₦airaland Forum

Federalism We have seen at the end of the First National Conference in 1950 held by the representatives of Nigerian Nations and Communities, the delegations opted unanimously for Federalism. Why? Let us seek an answer from the most consummate student of federalism Nigeria has ever known - Chief Obafemi Awolowo (see 'Thoughts on Nigerian Constitution', pp.48-49). "From our study of the constitutional evolution of all the countries of the world, two things stand out quite clearly and prominently. First, in any country where there are divergences of language and of nationality - particularly of language - a unitary constitution is always a source of bitterness and hostility on the part of linguistic or national minority groups. On the other hand, as soon as a federal constitution is introduced in which each linguistic or national group is recognised and accorded regional autonomy, any bitterness and hostility against the constitutional arrangements as such disappear. If the linguistic or national group concerned are backward, or too weak vis-à-vis the majority group or groups, their bitterness or hostility may be dormant or suppressed. But as soon as they become enlightened and politically conscious, and/ or courageous leadership emerges amongst them, the bitterness and hostility come into the open, and remain sustained with all possible venom and rancour, until home rule is achieved. Secondly, a federal constitutional is usually a more or less dead letter in any country which lacks any of the factors conducive to federalism. From the facts and the analysis thereof which we have given and made in this section, the following four principles or laws can be deduced: If a country is unilingual and uni-national, the constitution must be unitary; if a country is unilingual or bilingual or multi-lingual, and also consists of communities which, over a period of years, have developed divergent nationalities, the constitution must be federal, and the constituent states must be organised on the dual basis of language and nationality; if a country is bilingual or multi-lingual, the constitution must be federal, and the constituent states must be organised on a linguistic basis; any experiment with a unitary constitution in a bilingual or multilingual or multinational country must fail, in the long run". More well known of course is Awolowo's famous or notorious (depending on your view) statement in "Path to Nigerian Freedom" (Faber & Faber, 1947, page.48) wherein he said: "Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no 'Nigerians' in the same sense as there are 'English', 'Welsh', or 'French'. The word 'Nigerian' is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from those who do not. There are various national or ethnical groups in the country. Ten such main groups were recorded during the 1931 census as follows: (1) Hausa, (2) Ibo, (3) Yoruba, (4) Fulani, (5) Kanuri, (6) Ibibio, (7) Munshi or Tiv, ( Edo, (9) Nupe, and (10) Ijaw. According to Nigerian Handbook, eleventh edition, 'there are also a great number of other small tribes too numerous to enumerate separately, whose combined total population amounts to 4,683,044. "It is a mistake to designate them 'tribes'. Each of them is a nation by itself with many tribes and clans. There is as much difference between them as there is between Germans, English, Russians and Turks, for instance. The fact that they have a common overlord does not destroy this fundamental difference. "The languages differ. The readiest means of communication between them now is English. Their cultural backgrounds and social outlooks differ widely; and their indigenous political institutions have little in common. Their present stages of development vary." This view, though popularised by Awolowo, was the almost universally held view about the best form of government for Nigeria. In 1953, during the debate on the famous motion for independence by Chief Anthony Enahoro, Sir Ahmadu Bello, Premier of the North and leader of the ruling NPC, made one of the most eloquent cases for true federalism when he said: "Sixty years ago there was no country called Nigeria. What is now Nigeria consisted of a number of large and small communities all of which were different in their outlook and beliefs. The advent of the British and of Western education has not materially altered the situation and these many and varied communities have not knit themselves into a composite unit.... Whatever Nigerians may say, the British people have done them a great service by bringing all the different communities of Nigeria together." Thus not only was Awolowo's statement absolutely correct, it is even more accurate about today's Nigeria than the Nigeria of the '40s. Inter-ethnic intolerance which has become chronic, confirms that we are a country of many mutually distrustful nations, as is evident from the clashes we have experienced since the return of civil democratic rule in 1999. There is clearly a need for the Nigerian nationalities to enjoy separate and autonomous existence as states, whilst uniting with each other through a Federal Government exercising some basic powers, and running some common services. Federalism is, therefore, an arrangement whereby powers within a multi-national country are shared between a federal or central authority, and a number of regionalised governments in such a way that each unit, including this central authority, exists as a government separately and independently from the others, operating directly on persons and property with its territorial area, with a will of its own and its own apparatus for the conduct of affairs and with an authority in some matters exclusive of all others. In a federation, each government enjoys autonomy, a separate existence and independence of the control of any other government. Each government exists, not as an appendage of another government (e.g. the federal or central government) but as an autonomous entity in the sense of being able to exercise