meccuno:
you are obviously intelligent. And I was afraid that your continuous repetition on why zik was not a nationalist and the person who caused the problems of Nigeria only means one thing. That you are yoruba. You consistently emphasised on the premise that all the igbo leaders of that time were all tribalist and bad. You singled out awolowo, ahmadu bello, enahoro etc as nationalist and consistently emphasised that the igbos voted based on preference for the North. My friend, I see through your smoke screen. You want us to believe that the igbos are bad people. With the plan of dominating. I don't know what you plan to achieve with your one sided and biased write up. But I won't blame you. There are people who are more intelligent than you, who would also, with their skill of articulation and strong mastery of information dissemination manipulate people based on what they tend to achieve. It doesn't make what they say true. The blame on the problem of Nigeria has been put on the igbos because of a coup done by different tribes but labelled an igbo coup. These people you accuse and call their leaders names and in a disrespectful manner are well respected by their people. I didn't even need to ask you were you are from because you openly acted in a manner that shows you are yoruba. You defend your people, the hausas and those who share the same ideology with you who basically are not threats Þo you. I am very sure you were not born before 66. What you know wasn't experienced. Its a mixture of what ideology your parents and yoruba society has imparted in you. Some times I wonder why sanusi would say yorubas are the problem of Nigeria and wouldn't be criticised but if its was an igbo that said it, I guess a "thesis" would have been produced telling us how igbos are third class citizens and nstigated the first coup. Sanusi just like you are doing, expressed his views and opinions which might be or not be true. but coming on a public forum to mis inform is what I will not accept. U claim zik was not a nationalist and caused the crises that led to the coup because he imposed and didn't want awo because he wouldn't be easily manipulated is funny. When awo was charged, he was charged with embezzlement of funds and with an intention to over throw the govt. Its called treason. Let's overlook that and fast forward toward his second problem with the government. Were all these caused by zik? Zik wasn't loved by his people the way they loved ojukwu because they felt he represented Nigeria and not the igbo people which these same "nationalist" like bello and awo couldn't do. Remember zik was with the set of nkrumah and other african nationalist then who came back from the states to fight for black emancipation. Would you also call these other africans like nkrumah frauds too? Please do not offend our sensibilities. I am not offended by tribalist on this forum. But I am disturbed by people like you who do not insult tribes but tend to manipulate the minds of gullible people here makes you very dangerous .

When I enter into intellectual debates I only present facts and logic to make my points and also look out for superior facts and logic to dismantle my mine. I would have rather preferred that you factually disprove the points I made against Zik for his fantasy with an unworkable one Nigeria than resort to name calling or tribal mapping which does not negate truth or alter facts.
As a very young boy I was brainwashed into believing that Nigeria was unjust and wicked to Igbos for preventing them from having Biafra Republic. The part of Nigeria where I grew up is saturated with such sympathy for Igbos' Biafra and anti-Nigeria resentment, so I was naturally caught in the web by default and I therefore ignorantly carried that sympathy for Igbos and resentment against Nigeria in my heart until I began to lay my hands on books about Nigeria's political history by authors of Different tribes. In them I summarily discovered that Igbos, led by especially Zik, were actually guilty of being first to hold other tribes back in Nigeria as at when they all had seen it that Nigeria would never work. From then on my perception about Igbos vs the rest of Nigeria was reversed. Any honest person -be it Hausa, Fulani, Edo, Ebira, Ibibio, Yoruba, Urhobo, Ijaw, and even Igbo or even a non Nigerian-, who reads enough political history of Nigeria, as far as he remains honest, must come to the conclusion that Igbos technically and physically coerced everyone else into Nigeria against their own wish and preference but later began to cry victims of being forcefully held back in the same Nigeria by all those other tribes when Nigeria's non-workability started manifesting and boomeranging on Igbos as a nemesis.
But I find it funny why Igbos choose to always labell as Yoruba anyone who discovers this simple fact and says it as it is . By that Igbos unknowingly glorify Yorubas as being the only people capable of doing critical logical reasoning on Nigerian history to discover the rather simple fact that Igbos were the first to reject and prevent a loose or non-existent Nigeria. That, to me, is an unintentional insult on all other tribes and an indirect tribute to Yorubas for intellectualism which actually is not limited to Yorubas alone. If stating the obvious undisputable facts and Deadlytruth makes me Yoruba in your eyes, then so be it. But by the same logic Emeka Njoku becomes a Yoruba for recently writing an article full of eulogy for Ahmadu Bello and Awolowo as realists but carpeted Zik's one Nigeria fantasy as having ruined Igbos and indeed Nigeria as a whole. Even Ojukwu too became a Yoruba man for writing a note in which he called Awo and Bello hard headed realist and Zik a dreamer.
I used to hate Ahmadu Bello as a teenager but after reading his speeches and recently watching him on U-tube I discovered he was the most honest and truthful politician Nigeria ever had. He was very blunt with the truth and always left no one guessing what his feelings were. He spoke deadly truths based on extant stark realities even though he was being called a tribalist and Northcentric in disposition. He made it clear that an un-deamalgamated Nigeria would be a theatre of bloodshed and rivalry and so it actually is today. You may start thinking I might as well be a Hausa for eulogizing Ahmadu Bello for his frankness, and I don't mind either. Truth actually has no tribe.
But Zik continued to have bad dreams and nightmares of one Nigeria and here we are today with one Nigeria. Who then is vindicated between Zik on one side, and Awolowo, Enahoro, Ahmadu Bello and Balewa on the other side? Be honest in your answer.

