Deadlytruth:


We all know that each regions with their civilian populaces had their political leaders of thought. The Midwest had the likes of Enahoro, Arthur Priest, Igenuma, and orhers; The West had the likes of Awolowo, Alhaji Adegbenro, etc, while the North, after the wicked assassination of Ahmadu Bello and Tafawa Balewa, still had the likes of Dipcharima Maitama Sule and co. Each of these regions believed more in these politicians than the imposed military governors who were hardly their political leaders. Due to the followership these political leaders enjoyed among the civilian populace of their respective regions, whatever positions they took on any matter was automatically accepted by them being their leaders from time. And it was these politicians that asked Gowon to renege on Aburi Accord as it did not resonate with their quest for a return to nothing other than federalism. The West, North and Midwest which they represented were together an overwhelming majority compared with the Igbo fraction of the east which Ojukwu represented.
If the Aburi summit was really well intended, then why were the normal political leaders of each region not invited to it? Why was it just a purely military establishment affair? Was the military in the picture of legislation and constitutional debates issue prior to that time? How could soldiers hijack legislative process from civilians? What do soldiers know about good constitutions and good governance? Were soldiers supposed to be the ones dictating how a country should be structured or the civil populace through their elected political leaders? In principle was Ojukwu himself even supposed to represent the East where Zik and Okpara the Eastern political leaders were available? In the Aburi Accord was there any statement on how and when the military would return the country to civil rule/democracy? All the agreements revolved around how the military would and should share powers henceforth without a single reference to when democracy would be restored, yet you wanted civilian majority of the West, North and Midwest who had been enjoying democracy and represented by their politicians to accept that document? Gowon's gentleman's agreement with Ojukwu was contrary to the wishes of the civilian majority in whose interest the summit was purportedly held, so Gowon was under a moral obligation to renege on it when the majority made him realize it was against their wish.
If the agreement had been for something purely between Ojukwu and Gowon alone, then it would have been morally wrong for him to renege. But the subject of the agreement was one which concerned millions of persons other than Gowon, so he had to respect those peoples' rejection of his gentleman's agreement. Had Ojukwu mistakenly agreed to what you Igbo's felt would endanger your lives would you have asked him to stick to the agreement just because it was gentleman's?
The residual majority did not feel bad about Gowon's dismantling of the four regions because they understood it to be a necessary discomfort they had to bear to forestall the greater discomfort Ojukwu's activities would cause them.
On why Gowon could not return Nigeria to pre-Ironsi status quo after the war ended: It is very simple. The regions had, within the three years of unitary system introduced by Ironsi and sustained by Gowon to weaken Ojukwu, been forced to abandon their farms for oil revenue coming from the now centralized government courtesy of Ironsi, thus the groundnut pyramids and plantations of the North. the cocoa plantations of the West, The rubber plantations of the Midwest and the Oil Palm plantations of the East had all practically disappeared. Now, for these regions to suddenly go back to their agro-based economy which took them over 40 years to build before Ironsi killed them with his unification of the civil service was not going to be a child's play. So they all just preferred that the centre kept sustaining them with oil money rather than go back and start all over again from square one with agriculture. And oil money was so easy to get that no one, not even the owners of the oil, even bothered to talk of a return to federalism again. Three years of war was such a long time that people were too emotionally wrecked to just be taken back to pre-Ironsi federalism when no region really had the agricultural base anymore to fend for herself without the oil money we had become used to, thus Gowon had no choice than to keep the new order alive. In the six years of peace that followed before Gowon was ousted, the humanitarian crises resulting from the war were huge enough of a national challenge to prevent the preparation of a comprehensive roadmap back to agriculture thus federalism.
Had Ironsi not tampered with the structure at all from the beginning, all these ripple effects of it would not have followed. The indiscipline that came with oil boom would not have come. Had Ironsi not been overthrown and killed, he and Ojukwu too would not have ever returned Nigeria to federalism when the anarchy caused by the January boys would have subsided.

zendy:


Hmmmm...... you really do make a lot of excuses for Gowon. Why had he to back out of the Aburi agreement, why he had to reverse his move to return Nigeria to true federalism, why he had to dismember the Regions and create 12 states, why he had to continue with states and unitary rule after the war. Gowon is the only person with valid reasons for his actions while Ironsi and Ojukwu are the people on the wrong side. Interesting. The most important thing to learn from Nigeria history is that the British made a big mistake bringing us all together and its not too late to shake hands, wish each other well and go our different ways.