its own will on the conduct of its affairs free from direction by any government. Thus, the Central Government on the one hand and the State Governments on the other hand are autonomous in their respective spheres. As Wheare put it, "the fundamental and distinguishing characteristic of a federal system is that neither the central nor the regional governments are subordinate to each other, but rather, the two are co- ordinate and independent." In short, in a federal system, there is no hierarchy of authorities, with the central government sitting on top of the others. All governments have a horizontal relationship with each other. Thus, there can be no federalism under military rule. Nwabueze has identified the following additional characteristics in a federal system: The power sharing arrangement should not place such a preponderance of power in the hands of either the national or regional government to make it so powerful that it is able to bend the will of the others to its own. Federalism presupposes that the national and regional governments should stand to each other in a relation of meaningful independence resting upon a balanced division of powers and resources. Each must have powers and resources sufficient to support the structure of a functioning government, able to stand on its own against the other. From the separate and autonomous existence of each government and the plenary character of its powers within the sphere assigned to it, by the constitution, flows the doctrine that the exercise of these powers is not to be impeded, obstructed or otherwise interfered with by the other government, acting within its powers. The Independence and Republican Constitution (1960 and 1963) In view of the above, it is hardly surprising that the 1960 and 1963 Constitutions epitomised true Federalism. The 1950 National Conference had been followed by others in 1953, 1954, 1957 and 1959, in which the practice of true federalism were perfected. It can thus be said that the period 1950 to 1959 represented a 10-year period of negotiations between the major stakeholders in the Nigerian project and that what they finally arrived at in the form of 1960 Constitution was, subject to minor, non-structural modifications, the only legitimate basis of association of all the different nationalities in Nigeria. One important feature of the 1960 Constitution is the extensive powers granted the Regions, making them effectively autonomous entities and the revenue arrangements which ensured that the regions had the resources to carry out the immense responsibilities. Under the 1960 and 1963 Constitutions, a true federal system made up of strong States or Regions and a Central or Federal 'state' with limited powers, was instituted. Both the 1960 (Independence) Constitution and the 1963 (Republican) Constitution were the same. The only differences were the provisions for ceremonial President (1963) in place of the Queen of England (1960) and the judicial appeals system which terminated with the Supreme Court (1963) rather than the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council (1960). The following features, which emphasised the existence of a true federal system composed of powerful and autonomous Regions and a Centre with limited powers are worth noting: Each Region had its own separate Constitution, in addition to the Federal Government Constitution. Each region had its own separate Coat of Arms and Motto, from the Federal State or Government. Each Region established its own separate semi-independent Mission in the U.K. headed by 'Agents-General'. The Regional Governments had Residual Power, i.e., where any matter was not allocated to the Regions or the Federal Government, it automatically became a matter for Regional jurisdiction. Thus, apart from items like Aviation, Borrowing of moneys outside Nigeria, Control of Capital issues, Copyright, Deportation, External Affairs, Extraction, Immigration, Maritime Shipping, Mines and Minerals, Military Affairs, Posts and Telegraphs, Railways, all other important items were in the Concurrent List, thus permitting the Regions equal rights to legislate and operate in those areas. The most significant of these included; Arms and Ammunition, Bankruptcy and Insolvency, Census, Commercial and Industrial Monopolies, Combines and Trusts, Higher Education, Industrial Development, the Regulation of Professions, Maintaining and Securing of Public Safety and Public Order, Registration of Business Names, and Statistics. It is important to observe once more that anything outside these two lists was exclusively a matter for Regional jurisdiction. Other features indicative of the autonomous status of the Regions included: Separate Regional Judiciaries and the power of the Regions to establish, not only High Courts, but also Regional Courts of Appeal. The Regions had their own separate electoral commissions for Local Government elections. However, the Chairman of the Federal Electoral Commission was the statutory Chairman of the State Commission. The Revenue Allocation system under the 1963 Constitution was strictly based on derivation. It will be observed that Mines, Minerals, including oil fields, oil mining, geological surveys and gas were put in the Exclusive Legislative List in the 1960 and 1963 Constitutions. This was a carry over from the provisions of the 1946 Minerals Act, under which the Colonial Government gave itself the exclusive ownership and control of all minerals in Nigeria. This was understandable under a Colonial Regime whose objective was the exploitation of the colonised peoples, but certainly not acceptable in an independent country constituted by autonomous (Federal) Regions. It is, therefore, not surprising that what was lost by placing mines, minerals, oil fields, etc., in the Exclusive Legislative List, was regained by the very strict adherence to the principle of derivation in the revenue allocation formula, particularly the allocation of the proceeds from mineral exploitation.

