By Awa Kalu, SAN

IN the ordinary and general law of landlord and tenant, there is a basic presumption which underlines the relationship of the parties. That assumption is that one of the parties is the landlord and the other, the tenant. In practical terms, the landlord and the tenant are assumed to be unequal and the understanding generally, is that the landlord is superior to the tenant. The parties usually draw up an agreement which stipulates the terms and conditions of the tenancy.

Conditions for quit notice: Without going into any specifics, it is also usual to stipulate the conditions which may cause the landlord to determine or terminate the tenancy. In short, the tenant must breach some fundamental terms which may enable the landlord to issue a notice to quit. Conversely, the landlord may behave in such a way that will give the tenant the impression that there is a fundamental change of circumstance, thus making it impossible for the tenant to continue the relationship.

With this background, the discerning reader will recall the tension which was generated when some group of youths issued a “Quit Notice” to all persons of Igbo extraction resident in what was called the “North.” By its tenor, all Igbo’s resident in the North were to quit on or before October 1, 2017. That “quit notice” led to counter quit notices from some other ethnic groups.

To the credit of our political leaders, the situation was brought under control, but the tension may not have completely abated. By our constitutional arrangement, it is not difficult to understand that the North includes all parts of the then Northern Region, pursuant to the 1960 and 1963 constitutional provisions and what that means is that the North includes the Middle Belt-at least in consonance with local understanding.

Scenarios created by quit notice saga: There are multiple points and questions that arise from the scenario created by the “Quit Notice” saga. The first question is whether having regard to the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999 (as amended), any group of Nigerians with an established identity as Nigerians can fall within a category to be known by the name and style of “Tenants.” Were there to be such a situation, whose tenants would such Nigerians be?

Is amalgamation political master stroke or unmitigated error?

At this juncture, it may simply be noted that what is presently known as the Federal Republic of Nigeria was not a country, at least prior to the amalgamation of 1914.

Administrative reasons

The indigenous and heterogeneous groups often derogatorily referred to as ‘tribes’, which make up this country, existed independent of each other with different cultural and political systems. However, the Colonial masters, largely for economic and administrative reasons, felt that there was a need to merge the Northern and Southern Protectorates into a single colony. The fusion was achieved by Lord Fredrick Luggard, the then Governor General.

It has often been wondered in several quarters whether the amalgamation was a political master stroke or an unmitigated error. The Jury is still out but our dear President, Muhammadu Buhari, as a Statesman, will have no doubt that the amalgamation was divine. As has been acknowledged, every journey has a beginning and it will be left to the discerning reader to determine whether our journey as a country truly began in 1914.

When Nigeria’s journey to nationhood began

What this means is that the journey to nationhood began in 1914 and gave each ethnic nationality in the nation called Nigeria, an opportunity to cohabit and to exist as equals. Guided by constitutional lingo, any person born to parents from a tribe indigenous to Nigeria is entitled to an irrevocable status as a citizen of Nigeria by birth. If all such persons are entitled to perpetual citizenship in a country defined by its constitution as an indivisible and indissoluble state, which ethnic nationality can be a tenant of another?

Tendency of domination by bigger ethnic groups

At independence, it was clear that our nation is constituted by large and in some cases, smaller ethnic groups. It was thought right from inception that the larger ethnic groups would have a tendency to dominate the smaller ones, for which reason, the fears of minorities were assuaged by the stipulation of fundamental rights as a chapter in the independence constitution of 1960, as well as subsequent constitutions. Irrefutably, we have had to endure ethnic tensions throughout the history of this would be great country. We may at this stage borrow a few words from a book (Foundations of a New Nigeria) edited by two great and celebrated scholars, Sam Oyovbaire and Tunji Olagunju.

In their introduction, they argue that ‘History is a succession of events in the life of nations, of peoples or of communities. Historical events are social cumulations. Fundamentally, one set of identifiable events in time and space is as much rooted in a preceding set as it is the root of succeeding events’. ‘Similarly’, they contend, ‘historical events in one place could become the genesis of events in other places depending, of course, on the critical nature of the former. In this manner of conceptualizing events, history could be said to be unrestricted by space and time.’ The authors further opine that history and historical events are not amorphous or shapeless occurrences. On the contrary, historical events and processes possess uniqueness which marks them as much the product of the past and of particular places, as they are sufficiently differentiated from their antecedents. Such uniqueness of history provides both the basis from a break from either the past or from events of other places, as well as the basis of a completely new future history. The decisiveness of the unique nature and character of historical events and processes provides the basis for the differentiation in history. They then affirm a truism, on which basis our country may be judged, that a set of events and processes could be quite profound and long drawn-out with the attendant consequence that existing structures and values of a nation become completely broken or overturned, giving rise to new structures, institutions, values and patterns of social conduct.’

Furthermore, with the history of Nigeria as a plank on which to analyse her problems, Chief Arthur Nwankwo, a foremost nationalist and public affairs analyst lambasts this country in his book NIGERIA: THE POLITICAL TRANSITION & THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY as a nation in search of identity and consciousness. He argues that the dilemma of contemporary Nigeria is mind-boggling.

Nigeria’s myriad of problems

Nigeria is bedeviled by a myriad of problems which require radical therapies. In very strong words, he compares ‘the enormous problems of the polity’ with ‘the reality of a tragic dance of death; a ritual with no purpose and a rite in celebration of decay and putrefaction’. Arthur Nwankwo further contends that ‘in examining the Nigerian condition’, he is ‘reminded of that parabolic signification of communal ethos in a society caught in the web of organized intrigue. The belief that a disease which is ravaging a land needs the blood of an animal matching its potency for exoneration, exorcism and amelioration holds absolutely true for the Nigerian State’. In a tone brimming with resignation and surrender, he alleges that ‘the only qualification to the time-honoured liberationist paradigm is that not even the blood of a mortal, and a clansman’s at that , may have the efficacy of purgation, or the potency of regeneration’. As angry as his words indicate, he however takes the path of a statesman and asks; ‘what are the basic tentative measures likely to arrest the calm strive towards chaos and the fatalistic journey into the molten abyss and morass of the unknown?’ He concludes that Nigeria’s drift into chaos is both attitudinal and institutional and his belief is that arresting the drift demands the re-orientation of individual and collective awakening to realities.

How to get out of the problem

How do we get out of the quagmire which has been created by multiple rain-makers, ethnic jingoist and chauvinists? How do we ensure that the indivisibility and indissolubility of our great nation remains a reality? There is a consensus that we must live together as one and that we must preserve the dreams of our founding fathers. However, opinions differ as to the means of preserving the “oneness”. Are you a federalist or are you an unrepentant believer in the unitary system? Are you in favour of wholesale restructuring of the federation or are you at best, an advocate of devolution of powers? Whatever side of the divide you belong to, our road to unity starts from a point where all of us as Nigerians will bury our differences, shield our swords and love one another. That way, no ethnic group will be regarded as tenants or landlords as the case may be.