The last time I commented on the inevitability of the break up of Nigeria, some half baked patriots came out swinging. In their swinging, they did not even attempt to debate my points of argument, but came out after me as a person. This did not surprise me a bit because when you lack ideas you often have no choice but resort to attacks to attract attention and detract from the real issue.  

However, this piece is inspired by what I consider new developments in the United Kingdom, the nation that could be credited with “lumping peoples together to create Nigeria.” I will however, let the readers read the full comments below made by Professor Banji Akintoye on this issue, arrive at their conclusions, while I concentrate on why I continue to believe that delaying the break up of Nigeria is just postponing the inevitable. 

{mosgoogle}Since the exit of psychopathic president Olusegun Obasanjo- Onyejekwe, the imposed Umar Yar’Adua has been trying his best to cool the polity and steer it away from precipice. I do not have any opinion of him yet. I am also not ready to judge him yet. It is all too early for that. I am willing to wait at least two years before doing any meaningful critique of his performance, considering the enormous damage done to the polity and the psyche of Nigerians by Obasanjo-Onyejekwe. However, I am confident, that he is laboring in vain building a house that none of us are willing to live in, because of the lopsided arrangement and the concomitant injustice that permeates it either- between the elites themselves or between the elites and the uncritical mass of the nations trapped in the Nigerian contraption.  

In the article by Zayyad I. Muhammad (ZIM) “The Wounded North and Yar’Adua Presidency,” the first paragraph read thus:  

On May 29th 2007, power symbolically shifted to northern Nigeria; however the region is still nursing the wounds it sustained in the last eight years.  The north was relegated to the backseat within the economy, the public service, oil sector. It also lost ground in positions, commands and authority within the military, security agencies and corridors of real political power. The north was badly sidelined in the privatization program, none of the lucrative national enterprises that were sold went to the north, and also the people in the north bitterly acknowledged that they suffered a fatal injury in the recapitalization of the banking industry which many northerners regarded as specifically targeted at the North. Out of the twenty-five banks that emerged, the north have a stake in only one bank. But the hardest hit were the political leaders of the north, they were economically strangled and politically castigated. 

To be candid, I do not have facts that support the above comments or undermine it. However, one thing is clear, ZIM is expressing the overriding sentiments of the Northern power elite or a section of it. Whether this has to do with the “talakawas” or not is another issue. The relevant point is that the leaders of the North or some of them are not happy despite the predominant sentiments in Nigeria that Obasanjo- Onyejekwe was their toy with whom they played at will to do their biddings.  

Going further to read the comments of the so-called patriots on the article by ZIM, one could feel their hidden but palpable frustrations. Obviously one could see how painfully laborious it was for them to deny the TRUTH about Nigeria. Of note is KATAMPE’s reactions below: 

“Who is the north?  
How were they relegated to the background? Did Obasanjo say , hey north be relegated to the background of the economy 
Did Obasanjo say hey north, be relegated to the background of the oil sector? 
I am tired of this country - there is fire on the mountain and someone says the north - positions in the military, security agencies and the corridors of real political power - which one is unreal political power? 
Do these positions produce goods in the national economy . 
Please folks help me , I am the one seeing these things - there is something wrong in the country ! Are we thinking at all? No one is talking about Nigeria - it is the north! 
Now we will have others saying the same thing. Who are these people - the north , the east and the west ?

Posted by katampe| 25.06.2007 13:58 (emphasis mine) 

I specifically reproduced this comment of KATAMPE because he was one of those “patriots” who was swinging at me, calling me names when I tried to point out the impending demise of Nigeria for obvious reasons unless there is renegotiation of the basis of Nigeria’s existence. This position (being “tired of this country,” and “fire on the mountain” analogy) sharply contrasts to that of weeks ago when he was castigating me for pointing out the need to break up Nigeria.   

One of the arguments of the so-called patriots is that we have to reform Nigeria. If I believe that Nigeria could be reformed I would not be asking for its break up. But I do not think it could be reformed. If after breaking up Nigeria, we are faced with intra-ethnic problems and unable to progress, at least, each ethnic group would have itself to blame and not others. It would be unlike now that every ethnic group points accusing fingers at others but themselves for the burden that Nigeria has become to every group.  The ZIM’s article is a case in point. 