39xtr36r:
Is that the fact for your insinuation that Igbos opposed fiscal federalism as early as 1944?

Stop being smart by half.

HOW NIGERIA'S BREAKUP IN 1966 WAS SCUTTLED BY MIDWESTERNERS - Umaru Dikko
https://www.nairaland.com/233153/north-would-have-regretted-nigerias-break-up-in-1966-Umaru-Dikko

HOW ABURI ACCORD OF JAN 1967 WAS SCUTTLED BY MIDWESTERNERS, LEADING TO THE CIVIL WAR - Retired Lt. Fola Oyewole
https://www.nairaland.com/2854914/why-fought-side-ojukwu-biafra-fola-oyewole

THE ACTION OF ENAHORO IN SCUTTLING THE CONFEDERATION PLAN - Tanko Yakassai
http://nigerianpilot.com/restructuring-calls-fears-igbos-yakassai/

Below is a section of a paper by Urhobo Historical Society discussing the history of the agitation for federalism in Nigeria. They reference the quote of Enahoro (representing Midwest), Awolowo (representing Yorubas) and Ahmadu Bello (representing Hausa-Fulanis); but had no quote to reference from Zik (representing Igbos) because Igbos were busy chanting "One Nigeria" which was a euphemism for unitary system back then.

39xtr36r:
Your rants and lies against Igbos are simply in vain. That you so dread Igbos for standing against evil in the land will remain your nemesis.

Remember, Ojukwu came up with the confederation idea and proposed it in the Aburi Accord of January 4 and January 5, 1967, which was agreed to and signed by the parties involved only for enemies of progress - the greedy Edos and Yorubas to push for its non-implementation till date.

You should not expect Igbos to continue to subsidise your vassalage, parasitism and obliviousness.

Rubbish! Utter Rubbish!!
What Enahoro scuttled was not federalism
but Ojukwu's proposal of confederalism at
Aburi.
See the definitions below:
1. Unitary system: A vertical arrangement in
which the Centre is superior to the regions/
federating units. This makes it easy for the
centre to bend the will of the regions/
federating units thus a bad system.
2. Confederacy: A vertical arrangement as
well in which the regions/federating units
are superior to the centre....... the upside
down form of unitary system. This makes it
easy for the regions/federating units to
bend the will of the centre. That too is bad
for good governance.
3. Federalism: A horizontal arrangement in
Which both the centre and federating units
are on the same level of power possession
that guarantees a balance of powers.
Neither the centre nor the federating units
can bend the other's will.
Number 3 is the best and such was what
Enahoro and the rest stood for. Before
Ironsi came Nigeria was practising No. 3.
Ironsi and Ojukwu came and forcefully
changed it to Number 1. Nigerians
including Enahoro rejected it and insisted
we go back to the no. 3 we were practising
before. That led to anarchy which took
Ironsi's and many Igbo's lives. Then Ojukwu
became annoyed and started demanding
no. 2 (confederacy) which he compiled as
Aburi proposal. But Nigerians again,
including Enahoro, rejected it and
mantained once more that we returned to
the no. 3 we were practising before Ironsi
and Ojukwu came. This made Ojukwu
angrier and go for confrontation.
Ojukwu was oscillating between Unitary
system and Confederacy while Enahoro and
other Nigerians stood consistently for
federalism which we had already tasted and
found delicious. Ojukwu was therefore
inconsistent and therefore was rightly
denied solidarity. Ojukwu NEVER demanded
federalism but Unitary System and
Confederacy at different times.
(Modify) (Quote) (Report) (Share)

39xtr36r:
Is that the fact for your insinuation that Igbos opposed fiscal federalism as early as 1944?

Stop being smart by half.

HOW NIGERIA'S BREAKUP IN 1966 WAS SCUTTLED BY MIDWESTERNERS - Umaru Dikko
https://www.nairaland.com/233153/north-would-have-regretted-nigerias-break-up-in-1966-Umaru-Dikko

HOW ABURI ACCORD OF JAN 1967 WAS SCUTTLED BY MIDWESTERNERS, LEADING TO THE CIVIL WAR - Retired Lt. Fola Oyewole
https://www.nairaland.com/2854914/why-fought-side-ojukwu-biafra-fola-oyewole

THE ACTION OF ENAHORO IN SCUTTLING THE CONFEDERATION PLAN - Tanko Yakassai
http://nigerianpilot.com/restructuring-calls-fears-igbos-yakassai/

Rubbish! Utter Rubbish!!
What Enahoro scuttled was not federalism but Ojukwu's proposal of confederalism at Aburi.
See the definitions below:
1. Unitary system: A vertical arrangement in which the Centre is superior to the regions/federating units. This makes it easy for the centre to bend the will of the regions/federating units thus a bad system.
2. Confederacy: A vertical arrangement as well in which the regions/federating units are superior to the centre....... the upside down form of unitary system. This makes it easy for the regions/federating units to bend the will of the centre. That too is bad for good governance.
3. Federalism: A horizontal arrangement in
Which both the centre and federating units are on the same level of power possession that guarantees a balance of powers. Neither the centre nor the federating units can bend the other's will.

