---

Whether the misrulers of Nigeria like it or not, they must organize a Sovereign national conferen...Read the full article.

---

I have a feeling that Nigeria missed a trick in not pursuing the dynamics of six geo-political zones.

Going from three strong regional bases to 36 unviable states has not augured well for the nation. I applaud the creation of states because it has served as eye-openers to various groups. It exposed their lack of corporate infrastructure. The same event kept replicating itself as more states were created. From the first time David Bamigboye arrived Ilorin to find there was nothing to house a West Central State administration, same in Imo, Kogi, etc, etc. On the other hand, I don't agree with a meaningless proliferation of states.

Building the six geo-political bases could have been used to formulate a more proactive and relevant Federal Government. The constitution as it is now is a magnet for corruption. The Dariyes and Alams of this world must find it necessary to emulate the Abacha looting system in order to fund their political ambitions as well as safeguard their post-political survival.

---

Whether the misrulers of Nigeria like it or not, they must organize a Sovereign national conference to resolve the pressing Nigerian question, or risk a violent collapse.

The problems and challenges faced by a stillborn Nigeria , is no different from that faced by an individual who marries many wives. In homes where families are forced to co-habit with several wives, the strife, divergent interests, and infighting between the wives on one hand, and the children of the different wives on the other hand, usually leaves the family battered and unprogressive, as more time is spent on fighting, containment, and jealousy, than on the things that will collectively bring progress.

Whereas families with a single wife, because of the attendant harmony, are usually more peaceful and progressive, as they devote most of their time to planning for collective progress.

A Modified Version Of Aburi Accord:

The solutions to Nigeria ’s many problems are quite simple, however misrulers held hostage by sectional interests, who benefit from the rot, have just like the biblical “Pharaoh” refused to budge or see reason. The folly of such class suicidal bent, is bound to become manifest sooner or later.

History bears witness, to the fact that multi-ethnic societies thrive better in true federal or confederal systems. With related groups forming effective regional development centers.The Aburi accord truncated by selfish short-sighted leaders remains a groundbreaking reference point, for creating a unique peculiarly Nigerian structure to repackage related groups.

Ethnic regionalism holds the ace card. This will give the Igbo, Yoruba, Edo , Urhobo-Isoko, and other closely related groups the opportunity to congregate in self sustaining autonomous regions, and develop at their own pace. We didn’t fight any war, to gain independence. There is no reason why we cannot dialogue exhaustively to find suitable structures to accommodate our differences.

Millions of Nigerians are continuing to hope and pray that common sense prevails on the “pharaohs of Nigeria ”.


@ Comrade Lawrence Chinedu Nwobu:

My Brother the Comrade. I fail to see the essence of this write-up. Such theoretical arrant nonsense. The you of descriptive prose in repeating what we already know must be quite stimulating.

What is your aim here with this? You have not provided us with ANYTHING to go by in stating a case for a NSC. Remember the last Constitutional conference. A jamboree of misfits.

And this proposal that ethnic regionalisation with further matters positively just leaves me dumbfounded. From cries of Ethnic Marginalisation to Ethnic Regionalisation tells me you are yet to get off that mis-guided trail of regional, sectional politics in a diverse country as Nigeria.

And who will stand by while this takes place? Have you not learnt from the struggle in the Niger Delta? or the lack of cohesion in the South East? or the campaign of the North to keep the country open without state barriers so that the natural resources can be fed up north? How do you envisage this happening without that total collapse you allude to?

Nigeria does not need a NSC. It needs a REVOLUTION with the emergence of a paradox, A BENEVOLENT DICTATOR. The diversity of Nigeria is such that discussion are meaningless as each Ethnic Group you suggest will clamour for wht should be theirs and when it is their turn.

Rather than us seek our own to lead our area we should question what has been done by our own in our areas over the past years. It is a folly to assume that if you are cocooned in a region led by your own people, things will get better. And in the South-South Oil-producing areas of today? They have been led by Their own for the past 8 years yet NOTHING to show for it. Your suggestion seems a camouflage for my pet hates. AREWA, NDIGBO, AFENIFERE etc groups who emerge as saviours of their own yet impoverish the same people when they have the opportunity to rule.

You may have to review this commentary of yours as it just doesnt wash.

Just My 50 kobo. (Seen one lately?):mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

---

@Djister:

You funny o, do you understand the concept, and the reasons for regionalism at all?

Compare the achievements of the 3 regions we had before, with the performance of
states, and you would see that the states are useless.

The British choose regions over states, because they needed units big enough to be self sustaining. If you take away oil money, most of the states we have today would collapse. Crude oil will not last forever, therefore there is the need to return to bigger more viable regions that can stand on their own, as it was in the 60's as we prepare for the end of oil.

