𝐏𝐞𝐚𝐜𝐞𝐟𝐮𝐥 𝐒𝐞𝐩𝐚𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐨𝐫 𝐕𝐢𝐨𝐥𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐔𝐧𝐢𝐭𝐲?

By Wole Olaoye

It seems that everybody wants Nigeria to remain one indivisible entity. Right? At least, that is what they profess openly. But don’t be deceived, the hoopla that will greet you at the slightest sign of a social or political strain will make you wonder at the unwisdom of forcing such atavistic tribes together under one flag in one massive war theatre.

Each time there is a centrifugal tendency preaching separation, secession or even confederation in Nigeria, the mustachios of some of the usual suspects who can be described as professional defenders of the Luggardian contraption, stand on edge.

“Nigeria is indivisible”, they say.

“Says who?”, their interlocutors ask.

And agent provocateurs add their bit: “The house that Luggard built in the service of his female king cannot endure.”

“Female king? There you go again!”

𝐏𝐀𝐓𝐂𝐇𝐘 𝐔𝐍𝐈𝐓𝐘

Since 1960, we have always managed to patch Nigeria’s leaking roof to force a people with 350 independent languages to remain under one roof as one country! As a person, I am fascinated by the plurality of my country and the beauty of the variegated landscape. If I had my way, I’d have selfishly kept faith with Lord Luggard’s colonial contraption. However, I think it is about time we all put on our adult caps and look at other possibilities of running our societies without rancour so that we can all still remain brothers and sisters.

In 2017, when Prof Ango Abdullahi as the Chair of the Northern Elders’ Forum, declared that, “The North is ready for a Split of Nigeria if…”, all the other tribal organisations called him out as an unpatriotic elder.

According to Ango Abdullahi, “If we agree that we should live together as a people and as a country, so be it, but if the general consensus is that Nigerians want to go their separate ways either on the basis of ethnicity, culture, history or religion, why not?” He added that, “If anybody tells you that the large informed opinion in the North is against the dissolution of Nigeria, he is telling you lies.”

Abdullahi argued that since the Southwest, south-south and southeast parts of the country have been campaigning for either a breakup or loose confederation, he wanted the world to know that the North was not afraid of a breakup. He was particularly unhappy at the detailed developmental plans of the Southwest (as stated in the document of the DAWN commission).

“The South-west wants preferably a region, a region that was at one time under the leadership of Chief Awolowo, unless, of course, you are trying to ignore all the writings, all the things that had been written, particularly in their declaration called DAWN, Development Agenda for Western Nigeria, then you can ignore this,” he said.

One wonders what could be wrong with a section of the country having a development agenda. Must we all remain stagnated in the stagnant mud of prehistory?

Southern leaders immediately rose to the challenge. They reiterated their love for their northern brothers but insisted that they needed some breathing space. They felt they would be able to better develop their areas and improve the fortune of their people if they were in the driver’s seat, deploying their natural resources in the service of their people.

Apart from the well-known agitation of Igbos of the Southeast for Biafra, leaders of the south-south also made it known that they would prefer a peaceful arrangement where each of the six geo-political zones would run its own affairs as an independent country or as a semi-autonomous part of a confederal Nigeria.

𝐇𝐈𝐒𝐓𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐂 𝐂𝐇𝐀𝐋𝐋𝐄𝐍𝐆𝐄

One of the most consistent voices for the peaceful unbundling of Nigeria is the renowned professor of History, Banji Akintoye, who leads one of the major Yoruba self-determination groups. Akintoye is convinced that a peaceful separation which would give rise to peaceful neighbours is possible. And he thinks that President Tinubu is best suited to guide Nigeria in the process.

Akintoye’s argument: “President Tinubu needs to note that countries which separate violently tend to be dogged by violence afterwards — as in the case of Pakistan which separated in a storm of violence from India in 1947; South Sudan which separated after years of violence from Sudan in 2011; and some of the eight countries that resulted from the violent dissolution of Yugoslavia.

“Nigeria’s peoples are now trapped in a Nigerian space that is churning in an abominable curse of utter darkness, unspeakable poverty, hunger, hatred, hostility, mass murders, fear and death. The hatred and hostility are so deep…”

Then, last week, an intriguing article attributed to one Aminu Sa’ad Beli trended massively on social media. Titled “Road Map To Solve Nigerian Ethnicity Crisis, And Economic Development”, the piece draws on the lessons of history to canvas a peaceful unbundling of Nigeria.

𝐒𝐄𝐏𝐀𝐑𝐀𝐓𝐈𝐎𝐍 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀𝐁𝐎𝐔𝐓 𝐖𝐀𝐑

“𝘐𝘯 1776, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘚𝘈 𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘒.