Number 3 is the best and such was what Enahoro and the rest stood for. Before Ironsi came Nigeria was practising No. 3.
Ironsi and Ojukwu came and forcefully changed it to Number 1. Nigerians including Enahoro rejected it and insisted we go back to the no. 3 we were practising before. That led to anarchy which took Ironsi's and many Igbo's lives. Then Ojukwu became annoyed and started demanding no. 2 (confederacy) which he compiled as Aburi proposal. But Nigerians again, including Enahoro, rejected it and mantained once more that we returned to the no. 3 we were practising before Ironsi and Ojukwu came. This made Ojukwu angrier and go for confrontation.
Ojukwu was oscillating between Unitary system and Confederacy while Enahoro and other Nigerians stood consistently for federalism which we had already tasted and found delicious. Ojukwu was therefore inconsistent and therefore was rightly denied solidarity. Ojukwu NEVER demanded federalism but Unitary System and Confederacy at different times.

39xtr36r:
Silly rants and lies from a deadlytrash who cannot do without putting the blame of the obliviousness and cluelessnes of his Uneme-Nekhua people on the Igbo Nation.

Simply present the facts where Igbos opposed anything fiscal federalism in 1944 or later and you're plunging yourself into deeper sh1t.

Lest you forget: the Edo/Edoid elites have been in the habit of betraying the trust and lots of the better South.

As usual he has ignored the facts which has been laid bare again as he demanded, but has started throwing tantrums rather than addressed the facts. Who betrayed the East other than Zik who was standing with Gowon and preaching "One-Nigeria" while his fellow Easterners were being slaughtered by Gowon?
Aguyi Ironsi, under Zik's inspiration, destroyed our federalism and replaced it with unitary system. Simple unassailable fact.

39xtr36r:
Stop spewing trash and simply present the facts were SE opposed fiscal federalism in 1944 or later.

You have come again with your lies. Did Zik the Igbos leader not argue that federalism would promote tribalism over nationalism? Was Zik a federalist or a unitarian? Was it not an Igbo man who first dismantled our federalism and changed our name from "Federal Republic of Nigeria" to just "Republic of Nigeria" meaning that the federating units had ceased to exist? All these happened before Aburi Accord which itself was a demand for confederalism and not a return to the federalism we were practising earlier on.

proeast:
Its better late than never, I'm happy they have finally joined the SE & SS in demanding for restructuring that would usher in true fiscal federalism. Now that we have a consensus in the South, with the bombings, economic stagnation and suffering of the masses, the parasitic North will have no option than to accept that the era of "monkey dey work while baboon dey chop" is gone forever. Every individual, LGA & state must strive for itself and earn a living. Laziness doesnt pay & must be discouraged for peace & progress!!!!

Your first line is in error. Yorubas originated the call for true fiscal federalism in Nigeria in 1944 as at the time the current SE and 66% part of the current SS were proposing unitary system disguised as a belief in "One-Nigeria". Please re-read history with particular focus on Awolowo's arguements as the foremost and most consumate federalist Nigeria ever had.
Mind you; I am not Yoruba. But the deadly truth has to be laid bare if we truly desire freedom.

Oblitz:
Hmm this is because they have found oil in lagos o!

The Yorubas' quest for true federalism started in 1949 when Awolowo wrote his book titled thoughts on Nigerian constitution in which he argued that Nigeria is a mere geographical expression composed of peoples who are totally strange to one another, and that experimenting with unitary system in a multi-ethnic society like Nigeria would only bring about continuous violence, tribal wars, bloodshed, and all other features of instability. And that exactly is how it has been till today beginning from May 1966 when the military introduced unitary system into Nigeria against genuine national wish and interest.
Again, the yorubas, now joined by today's SS in the persons of Saro Wiwa, Rewane, etc. continued to clamour for restructuring by way of pressing for a Sovereign National Conference beginning from the time of Abacha in 1993. All these were far far before oil was struck in Lagos.
I am not Yoruba and I don't wish to be. But the undeniable fact remains that the SW has consistently been in the forefront of the agitation for true federalism and resource control even before my own SS region fully woke up to the realization of same. When, for the first time, the clamour for resource control fully found a co-ordinated voice among the SS governors during OBJ's time the only non-SS governor who joined them and attended their meetings was again from the SW (in the person of Tinubu). All the other 29 governors looked on as if they were victims of a deadly moronic plague.
It is instructive to note that unlike other parts of the country, the SW has continued pressing for restructuring even while their own son (Osibanjo) is in power sort of. This is much unlike the current North East Region which had their son, Atiku, 8 years in power occupying a similar position to Osinbajo's but they all kept quiet about restructuring. But ironically Atiku is now an "apostle" of restructuring after NDA threatened to cripple his business interests in the SS. The same attitude is with my own SS whose main actors forgot about resource control immediately GEJ our son rose to power. And in what could be described as the second greatest irony in Nigeria's history the GEJ, whose region needed restructuring most and whose brother; Saro Wiwa; died in the fight for same, came out and declared that he personally believed that Nigeria's problem starts and ends with corruption and has nothing to do with the structure. A PhD holder for that matter! It unfortunately took a duo of Nwabueze (an Igbo man) and Okurounmo (a Yoruba man) to mount pressure on GEJ to change his mind in favour of holding a confab towards restructuring. And that confab was eventually politicized by GEJ for time bidding. GEJ's opening speech at the inaugural meeting of the delegates made it clear that even though Okurounmu and Nwabweze succesfully forced him as a horse to the river of restructuring, he was still not ready to drink water.

