www.ooduapathfinder.com

Dr. Femi Okurounmu, a leader of Afenifere responded to Nigeria’s Attorney-general’s dismissal of agitations for Restructuring, by saying “The people supporting restructuring are in the majority, hence, the minority cannot override us. And if they don’t want, we can then break Nigeria into two. “They can go their own and we go on our way. That is the solution. We should stop asking them but force it on them, whether they want it or not.”
This statement makes it appear as if the entire question of Nigeria’s Federalism is now reduced to a contest between two National groups when we know this is not the case. Since Dr. Okurounmu did not specify the two sides Nigeria will be broken into, it will be safe to assume he was referring to a North-South divide, since the entire question of ruler-ship in Nigeria became wrapped around an irrational rotation between the North and the South, which was no more than an attempt at sidestepping the question of Federalism in all of its ramifications but one more way of substituting a form for the substance.
A North-South divide is a-historical and a surreptitious acceptance of the Northern and Southern Protectorates, whose amalgamation became Nigeria’s foundation. Yet, the anti-colonial movement and specifically the Action Group’s agitation for Federalism as the appropriate response to the colonial paradigm had already neutralized this North-South dichotomy through the achievement of a Federal Republic alongside the recognition of other Nationalities with rights to their own Regions. Dr. Femi Okurounmu, a product and promoter of this historical experience, by promoting the notion of “breaking Nigeria into two” is thus repudiating all that the Action Group and the entire Federalist movement stood for, albeit hiding behind the mask of restructuring.
In order to understand the thinking behind this a-historical promotion of a North-South divide, it is necessary to situate Dr.Okunrounmu’s Afenifere in its proper context.
This Afenifere came into being in 1994 in the aftermath of “June 12” annulment as an organization in favor of promoting True Federalism, taking its cue from the 1951 philosophical maxim anchored on “freedom for all, life more abundant” (translated into Yoruba Language as “Afenifere) as the guiding social, cultural economic and political philosophy of governance and the political principle of the Yoruba and the Western Region, pre-Independence, just as it also became the political context for any political party seeking relevance in the land.
Afenifere was unable to overcome the problematic of a philosophy codified as an organizational form, that is, knowing that the philosophy can only be manifested on a political terrain necessitating a political party hence had to enable one, the AD, at the same time becoming paralyzed by its misunderstanding of the relationship between the political party anchored on a particular philosophy and the philosophy expressed as an organization by itself; and this flowed from an acute lack of understanding of its historical mission.
The only choice for Afenifere at the time was to turn itself into a political party or become an intrinsic part of the existing political party, the AD. It chose to sit on the fence by trying to maintain an equidistance between the political party and the existential reality of the moment which led to a false juxtaposition of the party with the organization leading to a paralytic dichotomy as to whether Afenifere is AD or not; when the existential reality of the time leaves no room for such. This was why it described itself as a “socio-cultural” formation instead of the political platform that it is.
This mindset has now been transferred onto the quest for Federalism or restructuring, where the Federalist identity has now been turned on its head by resorting to this “break into two”; an expression that was never in the Federalist discourse in Nigeria.
A “break into two” will not and cannot address the question of Federalism as it implies a “southern” agency for its realization, meaning such an agency already exist as a Federal entity into which Afenifere has informally dissolved itself. This will be a negation of Federalism as it would have rejected the pre-Independence Federal arrangement as the antidote to Nigeria’s underdevelopment and seek to create a new paradigm of engagement outside the context of Ethno-National realities.
Opposition to Federalism had always been anchored on a North-East Alliance; the aftermath of the 1959 elections being the first salvo, wherein the East rebuffed the West’s overtures for an alliance to strengthen pre-Independence Federalism as such an alliance would have enabled not only the creation of more Regions as advocated during the anti-colonial struggles but would also have strengthened the Federalist Structures in place at the time while enabling overall development in all of the Regions as this alliance would have been driven by the two economically developed Regions in Nigeria while maintaining the Federalist Structures.
Again in 1979, the East, represented by the NPP, teamed up with the North, represented by the NPN although the NPN would claim it was a “national” party even after its northern identity had been openly expressed thus strengthening the Northern advantage at the time, an advantage anchored on opposition to Federalism. The NADECO years saw the East abandoning the ship of the anti-military opposition on the excuse that “June 12” was a Yoruba Affair and lately, the PDP years of the locusts.
All of these became consigned to the dust heap of history by the emergence of an alliance between the “north” and the West through the APC, anchored largely on its Federalist Manifesto, and which ultimately saw to the defeat of the PDP hence opening up a new vista in the quest for Restructuring and Federalism; this being that the failure of the APC Administration to pursue Federalism to its logical conclusion as expressed in its Manifesto now places the onus on each of the Nations to become the driving force of the entire quest. Thus, just as Afenifere had a choice to make between being a political party and becoming intrinsically part of one, the APC has a choice to advance Federalism or become the ground for the Nations to express themselves.
When the Egbe Omo Oduduwa, Action Group’s forerunner, rejected the Richards Constitution, it was based on the principle of a Union or Federation of the Peoples and not of administrative units where, for the Western Region or the Yoruba Nation, its political space is also its cultural space with time-honored values which made it possible for Afenifere philosophy’s dominance in driving its civilization.
“Breaking into two” proceeds from an assumption of the singularity of the Nigerian geo-political space via the ridiculous notion of states as Federating Units when these states are mere administrative entities created out of military convenience, regardless of this military being Nigerian. Maintaining this singularity via administrative Federalism even when it is obvious that the problem is exactly in that singularity becomes the end result of a “break into two”.
From these, agitating for “breaking Nigeria into two” becomes another attempt at a road to nowhere being foisted on the Yoruba when what is required is to develop strategies towards legitimizing the quest for Federalism in each of the Nations that make up Nigeria, even if the Yoruba Nation will have to bell the cat.
It is thus very clear that a North-South divide is never an issue and to begin to advocate a “south” is actually giving a free pass to this “south” in its capability to undermine Federalism. For it is very possible and necessary for all the Nations in the country, whether they are in the “North” or “South”, to independently express their existential preferences upon which a Union could be formalized as the only political way out of Nigeria’s quagmire.
This automatically throws out the concept of a “north-south” rotational presidency since such a Presidency will be created by the Union; and if any “rotation” were to occur, it will be by Nationality and circumscribed by the political economy driving the Union itself.