@meccuno, as you rightly observed I don't insult tribes to a very large extent. But It is because firstly I am too concerned with the use of facts and logic to make my point, and secondly because my own tribe is a minority among minorities and therefore relatively unknown hence seldom insulted to warrant an equal reaction from me. The trading of insults here on NL is mostly between Igbo and Yoruba so It does not concern me really.
On SLS' thesis that Yorubas are the problem with Nigeria, the following facts and logical inputs makes nonsense of his claims:
1. That in tracing the genesis of Nigeria's problem SLS started from 1962 whereas Nigeria's troubles actually started right from 1914. Of course he shrewdly avoided the period between 1914 and 1960 which was when his Northern brothers massacred Southerners mostly Igbos for flimsy and untenable excuses.
2. In his thesis he never made mention of the born-to-rule philosophy of his own Northern brothers which actuated the attempt to subdue the Western Region and the resultant resistance by Yorubas leading to Awolowo's coup plot.
3. He also failed to mention the North's rigging of the 1962 censuses and 1964 elections which made the Yorubas and Igbos for the first time come together to aim at dislodging the North through the UPGA alliance, and which also precipitated and somewhat justified Nzeogwu's coup.
3. In his attempt to please Igbos by his theory he failed to re-iterate the widely held view among Igbos that Awolowo caused the massacre of thousands of innocent Igbo civilians. What problem is greater than the death of millions of innocent persons in any country? A man who wanted please Igbos by blaming yorubas for Nigeria's woes but failed to include in his account the most popular element of that belief among Igbos themselves was only being cleaver by half.
4. The fact that Jeremiah Useni and Theophilus Danjuma have at different times granted interviews in which they blamed all Nigeria's woes on Igbos by limiting all the issues to the 1966 as if there were no pre-1966 and pre-independence factors behind that coup is not different from SLS' thesis that ignored the 1914 to 1962 period where the guilt of the North is located. So neither Useni/Danjuma or SLS are correct for narrating history starting from the middle.
5. That even FFK too has given accounts which heaped all the blames on Igbos and Igbos alone without reserving a single one for either Yorubas or the North. In fact in another account FFK showered immense praises on Awolowo despite the fact that his own father played a vital role in jailing Awolowo. Such is the level of hypocrisy, deceit and self contradictions running through all these accounts by individuals.
So if we are to believe SLS then FFK, Danjuma and Useni also have equal rights of being believed. Is what is good for the goose no longer also good for the gander?