Resource control is impossible with the current state structure we have dependent on oil money. To my mind i beleive ethnic regionialism is being proposed to prevent the cry of domination that was the case under the ersthwhile 3 regions. At least people that speak dialects of the same language would as is human nature naturally thrive better.

The way Nigeria is being administered under a unitary system, where the government in Abuja decides which project to execute and which not to execute in different parts of the country, with all the attendant tribalism and sectionalism that influences such decisions is stifling development in some areas.

Regionalism will give every area the right to develop at their own pace without any blockage from Abuja.Under regionalism, Ndigbo for instance can dredge the Onitsha river and complete the port the federal government has refused to complete for tribal reasons. They can decide to dredge the Azumini sea near port-harcourt and build a world class port, they can also decide to implement radical developmental schemes which the federal government, going by their antecedents will never even contemplate.

Kindly do a little research, and you would find that in every country where there is diversity, the different groups are usually grouped into autonomous regions where they are allowed to develop at their own pace without inteference from the center.

Great Britain is a major example of ethnic regionalism, with the Scottish in Scotland, the Welsh in Wales, the Irish in Northern Ireland etc. Canada has their french speaking citizens in an autonomous ethnic region known as "Quebec". Belgium, Switzerland etc have autonomous regions along ethnic lines.

Even in homogenous nations like Germany, China etc you still find large autonomous regions with each competing and developing at their own pace. In Africa Ethiopia has led the way by having large wholly autonomous ethnic regions, with a right to self determination enshrined in their constitution.

Viable autonomous self sustaning regions engaging in healthy competition has been a very succesful time tested structural model, that has been used succesfully in many nations for decades. Given Nigeria's diversity, i support the concept of ethnic regions as a solution to Nigeria's problems.

Anthony Enahoro, Beko Ransome Kuti, Wole Soyinka and the PRONACO have also argued for ethnic regions as the best bet for Nigeria.Time will tell.

---

Lest i forget, the last conference which in any case was not a sovereign national conference failed because the government was not sincere about holding the conference.

The Northerners who are very intolerant of other Nigerians, and who go about killing people, and imposing their Sharia in a supposedly secular state, are the most opposed to a sovereign national conference, because they fear that such a conference will break Nigeria, and leave them poor and miserable in the desert, as there will be no more oil money.

Left for Obasanjo, he would not mind holding a sovereign national conference. The reason he prefered a wuru-wuru national conference to a real sovereign national conference is the opposition of the fearful, parasitic North. Who so shamelessly wants to continue to leech onto the south for their very survival. But this cannot continue forever. One day go be one day, monkey go, go market e'no go return!

---

@Tony

Thank you for your comments.

My point lies in the portrayal of anything or grouping under the aegis of 'Ethnic' or 'Ethnicity'. In conceptualising any idea that is meant to be bought by a larger audience, we must try and ensure that the mis-perception of the audience is not ignored.

How many groupings under these tags have succeeded in Nigeria except within the 'cluster' of those whose belong? How broadbased and accepted have the likes of Arewa, Ndigbo and Afenifere been accepted outside of their regions? And except if these 'Ethnic Regionalisation' structures have autonomy and no linkage to the overall governance of the country (As long as the country entity remains ONE) then the likelihood of survival talk less of sustainance is remote.

If the writer had projected 'Economic Regions' as against 'Ethnic Regionalisation' that to me stands to make greater sense and is more sellable.

We forget that even within these 'Ethnic Regions' there is fragmentation and a difficulty to rid these regions of the same ailments which have plague the country as a whole. I still believe that it is a mis-guided notion that 'ETHNIC Regionalisation' will necessarily benefit that particular region AND it is certainly not aimed at the retention of the larger country unit.

May I further state that the terms you refer to in previous years of Western Eastern and Northern Regions each encompassed a variety of ethnic groups who geographically fell within each of these regions. It was NOT their ethnicity which inspired the scope. Hence today the clamour for states within these same regions persisted. It was the practice within the administration of the regions which broke the fundamental principles of creating them in the first place.

An 'Economic Region' clearly connotes the need to improve that particular region regardless of the ethnic composition of the region.

By the Way, because a bunch of 'respected' individuals use the terminology does not meant they have got the concept right.

Finally, back to your point on the seriousness of government in the previous constitutional conference; Let me ask. How do you propose to establish these 'Ethnic Regions'? Will this be within the participation of central government? And will the 'Seriousness' of government be achieved?

An 'Economic Regionalisation' makes more sense to me as an umbrella for achieving the desires of the people of each region. The fundamental objective of the proponents of 'Regionalisation' is economic. So lets call it what it is rather than play to the ethnic considerations and or sentiments of the beneficiary parties.

