny by dividing Nigeria into 30
states from 21 (just as Yakubu Gowon divided Nigeria into 12 states from
four regions in 1967 to weaken the Biafra secession).
When people call for restructuring Nigeria, they make the call for a
reason
Having told ourselves a few historical home truths, let us quickly avail
ourselves of one more opportunity to reclaim Nigeria. When people call
for restructuring Nigeria, they make the call for a reason. And it
should not be dismissed peremptorily. The rulers of the country use
every opportunity to speak about the unity of Nigeria and hardly do
anything to build or enhance that unity.
I don’t think the issue really is about the unity of Nigeria.
Undoubtedly, many Nigerians want to live in a united Nigeria. It is
important, therefore, that we do not conflate the issues. The call for
restructuring Nigeria has nothing to do with the “dissolution” of
Nigeria. You can believe that “Nigeria is non-negotiable” and still
support the call for restructuring the country. That call is basically
about building an inclusive and equitable nation; one in which your
worth and position are determined not by where you come from or your
religion; a nation founded on a popular constitution validated by “we
the people”.
On a final note, let me emphasize that restructuring Nigeria has become a
“categorical imperative” for the country. It is either we restructure
or perish! Restructuring Nigeria is not an elitist concept (even if it
is sometimes used by sections of the ruling elite to negotiate power)
neither is it about splitting Nigeria. We can restructure (or negotiate)
Nigeria without changing the internal map of the country; it is more
about resource control rather than resource allocation; more about
devolution of power and, therefore, responsibilities. It is about
enhancing citizenship rights and the existential confidence in the
country.
Of course, restructuring Nigeria is not a silver bullet or cure-all for
our problems. But we can’t take on our problems as a nation without a
generally acceptable and workable structure. In a sentence, we MUST
“re-federalize”
Read more: https://www.naij.com/888229-must-read-dear-president-buhari-nigerias-unity-negotiable.html
Read more: https://www.naij.com/888229-must-read-dear-president-buhari-nigerias-unity-negotiable.html
![[Mixtape] DJ Cheche – Global Wizkid Blend Vol. 1](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_t2dNTS5dBYw31RU-80xfpvntmD19367kPEIG7vJGpJxwNOJH04wz3pqepYPkJvtPIEgIQgbAmFiLoEgW9iYWyrLK2fU5n1TDc1Y7ZPlHZshmX791MNfAvJ-DJjt1js-4Jrvm8OZvA9ibeT7gI9ZHPovjj0MMdpxUpIDTAI21slw_kI=w72-h72-p-k-no-nu)
No comments