₦airaland Forum

FSBoperator:
That's because of the unfortunate events of Jan 15 coup that ushered in a powerful central govt which the north has controlled since July 1966.

And who inspired the coupists and the ultimate beneficiary with the idea of centralizing the government other than the same Zik?

FSBoperator:
First off you didn't get Zik's message.

Secondly, the clamour to secede from Nigeria by the north was inspired by the partitioning of India after that country's independence from the British Crown.

Pakistan as you know is overwhelmingly Muslim and declares itself as an Islamic State.

Zik stated in this very speech on the impending plight which the minority members from the "pagan provinces " of Northern Nigeria will face.

Zik also warned that a separate state of Northern Nigeria will lead to the seccession of both Eastern and western Nigeria.

Zik also stated that northern seccession will motivate the same north to continue their jihadist match towards the Atlantic and stated in the inevitable that the East will not be conquered (as direct warning to the yorubas)

The political structure at the time Zik made this speech with regional autonomous govts gave Zik the confidence that under one nigeria, the northern caliphate could be checked.

Note also that the NCNC was vigorously pushing for the creation of Middle-Belt region and mid West region as well.

Zik did the minority groups in the north a huge favour by opposing northern seccesion because if it had come to pass, the Sokoto caliphate would have wiped out all the minority groups.

See Gowon and Domkat Bali's reasons for opposing Biafra. These two northern minority men held fears of their people being wiped out of existence if Murtarla had succeeded in secceding from Nigeria

Of all the things Zik feared would happen with the North's secession, which one has eventually not happened now with the North remaining back with us?
Are the Fulani herdsmen from the Core North not almost wiping out the Northern minorities?
When the North dominated federal forces swooped on the Eastern region during the war was the Eastern Region really able to defend herself as Zik had boasted earlier on?
Has the continuance with One Nigeria compelled the Core North to discard her objective of dipping the Quran in the Atlantic Ocean till today?

All Zik's predictions failed.

fuckerholic:
What if I tell you am not an IPOB ? but then deny you are not yoruba

Of course I am not a Yoruba. You can check my posts and comments to verify. I am a SS person who resents GEJ due to his abandonment of his home region while pumping money into projects for the North.

kingzizzy:
Dont make me laugh. What do you think secession is? An announcement? If it was that easy, Nnamdi Kanu would have gone to his village and gathered a few men, armed them and announced the secession of Biafra.

Pointless.

Adaka Borro never seceded, he merely made an announcement. But I have to give him his due, he laid the foundation of the Niger Delta militants same as Ojukwu laid the foundation of the Biafran struggle. Both struggles are about self determination. The only difference is that Ojukwu was a later convert than Boro and between them, only Ojukwu was in a position to secede.

Even Asari Dokubo had more men, more firepower and more clout than Boro but even he could not secede.

Interms of secession, anyone who puts the argument foward that Nigeria has no laws that recognises secession must also put foward the law that created Nigeria. What constitution created Nigeria? What constitution prescribes Nigeria ends? None

Which means that Nigeria is still just a British colonial product that was created by the authority of only Lord Lugard.

Since it is that way, either of Hausa/Yoruba/Igbo can at any time seek their independence from what Lugard created since all 3 never sat down and agreed to be one country.

As for Gowon following the wishes of the majority, if Gowon really cared about following the wishes of the majority, he would have held a referendum, found out what the majority wanted, he would have conducted elections, before he rushed to declare war. Majority is about voting.


Even Ojukwu asked the Eastern Nigeria consultative forum to vote on if he should declare Biafra or not and they voted for Biafra

Who has ever voted for Nigeria?

On what vote did Gowon go to war on?

You make me giggle wildly.
If Isaac Boro's act was a mere declaration with some few unserious armed men in a village square, then why did Ojukwu and Ironsi not just ignore him to continue with his Nollywood show? An act so unserious and meaningless (according to you) got Ojukwu so enraged that he nearly killed the doer if not for divine intervention? What does that say of Ojukwu's character? Does that not tell you he was such so petty that he did not mind killing an ant with a sledge hammer? And you wanted Awolowo and Enahoro to go into partnership with such a character?
Your claim on Asari Dokubo is misleading because Asari Dokubo and his Niger Delta Volunteer Force have always made themselves clear that what they are asking for is not secession but a return to true federalism/resource control which Ironsi steered us away from.
Countries are not created by laws but by agreements. It is not lost on anyone that the amalgamation was a British intent, but as long as Nigerians later accepted it, held constitutional conferences pre- and post- independence to make laws for govern ing themselves in that amalgamation with someone like Zik and all Igbos back then even swearing to pay the ultimate price for the sustenance of the amalgamtion, then it can be correctly said that Nigeria was created by the consent of the various people in it. Recall that the independence constitution was produced by Nigerians themselves drawn from every part of the country through their membership of the First Republic's parties.
Why we've all come to erroneously believe today that Nigeria was not created by our consent is the fact that Ironsi's Unification Decree violated and disrupted the terms of co-existence we all mutually consented to at the beginning. Between independence day and the unfortunate day Ironsi came with his Unification Degree no one complained about our constitution because the federalism we were practising protected and guaranteed everyone's interest and rights.
Gowon did not need to conduct a referendum because through the independence constitutional conference held in 1957 Nigerians had already made it clear that they preferred regional federalism and we really adopted same on independence. Why waste money to condudct a referendum when Nigerians were not divided as to the fact that they wanted back the federalism Ironsi dismantled? If Gowon was supposed to conduct a referendum to decide, then which referendum did Ironsi conduct to determine that we no longer wanted federalism but unitary system?
On the issue of secession, as long as we all eventually ended up agreeing not to have it in our constitution then anyone who declared it declared war on Nigeria and so he had to face the music. Moreover before declaring Biafra the same Ojukwu had already colluded with Ironsi to promulgate the anti-secession clause sequel to the crushing of Boro's declaration. So why could Ojukwu not simply obey his own Anti-secession decree? Hypocrisy?