Deadlytruth:
Britain brought us together for their own selfish interest. However, Ahmadu Bello saw it very early and therefore called Nigeria the mistake of 1914 and tried to have it de-amalgamated. But Zik and his cotravellers, who styled themselves as nationalists, called him names, insulted him, labelled him an ethno-religious bigot just because he chose to be that frank and realistic with himself and with Nigerians. Ahmadu Bello never let an opportunity to express his disbelief in Nigeria slip by. But some southerners led by Zik continued to court him into Nigeria and he finally and reluctantly agreed only for Southern soldiers to later gun him down in his prime, meaning southerners deceived him into what he did not want, and then killed him. Put yourself in his fellow Northerners' shoes and see whether you'll react differently. The blame is on Zik who invented 'one Nigeria' sloganeering and kept on preaching it despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. May God help us learn how to face reality in time.

Deadlytruth:


Britain brought us together for their own selfish interest. However, Ahmadu Bello saw it very early and therefore called Nigeria the mistake of 1914 and tried to have it de-amalgamated. But Zik and his cotravellers, who styled themselves as nationalists, called him names, insulted him, labelled him an ethno-religious bigot just because he chose to be that frank and realistic with himself and with Nigerians. Ahmadu Bello never let an opportunity to express his disbelief in Nigeria slip by. But some southerners led by Zik continued to court him into Nigeria and he finally and reluctantly agreed only for Southern soldiers to later gun him down in his prime, meaning southerners deceived him into what he did not want, and then killed him. Put yourself in his fellow Northerners' shoes and see whether you'll react differently. The blame is on Zik who invented 'one Nigeria' sloganeering and kept on preaching it despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. May God help us learn how to face reality in time.

zendy:


Theres no reality to see any more. So called Nigerians killed each other to the tune of several millions since independense and several thousands before independence. We should all just admit that Lord Luggards creation failed. So what is the point of being together any more? I cant blame Zik for believing in 'one Nigeria' and giving it a try, until one gives something a try, they can never know 100% if it will work or not. There are still many who believe in 'one Nigeria' just like Zik did. Even Gowon was willing to wage a war that took millions of lives for the same beliefs. No doubt, even Buhari would do the same. Zik never had a crystall ball to see the future same as Lord Lugard. If either men had known what would happen in the name of 'one Nigeria', they would have abandoned the idea. The good thing is that the present generation no longer needs a crystall ball. We have the past and present to judge on and both point to the fact that we are wasting our time together. A referendum should be conducted amongst the ethnic groups Lord Lugard brought together in what has proved to be a disasterous union. Those who feel confortable with the present union can vote to continue with it while those who wish to forge a new existence can vote to do so. At least, everyone gets to decide their fate, a right Lugard and the British never gave the people they selfishly called 'Nigerians'

Fremancipation:


[s]You clearly lack the capacity to understand things. On individual level, Igbos are doing marvelous in Nigeria. With the biggest middle class of all groups and the biggest in the Nigerian diaspora.

But one thing ndigbo refuse to do as long as they are still part of phantom one Nigeria is to let federal government marginalize them on federal infrastructures that other regions get for free.

Trust me, if igbos get Biafra tomorrow, you will see the largest mobilization of private capital for investment and infrastructure in African history. Igbos will build everything infrastructure that they need. In fact there will be 2 additional niger bridge that will be built.

But as long as you devils insists that we remain in Nigeria with you, we will continue to demand from federal government what they do for other regions. [/s]

I hope you get it now dummy.

