Katsumoto:

It is difficult to say but likely.

Even if I agree that corruption would occur, it would not occur in the grandiose manner it is been prosecuted.

There is corruption in the US and Europe but there is development. Where is the development in Nigeria?

People don't even have to try, they are protected by the unitarist political structure.

The local government chairman doesnt have to care about his constituencies because his election was financed by a godfather in Abuja.

To illustrate, a sitting governor was kidnapped by individuals who were protected at the center.

You keep on mentioning centre, centre, centre as if amalgamation was what brought about centre

You forget to realise that even if the Lagos metrolpolis (which was not even part of the southern protectorate but was amalgamated with the Southern Protectorate) is made a country, there will still be a centre where corrupt leaders can stay and continue their evil actions.

Obinoscopy:

Wrong again, the debate is not about Mr A himself but but the actions thereof which is the 'forceful marriage.' Who the perpetuator of the action is, is inconsequential.

So can you tell us what progress has been made since amalgamation? Please think about quality of life of a majority.

Can you tell us one area in Nigeria that had a high rate of poverty before amalgamation?

Obinoscopy:
Issues from Pakistan is relevant here because the partition of India to form Pakistan and India did not stop the tensions and wars among them.

Also even the state of Pakistan that was created still had to be partitioned further to Pakistan and Bangladesh

As we speek, the region, Khartum is heavily polarised as a battle whether that region should be partitioned or not.

Partitioning will not solve our problem, rather dialoguing, consultations, tolerance, understanding our differences and choosing leaders that will eschew corruption and promote social justice is the answer.

Another question for you:

Do you think that both Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been better off under India? Bear in mind that Muslim minorities and other minorities in India are marginalised in the scheme of things in favour of the Sikhs and Hindus.

Katsumoto:

What you are saying is that since tensions will linger for a while, they should continue to live together?

All I am saying is that the tensions cannot be solved by division but by unity, tolerance, good governance and social justice.

Obinoscopy:


You keep on mentioning centre, centre, centre as if amalgamation was what brought about centre

You forget to realise that even if the Lagos metrolpolis (which was not even part of the southern protectorate but was amalgamated with the Southern Protectorate) is made a country, there will still be a centre where corrupt leaders can stay and continue their evil actions.

Forgive me, I assumed you were familiar with centrist politics.

There will always be a center but it is the degree of power and control at the center that I refer to.

With power at the center, politicians seek to control the center so that they can control the other parts.

Question for Katsumoto

Don't you think the amalgamation is sort of a blessing in disguise for Africa to have a big and strong black nation, that would be able to represent Africa in the grand scheme of things in world politics? The bigger the country(in terms of human resources), the more the respect it commands in international politics.

Malcolm-X:


Another question for you:

Do you think that both Pakistan and Bangladesh would have been better off under India? Bear in mind that Muslim minorities and other minorities in India are marginalised in the scheme of things in favour of the Sikhs and Hindus.

I am saying if the leaders of the various groups had the interest of their people at heart (and not their selfish interest to become regional leaders) they would have called for a conference or dialogue where issues concerning their existence together can be thrashed out and the agreements thereof through open for REFERENDUM/PLEBISCITE. If such was done, there would be no need for tribal conflicts or wars since a referendum has been agreed upon BY THE PEOPLE.

Obinoscopy:

All I am saying is that the tensions cannot be solved by division but by unity, tolerance, good governance and social justice.

Please elucidate on how that can be arrived at? How can there be unity when it means different things to different groups, when they have different aspirations, when they have different cultures, and when they have different political structures.

Can there be unity if a majority of Northerners want Sharia all over the country? Wouldn't it be better for those areas that want it to have it rather than everyone else?

If a majority of Northerners line up behind Boko Haram and demand that its policies be implemented, will you accept that as an Igbo man?

Katsumoto:

Forgive me, I assumed you were familiar with centrist politics.

There will always be a center but it is the degree of power and control at the center that I refer to.