@meccuno, as you rightly observed I don't insult tribes to a very large extent. But It is because firstly I am too concerned with the use of facts and logic to make my point, and secondly because my own tribe is a minority among minorities and therefore relatively unknown hence seldom insulted to warrant an equal reaction from me. The trading of insults here on NL is mostly between Igbo and Yoruba so It does not concern me really.
On SLS' thesis that Yorubas are the problem with Nigeria, the following facts and logical inputs makes nonsense of his claims:
1. That in tracing the genesis of Nigeria's problem SLS started from 1962 whereas Nigeria's troubles actually started right from 1914. Of course he shrewdly avoided the period between 1914 and 1960 which was when his Northern brothers massacred Southerners mostly Igbos for flimsy and untenable excuses.
2. In his thesis he never made mention of the born-to-rule philosophy of his own Northern brothers which actuated the attempt to subdue the Western Region and the resultant resistance by Yorubas leading to Awolowo's coup plot.
3. He also failed to mention the North's rigging of the 1962 censuses and 1964 elections which made the Yorubas and Igbos for the first time come together to aim at dislodging the North through the UPGA alliance, and which also precipitated and somewhat justified Nzeogwu's coup.
3. In his attempt to please Igbos by his theory he failed to re-iterate the widely held view among Igbos that Awolowo caused the massacre of thousands of innocent Igbo civilians. What problem is greater than the death of millions of innocent persons in any country? A man who wanted please Igbos by blaming yorubas for Nigeria's woes but failed to include in his account the most popular element of that belief among Igbos themselves was only being cleaver by half.
4. The fact that Jeremiah Useni and Theophilus Danjuma have at different times granted interviews in which they blamed all Nigeria's woes on Igbos by limiting all the issues to the Jan. 15 1966 coup as if there were no pre-1966 and pre-independence factors behind that coup is not different from SLS' thesis that ignored the 1914 to 1962 period where the guilt of the North is located. So neither Useni/Danjuma or SLS is honest for narrating history starting from the middle.
5. That even FFK too has given accounts which heaped all the blames on Igbos and Igbos alone without reserving a single one for either Yorubas or the North. In fact in another account FFK showered immense praises on Awolowo despite the fact that his own father played a vital role in jailing Awolowo. Such is the level of hypocrisy, deceit and self contradictions running through all these accounts by individuals.
So if we are to believe SLS then FFK, Danjuma and Useni also have equal rights of being believed. Is what is good for the goose no longer also good for the gander?