Deadlytruth:
If you say Zik never had a crystal ball through which to see the future, did Ahmadu Bello, Tafawa Balewa, Anthony Enahoro, Awolowo, and others who at different times called for the de- amalgamation of the country have? There was everything wrong with Zik's decision to give 'one Nigeria' a try despite glaring evidences to its non- workability. As far back as 1945 Igbo's had started being killed in the North in large numbers yet Zik continued preaching his 'one-Nigeria', so it wasn't as if the post-independence Igbo massacres were the first of their kind. If the Igbo massacres of 1945 in Jos and 1953 in Kano alone were not enough crystal balls for Zik to have seen the futility of holding Nigeria together forcefully, then I am afraid what a crystal ball should be. Ahmadu Bello did not wait to see any genocide happen to Northerners anywhere before he began to call for de-amalgamation. The tenuous atmosphere was enough evidence for him. That was foresight which is central to good leadership. It wasn't as if Zik did not really have it too, he only pretended not to have it, and that caused repeated genocides to his own people. Zik was never heard speaking up against Igbo massacre in those circumstances. He never regretted his unrealistic posturing despite the genocidal results it had on his own brothers. Even shortly before he died, he granted an interview in which he prided himself as the originator of 'one Nigeria' slogan. It is on youtube. Videos don't lie. So this your argument that if he had had a crystal ball to see the future he would have reasoned and believed otherwise does not hold water.
Even Ojukwu himself was towing Zik's 'one Nigeria' line of reasoning initially, if not why would he stop Isaac Boro from seceding earlier on? Why did he twice send back to the North Igbos who managed to escape home from the Igbo targetted pogroms that further enveloped the North post-Ironsi assassination? How could a very intelligent graduate from a university as prestigious as Oxford continue to believe that unity was still possible when he had started seeing blood being shed massively of his own people?
Zik schooled in the US and majored in Anthropology which is a discipline that recommends that countries composed of people with different and opposing cultures and values but sharing physical boundaries must put in place mechanisms to limit cultural and social interferences and must recognize one another's cultural differences, respect same and try as much as possible to stay away from one another's business in order to avoid a clash of cultures (and the usually attendant bloodshed) until after a long time period of usually 100 years when the cultural barriers will have slowly broken down at their natural pace and the country evolves to become truly one nation of shared values and vision like it happened in the US. In addition Zik studied US history and through that knew that no country, not even homogenous ones gets united from day one. Also, as a secondary school student he read it in Government textbooks that Federalism characterized by a very weak centre is the only workable system for an ethnically diverse country like Nigeria. While in the US, he saw how the practice of federalism had made the country a very organized bastion of social justice and equity, and a world power. He did not hear anyone preach 'One America' over there, and that did not mean Americans did not love one another despite their diversity. But unfortunayely, after seeing all that in the US, Zik returned to Nigeria to start preaching 'One Nigeria' which was actually a euphemism for his preferred unitary system for an equally ethnically diverse Nigeria. He argued that federalism and strong regions would promote tribalism over nationalism whereas he did not see federalism promote such in the US. Against the principles of his Anthropology profession he began to advocate that we ignored our cultural differences and move on. To where? Was that an indication that Zik was genuinely seeking development of Nigeria and peaceful coexistence among Nigerians?
It took Ahmadu Bello, Awolowo, Enahoro, Balewa who did not read anything near Anthropology to keep correcting him, an anthropologist, that cultural differences are rather acknowledged, understood and respected if there must be genuine peace, harmony and development as prescribed by Anthropology. By virtue of his profession, Zik was supposed to be the last person to talk of 'One-Nigeria', but he even invented it. His profession was a crystal ball through which to see that his approach to national unity would lead to catastrophe, the early massacre of igbos in the North was another, his failure to become premier in the Western Region was yet an additional crystal ball, Ahmadu Bello's frequently scathing remarks on Igbos was one more crystal ball. In fact he had more crystal balls than everyone else put together, but he failed to use them. So whose fault was that?
The same Zik prevented the inclusion of the secession clause in the constitution. When Enahoro proposed it Zik countered that the unity of Nigeria was non-negotiable. For goodness sake why would a supposedly enlightened and well read person of the computer age like Zik believe that a fraudulent unity brought upon an assortment of people by complete strangers/foreigners (Britain) should not be negotiable even at a time when Zik could see that countries even in the Europe to which that very Britain belonged had started negotiating their unity, eg Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, parts of Russia, Germany, etc; and that even within Britain itself there were dissenting voices from Ireland over their own unity? Why was Zik so unrealistic?
Even during the Nigerian Civil War that was being fought to free his own people from what most of his initial followers had come to painfully realize was a British fraud he continued seeking that fraudulent unity. Why? Was it that he could still not see the handwriting on the wall?
Unfortunately the constitution as it is now does not provide for secession courtesy of Zik's rejection of the clause. Buhari's current stand and recent pronouncement that our 'unity' is non-negotiable is not only constitution based but was a re-echoing of Zik's declaration decades back.
However, you are lucky to have Ekweremadu as Deputy Senate President, so why not ask him to sponsor a bill for the inclusion of exit referendum in our constitution?

