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.

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 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).

Speaking big grammar with little knowledge.

Ibime:

Speaking big grammar with little knowledge.

gbammm

so when the north wanted to secede, why didn't Nnamdi allow that, it was when they realised oil was good for an economy they want to secede, ""hisses"" or is it because the system does not work for them now

all i have to say to my igbo brother is that,,,,, "as you lay your bed, so you shall lay on it"

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.

lol, what?


Most of this speech sounds not merely wrong, but nearly comical. I have no doubt this bizarre speech played no part in their decision to stay.

Here are some better reasons:


“This New Nation called Nigeria, should be an estate of our great grandfather, Uthman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We use the minorities in the North as willing tools, and the South, as conquered territory and never allow them to rule over us, and never allow them to have control over their future.”  ---Sir Ahmadu Bello, Sardauna of Sokoto in THE PARROT of October 12, 1960



“The conquest to the sea is now in sight. When our god-sent Ahmadu Bello said some years ago that our conquest will reach the sea shores of Nigeria, some idiots in the South were doubting its possibilities. Today have we not reached the sea? Lagos is reached. It remains Port-Harcourt. It must be conquered and taken.”  --- Mallam Bala Garuba in WEST AFRICAN PILOT, December 30, 1964.


^^^^

someone verify the authenticity of these quotes. West African Pilot, for example was probably biased but I doubt these statements would have been fabricated out of  nowhere, especially the first one, which was in 1960, before open dissent and antagonism. . .

Ibime:

Speaking big grammar with little knowledge.

Can you throw more light on this please?

nwabobo:

Can you throw more light on this please?

Exactly.

Big grammar, little wisdom.

Describing a colonial contraption as an "indissoluble union which nature has formed". The rest is history.

Big grammar, little wisdom.

You guys don't get the selfish motive behind this speech? Zik wanted to rule the most populous black nation in the world!

A secession by the north will be followed by that of the West and the Eastern nation under him would have been too small to fulfil his dream of being the Supremo in the most populous nation in Africa and the world.

Get it?

^^^ He shoulda known that a bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush.

Ibime:

^^^ He shoulda known that a bird in hand is worth more than two in the bush.

perfect answer, and now i am sure Nnamdi will be regretting his so called speech. because it is better for us northerner now

Nnamdi Azikiwe was an idealist. Nigeria was not ready for his far-seeing ideas. I kind of feel bad for the man. He wanted Nigeria to be great.

So sorry for the rubbish replies to a brilliant and progressive idea. Now why are we saying ill about the man's vision? A vision that would have make me and you one of world number one citizens. Even my northern brother's are also saying bad about this speech which benefited them even till today. So sorry my brothers,when you bite the finger that feed you soonest you will look after him when you get hungry because no condition is permanent. i must say good night till when we all wakes up to see what this great Brian saw when we are still blind.

Zik was less visionary than Bello as shown in the alleged winded speech laden with constructive words. I am of the view that the speech accredited to Ahmadu Bello was more visionary than Zik’s and it came to pass six years later as he predicted.

Eastern Nigerians will never like this speech because "they would have gone far in development by now"
Western Nigerians will never like this speech because " they wouldn't have anything to do with the backward northerners"
northern Nigerians will also not like this speech because "they suppose to be slaves of sultan's and emirs by now and this man ideology gives them freedom"

But sorry i must say to us all no matter where this vision has landed any of us,but to be truthful this vision is more profitable to the northerners than other tribes. When a great vision is abuse by visionless people the vision er always carries the blame. all the same thanks to all in the house we will see again when we wake up.

Zik was the greatest FOOL Nigeria ever had.

Obiagu1:

Zik was the greatest FOOL Nigeria ever had.

greatest fool? but his face appeared on Naira Note

codeworks:

greatest fool? but his face appeared on Naira Note

Obiagu1:

Zik was the greatest FOOL Nigeria ever had.

Yeah is it Ziks fault or is it your incompetence as a people.
I think Zik over-estimated Nigerians.

A man that lived above ethno-religious sentiments lived far ahead of his time.
2011 and we are all still talking tribe, region and religion.

What saddens me most is that most of u are the future Nigeria has.
Can u imagine what will happen if the Niger-delta where 2 be a separate country ?
The Urhobos, ijaws, itsekiris have so much mistrust and cannot live in peace in Warri alone.

Look at what is going on in Jos today, doest it tell u that some parts of the speech was a prophesy?
I look at Nigeria and I can only blame our relative low IQ, Our lack of class, myopia, selfishness and low level of civilisation.

Sometimes I wonder if we are a cursed people or are we just confused.
Since you do not want to live together , then
Ojukwu should be well respected as he is the only leader in Nigeria who has actively pushed for succession post independence.

I just dont get it ,
U dislike Zik for calling for one Nigeria and dislike Ojukwu for trying to split Nigeria.

Are some of u mad or r u just being Nigerians !

RoadStar:

Yeah is it Ziks fault or is it your incompetence as a people.
I think Zik over-estimated Nigerians.