Your attempt to justify Ojukwu's secession with the Eastern Region Assembly's approval is quite interestingly funny for the following reasons:
1. Was Ojukwu ignorant of the need for Eastern Assembly's approval as the only supposed condition for secession when he was assisting Ironsi in making the Anti-secession Decree?
2. If Eastern Region Assembly's approval justified him, then why was he expecting Awolowo's collaborative declaration of Oodua Republic when he knew that the Western Region Assembly had not given and was not likely to give him any legislative approval for that?
3. Why did he also fail to wait for the Midwestern Region Assembly to give legislative approval to the Midwestern soldiers loyal to him before he invaded the Midwest?
4. Was Victor Banjo given any approval by his own home Western Region's Assembly before Ojukwu sent him to the Western Region to "liberate" the place?
Obviously from the belief that a war decision should be subject to the direct approval of the people themselves and not through representation you opine that Gowon should have conducted a referendum before "declaring" war on Ojukwu. Beautiful argument no doubt! But you don't see anything wrong with Ojukwu's reliance on Eastern Assembly representatives when he too should have conducted a referendum to seek the people's direct approval before declaring Biafra war. Is what is good for the goose no longer also good for the gander? Double standards?
For you info, violent secession is not recognized by the UN and therefore has no UN Chatter spelt out code of approach that must be followed. So as long as Ojukwu too chose the violence option, then he was not different from Isaac Boro irrespective of who got his people's support or not. And if Isaac Boro's secession was with his people's disapproval, then how come the same people have haboured resentments against Ojukwu and Igbos generally ever since then, held the anniversary of his declaration every year till today, printed the currency of the Niger Delta Republic recently with Isaac Boro's image alone in it, have immortalized him in so many other ways, etc?

kingzizzy:
You are just another misguided Yoruba man. Why is it that many people think Ojukwu went to war? All Ojukwu did was declare the independence of the Eastern Region. Many Nigerians have come to erroniously take this as a declaration of war, but it wasnt. Gowon could have approached Biafra in many ways, but he rushed to war as if that was the only choice.

It was Gowons duty as head of state was to avoid war and death even more than Ojukwu. It was still this same Gowon who forced Ojukwu to secede by breaking the Aburi agreement.

Gowon broke the Aburi agreement
Gowon declared war
Gowon fired first on the Eastern Region

Yet many people blame Ojukwu for the war, Why?

Gowon caused all the problem or most of it anyway.

Ojukwu could have done what Awolowo did, pledge alligiance to Gowon and the North, accept the breaking of the Aburi agreement, watch the balkanisation of the Eastern Region and accept Northern domination.

But that the difference between Igbos and Yorubas. Igbos will not accept domination without a fight. Ojukwu as an Igbo man was not going to allow himself or his people to be bullied into submission by no one. Ojukwu owed it to his people to fight for their freedom. He failed in the fight but he gave it his best shot, his people do not blame him, he did what we wanted.

As for the encroachment on Yorubaland, it was the Nigerian/Biafran war. Yoruba land was part of Nigeria so Ojukwu was well within his rights to attack anywhere in Yoruba land or Nigeria.

That Ojukwu and Ironsi declared war on Isaac Boro and attacked him first for declaring secession of the Niger Delta Republic meant that Ojukwu himself knew that declaration of secession was a declaration of war on Nigeria for the fact that our constitution did not provide for secession. It was the same unconstitutionality of secession Ojukwu relied on to attack Boro that Gowon too relied on to attack Ojukwu.
Aburi Accord rejection by Gowon was not on his own accord. He was asked to renege on it by the majority of Nigerians who were not consulted in preparing it. Mind you that the accord was a proposal for Confederacy which was totally different from the Federalism the majority of Nigerians were already used to and believed the Aburi meeting would restore after Ironsi's dismantling of it. But they were shocked to see Confederacy and a list of agreements on how soldiers were going to share power henceforth without any single mention of when and how the country would be returned to democracy. So why would such a document be accepted by a majority who were expecting their democracy back after being taken from them by soldiers?

kingzizzy:
Ojukwu never hid the fact that he once believed in 'one Nigeria', as did Zik. Both men later realised that there was no such thing as 'one Nigeria' except in the mind of a fool.

Ojukwu was still a believer when Adaka Boro tried to get his fellow Ijaws to secede.

Its so unfortunate for Zik. If Zik had access to a time machine and could go into the future to see what 'one Nigeria' was going to cost his fellow Igbos, not only would he have supported the North to secede, he would have declared Biafra before Ojukwu

Zik actually had access to different and several time machines and really saw that the unity he sought was actually baseless and imaginary but he chose to continue dreaming in his quest to achieve the 'Zik of Africa' title. These were the time machines he had:
1. As far back as 1945 and 1953 his own Igbo brothers had already been slaughtered by Hausas in large numbers in Jos and Kano respectively. That was more than a time machine to help him realize the futility of his dream.
2. Zik read Anthropology from the US. One of the fundamental principles of Anthropology upholds that a people with conflicting cultures and values must not be forcefully held together against their wishes or else such a society will become a theatre of daily bloodshed. This means that the course he read and bagged a degree in told him clearly that Nigeria would not work but he chose to believe the contrary. Was such a person a reasonable individual? If he did not believe in the core principle of the very course he studied, then whose fault other than his? Are university courses not meant to be read and the knowledge gained therein applied to solve societal problems? That Zik read a course from the US and returned home to propagate a philosophy which that course discredits means he was just being dishonest and not really interested in the peace of Nigeria's tribes but was in pursuit of a hidden agenda.

shukuokukobambi:
Thank God for the archives. They almost changed the narrative. The revisionism of some folks is disgusting!!