Any Nigerian, if there is anyone that could be so-called in the true sense of it, who fails to see the reality of this contraption called Nigeria, with due respect is an Ostrich. How could someone with any modicum of elementary analytical capability not see that the ethnic groups do not trust each other? How could someone not realize that the ethnic groups in Nigeria continuously suspect each other? How could someone fail to see that no matter the way you role the dice, it would always hit one ethnic group or the other on the wrong side? Thus, the polity is poisoned, creating bitterness and the desire for revenge (which I consider very dangerous) as well as freedom and self-determination (which I consider very desirable and inalienable rights of every ethnic group no matter how small or big)? 

The article by ZIM is a tip of the ice bag about the feelings across Nigeria. The article unwittingly however underscores the following for all of us:

• that our abilities ARE NOT and can NEVER  be the same
• that our desires as ethnic groups ARE NOT and can NEVER be the same
• that our methods, approaches ARE NOT and can NEVER be the same
• that our world views ARE NOT and can NEVER be the same
• that our priorities ARE NOT and can NEVER be the same.
• that we are peoples of different cultures and traditions
• that we did not all agree to be in Nigeria of our own volition
• that all of the ethnic groups are unhappy with the Nigerian arrangement AS IS
• that the continued prevention of RENEGOTIATING Nigeria’s existence is brewing discontent which has the capability to explode
• that this continued PREVENTION OF RENEGOTIATION gives every one the suggestion that we are all in SLAVERY.

The consequence of the above outlines is that Nigeria, as a country has no legs. It is an utopian wish. Look at it this way. If you buy a new car and someone crashes it even though it was not intentional and a mistake, you would never forgive that person. Even, if you forgive you would never forget. You are never likely to trust any other person with your car again. However, if you crashed this car yourself, you would be willing to accept the reality of the situation, blame no one and move on with your life hoping to ensure that you never make the same mistake again. 

It is my belief that we need to behead the snake now before it is too late. We cannot allow this to degenerate because there is pent up anger in all the major strata of the Nigerian polity. We have to prevent unnecessary killings that may result. We have to save the innocent children and women. We have to preserve the lives of the prospective work force that would build the coming NATIONS that would rise out of Nigeria.  

The Soviet Union was one country for about 70 years before the nations within it were able to break free. From Soviet Union we now have Russia, Ukraine,, Belarus, Moldavia, Georgia, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. The Chechens of Chechnya are still fighting to be free. Czechoslovakia broke down into Czech and Slovak Republics. Yugoslavia until 1918 was part of Austrian Empire and had long agitated for its own independence. This became a reality after the first European War euphemized as the World War I.  

But Yugoslavia itself was a pot of incongruity in terms of component nations. The negotiations of the 1980s broke down. The Croats and Slovenes went ahead to declare the Independence of their two countries – Croatia and Slovenia. The Serbs sought to subjugate them, denounced them and moved its army to suppress them. The result was “one of the most vicious inter ethnic conflicts in modern history.” In the end, the United Nations had to move in to “oversee the breaking up of the  country and the nationalities, at last have their own countries.” 

The small island country of Sri Lanka (formerly Ceylon) in the Indian Ocean contains two peoples – the Tamils and the Sinhalese. Since the independence of that country from Britain, the two peoples have been fighting because one wants to be free of the other. The Basques of the northern Spain are still fighting to be free from Spain. In Canada, the dichotomy between the Franco-Canadians and Anglo- Canadians are getting wider as the nature of their politics has shown. 

The African experience, the creation of European imperialists is best described by the endless civil wars, military take over, pogroms, genocide, intractable turmoil, stagnation and the concomitant poverty and want because of arrested development. 

Nigeria is getting to this despicable condition. We have to stop the drift now and save our children. If there is any true love, it should not hold others against their will. We must be able to have relationship after the end of Nigeria. There is need for peaceful DISOLUTION of this embarrassment. The TIME is NOW for us to begin the talks of FREEDOM. If we fail to rise up to this reality, some of us would live to be witnesses of the carnage that might erupt. Some of us would be dead victims. Some of us would be living victims. 