A man that lived above ethno-religious sentiments lived far ahead of his time.
2011 and we are all still talking tribe, region and religion.

What saddens me most is that most of u are the future Nigeria has.
Can u imagine what will happen if the Niger-delta where 2 be a separate country ?
The Urhobos, ijaws, itsekiris have so much mistrust and cannot live in peace in Warri alone.

Look at what is going on in Jos today, doest it tell u that some parts of the speech was a prophesy?
I look at Nigeria and I can only blame our relative low IQ, Our lack of class, myopia, selfishness and low level of civilisation.

Sometimes I wonder if we are a cursed people or are we just confused.
Since you do not want to live together , then
Ojukwu should be well respected as he is the only leader in Nigeria who has actively pushed for succession post independence.

I just dont get it ,
U dislike Zik for calling for one Nigeria and dislike Ojukwu for trying to split Nigeria.

Are some of u mad or r u just being Nigerians !

Ijaws are not in Warri, when last have u been to warri ?

warri is an itsekiri and urhobo town

secondly, Zik was a tribalist in fact the worse of them all, why you ask ?

Nigeria was operating on regionalism back then, insisted of Zik to leave each region to control there own affairs No ZIK Of ONITSHA locked his friend up and his friend vice up in his region,

went to that region his friend ruled in and divided it using his presidential power of which there was NO VOTER.

then few years down the line traveled out of the country only for his cousin and kinman OJukwu to invade to separated region of which his friend ruled over.

If that is not tribalism and hate, then I do not know what else to call it .

alj_harem:


Ijaws are not in Warri, when last have u been to warri ?

warri is an itsekiri and urhobo town

Complete and total lack of information , do u know what lead to the ijaw-itsekiri fracas ?
Do u know it was over a fight local govt HQ ?
Do know that warri is made up of various LGAs .

secondly, Zik was a tribalist in fact the worse of them all, why you ask ?

He was the only tribalist in Nigerian history who called for one Nigeria

Nigeria was operating on regionalism back then, insisted of Zik to leave each region to control there own affairs No ZIK Of ONITSHA locked his friend up and his friend vice up in his region,

Zik did not end regional structure the military did.

went to that region his friend ruled in and divided it using his presidential power of which there was NO VOTER.

then few years down the line traveled out of the country only for his cousin and kinman OJukwu to invade to separated region of which his friend ruled over.

If that is not tribalism and hate, then I do not know what else to call it .

So are u saying that what Ojukwu did was right but as Ziks kinsman, he was the wrong man to do the job ?

R u saying that the quarrel between Ladoke Akintola and Awo was Ziks fault ?
Are you saying that the fracas that ensued in the western region was Ziks fault.
r u sure that such fracas will not happen again even after the country has been split ?

My friend I really don't understand you. your reply is riddled with assumptions and comments that don't add up.
A typical Nigerian way of reasoning.

Awolowo pleaded with that iddiot to let the north have their way but his selfish interest to rule Nigeria by force won't let him listen to Awo.So why should Awo now support biafra 13 years later ?

~Bluetooth:

Awolowo pleaded with that iddiot to let the north have their way but his selfish interest to rule Nigeria by force won't let him listen to Awo.So why should Awo now support biafra 13 years later ?

You see how you mix up things ?
who is talking about Awo supporting Biafra.
All I am saying is that Ojukwu should be the foremost Nigerian hero for being the foremost secessionist and Zik being the biggest villain for pushing for one Nigeria.

For Awo he was against one Nigeria one minute and the next minute he was fighting for one Nigeria so I really don't know his political philosophy on the issue.

RoadStar:

You see how you mix up things ?
who is talking about Awo supporting Biafra.
All I am saying is that Ojukwu should be the foremost Nigerian hero for being the foremost secessionist and Zik being the biggest villain for pushing for one Nigeria.

For Awo he was against one Nigeria one minute and the next minute he was fighting for one Nigeria so I really don't know his political philosophy on the issue.

Prior to 1953 when Zik was pushing for one Naija,Awo saw the antics of the north and was displeased with it.he told zik to let the north secede when they were pushing for it but zik won't let them leave because the north was wealthy with agricultural resources nd zik wanted to be president by all means.However when oil was discovered,Zik still maintained his one naija dream until 1966 when ojuku couldn't withstand the continued annihilation of ibos by the nigerian state led by the north.by that time,Awo also repayed zik by insisting on one naija.The right time to have freed the hausa/fulanis was in 1953 when they called for it but Azikwe killed their dream !

~Bluetooth:

Prior to 1953 when Zik was pushing for one Naija,Awo saw the antics of the north and was displeased with it.he told zik to let the north secede when they were pushing for it but zik won't let them leave because the north was wealthy with agricultural resources nd zik wanted to be president by all means.However when oil was discovered,Zik still maintained his one naija dream until 1966 when ojuku couldn't withstand the continued annihilation of ibos by the nigerian state led by the north.by that time,[b]Awo also repayed zik by insisting on one naija.[/b]The right time to have freed the hausa/fulanis was in 1953 when they called for it but Azikwe killed their dream !