They are being haunted by their own past attempts to dominate others. But today they speak as if they are just Innocent victims of others whereas they were first to oppress others.

shukuokukobambi:
@Deadlytruth, really?
I never knew Zik of Africa gave such a speech!! Never!!

He did. In fact he made several other speeches similar to this

Here is another speech by which Azikiwe frustrated attempts by the North to seceed from Nigeria. In that speech he pledged that Igbos will forever be glued to the same Hausa-Fulani whom his brothers now derogatorily call Arewanistan Republic. Ironically his Igbo brothers call him a hero but are not happy with staying together with Arewanistan whom their Hero so loved. Then how is he a hero?



(1953) Nnamdi Azikiwe, “Speech on Secession”
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. Ironically, fourteen years later, Azikiwe led his Eastern Region out of Nigeria and created Biafra, a move that prompted a bloody three year civil war. Azikiwe's 1953 speech appears below.

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 (NOTE ZIK'S USE OF THIS ADJECTIVE AS IT BETRAYED THE FACT THAT HE BELIEVED DEEP DOWN IN HIM THAT NIGERIA'S UNITY WAS NON-NEGOTIABLE AND IRREVOCABLE) 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).
1886-1960

http://www.blackpast.org/1953-nnamdi-azikiwe-speech-secession

RoadStar:
This is exactly what i've been trying to say for ages.
It is characteristic of uncivilised people to restrict their existance and politics to "Tribe", an outdated political structure even before independence.

This is a man who spent all his life in the North and is Igbo from the south. How do u expect him not to believe in Nigeria.
Even though this thread is not about Awo, this is a man who could not keep it together even within his own party AG, not to talk of western Nigeria.
This is a man who shifted his position and sided with the federal military junta and fought against succession of any type. How can you tell me he was pro succession.
Instead you are cooking up reasons to justify his shift in position.
First it was because he was trying to repay Zik, when it was pointed that zik did not support Biafra, you have shifted it to the biafran army incursion into western Nigeria on route to lagos the the seat of government.

Most of the ethnic strife we are seeing in Nigeria, Jos crisis, warri crisis etc are all intra regional issues.
Put on your thinking hats for once.

Awolowo wanted secession but, as a pure civilian who had no military training of any kind, he did not believe in seeking secession through violent means which Ojukwu resorted to. Secondaly Awolowo, as a civilian and democrat, demonstrated his belief in non-violent approach to secession by repeatedly making a case for the inclusion of the secession clause in the constitution at every opportunity but he kept on being resisted by Zik.

Zik was no detrabalized person as you would have us believe. A truly detribalized person would not have handed the NCNC to his Igbo brother Michael Okpara given the fact that the said party was handed over to him by the Yoruba founder named Herbert Macaulay. At the expiration of his tenure as its chairman he should have followed the detribalized example set for him by Herbert Macualay thus handing it over to any tribe other than the Igbo and Yoruba who had already had a taste of it. A truly detribalized person would not have, after failing to get Western Region's premiership, gone back to the Eastern Region to, with the Igbos supportive catchphrase of "Igbos vote your own", displace the Efik man who was already statutorily bound for the position. If he lived all his life in the North and was Igbo by birth, why then did he, as a detribalized man, initially refuse to contest for premiership in his own home region or even in that Northern Region where he grew up and was therefore very popular but chose to go and contest for same in the very region where he was neither from nor grew up? If he was truly detribalized and genuinely was seeking a trulty united Nigeria why did he not support a non-Easterner for Eastern Region premier before going to the Western region to seek the same office for himself? I thought they say chariry begins from home?

udezue:
@ 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.

Awolowo could not have trusted Ojukwu as per sincerity in fighting for secession because just 15 months before he declared his own secession he had thwarted and nearly killed Isaac Adaka Boro for the same "offence" of attempting to secede from Nigeria. And guess what! Ojukwu's sabotage of the Niger Delta Republic's secession was born out of his earlier belief in Zik's fraudulent One-Nigeria philosophy. Awolowo obviously reasoned that Ojukwu's crushing of Isaac Boro's NDR made him a disciple of Zik so his overnight metamorphosis into a secessionist was too sudden to be trusted as coming from a genuine conviction than a mere ego trip.

odiereke:
Lagos State is one of the few states in Nigeria God has been faithful with, in term of good governance.

God is faithful with every state. The only difference is that Lagosians play their part by voting correctly and not allowing sentiments to becloud their senses of judgement of candidates. Given the sentiments that flowed from a section chieflt populated by haters from foreign lands during the campaign some other state would have voted for Jimmy Agbaje and would be regrettting by now.

zendy:
Theres no reality to see any more. So called Nigerians killed each other to the tune of several millions since independense and several thousands before independence. We should all just admit that Lord Luggards creation failed. So what is the point of being together any more? I cant blame Zik for believing in 'one Nigeria' and giving it a try, until one gives something a try, they can never know 100% if it will work or not. There are still many who believe in 'one Nigeria' just like Zik did. Even Gowon was willing to wage a war that took millions of lives for the same beliefs. No doubt, even Buhari would do the same. Zik never had a crystall ball to see the future same as Lord Lugard. If either men had known what would happen in the name of 'one Nigeria', they would have abandoned the idea. The good thing is that the present generation no longer needs a crystall ball. We have the past and present to judge on and both point to the fact that we are wasting our time together. A referendum should be conducted amongst the ethnic groups Lord Lugard brought together in what has proved to be a disasterous union. Those who feel confortable with the present union can vote to continue with it while those who wish to forge a new existence can vote to do so. At least, everyone gets to decide their fate, a right Lugard and the British never gave the people they selfishly called 'Nigerians'

Find below the link to how NCNC led by zik rejected the inclusion of the secession clause in our constitution while making a case for an overwhelmingly strong centre. It is in PDF format. Read Page 20 of it. There you'll also find how Ojukwu and Ironsi got Isaac Adaka Boro sentenced to death for trying to secede the Niger Delta Region from Nigeria only for the same Ojukwu himself to hypocritically seek secession of Biafra just 15 months afterwards. After reading through, come back and tell me how Igbos were not initially the ones seeking to dominate Nigeria through a deceptive and fraudulent nationalism coined as "One-Nigeria".

