Self-Determination and Secession

The 2017 “Kaduna Declaration” was a statement on Arewa Secession just like IPOB and MASSOB’s Biafra advocacy; the difference between the two being that Arewa wants to retain Nigeria while Biafra seeks its own exit. These seemingly contradictory advocacies have once again thrown up issues about violence and war, where nearly all of the responses have so far hammered on memories about the Nigeria-Biafra War between 1967 and 1970. Surprisingly, none of these remembrances actually sought out the cause of the war itself. Yes, references were made to all of the events that occurred between the January 15 1966 coups, the July 1966 counter-coup and the resulting pogroms largely against the Igbo in the north.

These were but manifestations of a deeper reason, to wit, the attempt to take over the Nigerian State. All of the participants, from the January military coupists to the Biafran leadership sought the take over of the Nigerian State, for their different reasons. This attempt was the real cause of the war.

The Nzeogwu January 15 1966 coup was an attempt at taking over the Nigerian State; his group was beaten to it by the Ironsi group just as the July 1966 countercoup was aimed at and succeeded in taking control. On the other hand, Ojukwu and Biafra depended on a military strategy of taking over the same Nigerian State which it supposedly wanted to secede from, hence the invasion of the Mid-West and attempt at overrunning Yorubaland, with a Biafran Army under the façade of a Yoruba Commander with all decisions residing in Biafra. Of course, it was evident, before Biafra’s declaration, that the then Nigerian State could not maintain any peace or security for most Nigerians hence the Aburi Agreement which became codified by a Decree 8, which was rejected by Ojukwu and the descent into war.

But why did Ojukwu reject this Decree that provided autonomy for the regions? From all accounts, Ojukwu would not accept Gowon’s seniority in Nigeria, hence the issue boils down to control of the Nigerian State.

Secession or self-determination, by itself does not imply war, unless the State on which the demand is made becomes a trophy to be acquired by either side.

Before January 15, 1966, political attempts had been made to ensure a proper balance of Nigeria’s Federalism through appropriate creation of States or Regions. Even when the Mid-West Region came into being, creation of other Regions, that is, Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers and Middle Belt, were still on the cards. These Peoples were virtually denied their Regions simply because the then NPC/NCNC Alliance only wanted to neutralize the Action Group of the West as a major political and ideological influence on Nigeria hence were satisfied with “reducing” its political and geo-political influence through the creation of one Region out of three being demanded.

Thus as far as Nigeria goes, when secessionist demands are being made by any Nationality, war or violence can only result when the control of the Nigerian State is in contention.

With the attention now on “peace” meetings between the Igbo and Arewa representatives, questions must be raised as to the relevance of those “peace” meetings which did not address the contradictions embedded in the control of the Nigerian State which was the cause of the demands and which secession becomes the answer;  for issues of security of lives and property are directly related to the architecture of the State. Meanwhile, other Nationalities in Nigeria are not participants in any of these “peace” meetings as if they are irrelevant, unless we are being told that “peace” meetings will be embarked upon when  conflicts arise between other Nationalities; such that “peace” meetings become the new normal in resolving the National Question in Nigeria.

Yet, this had been the usual manner through which the Nigerian State conducts its business;it laments  a recourse to “separation” and hints at an objection to violence when a demand for secession is not only recognized by international laws and conventions, but is a natural right, which can only be abridged by consent. This is the missing link in the Nigerian State architecture.

The Nigerian State has not deemed it fit to address this foundational issue for almost all of its years of existence hence the necessity to call the relevance of such a State into question. The only glue that holds all the different Cultures and Nations in this geo-political space called Nigeria is the Nigerian State. The Peoples had been interacting over the ages, under one form of political, cultural, economic and social engagement or the other and the colonially-inspired Nigerian State neutralized the context of these engagements and imposed its own notion of the “social contract” on the peoples.

Therefore, when such a State is non-responsive to its own weakness, in this case, the non-involvement of the Peoples, its existence must be challenged, otherwsie the Peoples become onlookers in their own existence. And this is what Secession or Self-determination or True Federalism or Restructuring is all about, the ability of the Peoples to determine the context of their co-existence or even self-existence. Any denial on the part of the State is a rejection of this natural right of self-existence, more-so in the age of colonization and decolonization.

The Nigerian State must come to terms with its own aberrant origin and if its operators are mindful of the humanity inherent in self-determination, it will not resort to patching but re-invent itself. It is one thing to advance the notion of strength in unity, it is another to define the basis of that unity, for a false unity cannot engender any strength.

This is why Nigeria is not “strong”; not in economy, where, since the end of the Nigeria-Biafra war,there was no economic philosophy with the resultant effect of creating continuous underdevelopment, compounded by the decimation of the environment, either in the oil-producing areas or in some of the major cities that has become urban jungles in terms of urban planning; not in social development, where, we, in the Western Region, pre-independence, enjoyed pipe-borne water in our homes or communities but now singing halleluiah when bore holes replace piped water; not in education where development of the mind, a precondition for development, is virtually non-existent in spite of prevalence of educational institutions from the primary to the university levels; a good example being the non-existence of the teaching of history when our history abound as specialities in many Western educational institutions which they turn around to use to influence and predict our future existence, and the list could go on. All of these can only happen in situations where the State is not a product of Peoples’ Consciousness.

Thus, even though a secessionist demand may be couched in “hate” just as expressed by Nnamidi Kanu/Arewa Declaration, these do not vitiate the demand itself. An admission of the lapses in the formation of the Nigerian State will allow for this “hate” to be addressed especially when the Peoples are able to determine the conditions of not only their self-existence but also their co-existence with other Peoples in and out of Nigeria through a Referendum among the Peoples.

All of the arguments for or against the Nigerian State and its architecture will be determined within the Peoples, the result of which will be representative of their choices. The current “peace” moves are assumed to be representative of the interests and demands of the affected Nationalities; yet the Nationalities have not been given the chance to examine themselves and present their decisions as of right. A Nationality-based Referendum will resolve this conundrum as it would have laid the foundation for Inter-Nationality relations and no group will, by itself, attempt to assume representation of the Nationality, rather, it will either flow with or against the general interest of the Nationality from which it sprung.

The UN Resident Coordinator in Nigeria, who called for “tolerance and a spirit of togetherness in transparency to address the concerns of all the citizens in a peaceful manner, to be done in such a way that no one was left behind in the quest for sustainable development” can be of great assistance in this matter.

The UN can assist in the process of Referendum among the various Nationalities in Nigeria followed up with a Conference of Nationalities to resolve any contending issues, such that the Nationality will take responsibility for any conclusion, whatever they are. The UN will thus be doing history a favor by consciously addressing this lingering decolonization problematic; the current Administration will be living up to its initial Manifesto and the Peoples will once again become active participants in their own existence.