I can see that people from those regions that enthusiastically voted for OBJ in 1999 amidst claims that he was detribalized, patriotic, experienced, the most democracy friendly past military HOS, etc; are now the very ones now insulting OBJ and blaming him for the woes of this democracy.
Our problem in Nigeria is sentiments informed voting. In 1999 we used our own hands to throw away a very beautiful opportunity to have a genuinely new beginning and a clean and total break off from the military establishment.
By voting OBJ back then we put in place a compromised and militarized democracy from the beginning. I therefore wonder why Nigerians are now expecting a purely civil/ideal democracy after voting in an ex-military man to pioneer it. You can't eat your cake and have it. The way you make your bed so you lay on it.
What did OBJ really have to offer better than Falae in 1999? When it comes to voting, rather than look at real issues of track record and achievement Nigerians focus on mundane considerations driven by primordial sentiments of inanities.
If Nigerians had tried to prove a point by disregarding OBJ's record of having willingly handed power over to a civilian in the past and thus voted in rejection of him in 1999 the Buhari, who even was a part of a group that grabbed power from a civilian government would not have ever later flirted with the idea of contesting in this democracy to seek the votes of a people who rejected even an ex-military man who even once handed over power to a civilian.
In Nigeria we don't know how to collectively take an action to prove a point.
Americans are very good at voting to prove a point and that's why whoever they vote into office fears them and adheres their will throughout office.

Sometimes one wonders why these Niger Delta Militants seem not to know what exactly they want. They claim almost everything about Nigeria is evil which one very much agrees with. But in pushing for independence from Nigeria they have chosen a date Nigeria got hers thereby suggesting that the New ND republic will carry a Nigerian evil vestige into it. So also did they recently unveil their currency as pound which was another vestige of slavery under the British which forced the unholy marriage they are trying to break away from.
Without a freedom fighter first fighting off mental slavery from his own mind any fight against an establishment for freedom is like placing the cart before the horse, and such a fight will never be won except by that establishment.
Emancipate yourself from mental slavery as none but ourselves can free our minds.............Bob Marley.

In summary we can put the narrative this way:
Nigeria from independence was operating on a federal system by which the federating units were moderately (not extremely) stronger than the centre, and it was working fine to everyone's satisfaction. But just six years into it Ironsi and Ojukwu tried to convince Nigerians that an extremely stronger centre would even work better. Nigerians however rejected that proposal. But they (Ironsi and Ojukwu) stubbornly went ahead to forcefully implement the proposal against the larger national wish and interest. The new system now in place simply led to anarchy which took even Ironsi's life.
At this point it became crystal clear to Ojukwu that an extremely strong centre which he and Ironsi forcefully put in place against genuine national interest did not really work as they thought it would.
The next step was now how to reverse the blunder. While the rest Nigerians sought a reversal exactly to the initially working system where the regions were just moderately stronger than the centre, Ojukwu now wanted it reversed to an extremely weak and completely paralysed centre controlled by extremely strong regions. Nigerians rightly rejected it again since the status quo ante they wanted a reversal to was not a completely paralysed centre being controlled by omnipotent regions but the initial moderate arrangement. Unitary system and confederacy are both vertical arrangements. In unitary system the centre sits on top of the federating units while in confederacy the federating units sit atop the centre. The other Nigerians wanted neither of these but wanted a horizontal arrangement which is federalism.

As Wheare put it, "The fundamental and
distinguishing characteristic of a federal
system is that neither the central nor the
regional governments are subordinate to
each other, but rather, the two are co-
ordinate and independent." In short, in a
federal system, there is no hierarchy of
authorities, with the central government
sitting on top of the others. All governments have a horizontal relationship with each other.

