THE controversy that has raged in the past few months about Abia State expelling non-indigenes from its civil service has been going the way of all Nigerian debates — aspersions, name calling, threats and more noise which when expended leaves the matter unaddressed.

None of these is new. The details of the matter are that the Abia State Government expelled those not from the state’s service. Abia did not deny the action. Its explanation that it was the last of the five states from the former East Central State, in the mainly Igbo-speaking parts of former Eastern Region, to have acted this way, sounds retaliatory, but again, it is the truth. The further explanation that Abia was sagging under the weight of its citizens sacked from service in other states is emotional and debatable.

From 1991 when two more states (Abia and Enugu) were created from Imo and Anambra states, the issue was hot. Enugu State almost collapsed on inception because the bulk of the civil servants from Anambra State left, most fearing then that they had no future in the new state.

Some of the new states systematically weeded out the non-indigenes, who they claimed oppressed them in the former states. The practice from the military endured. In 2002, the civilian government in Imo State refused to pay pensioners of Abia State origin, who retired from its service. There were some complaints then and the matter was never resolved.

The absurdity of this situation arises from the fact that the governors of the five states meet regularly. They even have dreams on common economic plans. They were in tandem when they shut their state universities over disputes with lecturers. Why would a profound matter of this ranking escape their attention?

Whether Abia is right or wrong is not the matter at stake. The real issue is status of the Nigerian. Is he an indigene or a Nigerian citizen? Which of the status is legal? Which status serves him well as he navigates the challenges of life in a country its leaders boldly canvass national positions while standing firmly on ethnic platforms?

At stake is a constitutional breach of Section 42. The section meant to protect Nigerians from discriminations is not of interest to the National Assembly that should have enacted laws against the daily discriminations Nigerians face because they are not indigenes of a particular state.

Section 42 states, (1) A citizen of Nigeria of a particular community, ethnic group, place of origin, sex, religion or political opinion shall not, by reason only that he is such a person:- (a) be subjected either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any executive or administrative action of the government, to disabilities or restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions are not made subject; or (b) be accorded either expressly by, or in the practical application of, any law in force in Nigeria or any such executive or administrative action, any privilege or advantage that is not accorded to citizens of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic groups, places of origin, sex, religions or political opinions. (2) No citizen of Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability or deprivation merely by reason of the circumstances of his birth.

Instead of the debates, the affected citizens or their governments should sue Abia for breaching the Constitution. Or is it a case of unwillingness to seek equity because of soiled hands?

When abrogations of the rights of citizens are so unimportant that we just debate them, we sustain bases for people to be indigenes of states and not Nigerians, who the Constitution awards rights as citizens.