zendy:


Theres no reality to see any more. So called Nigerians killed each other to the tune of several millions since independense and several thousands before independence. We should all just admit that Lord Luggards creation failed. So what is the point of being together any more? I cant blame Zik for believing in 'one Nigeria' and giving it a try, until one gives something a try, they can never know 100% if it will work or not. There are still many who believe in 'one Nigeria' just like Zik did. Even Gowon was willing to wage a war that took millions of lives for the same beliefs. No doubt, even Buhari would do the same. Zik never had a crystall ball to see the future same as Lord Lugard. If either men had known what would happen in the name of 'one Nigeria', they would have abandoned the idea. The good thing is that the present generation no longer needs a crystall ball. We have the past and present to judge on and both point to the fact that we are wasting our time together. A referendum should be conducted amongst the ethnic groups Lord Lugard brought together in what has proved to be a disasterous union. Those who feel confortable with the present union can vote to continue with it while those who wish to forge a new existence can vote to do so. At least, everyone gets to decide their fate, a right Lugard and the British never gave the people they selfishly called 'Nigerians'

modath:

Nigeria will be reduced to ashes before "the owners" (elites from NEWS) will allow any division take place... The sooner the delusional utopians come to term with that the better for their mental state!

Deadlytruth:
Here is another speech by which Azikiwe frustrated attempts by the North to seceed from Nigeria. In that speech he pledged that Igbos will forever be glued to the same Hausa-Fulani whom his brothers now derogatorily call Arewanistan Republic. Ironically his Igbo brothers call him a hero but are not happy with staying together with Arewanistan whom their Hero so loved. Then how is he a hero?



(1953) Nnamdi Azikiwe, “Speech on Secession”
In 1953 when Northern Nigerians were beginning to consider secession from the Nigerian colony that would soon be a nation, Nnamdi Azikiwe gave a speech before the caucus of his political party, the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) in Yaba, Nigeria on May 12, 1953. That speech, while not disallowing secession, suggested that there would be grave consequences if the Northern region became an independent nation. Ironically, fourteen years later, Azikiwe led his Eastern Region out of Nigeria and created Biafra, a move that prompted a bloody three year civil war. Azikiwe's 1953 speech appears below.

I have invited you to attend this caucus because I would like you to make clear our stand on the issue of secession. As a party, we would have preferred Nigeria to remain intact, but lest there be doubt as to our willingness to concede to any shade of political opinion the right to determine its policy, I am obliged to issue a solemn warning to those who are goading the North towards secession. If you agree with my views, then I hope that in course of our deliberations tonight, you will endorse them, to enable me to publicize them in the Press.

In my opinion, the Northerners are perfectly entitled to consider whether or not they should secede from the indissoluble (NOTE ZIK'S USE OF THIS ADJECTIVE AS IT BETRAYED THE FACT THAT HE BELIEVED DEEP DOWN IN HIM THAT NIGERIA'S UNITY WAS NON-NEGOTIABLE AND IRREVOCABLE) union which nature has formed between it and the South, but it would be calamitous to the corporate existence of the North should the clamour for secession prevail. I, therefore, counsel Northern leaders to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of secession before embarking upon this dangerous course.

