If the north wouldn't allow the south to break away peacefully because of the oil wealth, what if the north are given half of the oil fields of the south to carter for themselves as a way to avoid the cost of war over the oil wealth and split peacefully? I believe that splitting the country isn't going to solve much of the problems we face today, but I still wish for a split because of two reasons.
The first reason is due to the fact that the northern part has a very high incidence of illiteracy, and this is actually dragging the entire country backwards cos education is key to substantial development.
The second reason boils down to the issue of lack of ethnic and religious tolerance on the part northerners. I believe that splitting the country will remove the stains the northern jihadists has been giving we southners as the international community labels us all as terrorists.

As ur teeth black na hin ya brain black! Why give them half why not give them all?

Nigeria's problem is way beyond oil.The North already owns more than 50% of the oil blocks but not the North per say but few people of Northern origin.If I am given a choice as an Igbo of dividing Nigeria I would suggest exclusion of oil producing communities from my ideal country.The only area I will seek for alliance is Cross river and Akwa-Ibom states for diversity and sea access.I do not like a mono-ethnic society.

R u dumb or daft? What were u thinking b4 u came out with dis thread? From ur map which N.D State oil field are u intending to part with? Thats creating more problems than u intend to solve. U better delete dis thread its even provocating, if Nigeria must break then every shld go and stop looking for who to drag along and start d parasitic life again. If its only magots u ve got in ur region so be it. North goes with its endowment period.

why do people ascribe to the north some kind of mystical hold over 'southern nigeria.'

So it is for the north to simply 'take' 50% of someone else's assets.

And it is the north that 'wouldnt allow' the south to go. Na wa o. The north has never stopped 'the south.' They stopped a part of the south - Biafra. If SE, ND, & SW decide to leave Nigeria today and form their own individual countries, you really think the north can stop them?

Some people wet themselves & become nervous wrecks at the mention of 'north.'

Get some balls  man

The only thing the north needs to take with na their goats, cattle and dirty selves.

^^^^^^^^^^^^

Take which oil, from where, are they still nigeria because of oil? They have fail. We are not having the '70s mentality. They shld forget about that as we will resist such an idiotic idea. Okay may be na groundnut oil block

Nsiman:

Take which oil, from where, are they still nigeria because of oil? They have fail. We are not having the '70s mentality. They shld forget about that as we will resist such an idiotic idea. Okay may be na groundnut oil block

The funny thing is that at the moment Danjuma owns more oil blocks than any Southerner and nothing can be done about it.The North cannot be stripped of their blocks even after our utopic division.A Russian,Nigerian or Indian can always own and run his business in USA as long as he pays his tax.Also the offshore wells will be a problem since nobody can actually say it is his father's land.

Abagworo:

The funny thing is that at the moment Danjuma owns more oil blocks than any Southerner and nothing can be done about it.The North cannot be stripped of their blocks even after our utopic division.A Russian,Nigerian or Indian can always own and run his business in USA as long as he pays his tax.Also the offshore wells will be a problem since nobody can actually say it is his father's land.

Then we should strip him of his gun blocks. Most states can freeze the assets of those who commit crimes.

Abagworo:

The funny thing is that at the moment Danjuma owns more oil blocks than any Southerner and nothing can be done about it.The North cannot be stripped of their blocks even after our utopic division.A Russian,Nigerian or Indian can always own and run his business in USA as long as he pays his tax.Also the offshore wells will be a problem since nobody can actually say it is his father's land.

Any country can still revoke your license to own an oil block in its territory. Matter of fact if we were to break apart and when we do non-citizens should pay higher taxes to own any oil block or better they should simply lose the oil block.

Give the North half of whose oil? I wish it was posssible to post slaps on NL, the OP would have been as thoroughly slapped as Charles Okah in his SSS cell.

Beaf:

Give the North half of whose oil? I wish it was posssible to post slaps on NL, the OP would have been as thoroughly slapped as Charles Okah in his SSS cell.

I know it sounds horrible, but we all know that oil is the glue that keep this nation together. Let them get half of their oil offshore. That would allow us to go our separate ways. In order to prevent violence from occurring, we should assure the North that they can keep half of the oil revenue.

If the grace of the God shall allow Nigeria to disintegrate into several independent nations, even Cameroon will loose Bakassi to a new country talk less of oil blocks. Any agreement with defunct Nigeria shall not be legally bided to new sovereign state.

