The vociferous agitation for “Biafra” by some groups in South-Eastern Nigeria and the growing clamour for “restructuring” by individuals and groups in other parts of Nigeria, show quite clearly that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Nigerian federal system as presently structured. Those who choose to play the ostrich and pretend that this is not the case are only living in denial. With time, they will have to confront reality. Nigeria’s federal arrangement, dominated, as it is, by a monolithic and domineering central government, represents the very antithesis of the federal idea. Not only is this federal arrangement fundamentally flawed, it mocks the democratic philosophy that underpins the federal system of government.
The above notwithstanding, it must be emphasized that the problem does not admit of precipitate, rash or uncoordinated ameliorative approaches. If anything, the peculiar character of Nigeria as a complex multi-ethnic society makes caution and tact essential in any rectification process. Much of what has been suggested by individuals and groups as the correct approach to the structural problem of the federation appear too fantastic to be taken seriously. The renewed demand for the creation of a sovereign State of Biafra is particularly problematic for various reasons. First, the demand is mainly associated with the IPOB and a section of MASSOB. The Ohaneze Ndigbo, the apex socio-cultural organization in South-Eastern Nigeria has unequivocally dissociated itself from the Biafra agitation. More importantly, no political or elected leader in the entire region has unequivocally declared support for the Biafra cause. Newspaper reports and social media commentaries also show that many South-Easterners residing and doing business in and outside the South-East do not support the Biafra project. Put succinctly, the IPOB-led agitation for the creation of a sovereign state of Biafra appears largely unpopular even within its own supposed stronghold. It lacks cogent popular support, the kind that is required to definitively stamp it with undisputed legitimacy.
Second, beyond its “secession” rhetoric, the IPOB has not articulated a comprehensive or coherent agenda for the actualization and future sustenance of Biafra, neither has it defined clearly the boundaries of the proposed State of Biafra. It is not clear whether, as with the defunct Biafra of the 1960s, the Biafra being promoted by the IPOB will include the States that now constitute the South-South region of Nigeria or the project is simply restricted to the States that make up the present South-Eastern Region of Nigeria? It is well known that various ethnic organizations and political leaders in the South-South have declared their opposition to any secessionist agenda. If the planned Biafra project is restricted to the South-East, it is not clear whether the IPOB has considered the recent denunciation of the Biafra cause by David Umahi, Governor of Ebonyi State, one of the five states in the South-East of Nigeria? Also, the IPOB has not confirmed or proved to the public that it has the express political support and consent of the other four states of the South-East to form Biafra.
Third, the IPOB has called for a referendum and has proceeded to unilaterally impose a ban on political activities throughout “Biafra land” until the federal government conducts the said referendum to determine the wish of “Biafrans” to secede from Nigeria and form their own independent State. There is no provision in the extant 1999 constitution of Nigeria for a referendum neither has a referendum ever being held in Nigeria’s chequered history. Our assessment of the political validity and legitimacy of the IPOB’s approach to the conduct of a referendum must thus be based on political practices and precedents in other democracies. For our purposes just two examples will suffice, that of Scotland in the United Kingdom and Quebec in Canada.
A referendum to determine whether Scotland should pull out of the United Kingdom to form an independent state of its own took place in September 2014 with the majority of Scottish voters, representing 55.3 percent of the electorate, voting “NO”. Instructively, although various pressure groups and community associations campaigned on both sides of the divide, it was the Scottish Parliament, acting on behalf of the Scottish people that called for and organized the referendum. The Scottish Parliament consists of the elected representatives of the Scottish people.
The 1995 Quebec referendum was similarly organized to determine whether Quebec, a French speaking Province of Canada should quit the Canadian federation to form an independent Quebecois State? The elected political leaders of Quebec were fully involved and in fact spearheaded the referendum process. Although there was significant clamour for independence across Quebec at the time, federalists who felt that Quebec should remain within the federal union carried the day, having garnered 50.58 percent of the total votes cast.