Nwabueze has identified the following
additional characteristics in a federal
system: The power sharing arrangement should not place such a preponderance of power in the hands of either the national or regional government to make it so
powerful that it is able to bend the will of the others to its own.
Federalism presupposes that the national
and regional governments should stand
to each other in a relation of meaningful
independence resting upon a balanced
division of powers and resources. Each
must have powers and resources
sufficient to support the structure of a
functioning government, able to stand on
its own against the other. From the separate and autonomous existence of each government and the plenary character of its powers within the sphere assigned to it, by the constitution,
flows the doctrine that the exercise of
these powers is not to be impeded,
obstructed or otherwise interfered with by
the other government, acting within its
powers.
Ojukwu demanded two contrasting vertical arrangements of unitary system and confederacy at two different times while the other Nigerians stood consistently for the horizontal and balanced arrangement. That was the difference.

attackgat:
But the centralisation of Government was reversed. The Aburi agreement completely reversed it. It was signed and sealed. It was when Gowon now abolished the regions, created States and introduced full unitary system that Ojukwu retaliated by declaring Biafra. Those who accuse Ironsi of introducing unitary system are the same people who helped the North fight Ojukwu in other to keep the unitary system from being changed.

Yes the centralization was first reversed by Gowon with his decree 56 which overrode Ironsi's decree 34 (Unification Decree). In fact as against Ironsi's claim that the only way military men can govern is by centralization of power Gowon (a military man too) restored the regions 100% back to status quo ante and ran them like that for 11 months until Ojukwu declared Biafra. In order to curtail Ojukwu Gowon had to break down the Regions into states without real powers much.......a re-adjustment slightly towards unitary system. Had Ojukwu not declared Biafra at all Gowon would have left the regions intact after returning them back to their pre-Ironsi status. Ojukwu's demand at Aburi Accord was for pure confederacy while the pre-Ironsi arrangement which was working perfectly was just federalism. The rest Nigerians wanted to stay put with that federalism which Gowon had already restored and so were not prepared to freshly start experimenting with confederacy which Ojukwu now wanted.
And just 18 months before Ojukwu made those demands for a weaker centre at Aburi he himself had already assisted Ironsi in the dismantling of the perfectly working federal arrangement and replacing it with unitary system.

rhektor:
That Ironsi guy is actually the beginning of Nigeria's problem. Even though the flat heads wouldn't accept

In fact Ironsi remains the biggest calamity that befell Nigeria. That guy was so daft and silly that in the name of pursuing "national unity" he replaced a model and perfectly working system with another system that was already known all over the world to cause nothing other than laziness, non-productivity, corruption, massive looting at the centre, abuse of centralized power, marginalization, bloodshed, tribal suspicion, suppression of minority rights, mutual hate, riots, arson, rape, imbalance, militancy and war.
I don't know what convinced him (a barely educated man) that he knew better than all the university graduates who took pains to go to London in 1957, brainstorm over there, and came out with the independence constitution of strict regional federalism.

attackgat:
If Ironsi is guilty of introducing unitary system, them all those who came after him are guilty of sustaining it.

It is a known fact that a person who sets a bad precedent is always guiltier than all others who later copied him. Ironsi was warned that once the purse is centralized it would become very difficult and almost impossible to reverse it as those who would later have a taste of a centralized purse would not want to let go again. That is where we are today. Even GEJ whose region is most disadvantaged by the centralized purse was so carried away on seeing its size and attractiveness that he too began to resist restructuring. Certain precedents are better not set.

geraob1:
The economic injustice in this country is just too much.. Big ups to Lagos who has achieved much growth by stifling the economic opportunities of other regions. Only 1 state wan get 2 seaports, two international airports, and we have 36 states in the region. The onitsha seaport is yet to commence, the ibaka seaport of akwaibom, we dnt know if that has entered voice mail...

this development will spread if other seaports in calabar, akwaibom and onitsha are allowed to flourish; with international airports allowed in other commercial cities in Nigeria. its really unfair that only 1 state gets this undue advantage..

Quote me and watch your life run the way buhari runs nigeria.

So correct and factual. In fact at independence we were practising true fiscal federalism by which each region summarily retained 75% of its own revenue and remitted only 25% to the centre. By that arrangement each region was developing at its own pace and was free to utilize its funds to invest in building seaports, airports, industries, universities, etc.
However it was an Igbo man called Aguyi Ironsi that came and, in the name of seeking "national unity" dismantled true federalism thus abolished the regional structure and replacing it with unitary system which led to a chain of reactions that ended up redirecting all powers and revenues to the centre (Lagos) resulting in economic strangulation and stunted growth of all other parts of the country for 50 years now and still counting.