Happy Reading:
Federalism: The Nigerian Experience
https://oromocommentary.files./.../federalism-the-nigerian-experience....
The Northern delegation rejected this claiming that unless the ... clause was opposed by the NCNC, whose Eastern region in the ... to secede. They fought against their inclusion ... Nigeria also demanded the right to secede in 1964. When the ...

Opakan2:
protest for who? when I'm not mad

your Ironsi should have left d system the way the white men made it where federalism and healthy competition thrived. But because of greed and absolute power to rule dissolved the peaceful order

Now you lots will werk werk werk lol.. e ma sise ku ni

That beast called Ironsi from Nigeria's Middle East is the cause of the failed state status of this country. The good thing is that his kinsmen who applauded his self serving Unification Decree are paying dearly for that blunder till today as they have become the hardest hit with respect to the consequences of that evil unification of theirs. I love Karma.

Babacele:
So it is no longer Fayose and Wike , 2 rogue governors, that went to invite Sheriff, collected his money, made him PDP chairman and even promised to be his running mate while flying in one of his private jets following in the footsteps of the internationally aclaimed Ineffectual Buffon who welcomed the bokoharamist and business partner on a red carpet into PDP in 2014 ?
Makarfi is confused and hasn't learn any lessons because he is still bugged by the very ailment that affected PDP right from the start: a greedy WikeFayose disease! And when you pin this madmen to a corner to receive healing ,they start shouting Amaechi, Amaechi!!!

Fayose and Wike thought they were smart political yahoo boys until they met Sheriff who is a political MMM that scammed even the yahoo boys themselves.

Front page material.

This is in a way a replay of First Republic scenario as follows:
Wike = Zik
Fayose = Akintola
Tinubu = Awolowo
Sheriff = Balewa
1. Zik (an Igbo) and Akintola (a reactionary Yoruba) colluded with Balewa (a Northerner) to drown Awolowo (the Yorubas's leader) politically Just like Wike *(an Igboid) and Fayose (the reactionary Yoruba) colluded with Sheriff (a Northerner) to drown Tinubu (the current Yorubas' leader).
In the end Zik realizes that he made a blunder to have ever joined forces with a Northerner just as Wike seems to have similarly realized, but like Akintola who continued to cling to Balewa, Fayose seems unrepentant thus sticking stubbornly to Sheriff. It is only left for us to see if Fayose will end in political suicide the way it was for Akintola whose fly followed the corpse right into the grave.

With GEJ backing Sheriff now, what does that suggest of the relationship between PDP and BH under GEJ's regime?

shamecurls:
You know nothing about politics! When the chips re down, you will be amazed your lts will be standing in tens for PDP. Your own elders who re decamping now will be the machinery that would be used to brainwash your lots.

I repeat again, if Obiano does not decamp, Anambra is a done deal. Quote me anyday! You will be so surprised by the counter candidate that APC will use to knock him off.

Hello Mr! Politics is purely mathematics and not history!

Don't mind him. He forgot that OBJ still swept Bayelsa - his assumed cousins' domain just four years after committing on them the worst genocide (Odi Massacre) they ever experienced. He also forgot that Okorocha retained Imo after all the boasting and bragging by his own people that they would teach him a lesson for joining Awolowo's brothers' party.

OkoYiboz:
Forget all these Biafra talk. By 2019, Igbos would be the ones leading the campaign for the re-election of Buhari.

Even if an Igbo man contests against Buhari in 2019, they would prefer to vote Buhari than to vote him. After all, they voted Obasanjo over Ojukwu.

Build a formidable party and make alliances with other tribes across the country? No! They prefer to be political scavengers, feeding from the political leftovers of other groups.

Very funny and also very true. When their own Alex Ekueme was cheated of PDP ticket in 1999 by IBB in favour of OBJ they ended up still giving bloc votes to the same OBJ not only in 1999 but even as well in 2003 against their own brother again. Ask them why they behave like that and they'll tell you it is due to their belief in "one-Nigeria" yet at the same time they tell you Kanu is their hero, then you wonder whether Kanu is asking for one Nigeria. Difficult to know exactly what they really want.

fuckerholic:
But he was about to implement the confab report before your slave brothers ran to the north for a plate of poridge..now you are crying a river

The mentality of a typical IPOBian - anyone who points out GEJ's blunders must be a Yoruba. Very puerile mindset.
Did GEJ not have all the time and leverage to implement the confab report before he lost the election? Did you fail to notice that from his body language he never really believed in restructuring but had to be pressured into it by Okurounmu and Nwabueze? Did you fail to notice that he only used the confab thing to buy time? Did he not claim that our problem in Nigeria had nothing to do with structure but had everything to do with corruption which once killed every other thing would fall in place? Did the same GEJ not frustrate the confab by advising the delegates to adopt 75% vote as basis for consensus despite knowing fully well that the universal democratic 66.67% is not easily achievable? Did he not also say he would prefer to send the report to the anti-people NASS rather than refer it for referendum to the masses who demanded the confab in the first instance? Were all these indicative of a genuine desire to implement the confab report? Go figure.

What a wondrous afterthought!

