By Adisa Adeleye
In an intelligent reaction to my article last week in this  column titled: IS THE BREAK UP OF THIS COUNTRY INEVITABLE?, a reader, Mr. John A of Onitsha asked some pertinent questions on the likely break-up of the country; he would like to know the number of sovereign states; the agitators; the front runners or the stakeholders of these sovereign states.

In particular, he asked, what is the acceptable legitimate way of doing that since the first attempt led to countless loss of lives and properties of mostly south east and south south(people) in the Nigeria civil war?‘

Obviously, the questions are based on the misconception of convocation of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC or SONACO) and the need for a dialogue to examine the political and economic structure of the country.  I believe that many Nigerians, including our legislators, have misunderstood the mere word ‘Sovereign‘ as a way of taking from them the legitimate right of representing the people of this country.  Also, some Nigerians believe that the idea of holding a Sovereign National Conference is a surer way of breaking the country into several sovereign states.

The main purpose of those advocating a form of any dialogue, to me, is a way of calling attention to some factors which might affect the social, economic and political life of a country.  The advocates of such discourse are not enemies of the country or agents of disintegration, but real patriots who from past experience believe that it is necessary to prevent catastrophic events before they happen.  Perhaps, if the political leaders of the 1960s had listened to the wise call for a meaningful dialogue, the country could have been saved from the unnecessary civil war with its destructive consequences. Should the country be allowed to relapse into the abnormal mentality of the 60s and the turbulence of the 50s?

Those Nigerians pointing at deficient political structures and the economic uncertainties of the present time are merely performing their civic duty in order to forestall future instability.  They are not to be seen as agents of destabilization or enemies of national unity.

Any serious government or matured political leadership would not ponder much over the methodology of conveying such a conference but rather, work seriously to see that any discussion is directed towards unity, political stability and economic prosperity of the country.  Those who are opposing the holding of a profitable dialogue are either too young or immature to appreciate the historical record of the present and the past decades.

For instance, if Biafra was created as a result of dastardly killings of people of south east and south south origin in the 1960s, is the present position not worse?

Now people of the whole south  are being murdered and their properties destroyed in religious or political uprising in some prominent areas of the northern states.  It is unfortunate that the Boko Haram bombs have not discriminated in their effects on Nigerians of all shades except when the bombs were exclusively directed on Churches with majority of southern worshippers.  It is of note that lives and properties of southerners sacrificed in the riots in the Northern States since 2004 have not been compensated by the authorities.

The advocates of any meaningful dialogue are looking towards the amicable resolution of some destabilizing political and economic factors in a federal system which is being run as a unitary one. There is need to return to true federalism where each constituent state would progress according to its resources and contribute according to its ability.  This calls for a review of the resource allocation principle.

Each constituent part of the Federation should be able to maintain its Police Force and control its Judicial System. It should also handle its educational affairs at all levels.

Some analysts believe that Nigerians should sit quietly to discuss on how to have improved electoral system and peaceful elections (without heavy military or police presence); preservation of life and property of the individual in all parts of the country and the pursuits of peaceful co-existence.

Afterall, the existence of separate Parliaments in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the separate participation of the people from these areas in the world events do not indicate a broken Britain but a prosperous United Kingdom.Therefore, what we need through a discourse is a United States of Nigeria (USN).