Forget Awo he is the best bla bla bla. He repayed Zik at the expense of his people and all Nigerians 
His friend Akintola was Ziks junior brother and a closet Igbo man.
I'm sure everything he did had a concrete reason , he did no wrong and was selfless,  lets leave that talk for another day.

Zik is a villian and Ojukwu is Nigeria's biggest visionary/ hero for being bold enough to push for the breakup of Nigeria.
The both of them cannot be villians  as the where on opposite sides of the issue
Either agree of refute the claim simple.

RoadStar:

Forget Awo he is the best bla bla bla. He repayed Zik at the expense of his people and all Nigerians 
I'm sure everything he did had a concrete reason , he did no wrong and was selfless,  lets leave that talk for another day.

Zik is a villian and Ojukwu is Nigeria's biggest visionary/ hero for being bold enough to push for the breakup of Nigeria.
The both of them cannot be villians as the where on opposite sides of the issue
Either agree of refute the claim simple.

Ok roadstar, who do you consider as a hero aka a nigerian hero or your hero in terms of Nigeria.

I don't want this discussion to be biased at least for once

RoadStar:

Forget Awo he is the best bla bla bla. He repayed Zik at the expense of his people and all Nigerians 
I'm sure everything he did had a concrete reason , he did no wrong and was selfless,  lets leave that talk for another day.

Zik is a villian and Ojukwu is Nigeria's biggest visionary/ hero for being bold enough to push for the breakup of Nigeria.
The both of them cannot be villians  as the where on opposite sides of the issue
Either agree of refute the claim simple.

Maybe because i'm not a fan of wars but anyday anytime,i will choose the man that ask for a secession through peaceful means than the one that pushed for war and in the end,ran away and the secession dream died a natural death.

alj_harem:

Ok roadstar, who do you consider as a hero aka a nigerian hero or your hero in terms of Nigeria.

I don't want this discussion to be biased at least for once

I dont want to get into the discussion of who was right and who was wrong.
The issue on ground is the speech above.
I am saying that in the world of right thinking people, there was nothing wrong in the comments he made.
We might want to blame our failures on him but we are jut being evasive.

In Jos Notherners are killing Northerners.
In 1963 Awo and Akintola were on each others throats.
In Warri Urhobos, Ijaws an Itsekiris kill each other.

Zik, having spent most of his life in the north and being Igbo had the rare ability to see thing from everyones view.
As he asserted in the speech.
As at the time or at least from this speech u can see that his political ideology was void of ethnic-religious sentiments.

RoadStar:

I dont want to get into the discussion of who was right and who was wrong.
The issue on ground is the speech above.
I am saying that in the world of right thinking people, there was nothing wrong in the comments he made.
We might want to blame our failures on him but we are jut being evasive.

In Jos Notherners are killing Northerners.
In 1963 Awo and Akintola were on each others throats.
In Warri Urhobos, Ijaws an Itsekiris kill each other.

Zik, having spent most of his life in the north and being Igbo had the rare ability to see thing from everyones view.
As he asserted in the speech.
As at the time or at least from this speech u can see that his political ideology was void of ethnic-religious sentiments.

maybe so, I guess he saw a One Nigeria as the future if it worked

then again, My suggestion is that he just followed orders from the west and not really for One Nigeria.

Who knows, Only him

~Bluetooth:

Maybe because i'm not a fan of wars but anyday anytime,i will choose the man that ask for a secession through peaceful means than the one that pushed for war and in the end,ran away and the secession dream died a natural death.

Ok Ojukwus motive was right but his methods was wrong. Is that what ur saying.
Not because Zik was his brother.

You keep trying to put Awo into this but I dont see y.
His stand on this issue is not clearly defined.

alj_harem:

maybe so, I guess he saw a One Nigeria as the future if it worked

then again, My suggestion is that he just followed orders from the west and not really for One Nigeria.

Who knows, Only him

Exactly, and we cannot base our opinions on unknowns when we have well documented speeches like the above.

RoadStar:

Ok Ojukwus motive was right but his methods was wrong. Is that what your saying.
Not because Zik was his brother.

You keep trying to put Awo into this but I dont see y.
His stand on this issue is not clearly defined.

I keep bringing Awolowo because there was no ojuku until after the military took over and he was made the eastern governor.The scores would have been settled even before independence !

@ bluetooth, Zik did not support nor lead Biafra. Ojukwu had nothing to do with whatever issue Awo had with Zik. Both men disagreed sharply. While Zik was still stuck in selfish idea of One Nigeria Ojukwu was fighting secession. If Awolowo had any common sense and was not filled with hate he would have pulled the West alongside with Biafra instead of looking for opportunities to do the same thing we are accusing Zik of doing. Awo fought for One Nigeria for his own selfish reasons. He even ran for election and lost.