ToySoldier2:
You see why it's always good to stay on the side of truth no matter who seems favoured. Lagos is now to benefit from 13%derivation. I remember when ND governors were fighting for it

God has a way of rewarding those who stood with truth at a time a lie would have benefited them more. I remember Tinubu (on behalf of Lagos State) was the only non-SS governor who attended meetings with his SS contemporaries to strategize for resource control agitation. All the other 29 non-SS governors looked on as if it was not their business, or better still for the fear of being impeached through the back door by despot OBJ. Now Lagos State is the first initially non-oil producing state to produce oil after the agitation for resource control began. The other states should learn a lesson here.
Stand for the truth even if falsehood will pay you better at that moment. You might not know what you yourself have that may later make that truth work in your favour.

emorse:
I believe there's a tenancy law that bans advance rent of more than one year in Lagos. I don't see the implementation anywhere. This is probably headed the same route.

Well, I reside in Lagos and it worked for me. After that law came into being I have so far relocated twice and did not pay more 12 months in advance. In fact it has started working by default is some Ogun state communities sharing borders with Lagos State. I believe this Omonile one will also be successful. Ambode's campaign and debates were not really captivating but his performances so far are more than captivating. In fact they are simply bewitching. I now believe his campaign time claim that he is not a man of many words but an action man.

T8ksy:
But they know now but in their usual impish characteristic, they keep chanting about Yorubas supporting buhari for the

first time in the history of this unholy Union as a sell-out. One of them even claimed here on NL that Yorubas have been kow-towing to the

northerners since 1960 and his fellow sl.imy folks gave him high-fives for what is clearly untrue.

This is why I refer to these folks as CLONES- they are incapable of identifying sh.i.ttttt even if one is placed under their nose.

I must add that their lying greedy elders did a good number on them.

I think they are just being clever by half and trying to hide behind a finger. If not, how would a people who always sold out the South by going, at 20 year intervals, into alliance with the North in 1959 (Zik-Balewa/NCNC-NPC), 1979 (Ekweme-Shagari/NPP-NPN), 1999 (PDP), and are hoping to, by 2019, have Saraki-Ekweremadu; be the same people accusing Yorubas of supporting the North for the first time ever in 2015 without prejudice to the fact that almost 50% Yorubas kicked against Tinubu. These folks are always trying to remove a spec from the eyes of others when a whole log of wood is covering their own faces completely.

Cuche:
FFK crying on top his voice whereas majority of his Southwestern brothers are pleased serving the Fulanis. All Southwestern state governors except one are willing to cede part of their arable lands to the Fulanis for expansion of their colony (grazing fields for cows and donkeys).
Leaders of this generation
Hopefully Tinubu will be rewarded with oil fields (bounty) in Niger Delta when the sharing begins early next year, for single handedly delivering the Yorubas to the Fulani lords. Except, he has some other plans, I am yet to know the rationale behind a first class material and a Professor looking like a slave tossed up and down by all the Aminus, Nasir and Aishas at Aso Rock.

We Igbos said no, we ain't gonna serve the Fulani. Nigeria must be built on Justice and Partnerships

I think we always owe ourselves a moral duty to always look at issues from their very beginnings. On that note I would love to ask what was the rationale behind Zik , a PhD holder from a prestigious world renowned university , allowing himself to be a powerless deputy and ceremonial figure under a barely educated grade 2 teacher as Prime Minister in 1960 with Igbos selling their future and that of the entire South to perpetual slavery under the North just for ministerial positions reward under that NPC-NCNC master-slave governing coalition at a time all the Southern parties had a total of 178 MPs votes which, through an all-south alliance, could have easily made Zik the first prime minister of Nigeria as against the Hausa-Fulanis' 132 MP votes?
You can see that self enslavement of Southerners under Northerners did not start today and did not start with Yorubas as you seem to think.

redcliff:
But wat does the north have that made the south a mumu dog?

As at when the South was crazily courting the North for marriage the North had groundnuts which was a major cash crop earning very huge foreign exchange. It was not as if the South had nothing as of then but what the South didn't have was contentment.

cjrane:
[size=16pt]If abookis find oil, they will want to break up, but they know better that they need access to the sea.

Therefore, abooki will not ask for break up of Nigeria if they find oil. They will simply agree overnight to apply true federalism and 100% resources control. They will totally forbid sharing any penny of their oil wealth with the south.

....,..Not minding that they are using the southern oil money to do the exploration right now.[/size]

In fairness to Abookis, they originally never wanted to be in the same country with the South. They saw it first and said it earliest that "One-Nigeria" was going to be nothing other than a theatre of daily bloodshed. Even after oil had been discovered in 1956 the North insisted in 1957 that the South should go and form their own country but the Southern leaders refused and kept on gluing to them and persuading them to believe in "One-Nigeria" despite they knew Nigeria was not one and could never become one. Now after much persuation they reluctantly agreed on the condition that they would be allowed to dominate everything and dictate the pace in "One-Nigeria", and those Southern leaders accepted that condition. Then no longer had "One-Nigeria" started than we Southerners began to complain of Abooki domination.
I am a Southerner but my perusal of history books on Nigeria shows me clearly that the South was first to manifest greed over the North's resources and covered that greed with the veil of seeking national unity. Southerners have no case at all.
Moreover I have placed myself in the shoes of Northerners and I discovered I'll act the same way if I am passively forced into a union I never believed in.