Beaf:

Give the North half of whose oil? I wish it was posssible to post slaps on NL, the OP would have been as thoroughly slapped as Charles Okah in his SSS cell.

gbamm good one

@op why stop at half why not give us everything even the land in ss,,,mumu

did you consider the people indigenous to the area that u are giving us oil, what if the people that owns the oil say NO, what will you do, force them out of there land?

nigerian oil is for everyone to enjoy not for just south or just north,east or west

if is just out leaders that make the oil seem like a curse

@Dede: Nah, you have to respect old agreements. Even Nigeria's debt would have to be split up among the new states.

Regarding oil, since most of the oil belongs to the SS, I as a SW guy cannot decide to give their oil away for them. And the oil that is in the SW (or offshore the SW), I have zero interest in ceding that to someone else.

a lot of things will have to be put on table & negotiated

To say you want seccession, but only on condition you dont give any of your SW oil away is unrealistic.

An arrangement whereby all parts continue to benefit from crude oil proceeds for a limited time (say 10yrs), after we go our separate ways, is more realistic and likely to lead the north & other to make reciprocal concessions.

i assume you'd want concessions from the north re Kwara & Kogi, and Igbos will want binding assurances about their assets in the north, & the Igbos & niger deltans will want to negotiate with the north regarding the free flow of river niger etc. I can think of 100s of stuffs that will need to be negotiated.

Excluding oil from negotiations will be a major barrier  to peaceful seccession

Missy85:

i assume you'd want concessions from the north re Kwara & Kogi, and Igbos will want binding assurances about their assets in the north, & the Igbos & niger deltans will want to negotiate with the north regarding the free flow of river niger etc. I can think of 100s of stuffs that will need to be negotiated.

Saying you are not negoting oil will ba a major barrier to peaceful seccession

You bring up a very good point about the River Niger. That River Niger could be a source of contention, because of water and could possible be used for hydroelectric power. I am more concerned about that river than oil.

Missy85:

a lot of things will have to be put on table & negotiated

To say you want seccession, but only on condition you dont give any of your SW oil away is unrealistic.

An arrangement whereby all parts continue to benefit from crude oil proceeds for a limited time (say 10yrs), after we go our separate ways, is more realistic and likely to lead the north & other to make reciprocal concessions.

But concessions have to go both ways. You have to bring something to the table before you can concede part of it. There is nothing the North has to offer; what would they then be conceding? If we all sit together at the table and decide to say, "Hey, it was a nice try, but things didn't work out, let's go our separate ways", the North by itself is powerless to stop the rest from coming to this agreement. It is therefore not in a position to extract any money from the South.

the north brings nothing to the table?

Remember:

-They have the greater control on R. Niger
- Igbos mainly, have billions of assets there
- Kogi, Kwara, possibly parts of benue for Igbos?
- you have no interest in them continuing to use Lagos ports?

Just a few examples.

If & when the time comes, people will have 2 options : approach the matter as an affair of the heart and ignore reality, like you seem to suggest, or approach it with a pragmatic sense in the understanding that each side will lose some and gain some.

Missy85:

i assume you'd want concessions from the north re Kwara & Kogi

First of all, Kwara and Kogi (and possiblyy some of these other middle belt states) themselves under a free and fair referendum will overwhelming prefer to join the SW over staying in the North After all, it is clear that the future in a landlocked, economically unproductive country like "Arewa Republic" would not be the brightest,
And if they decide to stay? Unfortunate, but I'll respect that. It isn't necessary that all Yoruba are in one country.

Igbos will want binding assurances about their assets in the north

What? If the North violates Igbo assets in the North, then they I guess are interested in a future in which they are an international pariah nation like Iran or North Korea. Pariah status = no access to foreign capital = zero chance of building your country quickly. So it is in their own best interest to ensure that those assets are secure. Unless they are looking for wahala.

the Igbos & niger deltans will want to negotiate with the north regarding the free flow of river niger etc. I can think of 100s of stuffs that will need to be negotiated.

I doubt they are even permitted to block the flow of international rivers, even if it would be economically advantageous for them to do so (which it would not.)

@eku_bear

It depends on how Nigeria disintegrated. If Nigeria disintegrates through the muzzle of guns and new boundary lines redrawn, there is absolutelly no obeying old agreement. Even the so-called colonial boundaries will be jettisoned indefinitely as military expansionism will be the order of the day.

Missy85:

-They have the greater control on R. Niger

I don't think that they are permitted under international laws to disrupt the flow of the River Niger too much. They can divert some for their own purpose, of course.

- Igbos mainly, have billions of assets there
- Kogi, Kwara, possibly parts of benue for Igbos?

Already addressed these two issues.

- you have no interest in them continuing to use Lagos ports?