As one who was born in the North, I have a deep spiritual attachment to that part of the country, but it would be a capital political blunder if the North should break away from the South. The latter is in a better position to make rapid constitutional advance, so that if the North should become truncated from the South, it would benefit both Southerners and Northerners who are domiciled in the South more than their kith and kin who are domiciled in the North.

There are seven reasons for my holding to this view. Secession by the North may lead to internal political convulsion there when it is realized that militant nationalists and their organizations, like the NLPU, the Askianist Movement, and the Middle Zone League, have aspirations for self-government in 1956 identical with those of their Southern compatriots. It may lead to justifiable demands for the right of self-determination by non-Muslims, who form the majority of the population in the so-called ‘Pagan’ provinces, like Benue, Ilorin, Kabba, Niger and Plateau, not to mention the claims of non-Muslims who are domiciled in Adamawa and Bauchi Provinces.

It may lead to economic nationalism in the Eastern Region, which can pursue a policy of blockade of the North, by refusing it access to the sea, over and under the River Niger, except upon payment of tolls. It may lead to economic warfare between the North on the one hand, and the Eastern or Western regions on the other, should they decide to fix protective tariffs which will make the use of the ports of the Last and West uneconomic for the North.

The North may be rich in mineral resources and certain cash crops, but that is no guarantee that it would be capable of growing sufficient food crops to enable it to feed its teeming millions, unlike the East and the West. Secession may create hardship for Easterners and Westerners who are domiciled in the North, since the price of food crops to be imported into the North from the South is bound to be very high and to cause an increase in the cost of living. Lastly, it will endanger the relations with their neighbours of millions of Northerners who are domiciled in the East and West and Easterners and Westerners who reside in the North.

You may ask me whether there would be a prospect of civil war, if the North decided to secede? My answer would be that it is a hypothetical question which only time can answer. In any case, the plausible cause of a civil war might be a dispute as to the right of passage on the River Niger, or the right of flight over the territory of the Eastern or Western Region; but such disputes can be settled diplomatically, instead of by force.

Nevertheless, if civil war should become inevitable at this stage of our progress as a nation, then security considerations must be borne in mind by those who are charged with the responsibility of government of the North and the South. Military forces and installations are fairly distributed in all the three regions; if that is not the case, any of the regions can obtain military aid from certain interested Powers. It means that we cannot preclude the possibility of alliance with certain countries.

You may ask me to agree that if the British left Nigeria to its fate, the Northerners would continue their uninterrupted march to the sea, as was prophesied six years ago? My reply is that such an empty threat is devoid of historical substance and that so far as I know, the Eastern Region has never been subjugated by any indigenous African invader. At the price of being accused of overconfidence, I will risk a prophecy and say that, other things being equal, the Easterners will defend themselves gallantly, if and when they are invaded.

Let me take this opportunity to warn those who are making a mountain out of the molehill of the constitutional crisis to be more restrained and constructive. The dissemination of lies abroad; the publishing of flamboyant headlines about secessionist plans, and the goading of empty-headed careerists with gaseous ideas about their own importance in tile scheme of things in the North is being overdone in certain quarters. I feel that these quarters must be held responsible for any breach between the North and South, which nature had indissolubly united in a political, social and economic marriage of convenience. In my personal opinion, there is no sense in the North breaking away or the East or the West breaking away; it would be better if all the regions would address themselves to the task of crystallizing common nationality, irrespective of the extraneous influences at work. What history has joined together let no man put asunder. But history is a strange mistress which can cause strange things to happen!

Sources:

Nnamdi Azikiwe, Zik: A Selection from the Speeches of Nnamdi Azikiwe, Governor-General of the Federation of Nigeria formerly President of the Nigerian Senate formerly Premier of the Eastern Region of Nigeria (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1961).
1886-1960

http://www.blackpast.org/1953-nnamdi-azikiwe-speech-secession

shukuokukobambi:
@Deadlytruth, really?
I never knew Zik of Africa gave such a speech!! Never!!

Deadlytruth:

He did. In fact he made several other speeches similar to this

shukuokukobambi:


Thank God for the archives. They almost changed the narrative. The revisionism of some folks is disgusting!!