Jonathan Calls For True, Fiscal Federalism

     
* Wants Niger Delta States To Exploit Their Natural Resources
* Blames Govt For Impunity Fueling Religious Killings
Ejikeme Omenazu
Former President Goodluck Jonathan says the only option that will solve the agitation in the Niger Delta is true and fiscal federalism as practiced in the United States from whom the country copied its presidential model of government.
He said states should be allowed to exploit their natural resources as they deem fit and pay adequate taxes to the Federal Government, noting that this was also the position of the 2014 National Conference.
He also linked religious killings in parts of the country in recent time to lack of political will to check impunity among citizens and adherents of certain religious sects.
Jonathan stated these in his presentation to the US House Sub-Committee on Africa on Wednesday, February 1, 2017, as chairman, Goodluck Jonathan Foundation with theme, ‘Challenges of Nigerian Christians and the Niger Delta Question.’
It would be recalled that in checking the agitations of the regional militants his administration, an off-shoot of the Umaru Ya’Adua administration, started the amnesty programme to pacify the region.
Resource Control The Only Solution
Jonathan said, “The only option that will solve the agitation in the Niger Delta is true and fiscal federalism as practised in the United States from whom we copied the presidential model of government.
“States should be allowed to exploit their natural resources as they deem fit and pay adequate taxes to the Federal Government. This is also the position of the 2014 National Conference.
“The conference strongly recommended the adoption of fiscal federalism as the only panacea to these agitations and other challenges.”
Jonathan stressed that the issue of the Niger Delta is that of exploitation of natural resources, economy and development, adding that the complaints and restiveness are not unique to the Niger Delta alone.
He maintained that in most African nations where resources are domiciled in minority regions and the control of such resources are in the hands of majority regions, such agitations are commonplace.
Jonathan said the Niger Delta people feel that they had been suffering from the environmental hazards of the exploitation of their God-given resources, which they do not commensurately benefit from.
Going down memory lane, the former president said that in the Niger Delta, the agitations predate Nigeria’s existence in 1914, as oil palm produce (palm oil and kernel) the major raw material that fed the growth of the Industrial Revolution in Europe, largely came from the region.
These agitations, he said, took a new dimension with the discovery of crude oil in the Niger Delta, which on February 23, 1966, culminated in the declaration of the first secessionist state in post independent Nigeria, the Niger Delta Republic, proclaimed by Isaac Jasper Adaka Boro.
“His 12-day revolution was crushed by the Federal Government. It is instructive to note that Isaac Boro declared the Republic of the Niger Delta a full year and three months before May, 1967 when then Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu declared the secession of the Eastern region to form the Republic of Biafra leading to the 30-month civil war.”
Interventionist Agencies Politicise Projects
Jonathan stressed that from the end of the civil war till date, the Federal Government had come up with many interventionist initiatives to pacify the Niger Delta, like the Oil Mineral Producing Areas Development Commission (OMPADEC), set up by the military administration of General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida and the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC).
He said, “The greatest stumbling block of these interventionist agencies was lack of continuity, resulting from an over politicisation of projects as each successive management awarded new contracts rather than continue with those awarded by their predecessors and as such, the Niger Delta is littered with many abandoned projects with very few completed projects to show for the huge monies spent.
13% Derivation Benefits Niger Delta
“During the Obasanjo era, the Federal Government, in line with our constitution and revenue laws, set aside 13 percent of oil revenues to be paid as derivation funds to oil producing states and shared on the basis of proportion of oil they produce.
“As a person from the Niger Delta, I can say that the 13 percent derivation has benefitted Niger Delta states and their people more than the interventionist agencies. For example, those who knew Akwa Ibom State before the 13 percent derivation became law will agree that the derivation fund has changed the face of that state making it almost overnight one of the most developed states in Nigeria.
“The same is true with other oil producing states though with varying degrees of development.”
Blames Govt On For Religious Killings
On religious killings in parts of the country, Jonathan traced the trend to lack of political will on the part of current political leaders to check rising wave of impunity among the citizens.
“I want to emphasise by citing these incidences that my administration had the political will to halt impunity in Nigeria and that is why killings due to religious extremism was localised to the North East with occasional killings in other zones of the North.”
He maintained that in the North East, his administration had rolled back the Islamic terrorist sect, Boko Haram, by the end of the first quarter of 2015 after the government was able to get weapons to arm the Nigerian military.
According to him, the killings did not spread to the mainly Christian South “and I believe that the fight back against impunity by my administration was the main reason for this.”
Applauds Efforts Of Religious Leaders
Jonathan applauded the efforts of then president of the Christian Association of Nigeria, Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor, who he said persuaded the Christians not to engage in any retaliation or reprisal killings, even as the association saw a genuine desire on his part to bring religious extremists to book.
He also lauded efforts of the head of the Muslim Ummah in Nigeria, His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto, who he said was able to get the mainstream of the faith to publicly condemn Islamic extremism in Nigeria, which, he said, was important to show that a clampdown on extremism was and is not a clampdown on the religion
He said that he, as the nation’s president, worked through the Nigeria Inter-Religious Council (NIREC) to bring Christian and Muslim leaders together so they could talk to each other not at each other.
As a solution, Jonathan said: “To summarise on the issue of ethnic and religious conflicts, I recommend the establishment of the Religious Equity Commission, enforcement of our laws without fear or favour and maximum cooperation by all Nigerians especially our revered religious leaders and clerics.”
In making the submission, Jonathan said he totally agreed with the 2014 National Conference on the need to establish such a commission “that will have powers to arrest and prosecute those who contravene the law. If, as a nation, we do not kill religious persecution and extremism, then religious persecution and extremism will kill Nigeria.”
Jonathan recalled that even before setting up the National Conference in 2014, his government took certain initiatives to end impunity and reorient the minds of Nigerians through education, listing the establishment of 12 conventional federal universities and two specialised ones.
“Nine of the 12 federal universities were located in those states in Northern Nigeria that previously did not have any federal university. The Specialised Police University was located in Kano State, also in the North, bringing the total number of universities I established in the North of Nigeria to 10. The Specialised Maritime University was located in the Niger Delta.
“In addition to these, I also established 165 Almajiri elementary and high schools in each of the nineteen states of Northern Nigeria to combine Islamic education with Western education.”

Chiedu4Trump:
Fashola deported Nigerians.

Trump is banning foreigners big difference.

Well your reply proves that there is no one Nigeria.