Isn't by force. Let them shop around, compare Lagos to Cotonou and Cameroon, to ports hopefully in Ondo as well. I suspect Lagos can beat all of those ports from a price perspective. If they want to ignore the less expensive Port of Lagos to use a more expensive port, so be it Somehow I doubt they'll cut off their nose to spite their face.

Dede1:

@eku_bear

It depends on how Nigeria disintegrated. If Nigeria disintegrates through the muzzle of guns and new boundary lines redrawn, there is absolutelly no obeying old agreement. Even the so-called colonial boundaries will be jettisoned indefinitely as military expansionism will the order of the day.   

Sounds like a good way to be an outcast amongst the community of nations. I'm not interested in that for me and my own people. You guys can do what you like. We will respect property rights, international law, including whatever boundaries are agreed upon.

Beaf:

Give the North half of whose oil? I wish it was posssible to post slaps on NL, the OP would have been as thoroughly slapped as Charles Okah in his SSS cell.

Beaf is back!  Dude, Becomerich has missed you.  Your subjects await:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-579703.32.html

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-581439.256.html

eku_bear:

First of all, Kwara and Kogi (and possiblyy some of these other middle belt states) themselves under a free and fair referendum will overwhelming prefer to join the SW over staying in the North After all, it is clear that the future in a landlocked, economically unproductive country like "Arewa Republic" would not be the brightest,
And if they decide to stay? Unfortunate, but I'll respect that. It isn't necessary that all Yoruba are in one country.
What? If the North violates Igbo assets in the North, then they I guess are interested in a future in which they are an international pariah nation like Iran or North Korea. Pariah status = no access to foreign capital = zero chance of building your country quickly. So it is in their own best interest to ensure that those assets are secure. Unless they are looking for wahala.
I doubt they are even permitted to block the flow of international rivers, even if it would be economically advantageous for them to do so (which it would not.)

dapobear, u are talking trash here

what do you mean by unproductive

do you know that about 75% of the food grown in nigeria but as cash crop are from the north

yes we are landlocked but we can survive just like other african countries that are landlocked are surviving some landlocked countries are even better than nigeria

Dapo, i think we approach this from diff perspectives.

I want a dissolution to be handled maturely and as peaceful as possible. You are prob more confrontational in your approach to seccession.

Also throwing in fluffy, unrealistic lines such as - 'i dont think they are allowed to interfere with th r niger TOO MUCH' shows a certain degree of ignorance- sorry to say.


And suggesting that a key trade partner can look for other partners if they want (re lagos ports) makes me wonder. I hope if the time comes, those representing the SW in negotiations will have a slightly more balanced perspective.

Also, of what benefit will it be to the SW if the north is poor? We should be keen to see prosperous neighbours around us, as we too will benefit from their prosperity.  We shouldnt see the breakup of nigeria as a way to purnish the north. We gain nothing doing that.

theres no negotiations about what?

simple fact is if middle belt yoruba igbo niger deltans want to leave there isnt A DAMN thing the north can do about it. Kwara and Kogi can stay with the north -who fuckin cares afterall they can alway RELOCATE to the ODUA republic, like yorubas and ewe from Togo, Benin republic do, we dont all have to be in the same country.

breaking up is more realstic now that Abuja is the capital and not Lagos (yorubaland).

and MAJORITY of northerners dont believe in ONE Nigeria (they have their sharia law DIFFERENT from Nigerias Own) , so I doubt there will be any wars just the same terrorist clowns we have now in Nigeria.

Break up pls

@Missy85: I'm not trying to be antagonistic or violent. And I feel like I'm being fairly pragmatic.

The crux of the matter is that I think the North has essentially zero leverage (outside of the threat of coup), and you think they have significant leverage. Under my own hypothesis, my position is reasonable, is it not? Makes no sense to give any opponent more leverage than they truly have.

Regarding the River Niger, since you seem to know more about the international laws governing the flow of water, please clarify for all of us how much leverage the North would have. And explain to me why Sudan then doesn't exert similar leverage over Egypt, Guinea over Mali, Niger Republic and Nigeria, and why whoever controls the Amazon doesn't exert enormous influence on those downstream, etc.

Regarding ports, you misunderstand me. All I am saying is that I'm not expecting them to continue using Lagos ports out for sentiment reasons; I think that this particular product can stand on its own feet for price reasons (especially if we invest heavily to improve it.)

Regarding poverty of Northern Nigeria, what have I said to make you think I want them to be poor? I don't want them to be poor; having economically robust neighbors is good for everyone. But not wanting them to be poor doesn't mean I'm obliged to give them free cash.

Whoever northerner that has oil blocks when time comes the ownership will be reviewed, the status quo won't be maintained.

man presidency don blind southerners FULL

its crazy.