www.ooduapathfinder.com

The Yoruba say truth catches up with a lie in a jiffy, no matter the lie’s shelf-life. A false premise creates a lie. The 1999 Constitution was and still is based on a false, “We, The People” premise thus making the Constitution a lie. Which was and is why “unity” is enforced in Nigeria, thereby negating its intended purpose. A forced unity is only valuable to the enforcer and not to those being “united”; a false premise for unity nullifies the union.

Unity, by itself, is not the problem; for it can be induced by several factors among which are self-preservation, material and mutual cooperation, common interests or shared values which determine the permanence or otherwise of such unity. It becomes problematic only when there is a divergence, for, by definition, one cannot unite with oneself but with “another”.

We do know that various cultures were forced into a “union” by a colonial State Structure, which also created a value for the enforcer, the end result being an attempt at reconstructing our humanity in the image of others, hence, for example, the vernacularization and criminalization of our Languages; mandating us to be “citizens” of an alien culture calibrated in a State Structure which is nothing more than a negation of our existentialism; even when it is known that no country in the world came close any form of development outside the ambience of its Language.

It was not for nothing that the anti-colonial movements all over the world were first and foremost cultural engagements, for, colonialism simply aimed at replacing the culture of the colonized with its own, under the ambit of a State Structure created not only for that purpose but also for the continuation of the social, political and economic paradigm of the colonizer. The problem thus becomes the architecture of such a State and not the ability or willingness of the Peoples or cultures to live together in unity, permanently or temporarily.

Otherwise, we would be saying that being a Yoruba, for example, is a worthless exercise, since a new criteria is now substituted for it by its permanent unity with others. But being Yoruba is a natural phenomenon which does not limit a Yoruba to a particular geo-political construct hence cannot be abridged by such a State Structure unless the Yoruba actively participates in the process, as a Yoruba, which will be the only means by which an abridgement could become possible.

The Preamble to the 1999 Constitution starts by saying: “We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, having firmly and solemnly resolve, to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God, dedicated to the promotion of inter-African solidarity, world peace, international co-operation and understanding and to provide for a Constitution for the purpose of promoting the good government and welfare of all persons in our country, on the principles of freedom, equality and justice, and for the purpose of consolidating the unity of our people, do hereby make, enact and give to ourselves the following Constitution….”

Why is this false premise now being regarded as the basis for Nigeria’s unity-in-permanence? It is a known fact, and a truism, that “We, The People” had no hand in its making, directly or indirectly, as it was a product of military fiat which was not acting and did not act on behalf of “We, The People”, even as, by so doing, the producers of this Constitution unwittingly affirmed the Peoples’ sovereignty.

Hence, if, in legal terms, this Preamble does not, by itself, grant any powers and rights not specified in the Constitution, it cannot, itself being a statement of the principles in this Constitution, be based on a false premise. That such a premise as “We, The People” is false implies that the entire principles, powers and rights it purports to embody are also false. This false preamble only means, on the one hand, not binding on “We, The People” on whose behalf such an assumption was made, and on the other, “We, The People” need to exercise our right to correct this anomaly by ensuring that the Constitution is indeed a product of “We, The People”, the only guarantee of its Legitimacy and therefore its effectiveness.

At this point, the question of whether our elected officials can, with all conscience, turn round and overturn what they have sworn to uphold and govern with, becomes relevant. Constitutional existence of citizens is derived from the delegated authority of “We, The People” via any direct or indirect method, be it a plebiscite, referendum or simple votes on its provisions. Whichever way it is done, the “We, The People” imprimatur must be obvious. Thus, for those sworn on the basis of its provisions, it must follow that the restoration of the power of “We, The People” and its true reflection becomes their only conscionable activity.

Democracy is not being done a favor when its practitioners are determined to maintain a false premise as its foundation, which is the case with Nigeria, thus the issue goes to the root of the definition of what makes Nigeria: the Nationalities or window-dressing of democracy through mere legal niceties? Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means toward “common good”. Such that even if the question of a Referendum/Plebiscite would arise in the quest for this common good, it will be a result of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the protagonists and antagonists.

In other words, democracy is not “power-struggle” neutral. “Common good” has ideological/philosophical conditions attached to it; for example, a “common good” is the reduction in the cost of governance which will ensure that the type of persons seeking elective office will be more qualitative once the prospect of free money is no longer available; the subsisting economic philosophy of “spending” via “selling”—oil and foreign currencies, which are killers of local economic initiative, will be reduced; the innate thinking capabilities of people will be developed with its attendant impact on development of the community; alienation of the people from the state will be reduced. “Common Good” reflected in good governance is directly related to the level of alienation between the State and the people–the more the alienation, the less good governance. And the index of alienation is the level of control of the State by prebendals—what we mistake for “corruption”–which is also a direct result of complete control by the “Federal” government.

So, what next for the Nations? There is no need for “quit notice declarations” be it Lekki or Kaduna, even if the tactic is part of a game of political brinkmanship; just as the “notice” to quit is not acceptable, so also is a “forced” residence, hence the bottom line is the manifestation of the Peoples’ Will.

The only viable and peaceable option is for the Nations to convert the 2019 Elections into a Referendum on their expectations, in such a way that a Political Party manifesto must be anchored on this expectation such that “We, the People” can finally be said to matter. It can be argued that Nigeria’s political parties are not recognized along such Nationality lines. The reality is that most of the Political Parties exercise dominance by one Nationality or the other hence cannot find it impossible to express the wish of such a dominant Nationality. Once this process is set in motion, there will be no need for any “quit” notices, unless the central Government is determined to force through its own version of unity, with all of the consequences, not only for the Central Government but also for the Nations that allow themselves to be forced to exist in “unity” under such a paradigm.