By Tonnie Iredia

During the colonial era, the British evolved what they called the policy of ‘colonial self-sufficiency’ to ensure that British tax payers’ money was not used to develop any colony. To sustain the policy in what became Nigeria, the colonial governor, Sir Frederick Lugard decided in 1914 to merge the Northern and Southern Protectorates of the colony of Nigeria because he was convinced that the combined resources of both Protectorates would be enough to run the colony. He was neither bothered about the existing lop-sided structure of his creation nor did he care about the opinions of the inhabitants on the subject. Since then till date, Nigerians have continued to protest the forced merger which Chief Obafemi Awolowo described as ‘a mere geographical expression’ and not a nation. Painfully, each opportunity that arises for restructuring and making a true nation of the entity is always thwarted by those in authority who naively believe that they are fighting against the nation’s disintegration.

During the military era, our armed forces imagined that national integration could be mechanically achieved; hence they cut to size any analyst who questioned the continued existence of the nation. Even the political engineering scheme initiated by President Ibrahim Babangida was premised on what has become known as the indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria. Indeed, the ‘democratic’ government of President Olusegun Obasanjo decreed same for the nation as if our leaders had a secret pact unknown to the rest of us with Lord Lugard to preserve his creation. Is this suspected pact also binding on President Goodluck Jonathan whose government recently declared the same no-go-area which bars Nigerians from debating whether or not they wish to continue to belong to the Lugardian nation?

Perhaps many accept the existence of Nigeria as given but even if it is only me that feels otherwise, am I not entitled to my opinion? The other day I met some 3 men who were yet to come to terms with the universally accepted belief that God is the creator of mankind. That such people otherwise called atheists exist has not in any way detracted from the overwhelming perception of God as the Almighty. So, why can’t we allow those who do not believe in Nigeria to say so? Even if such Nigerians are few, the overriding benefit of letting them air their views cannot be overemphasized. This is because one of the canons of democracy is the guarantee of minority rights. In other words, everybody ought to be allowed to canvass his persuasion making it obvious that it is undemocratic to shut out any viewpoint. At the same time, in line with the dictates of democracy, the opportunity for the minority to have its say should not stop the majority from having its way.

Again, if the argument that most Nigerians will never support the dismemberment of the nation is true, why our leaders so scared of knowing the so-called few that hold a contrary opinion? The point to be made is that government’s posture that we are free to debate anything except the continued existence of Nigeria is undemocratic and a denial of each community’s right to self-determination. Everything should be discussed and those issues which are unable to achieve 75% support as is being proposed would naturally fail. But if on the other hand, we continue to officially outlaw any discussion on the continued existence of Nigeria, there would always be a call for another conference specifically for that by those who are unable to get into the one about to hold now.  Consequently, the subject would survive as a recurring element of blackmail until it is thrown open.

Similarly, it is wise to avoid the current controversy over the term ‘sovereign’. Those who want us to send the deliberations of our national conference to the National Assembly for ratification merely want to validate the existing disposition. But then they are, without knowing, creating room for calls for another conference by those who believe that the will of the people must prevail at all times. This is because the only thing in a democracy that is sovereign is people hence sovereignty belongs to the people in all democratic societies. Thus, those “elected” to represent the people should not be seen as greater than the people on whose behalf they purport to act. The earlier the intermediary role that is being canvassed for the legislature is removed the better. After all, we all know how elections are won in Nigeria!

Even those who did not contest any election but who call themselves elder statesmen are about to be selected as our representatives in the forthcoming national conference. Well if they are all fit and proper persons like the legendary Emeka Anyaoku -one time Secretary General of the Commonwealth no one is likely to object. It will be a different issue if any of the so called statesmen are among persons who are often engaged in overheating the polity. It is better not to hold a conference than to have one made up of people that would ab initio wane public confidence on the subject. Indeed, a conference would have been unnecessary if over the years, we sincerely ran a true federal system that makes every Nigerian, a citizen of his country rather than that of his place of origin and obeyed the simple spirit instead of the letter of our constitution.

Why waste our collective energy on the puerile argument that the absence of a people’s constitution is our main problem when those who taught us modern government- the British-do not have a written constitution and yet do not have our type of political dilemma? Nigeria has continued to have problems not necessarily because of a bad constitution; the real problem has been insincerity and greed. For example, despite the so-called deficiencies in our 1999 Constitution, the federal character principle is not of its own a bad arrangement. What has rendered it useless is the implementation which has turned it into a tool for discrimination as well as a device for enthroning mediocrity.