With power at the center, politicians seek to control the center so that they can control the other parts.

What I mean is that even if the Southern Protectorate never merged with the North, there will still be the centrist politics you talked about if the issue of corruption, bad governance and injustice is not addressed

Malcolm-X:
Question for Katsumoto

Don't you think the amalgamation is sort of a blessing in disguise for Africa to have a big and strong black nation, that would be able to represent Africa in the grand scheme of things in world politics? The bigger the country(in terms of human resources), the more the respect it commands in international politics.

That was the intention for Nigeria but unfortunately, the design of the union was flawed and consequently, Nigeria failed to live up to that billing.

Nigeria is big today but is it respected politically?

More people associate Nigeria with fraud than with pride and strength of a big powerful black nation.

If Nigeria is to be that nation, then Nigerians need to get back to the roots of the country.

Another question for Katsumoto


Don't you think that without the creation of the Lagos protectorate and subsequently the amalgamation, the Kiriji war would never have ended the way it did, and the new "brotherhood" amongst Yorubas would never have happened? Suffice to say, amalgamation was a blessing in disguise for Yorubas.

Perhaps, we won't also have a united Igbo today without Nigeria.

Katsumoto:

Please elucidate on how that can be arrived at? How can there be unity when it means different things to different groups, when they have different aspirations, when they have different cultures, and when they have different political structures.

Can there be unity if a majority of Northerners want Sharia all over the country? Wouldn't it be better for those areas that want it to have it rather than everyone else?

If a majority of Northerners line up behind Boko Haram and demand that its policies be implemented, will you accept that as an Igbo man?

The first bolded: The northerners never wanted Sharia all over the country. They want to be practised in in the north, however christians residing there are not bound by that law.

Second bolded: Boko Haram is a terrorist group and does not have the mandate of the northerners.

Obinoscopy:

What I mean is that even if the Southern Protectorate never merged with the North, there will still be the centrist politics you talked about if the issue of corruption, bad governance and injustice is not addressed

What comes first, the cause or the effect. Address the root cause and some of the problems go away. Corruption can never be eradicated. It is the degree to which it is killing Nigeria that is the problem.

If each region was responsible for its revenue and only contributed a small fraction to the center, then the center wouldn't be so attractive.

If there was no amalgamation, people in Bayelsa would not be concerned about the people in Zamfara.

Katsumoto:

What comes first, the cause or the effect. Address the root cause and some of the problems go away. Corruption can never be eradicated. It is the degree to which it is killing Nigeria that is the problem.

If each region was responsible for its revenue and only contributed a small fraction to the center, then the center wouldn't be so attractive.

If there was no amalgamation, people in Bayelsa would not be concerned about the people in Zamfara.

The people wouldn't be concerned about Zamfara if their Governor can create Jobs for them with the 'meagre' resources accrued to them. If the Governor can build infrastructures with his lean purse, if he can build hospitals and schools. If he does that, I can bet with you that the peopl will not even remember that Zamfara exist.

Can we ask more questions?

Malcolm-X:
Another question for Katsumoto


Don't you think that without the creation of the Lagos protectorate and subsequently the amalgamation, the Kiriji war would never have ended the way it did, and the new "brotherhood" amongst Yorubas would never have happened? Suffice to say, amalgamation was a blessing in disguise for Yorubas.

Perhaps, we won't also have a united Igbo today without Nigeria.

Interesting question

When the Kiriji war started, Aare Latosa famously declared, that we will fight this war, it will be the last, and we never have this kind of war again in Yorubaland.

The Kiriji war ended not because of the treaty pushed by the British but because all sides were tired. 16 years was a long time. Kiriji is partly responsible for the diplomacy for which the Yoruba are now known for.

The British were in Lagos when the war Iperu war started but didn't get involved until the Egba attacked Ikorodu. The British were also there during the Ijaiye war but did nothing. The British also witnessed the start of the Kiriji and were there for 16 years selling arms to the Egba and Ekiti. But as soon as British policy changed towards more trade for the hinterland, it sought to end the fighting. It needed the trade routes and that was why it had to defeat the Ijebu who weren't party to the treaty and sought to block the routes.