Federalism permits deportation within the same country. Even Peter Obi deported, Akpabio deported, etc. Why was Fashola's own magnified?
There has never been one-Nigeria, and those who invented that philosophy despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary actually did us more harm than good. America is a prosperous society built on federalism and not on 'oneness'. That no one ever preaches 'one-America' in the US does not make the US disunited. That no one ever preached 'One-Canada' in Canada does not mean Canada is not really united. So with most other countries. But Nigerians, being very fraudulent and dishonest people, began talking of oneness in an attempt to deceive others to their own selfish advantage. Where there is really unity people don't talk of oneness because it is not even an issue. The fact that a section of Nigeria started talking of one Nigeria actually meant Nigeria was not really one and that those people chose to ignore reality and pretend all was well when the opposite was actually the case. Are we not all suffering the consequences today in the forms of Fulani herdsmen menace, BH, Niger Delta militancy, OPC menace, kidnapping, ethnic wars, federal government sponsored genocides, etc?

Chiedu4Trump:
Copied From Facebook

---

Fashola once ordered Igbos within the same country to leave Lagos. Many FB noisemakers hailed it and laughed at Igbos and justified why Igbos should go back to the Eastern states.
Now, this is within the same country, dominated by people of same color, same race but just mere differences in tongues and tribes.

Fashola's crazed supporters echoed:
Igbos must leave Lagos.
Igbos should go.
Lagos is NOT a no man's land.

Fast forward...Trump bans muslims into US territory and says that he will build a wall to keep illegal immigrants out from his own territory.

These are not people of his country, race or tribe.
These are strangers/visitors/illegal immigrants who come into his territory from their own territory to occupy space.

And suddenly, many of those who once justified Fashola's one-time madness towards his fellow country men are crying the loudest.

Listen...YOU are confused.
Be consistent. Stay consistent. Consistency is a virtue!

Infact, I can fill a pool with the amount of idiocy that I think you are.

Kitikpa rachaa gi onu there!!!

The hypocrisy and inconsistency is both ways. Those who chided Fashola and called him names for that deportation are here now defending Trump while those who rejoiced and hailed Fashola for that deportation are here throwing missiles at Trump. I as a person supported Fashola because federalism permits settling in another state on the condition that the settler does not become a nuisance. Likewise I support Trump now because immigrants from those countries are only of nuisance value to the USA.
If Nigeria had not lost the federalism bequeathed on us by the departing colonial masters, our regional community policing system would have been sustained and interstate movement would have been properly controlled by the police of each state hence this Fulani Herdsmen menace would never have existed as no state's police would permit entry of an unauthorized and undocumented immigrant on the excuse of normadic economy.

This lady just used these justifications for women's infidelity to expose men's hypocrisy, and she got exactly the results she was seeking as men have flooded the thread calling her an adulteress, a promiscuous lady, etc forgetting that it is exactly the same set of excuses men too have always used to rationalize their own infidelity in marriage.
He who loves to kill does not want to see a knife near his own neck.

deflover:
Nope
Lies
It was broken the day Nigeria became a republic and power was taken from zik and rested solely on tafa balewa

Yorubas came together with Hausa to break the agreement of power sharing

The facts of history don't support your claim. It was Zik who, three years before Nigeria became a republic, rejected the AG-NCNC coalition proposal and merged his party (NCNC) and votes with those of the North (NPC) to produce Tafawa Balewa as the first ruler thereby Zik sacrificing his own chances of becoming the prime minister that would have been had he accepted the proposed ideologically based all-South AG-NCNC alliance.
Please read your history books all over again.

chibuzorAbia:
The bastard who got us down this terrible road

A bastard and shortsighted fool called Aguyi Ironsi. At a time the public did not complain about the constitution, he commenced a unilateral review of it all in the name of seeking national 'unity'. One wonders whom he was seeking unity with. Nonsensical mentality!

ChessEnthusiast:
This agreement was the social contract upon which the Nigerian state was formed. This social contract was broken on May 24, 1966 through the Unification Decree by Gen. J.T.U. Aguiyi-Ironsi’s administration.

IPod won't like the excerpt above.

They won't like it at all. Tunde Bakare puts it very correctly as the day Ironsi's Unification Decree was made was the day Nigeria died.

zendy:
Theres no reality to see any more. So called Nigerians killed each other to the tune of several millions since independense and several thousands before independence. We should all just admit that Lord Luggards creation failed. So what is the point of being together any more? I cant blame Zik for believing in 'one Nigeria' and giving it a try, until one gives something a try, they can never know 100% if it will work or not. There are still many who believe in 'one Nigeria' just like Zik did. Even Gowon was willing to wage a war that took millions of lives for the same beliefs. No doubt, even Buhari would do the same. Zik never had a crystall ball to see the future same as Lord Lugard. If either men had known what would happen in the name of 'one Nigeria', they would have abandoned the idea. The good thing is that the present generation no longer needs a crystall ball. We have the past and present to judge on and both point to the fact that we are wasting our time together. A referendum should be conducted amongst the ethnic groups Lord Lugard brought together in what has proved to be a disasterous union. Those who feel confortable with the present union can vote to continue with it while those who wish to forge a new existence can vote to do so. At least, everyone gets to decide their fate, a right Lugard and the British never gave the people they selfishly called 'Nigerians'