In a democracy, only elected leaders, acting on the actual and verifiable demand(s) of the people they represent can officially call for and put in motion the process for a referendum. The referendum is a serious instrument of popular or democratic affirmation. Due process and decorum must accompany its use. The issue to be determined at a referendum must be such that fundamentally excites the passion of a sizeable portion of the concerned electorate, and one for which a democratic determination of direction has not only become necessary but also urgent. In each of the two examples mentioned above, not only were the elected political leaders of the concerned region fully involved in the “independence project,” they in fact led the process, and the call for referendum in each case was broad based, involving a majority of the people through their elected leaders. There was a general consensus in each case that the issue to be determined by referendum was fundamental and of sufficient interest to the generality of the people concerned.
The Biafra agitation led by Dim Emeka Ojukwu in the late 1960s was evidently popular among the Igbo people at the time. There was a real and present danger to the lives and livelihood of thousands of Igbo indigenes living in Northern Nigeria. There had been an unprecedented massacre of Igbo soldiers in the Nigerian Army by Northern officers, and the federal military government had backed out of an agreement reached between it and Ojukwu at Aburi for regional autonomy. There was an overwhelming consensus on secession among the Igbo. Most importantly, even though he was not an elected leader, Dim Ojukwu was the undisputed de facto leader of the Igbo people at the time. His leadership was completely unchallenged. What is more, he had the full backing of the people, the artisans, the students, the politicians, the intellectuals, the clergy, and the leaders of thought. In fact, several soldiers of Igbo extraction in the Nigerian army defected to the Biafra side at the start of the war. Ojukwu had a real plan, a real agenda for Biafra. The boundaries of his “Biafra State” were clearly defined. Of course the legality of his action is open to debate, but there is no doubt that that was what the Igbo people wanted at the time.
The current agitation for Biafra is clearly different from the one led by Ojukwu. The IPOB is not an elected body representing the people of the South-East. And there is nothing to suggest that the Igbos unanimously subscribe to its leadership in any way. It cannot therefore unilaterally call for a referendum and then proceed to unilaterally impose a blockade on all political activities in the region pending the referendum. Care must be taken not to plunge the federation into avoidable chaos. From all indications, the renewed demand for Biafra does not have the support of a vast majority of the Igbo people. Therefore the Biafra agenda cannot and should not be imposed on them.
If a referendum must be held, certain procedures must be followed. First, the boundaries of the proposed Biafra and the States or communities to be included in it must be unequivocally identified. Second, each of the relevant Houses of Assembly must pass a resolution confirming the desire of the relevant State to be part of Biafra. Third, all the consenting Houses of Assembly must jointly present a “Biafra Independence Referendum Bill” to the National Assembly of Nigeria. The Bill will contain a clause summoning the referendum. It will also define expressly the question to be put to the electorate of the concerned States at the referendum. The Bill must also state the date on which the referendum will be held, the electoral body to conduct the referendum, and the rules which would govern the holding of the referendum. This bill must be passed by both Houses of the National Assembly of Nigeria and assented to by the President of Nigeria. Only then can the referendum be held.
Evidently, the threshold for such a referendum is very high indeed. It is certainly unlikely to ever happen. The reason is simple. Once it is allowed for the South-East, the South-West, the South-South and perhaps the North-Central will soon demand for their own independent States. And this will continue until the federation is completely dismembered. Even if this happens unhindered, bitter fratricidal wars and battles may soon break out within the newly independent States as their different ethnic and tribal groups struggle for power, relevance, and ascendancy. Ultimately, the entire West African sub-region will be thrown into unimaginable war and crisis. The bitter experience of South-Sudan, a country that broke away from Sudan in 2012 is enough to caution even the most unrepentant secessionists in our midst.
What Nigeria requires is not secession. What the federation requires is not dismemberment or dissolution. The solution to Nigeria’s federal problem is a restructured political arrangement under which the existing states of the federation are allowed to evolve and grow at their own pace, controlling their own internal affairs and generating their own revenue without compromising the unity and integrity of the Nigerian federation. It is to the attainment of this objective that all our energy and attention as a nation must now be directed.
N.B: This article was first published in the Thisday Newspaper on 11/7/2017
Comments
Post a Comment