Deadlytruth:
When I enter into intellectual debates I only present facts and logic to make my points and also look out for superior facts and logic to dismantle my mine. I would have rather preferred that you factually disprove the points I made against Zik for his fantasy with an unworkable one Nigeria than resort to name calling or tribal mapping which does not negate truth or alter facts.
As a very young boy I was brainwashed into believing that Nigeria was unjust and wicked to Igbos for preventing them from having Biafra Republic. The part of Nigeria where I grew up is saturated with such sympathy for Igbos' Biafra and anti-Nigeria resentment, so I was naturally caught in the web by default and I therefore ignorantly carried that sympathy for Igbos and resentment against Nigeria in my heart until I began to lay my hands on books about Nigeria's political history by authors of Different tribes. In them I summarily discovered that Igbos, led by especially Zik, were actually guilty of being first to hold other tribes back in Nigeria as at when they all had seen it that Nigeria would never work. From then on my perception about Igbos vs the rest of Nigeria was reversed. Any honest person -be it Hausa, Fulani, Edo, Ebira, Ibibio, Yoruba, Urhobo, Ijaw, and even Igbo or even a non Nigerian-, who reads enough political history of Nigeria, as far as he remains honest, must come to the conclusion that Igbos technically and physically coerced everyone else into Nigeria against their own wish and preference but later began to cry victims of being forcefully held back in the same Nigeria by all those other tribes when Nigeria's non-workability started manifesting and boomeranging on Igbos as a nemesis.
But I find it funny why Igbos choose to always labell as Yoruba anyone who discovers this simple fact and says it as it is . By that Igbos unknowingly glorify Yorubas as being the only people capable of doing critical logical reasoning on Nigerian history to discover the rather simple fact that Igbos were the first to reject and prevent a loose or non-existent Nigeria. That, to me, is an unintentional insult on all other tribes and an indirect tribute to Yorubas for intellectualism which actually is not limited to Yorubas alone. If stating the obvious undisputable facts and Deadlytruth makes me Yoruba in your eyes, then so be it. But by the same logic Emeka Njoku becomes a Yoruba for recently writing an article full of eulogy for Ahmadu Bello and Awolowo as realists but carpeted Zik's one Nigeria fantasy as having ruined Igbos and indeed Nigeria as a whole. Even Ojukwu too became a Yoruba man for writing a note in which he called Awo and Bello hard headed realist and Zik a dreamer.
I used to hate Ahmadu Bello as a teenager but after reading his speeches and recently watching him on U-tube I discovered he was the most honest and truthful politician Nigeria ever had. He was very blunt with the truth and always left no one guessing what his feelings were. He spoke deadly truths based on extant stark realities even though he was being called a tribalist and Northcentric in disposition. He made it clear that an un-deamalgamated Nigeria would be a theatre of bloodshed and rivalry and so it actually is today. You may start thinking I might as well be a Hausa for eulogizing Ahmadu Bello for his frankness, and I don't mind either. Truth actually has no tribe.
But Zik continued to have bad dreams and nightmares of one Nigeria and here we are today with one Nigeria. Who then is vindicated between Zik on one side, and Awolowo, Enahoro, Ahmadu Bello and Balewa on the other side? Be honest in your answer.

I've made it known to you severally that Igbos are not interested in sharing a country with lying hypocrites who are confused about what they stand for.

If you're too pained that you and your Uneme-Nekhua people will eventually end up with the Yorubas and Hausa-Fulanis in OduaArewanistan republic then find the nearest brick wall and smash your empty-headed skull to smithereens.

In all your useless theses and theories of absurdity you have consistently failed to point out the contributions of your Uneme-Nekhua people to this country. If you're worth your arrogant grandstanding you'd have done well by mentioning your Uneme-Nekhua elites who have attempted to salvage this contraption from heading to the rocks.

It's your kind of people who have helped to destroy this entity and brought it into ruins with your hypocrisy and perpetual ass-licking stance.

If you're sensible you would have channelled your negative energies to countering the maiming and killings of your kinsmen for fun for decades by the marauding herdsmen; but you wouldn't and can't. And you think that Igbos are your mates that you and your cotravellers can just wake up from stupor and start ranting senselessly at.

Stop rambling like a broken record! Your pulling out baseless theories of absurdity to blackmail the Igbo Nation to continue with you in this cesspit is DOA and such shenanigan cannot save you!

It has been a curse on Igbos having your likes in the same country and this curse is broken already and the serpent head is severely bruised and that's why you've been on rampage for some months now attempting in vain to resurrect a walking corpse.

Take your miseries to OduaArewanistan republic where bunch of hypocrites and confused bigots are found.

Igbos are comfortable having a separate existence from greedy, treasury looters cum murderous backst*bbers.


Culled:
Braithwaite reportedly died on Monday morning, March 28, 2016 at St. Nicholas Hospital, Lagos.

The founder of the Nigerian Advance Party, NAP was a delegate at the 2014 National Conference, canvassed for a Confederal Constitution to replace the 1999 Constitution.

He described the 1999 Constitution as Decree 24 which was presently destroying Nigeria and Nigerians, stressed that it should be thrown out and be replaced with either a Confederal constitution, with Nigeria operating con-federalism or a very loose federation.
...

”... The present 1999 Constitution or Decree 24 is enforcing a country that is destroying its own people, and should be rejected outright.

”This Conference must therefore be as much a development conference as a constitutional one. It is our firm conviction that only a Confederal Constitution or a very loose federation is best suited for Nigeria. I say this because I know that no part of Nigeria is desert.