If you say Zik never had a crystal ball through which to see the future, did Ahmadu Bello, Tafawa Balewa, Anthony Enahoro, Awolowo, and others who at different times called for the de- amalgamation of the country have? There was everything wrong with Zik's decision to give 'one Nigeria' a try despite glaring evidences to its non- workability. As far back as 1945 Igbo's had started being killed in the North in large numbers yet Zik continued preaching his 'one-Nigeria', so it wasn't as if the post-independence Igbo massacres were the first of their kind. If the Igbo massacres of 1945 in Jos and 1953 in Kano alone were not enough crystal balls for Zik to have seen the futility of holding Nigeria together forcefully, then I am afraid what a crystal ball should be. Ahmadu Bello did not wait to see any genocide happen to Northerners anywhere before he began to call for de-amalgamation. The tenuous atmosphere was enough evidence for him. That was foresight which is central to good leadership. It wasn't as if Zik did not really have it too, he only pretended not to have it, and that caused repeated genocides to his own people. Zik was never heard speaking up against Igbo massacre in those circumstances. He never regretted his unrealistic posturing despite the genocidal results it had on his own brothers. Even shortly before he died, he granted an interview in which he prided himself as the originator of 'one Nigeria' slogan. It is on youtube. Videos don't lie. So this your argument that if he had had a crystal ball to see the future he would have reasoned and believed otherwise does not hold water.
Even Ojukwu himself was towing Zik's 'one Nigeria' line of reasoning initially, if not why would he stop Isaac Boro from seceding earlier on? Why did he twice send back to the North Igbos who managed to escape home from the Igbo targetted pogroms that further enveloped the North post-Ironsi assassination? How could a very intelligent graduate from a university as prestigious as Oxford continue to believe that unity was still possible when he had started seeing blood being shed massively of his own people?
Zik schooled in the US and majored in Anthropology which is a discipline that recommends that countries composed of people with different and opposing cultures and values but sharing physical boundaries must put in place mechanisms to limit cultural and social interferences and must recognize one another's cultural differences, respect same and try as much as possible to stay away from one another's business in order to avoid a clash of cultures (and the usually attendant bloodshed) until after a long time period of usually 100 years when the cultural barriers will have slowly broken down at their natural pace and the country evolves to become truly one nation of shared values and vision like it happened in the US. In addition Zik studied US history and through that knew that no country, not even homogenous ones gets united from day one. Also, as a secondary school student he read it in Government textbooks that Federalism characterized by a very weak centre is the only workable system for an ethnically diverse country like Nigeria. While in the US, he saw how the practice of federalism had made the country a very organized bastion of social justice and equity, and a world power. He did not hear anyone preach 'One America' over there, and that did not mean Americans did not love one another despite their diversity. But unfortunayely, after seeing all that in the US, Zik returned to Nigeria to start preaching 'One Nigeria' which was actually a euphemism for his preferred unitary system for an equally ethnically diverse Nigeria. He argued that federalism and strong regions would promote tribalism over nationalism whereas he did not see federalism promote such in the US. Against the principles of his Anthropology profession he began to advocate that we ignored our cultural differences and move on. To where? Was that an indication that Zik was genuinely seeking development of Nigeria and peaceful coexistence among Nigerians?
It took Ahmadu Bello, Awolowo, Enahoro, Balewa who did not read anything near Anthropology to keep correcting him, an anthropologist, that cultural differences are rather acknowledged, understood and respected if there must be genuine peace, harmony and development as prescribed by Anthropology. By virtue of his profession, Zik was supposed to be the last person to talk of 'One-Nigeria', but he even invented it. His profession was a crystal ball through which to see that his approach to national unity would lead to catastrophe, the early massacre of igbos in the North was another, his failure to become premier in the Western Region was yet an additional crystal ball, Ahmadu Bello's frequently scathing remarks on Igbos was one more crystal ball. In fact he had more crystal balls than everyone else put together, but he failed to use them. So whose fault was that?
The same Zik prevented the inclusion of the secession clause in the constitution. When Enahoro proposed it Zik countered that the unity of Nigeria was non-negotiable. For goodness sake why would a supposedly enlightened and well read person of the computer age like Zik believe that a fraudulent unity brought upon an assortment of people by complete strangers/foreigners (Britain) should not be negotiable even at a time when Zik could see that countries even in the Europe to which that very Britain belonged had started negotiating their unity, eg Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, parts of Russia, Germany, etc; and that even within Britain itself there were dissenting voices from Ireland over their own unity? Why was Zik so unrealistic?
Even during the Nigerian Civil War that was being fought to free his own people from what most of his initial followers had come to painfully realize was a British fraud he continued seeking that fraudulent unity. Why? Was it that he could still not see the handwriting on the wall?
Unfortunately the constitution as it is now does not provide for secession courtesy of Zik's rejection of the clause. Buhari's current stand and recent pronouncement that our 'unity' is non-negotiable is not only constitution based but was a re-echoing of Zik's declaration decades back.
However, you are lucky to have Ekweremadu as Deputy Senate President, so why not ask him to sponsor a bill for the inclusion of exit referendum in our constitution?

zendy:
Hmmmm...... you really do make a lot of excuses for Gowon. Why had he to back out of the Aburi agreement, why he had to reverse his move to return Nigeria to true federalism, why he had to dismember the Regions and create 12 states, why he had to continue with states and unitary rule after the war. Gowon is the only person with valid reasons for his actions while Ironsi and Ojukwu are the people on the wrong side. Interesting. The most important thing to learn from Nigeria history is that the British made a big mistake bringing us all together and its not too late to shake hands, wish each other well and go our different ways.

Britain brought us together for their own selfish interest. However, Ahmadu Bello saw it very early and therefore called Nigeria the mistake of 1914 and tried to have it de-amalgamated. But Zik and his cotravellers, who styled themselves as nationalists, called him names, insulted him, labelled him an ethno-religious bigot just because he chose to be that frank and realistic with himself and with Nigerians. Ahmadu Bello never let an opportunity to express his disbelief in Nigeria slip by. But some southerners led by Zik continued to court him into Nigeria and he finally and reluctantly agreed only for Southern soldiers to later gun him down in his prime, meaning southerners deceived him into what he did not want, and then killed him. Put yourself in his fellow Northerners' shoes and see whether you'll react differently. The blame is on Zik who invented 'one Nigeria' sloganeering and kept on preaching it despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary. May God help us learn how to face reality in time.