Nevertheless, the Yoruba were not really united until the 1960s when it saw itself as the outsider.

Katsumoto:


If each region was responsible for its revenue and only contributed a small fraction to the center, then the center wouldn't be so attractive.

Even if the centre is not attractive, what is the guarantee that those regions will use the money judiciously and accountably? Thats the point! Good governace is the issue not amalgamation

Obinoscopy:

The first bolded: The northerners never wanted Sharia all over the country. They want to be practised in in the north, however christians residing there are not bound by that law.

Second bolded: Boko Haram is a terrorist group and does not have the mandate of the northerners.

But sharia is at odds with the constitution and it shouldn't be so. The way the country is structured, there can't be different rules for different people. Why should revenue from Bayelsea be sent to Zamfara if Zamfara believes that it can enact its own laws which are at variance with the Nigerian consitution. You can't eat your cake and have it.

I never said all Northerners are with BH; I qualified my statement. Can there be unity if thats what Northerners want?

Katsumoto:

Why should revenue from Bayelsea be sent to Zamfara if Zamfara believes that it can enact its own laws which are at variance with the Nigerian consitution. You can't eat your cake and have it.

Again, you've just indirectly exposed the inadequacy of our leaders. They've failed to diversify our economy. Our present president if from Bayelsa, why don't he seek to commercialise the minerals from Zamfara and accrue the revenue into the federal account so that they don't milk Bayelsa dry?

Katsumoto:
Interesting question

When the Kiriji war started, Aare Latosa famously declared, that we will fight this war, it will be the last, and we never have this kind of war again in Yorubaland.

The Kiriji war ended not because of the treaty pushed by the British but because all sides were tired. 16 years was a long time. Kiriji is partly responsible for the diplomacy for which the Yoruba are now known for.

The British were in Lagos when the war Iperu war started but didn't get involved until the Egba attacked Ikorodu. The British were also there during the Ijaiye war but did nothing. The British also witnessed the start of the Kiriji and were there for 16 years selling arms to the Egba and Ekiti. But as soon as British policy changed towards more trade for the hinterland, it sought to end the fighting. It needed the trade routes and that was why it had to defeat the Ijebu who weren't party to the treaty and sought to block the routes.

Nevertheless, the Yoruba were not really united until the 1960s when it saw itself as the outsider.

Thanks for the insightful response.

Obinoscopy:

Even if the centre is not attractive, what is the guarantee that those regions will use the money judiciously and accountably? Thats the point! Good governace is the issue not amalgamation

You are missing my point

Nigerians are different and have different aspirations. Without amalgamation, you can not argue that the presence of corruption in the Western region would have had a bearing on corruption in the Northern and Eastern regions. But amalgamation made sure of that. Because everyone has to go to the center, they have to behave alike to survive.

Second, all regions would have had different revenues and by extension budgets and projects. With no oil money, all regions would have had to be creative to generate revenue.

Third, it is no coincidence that after Ironsi centralized the government in 1966, revenues from rubber, cocoa, palm oil, cotton, groundnut, etc started to go down. Administrators at the center became lazier and more corrupt.

Katsumoto:

But sharia is at odds with the constitution and it shouldn't be so. The way the country is structured, there can't be different rules for different people.

The constitution was made for Nigerians and not the other way round. The constitution is really flawed as our leaders failed to realise the need to hold a consultative meeting with all Nigerians to fashion out a constitution that will favor everyone. This can be done without the need for us to divide

Obinoscopy:

Again, you've just indirectly exposed the inadequacy of our leaders. They've failed to diversify our economy. Our present president if from Bayelsa, why don't he seek to commercialise the minerals from Zamfara and accrue the revenue into the federal account so that they don't milk Bayelsa dry?

How can you not see that the quality of leaders that Nigeria has been producing has been reducing drastically year on year since amalgamation?

