To keep Nigeria one: the National Conference reexamined

Now in retrospect, one begins to wonder what the objects were, that politically persuaded the convening of the soon-to-be-rounded-off National Conference. Firstly, it was rather curious that a National Conference that was vehemently resisted by the Federal Government particularly under the regime of president Obasanjo, suddenly caught the interest of the present administration.

And, pronto, the National Conference gets convened. Firstly the conference opened with delegates whose mode of selection had no defined or morally defensible pattern. Yes it threw up some persons who hitherto had been known to be vociferous in addressing matters of state, such as workers wage issues, human rights and a stunted and poor justice system, corruption, and an economic ideology for the Nigerian state, social and entertainment issues, among others. But then, the conference was also populated by some individuals known over the years to have been fat feeders off the Nigerian state.

Thus, it was not surprising that the conference burdened itself with such issues as economic philosophy, jurisprudence and many such other issues already mentioned in this column. But what agitators of a Sovereign National Conference have always wanted has to do solely with the political geography of Nigeria both in concrete terms as with boundaries of the federating units, and in abstract terms such as the devolution and allocation of power. The sad thing is that while the main issue of political geography could not be given the required attention, the other matters dominated proceedings, such that the entire project was bound to lose focus. Indeed, it was curious what deliberating on these other issues would achieve particularly after recommendations of others as the Vision 2010 of the Abacha administration, the Vision 20-20-20 of the Yar’Adua  regime and others before them have since been permanently put on the shelves.

With such Jack-of-all-trades approach of the conference it was not long before delegates lost concentration such that what began with what seemed like so much enthusiasm soon tapered to lackluster attendance and, most especially deepened mistrust. This latter factor which now seems to be one of the main real outcomes of the conference could have been avoided if the conference concentrated squarely on matters of political geography; spending time educating delegates on its meaning, essence, and how it would better the lot of all Nigeria. With the level of mistrust heightened, groups of farragoes have begun to take advantage of it to fan the embers of disintegration. Both in the north and in the south such misguided elements advance spurious grounds toward this “mis-philosophy”. Down south, groups are showing increasing levels of intolerance, where some elements are even calling for identification passes for non southerners. Up north certain elements are asking for non northerners to leave the region. Sad.

It must be known however that ethnic mistrust has absolutely nothing to do with the ethnic plurality of Nigeria. Bigger entities like China, India, the United States, Russia and so on are equally plural, yet live in relative harmony, effectively coping with their conflicts because there will always be conflicts. If we think we can solve the problem of ethnic distrust by all going their separate ways perhaps majorly along ethnic lines, we will only succeed in reducing the present situation of ethnic distrust to tribal wars. We have seen the Umuleri/Aguleri conflict within the Igbo ethnic group, just as we saw the Zango/Kataf conflict even in northern Nigeria with its hitherto widely admired hegemony. The old Ekpan/Ubeji conflict of present day Delta State, the Fulani headsmen against other tribes of the north, all tell the same story. Pockets of conflicts have been recorded along tribal lines all over Nigeria. We can go on and on.

There is no single problem in Nigeria that can be solved by breaking up the country. It will not solve the problem of corruption. It will not address the problem of greed, social inequality, creed-based mistrust, and so on. It was General George S. Paton who noted that it would be fool hardy to start a war you will gain nothing winning. On the flip side however, most of the country’s problems can be easier and more effectively solved in a united Nigeria. Think of the sheer numbers, the complementarities we now enjoy in what appears to be regional or ethnic division of labour and commerce, unrestricted by any trade barriers. Or is it the prestige we enjoy as the largest black nation in the world? We can go on and on. A divided Nigeria would be the height of the black man’s seeming inability to sensibly solve his problems. And it is simply and squarely lazy and evil people who would desire a divided Nigeria.

If, as it appears now, there are agitations in both north and south for separatism, then it stands to reason that increased regional autonomy in a proper federalism should be acceptable to all. One cannot be agitating for independence and at the same time holding on to a system that pulls all the resources from all the regions to one central pool. It is contradictory. Nigeria must remain one strong and indivisible country where every federating unit must be free to explore and exploit its God-given capacity to conquer and dominate its environment for its betterment and that of mankind. It is this pattern of coexistence among the federating units that make the United States of America the greatest nation in the world. Nigeria can be great too.

Chuba Keshi