𝘐𝘯 1830 𝘉𝘦𝘭𝘨𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘦𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘴

𝘐𝘯 1965, 𝘚𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘢

𝘪𝘯 2002, 𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘛𝘪𝘮𝘰𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘴𝘪𝘢

𝘐𝘯 1921, 𝘐𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘵 𝘰𝘧𝘧 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘜𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘒𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘥𝘰𝘮, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 (𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘶𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘦) 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘤𝘰𝘵𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥.

𝘐𝘯 1944, 𝘐𝘤𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘋𝘦𝘯𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘦.

𝘐𝘯 1905 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘋𝘦𝘯𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬

𝘐𝘯 1905, 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘸𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘯 𝘢𝘭𝘴𝘰 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭𝘺 𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘺𝘴. 𝘖𝘯𝘦 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘳. 𝘛𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘨𝘰𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘪𝘥𝘴.

“𝘐𝘯 1947, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘉𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘴𝘩 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘋𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘥 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘯 𝘗𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯. 𝘐𝘯 1971, 𝘉𝘢𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘢𝘥𝘦𝘴𝘩 𝘴𝘦𝘤𝘦𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘗𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯.

𝘐𝘯 1992-93, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘵𝘸𝘰 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘊𝘻𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘰𝘴𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘨𝘰 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘳 𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘸𝘢𝘺. 𝘛𝘩𝘶𝘴 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘰𝘳𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘊𝘻𝘦𝘤𝘩 𝘙𝘦𝘱𝘶𝘣𝘭𝘪𝘤 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵’𝘴 𝘣𝘦𝘦𝘯 𝘯𝘢𝘮𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 “𝘝𝘦𝘭𝘷𝘦𝘵 𝘋𝘪𝘷𝘰𝘳𝘤𝘦”., 𝘈𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘮𝘦 𝘵𝘪𝘮𝘦, 𝘢𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳 𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘤𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘥, 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘪𝘯 𝘠𝘶𝘨𝘰𝘴𝘭𝘢𝘷𝘪𝘢. 𝘛𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘰𝘥𝘴𝘩𝘦𝘥.

“𝘐𝘯 1965, 𝘚𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘱𝘭𝘪𝘵 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘢 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘷𝘢𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘰𝘧 𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘴𝘰𝘯𝘴, 𝘪𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘶𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘰𝘶𝘴 (𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘢 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘫𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘔𝘶𝘴𝘭𝘪𝘮, 𝘚𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴𝘯’𝘵)

𝘌𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘌𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘳𝘦𝘢

𝘚𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘚𝘰𝘶𝘵𝘩 𝘚𝘶𝘥𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴

𝘜𝘚𝘚𝘙 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘣𝘳𝘰𝘬𝘦𝘯 𝘥𝘰𝘸𝘯 𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘴.

𝘐 𝘴𝘦𝘦 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘴 𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘶𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘚𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘢𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘔𝘢𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘴𝘪𝘢, 𝘐𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘢 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘗𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯, 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘸𝘢𝘺/𝘋𝘦𝘯𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘬/𝘚𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘻𝘦𝘳𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘥.

𝘐𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘕𝘪𝘨𝘦𝘳𝘪𝘢, 𝘐 𝘢𝘮 𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘭𝘵𝘩𝘺 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘷𝘦𝘭𝘰𝘱𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘢𝘮𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘕𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘩/𝘞𝘦𝘴𝘵/𝘌𝘢𝘴𝘵 𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘩 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘧𝘶𝘭 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘦𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘴.

𝘐𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘳, 𝘢𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘸𝘳𝘰𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘥𝘦 𝘩𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘯𝘰 𝘭𝘰𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘳 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘢𝘯𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘰𝘱𝘵 𝘰𝘶𝘵. 𝘓𝘦𝘵’𝘴 𝘨𝘪𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘢𝘤𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘴𝘦𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘢𝘵𝘦 𝘩𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘺.

Many social media commentators also noted that most European countries today comprise only one tribe, compared to Africa where colonialists lumped together hundreds of linguistic groups as was the case in Nigeria.

𝐓𝐈𝐍𝐔𝐁𝐔’𝐒 𝐑𝐄-𝐄𝐍𝐆𝐈𝐍𝐄𝐄𝐑𝐈𝐍𝐆

As President Tinubu prepares to rejig the second half of his first term, perhaps he may want to have a firm handshake with history by attempting a re-engineering of the Nigerian project. It doesn’t have to be a total dismantling, but certainly a level of unbundling to allow regions to develop at their own pace can’t do any harm.

Nigeria is wide enough for all the tribes to thrive.  As Chinua Achebe would say, “Let the kite perch and let the eagle perch too – If one says no to the other, let his wing break.”