If we agree that Nigerians are more knowledgeable today than in 1900, the how do you explain the declining quality of leaders?

Take a look at Bini kings, Oyo kings, the Hausa kings, Bornu kings; do you see any leaders today that can match them?

And if I may ask, after the division along the Northern and Southern Protectorates, what next?

Do you think the SW won't want to divide from the SS and SE. Even within the SS, they'll want to divide along their ethnic lines vis a vis the Ijaw nation, the Itsekiri nation, the Urhobo nation, etc.

Even the North will be futher partitioned as the NC don't see themselves as homogenous with the Hausa. Even hostilities exist between the Hausas and the Fulanis

Question for Katsumoto, if the debate moderators allow it (I know the time for questions from judges is over):

Katsumoto:
Third, it is no coincidence that after Ironsi centralized the government in 1966, revenues from rubber, cocoa, palm oil, cotton, groundnut, etc started to go down. Administrators at the center became lazier and more corrupt.

Could you elaborate on why this isn't a coincidence? Isn't it possible that economic trends just changed around that time and that it was in fact a coincidence that revenues from those resources started to go down?



By the way, great debate so far. Kudos to both debaters.

Obinoscopy: I have seen a Yoruba man save the life of an Igbo man; I have seen an Igbo man donate generously towards the cause of a Hausa man. I have seen Yorubas and Igbos inter-marry; same goes between Yoruba and Hausa and so on. It would be wrong to say such marriages are a mistake.

Another question for you:

Do people have to be from the same country just because a few individuals inter-marry, or help individuals across the different ethnic groups; when the union of the ethnic groups has stagnated growth due to tribalism and nepotism? If so, don't you think Nigeria and Ghana, or other Western countries Nigerians inter-marry with should also be amalgamated?

Obinoscopy:

The constitution was made for Nigerians and not the other way round. The constitution is really flawed as our leaders failed to realise the need to hold a consultative meeting with all Nigerians to fashion out a constitution that will favor everyone. This can be done without the need for us to divide

I urge you to read my original posts again. It appears you did not really read them.

Amalgamation was bad because ethnic groups were different. Consequently, ethnic agendas arose which led Nigeria to its current path. That is the crux of the matter.

Malcolm-X:


Another question for you:

Do people have to be from the same country just because a few individuals inter-marry, or help individuals across the different ethnic groups; when the union of the ethnic groups has stagnated growth due to tribalism and nepotism? If so, don't you think Nigeria and Ghana, or other Western countries Nigerians inter-marry with should also be amalgamated?

The point I was trying to raise here is that the Igbos and the Yorubas can live together as one

Katsumoto:

I urge you to read my original posts again. It appears you did not really read them.

Amalgamation was bad because ethnic groups were different. Consequently, ethnic agendas arose which led Nigeria to its current path. That is the crux of the matter.

There is no country that has an homogenous ethnic group. Show me a country and I will show you 2 or more ethnic group.

And its okay for each ethnic group to have their own agendas, the most important thing is the ability for these agendas to be harmonised and a common point agreed upon

PhysicsQED: Question for Katsumoto, if the debate moderators allow it (I know the time for questions from judges is over):



Could you elaborate on why this isn't a coincidence? Isn't it possible that economic trends just changed around that time and that it was in fact a coincidence that revenues from those resources started to go down?

By the way, great debate so far. Kudos to both debaters.

Nigerian regions traded commodities in that era. In the early 70s, commodity prices went down except for oil. But commodity prices rebounded by the early 80s. But did their revenues rebound in Nigeria? A big no. Is Nigeria a big exporter of rubber, palm oil, groundnuts today? We all know the answer to that question.

Which was why Nigeria suffered in the early 80s when oil prices went down and Shagari had to implement austere measures.

Thank you

Obinoscopy:

The point I was trying to raise here is that the Igbos and the Yorubas can live together as one

How can they live together as one when they have been at odds politically since independence and they both have different approaches to the scheme of things within the country?