Lets have Economic Regions and help improve the lots of the people there. Else we would be looking for the separation of the country into Politically and Economically INDEPENDENT areas.

Possibility? Not a chance.

---

Since no contributor has made reference to my earlier post on the "six geo-political zones", I can safely assume that I am invisible.. :rolleyes:

The concept of an "Economic Region" leaves out the political rule of the participating states. Economic Region describes entities like ECOWAS, SARD, EFTA/EEC. What we are talking about includes the governance of the people. The Federal Government, sat in the centre at Abuja, is not meeting the developmental needs of the people. The state governments are not even half as useful as the old Lagos City Council. Hence the need to try for the happy median of the "six geo-political zones".

---

---

=No Smoking;133180>Since no contributor has made reference to my earlier post on the "six geo-political zones", I can safely assume that I am invisible.. :rolleyes:

The concept of an "Economic Region" leaves out the political rule of the participating states. Economic Region describes entities like ECOWAS, SARD, EFTA/EEC. What we are talking about includes the governance of the people. The Federal Government, sat in the centre at Abuja, is not meeting the developmental needs of the people. The state governments are not even half as useful as the old Lagos City Council. Hence the need to try for the happy median of the "six geo-political zones".

---

Quite the opposite my friend. Your comment was not ignored. The concept of 6 geo-political zones actually blends better with my idea of econic regions. In title i do not suggest we call them Economic Zones but in concept and implementation. You are correct in suggesting that the present demarkations of geo-political zones can work. The question I have is, how do you eliminate the internal wranglings and joustlings within those zones where you have States? If each zone combined into Provinces without the borders between states then you may have your suggestion better placed. But as you know, each State currently demands. Each Tribe will similarly demand. Look at the noise over the creation of YET MORE states. This fragmentation is what i say hinders the prospects of regional development.

I think to successfully use your Geo-Political Zones strategy, we would have to do without States within those zones while removing borders therein. This may 'force' the occupants of such zones to work harder together for the benefit of the entire region rather than seek to 'Improve' smaller portions with too much pressure exerted on the center.

Would it not be easier to commence development and manage effectively a Zonal Capital/City/Airport/Stadium/Anything AND from there grow outwards? The burden on central government sometimes is too much and misunderstood. This is why we have the 'Begger' state where the State Governor goes to Abuja every week to beg, comes back and the LGs beg them, then the people at the bottom of the rung beg the LGs. On and on into the households!

My preferred option for purposes of accountability and development is a semi-autonomous arrangement based on Revenue-Taxation. The Richest State generates its own revenues from its own resources at its own rates. This State then is the HIGHEST tax payer to the center. It is easy to calculate the potential earnings of a State. Afterall it is on such basis that the revenue allocation is made in reverse.

Let each State control its own ability to generate revenue. The resources are projected to generated X amount. The States then have responsibility for State Projects within its borders. The Government at the Centre is ONLY involved in projects which cross borders such as Overall Security, Long Distance Roads etc.

We shall then see which States are truly performing rather than permit thieving governors to 'claim' lack of funds from the center. The people can then hold the State leadership accountable for failures.

Case in point. Enugu Stae Governor alledged by Ribadu to have embezzled funds now shows us the 'Figures' using how much was recieved from Abuja monthly versus how much margin he has to work with in developing the state.

The present system allows 'blame' to be put at the foot of the center each time there is 'no money'. 'Abuja did not give us enough'. Do you think Nassarawa State will be begging for money if it had a certain degree of autonomy and control of it Solid Minerals resources? I dont think so.

The poorest states in the Revenue-Taxation scheme will be the FIRST for ANY Central Government Projects while the Richest be the LAST if at all!

The poorer States will then have no reason to cry over the locationof the country's resources as they will be geeting FIRST position when Central Government decides to embark on a National Project.

Why should Abuja be giving Delta, Rivers, Bayelsa and the oil producing states any money.

But I understand why the system is as is. The Thieves at the Center need ALL the revenue to come to them first for obvious reasons. Then they enjoy making the Governors come round to beg for some money. Each Month? And the crap story of each Governor each week is that Abuja is holding its money. Can you imagine how much money this our Lagos could be generating for itself without Central Government help? How much will Rivers and Delta be generating if each of those states was run like a corporate business. Self-sufficiency becomes the norm. Creative Revenue-Generation schemes will be forced to be developed.

Why would there have to be a debate between Tinubu and Ogunlewe regarding which road is which in the Middle of Lagos Island(?)

Take a look at the American model and they have more States than we have. The economic output of California alone is enough to shame many countries. How many times does the governor there go to washington to beg for its 'Allocation'??

Cool Runnings.

It will then be evident who is working and who is not.