Had Gowon immediately after the war returned the country to pre-Ironsi federalism thus resource control, you Igbos would have been the hardest hit because the Agriculture of the war-torn Eastern Region ( now excluding Rivers and Cross River) had already been totally grounded as a result of the war. So a declaration by Gowon that " Now that the War has ended and Ojukwu has been reigned in, we now all go back to federalism sustained by agriculture " all the Igbo's who survived the war and living in the Eastern Region would have starved to death and the Igbo race would have become extinct since such declaration would mean Igbo's would have to plant afresh and wait for at least a 12 months in hunger before the first harvest. Was that what you wanted? In fact it was even in the interest of Igbos that Gowon did not return us back to federalism immediately after the war ended.

zendy:
Why dont you answer the questions I asked? If you cant answer then say so. You said that Gowon reneged on the agreement he signed in Aburi because the majority did not want confederation but a return to how things were before Ironsi. Who were these majority? Did different ethnic groups come out in protest or something? If you say that politicians and leaders went to Gowon to impress on him the need to return things to pre-Ironsi times then tell us who these leaders and politicians were. Since you say that they were the majority, there must have been many of them. What are their names cut across the 4 Regions of the time? This is your whole arguement about why Gowon was justified in going back on the gentlemans agreement he signed, causing Ojukwu to seceed and the civil war that followed. So tell me this majority that wanted Aburi repudiated and the names of these leaders that wanted it.

Also, this majority that insisted on pre-Ironsi times, what were their reaction when Gowon then decided to do much worse than Ironsi or Ojukwu and introduced unitary rule by dividing the regions into 12 states. If they felt so bad at the confedral agreement reached at Aburi, just how did they feel when Gowon dismantled the 4 Regions for 12 states? Also, if Gowon dismantled the 4 Regions to neutralise Ojukwu, why did he not return the country to pre-Ironsi times in 1970 when he won the war and there was no more Ojukwu?


Answer questions instead to trumpeting the same Yoruba propaganda we have heard for years

We all know that each regions with their civilian populaces had their political leaders of thought. The Midwest had the likes of Enahoro, Arthur Priest, Igenuma, and orhers; The West had the likes of Awolowo, Alhaji Adegbenro, etc, while the North, after the wicked assassination of Ahmadu Bello and Tafawa Balewa, still had the likes of Dipcharima Maitama Sule and co. Each of these regions believed more in these politicians than the imposed military governors who were hardly their political leaders. Due to the followership these political leaders enjoyed among the civilian populace of their respective regions, whatever positions they took on any matter was automatically accepted by them being their leaders from time. And it was these politicians that asked Gowon to renege on Aburi Accord as it did not resonate with their quest for a return to nothing other than federalism. The West, North and Midwest which they represented were together an overwhelming majority compared with the Igbo fraction of the east which Ojukwu represented.
If the Aburi summit was really well intended, then why were the normal political leaders of each region not invited to it? Why was it just a purely military establishment affair? Was the military in the picture of legislation and constitutional debates issue prior to that time? How could soldiers hijack legislative process from civilians? What do soldiers know about good constitutions and good governance? Were soldiers supposed to be the ones dictating how a country should be structured or the civil populace through their elected political leaders? In principle was Ojukwu himself even supposed to represent the East where Zik and Okpara the Eastern political leaders were available? In the Aburi Accord was there any statement on how and when the military would return the country to civil rule/democracy? All the agreements revolved around how the military would and should share powers henceforth without a single reference to when democracy would be restored, yet you wanted civilian majority of the West, North and Midwest who had been enjoying democracy and represented by their politicians to accept that document? Gowon's gentleman's agreement with Ojukwu was contrary to the wishes of the civilian majority in whose interest the summit was purportedly held, so Gowon was under a moral obligation to renege on it when the majority made him realize it was against their wish.
If the agreement had been for something purely between Ojukwu and Gowon alone, then it would have been morally wrong for him to renege. But the subject of the agreement was one which concerned millions of persons other than Gowon, so he had to respect those peoples' rejection of his gentleman's agreement. Had Ojukwu mistakenly agreed to what you Igbo's felt would endanger your lives would you have asked him to stick to the agreement just because it was gentleman's?
The residual majority did not feel bad about Gowon's dismantling of the four regions because they understood it to be a necessary discomfort they had to bear to forestall the greater discomfort Ojukwu's activities would cause them.
On why Gowon could not return Nigeria to pre-Ironsi status quo after the war ended: It is very simple. The regions had, within the three years of unitary system introduced by Ironsi and sustained by Gowon to weaken Ojukwu, been forced to abandon their farms for oil revenue coming from the now centralized government courtesy of Ironsi, thus the groundnut pyramids and plantations of the North. the cocoa plantations of the West, The rubber plantations of the Midwest and the Oil Palm plantations of the East had all practically disappeared. Now, for these regions to suddenly go back to their agro-based economy which took them over 40 years to build before Ironsi killed them with his unification of the civil service was not going to be a child's play. So they all just preferred that the centre kept sustaining them with oil money rather than go back and start all over again from square one with agriculture. And oil money was so easy to get that no one, not even the owners of the oil, even bothered to talk of a return to federalism again. Three years of war was such a long time that people were too emotionally wrecked to just be taken back to pre-Ironsi federalism when no region really had the agricultural base anymore to fend for herself without the oil money we had become used to, thus Gowon had no choice than to keep the new order alive. In the six years of peace that followed before Gowon was ousted, the humanitarian crises resulting from the war were huge enough of a national challenge to prevent the preparation of a comprehensive roadmap back to agriculture thus federalism.
Had Ironsi not tampered with the structure at all from the beginning, all these ripple effects of it would not have followed. The indiscipline that came with oil boom would not have come. Had Ironsi not been overthrown and killed, he and Ojukwu too would not have ever returned Nigeria to federalism when the anarchy caused by the January boys would have subsided.