One of the arguments of the “latter day patriots” is that Nigeria is better off as a big country. How can Nigeria be better off as a Country when its peoples are worse off as human beings without any dignity? It’s not the size of the dog that matters but the quality of the fight in the dog as some people are fond of saying. This is the more reason that the following comments by Professor Banji Akintoye on the present situation in the United Kingdom that created Nigeria is very pertinent for those championing that Nigeria should remain ONE AT ALL COSTS. Please read: 
 

Britain (otherwise known as the United Kingdom) – yes, Britain the creator of Nigeria – entered the 20^th century as a union of four nationalities: the English of England (the largest and dominant group), the Scots of Scotland, the Irish of Ireland, and the Welsh of Wales. Even as Britain was lumping peoples together to create Nigeria in West Africa, its own union at home was showing signs of breaking up, and British leaders were bowing to reality and allowing each nationality in Britain to determine its own future. 

As a result of intense Irish agitation for separation from the union, the Irish were allowed to separate in 1921 and to form their own independent country, the Republic of Ireland. However, the northern province of Ireland could not clearly decide to go with the rest of Ireland, because the majority of the inhabitants of that province were not Irish but immigrant Englishmen and Scots. Determined to join the Republic of Ireland, the Irish people of the province of Northern Ireland started to use violence – and Northern Ireland has been the scene of violent agitations, conflicts and terror campaigns since then. Scottish agitation for home rule also emerged early in the century. Consequently, in 1988, Scotland was granted its own home parliament – an arrangement somewhat short of granting full independent nationhood to the Scots. 

The Scottish agitations have continued to grow stronger and stronger, however, and there has existed for years before now (2007) a Scottish National Party (SNP) dedicated to achieving full national autonomy and independence for Scotland. The SNP emerged with the largest number of seats in the Scottish Parliament in the 2007 British elections; it also announced its intension to ask Scotland within four years to vote on a referendum on complete national independence. 

The Welsh, the smallest of the nationalities in the United Kingdom, started to agitate for greater autonomy or even total separation and independence in the 1920’s, and formed a party for that purpose. In 1955, they proclaimed Cardiff as their capital town, and in 1962, in order to develop the Welsh language as their national language. they formed a Welsh Language Society. In fact, in the 1960’s, a “Free Wales Army” arose and waged some terror campaign for a short time, but the Welsh have since given up the use of violence and concentrated on using peaceful political methods.   

In 1967, Wales was granted some measure of autonomy. In 1997, Wales voted “yes” in a referendum on the creation of a home parliament for Wales, and in 1999 that home parliament, called the  National Assembly for Wales, was created. Encouraged by this progress, the Welsh, like the Scots, now hope for total independence from the United Kingdom.  

Now, as this is being written in mid-2007, a specially interesting development is appearing on the scene. “Devolution” – meaning the granting to each nationality (the Scots, and then the Welsh) its own parliament and legislative authority over its own affairs – has resulted in the situation whereby, while the British Parliament does not legislate over all things Scottish or Welsh, it does legislate over all things English. This makes the English an underprivileged nationality in Britain since the Scottish and Welsh parliamentarians can (on the floor of the British Parliament) legislate on ALL English affairs, while peculiarly Scottish and Welsh matters can only be discussed in the Scottish and Welsh home parliaments. 

In response, some English politicians are now asking for devolution for England too – that is, an English parliament domiciled in Manchester and legislating on uniquely English matters. If (or rather when) the English do get their own legislature, the United Kingdom would have become something like a confederation, with a government for England, one for Scotland, and one for Wales, and a confederal government in London – and that will almost certainly lead, ultimately, to full independence for Scotland, Wales and England, and therefore the dissolution of Britain. It is quite likely, therefore, that Britain as we have known it will cease to exist in not too distant a future, and we will have in its place four different countries: independent Ireland (already in existence), independent Scotland, independent Wales, and independent England. 

The question arising from this commentary is this: If Britain (or if you like it, the United Kingdom) with all its wealth, strong economy, stable political arrangement cannot prevent its component units from freedom and self-determination, how can Nigeria, (its artificial creation), with its poverty, want, instability hope to do it? We ought to be wise and courageous to do the right thing- BREAK UP NIGERIA NOW.