SuperPanther:
Just listen to your sardauna.

But it was while Sardauna was making those sinister utterances against the South that one man from the South went, all in the name of seeking "One-Nigeria", to fuse his party with Sardauna's party resulting in a governing coalition in which Sardauna was the de facto head of government and thereby giving power cheaply to Sardauna to later carry out his threat against the South. So whose fault was it that the South is under the North's bondage till tomorrow?

On the other hand, however, one might even agree that Yorubas are Nigeria's problem on the strength of the fact that of all the tribes in Nigeria they and they alone, all in the name of being the sophisticated tribe that accommodates everyone else, have always tolerated Igbos' expansionist drive and have always given them the room and freedom to perpetrate their lawlessness, greed and overbearing intents. Imagine that Yorubas already knew that if Igbos are given an inch they take a mile and a yard in no time afterwards, yet Yorubas still blindly voted Igbo MPs into the Western Regional Assembly. I honestly don't know what Yorubas were calculating to achieve with such a blunder. What sort of sophistication would make a people vote very lawless and expansionist aliens into their own law making assembly? And when Zik started taking a yard and a mile by using those Igbo MPs to fight Awolowo with the view of taking control of the West Yorubas began to complain and started Operation Wetie. Had Yorubas discarded that their sophisticated tribe assumption and thus earlier on placed Western-Region-resident Igbos were they belonged by making it clear to them that they could not vie for political offices in the West just as Igbos and Northerners too were at that time not favourably disposed to outsiders nursing political aspirations within their Regions; all that rubbish Akintola did to Awolowo with the invaluable support he got from those Igbo MPs would not have ever happened and Nigeria would have been spared of the first republic tragedy.
I have always told Yorubas that their sophisticated and accommodating tribe philosophy has not helped Nigeria but has emboldened Igbos to always cause chaos first on a sectional scale within Yorubaland and then later escalate to national dimensions to affect everyone negatively. And as if the lessons of the First Republic are not enough for Yorubas, they have started repeating the nonsense of voting Igbos to the House of Reps from Lagos constituencies through PDP/Jimi Agbaje. Yorubas are too impervious to lessons and have very short memory.
In my own place Igbos don't try any rubbish because immediately on arrival we make them understand that they are in a foreign land and that there is nothing like "one-Nigeria" invented by their fraudulent Zik, so they either just face their buying and selling or go elsewhere to live. In fact an Igbo, Hausa or Yoruba man (i.e. the Wazobian) dares not contemplate nursing a political ambition in my community given the intimidating and protective approach to it by us the natives.

pazienza:
Lol! Failed try. It wasn't Zik who intervened in the Western region crisis that shouldn't have happened if Awo was not a power hungry criminal, it was the Saraduna.

He was the one who was out to pay Awo in kind for Awo alleged involvement in the UMBC-AG coalition that resulted in the middle belt threatening to leave North, a situation that polarized and nearly ruined the Northern unity.

Saraduna was out to pay Awolowo back, it was him who had "destability" score to settle with Awolowo, and he made this public, when he openly declared that he was set to conquer Yorubaland like his patriarch Dan Fodio once did.

Azikiwe having tested the bitter pill of Awolowo's power greed simply allowed the Saraduna have his way, but ultimately it was Awolowo's power greed that allowed Saraduna to set his plans in motion.

It's only you innate slavery attachment to the North that is making you to see Zik as the masterminder of the plan to install Akintola in the Western region, as against the fact that it was Northern plan, and this would be proved right as Akintola never wasted time to align his NNDP party with the NPC in the next elections.


Twist it and dice it any way you want. The first history of insubordination and attempt to usurp the FG was made by Awolowo, and like we now know, this very Awolowo's act of insubordination inspired Nzeogwu and co and set into play a cascade of insubordinations and hostile take overs of the FG, that ended up with the emergence of Obasanjo in 1999.

Awolowo was the Origin Zero, the X factor, the genesis. And since he was Yoruba and still supported by Yorubas, we can extrapolate this angle and safely conclude that YORUBAS ARE THE PROBLEM WITH NIGERIA, just like Sanusi once pointed out.

Shalom.

An argument dead on arrival!
Zik had always wanted to annex the Western Region hence his pre-independence attempt to contest to be the premier but rightly thwarted by Awolowo. It was the pursuit of the vendetta that made him use his Igbo MPs in the Western House to support disruption of the Western Region by maliciously supporting Akintola against Awolowo as a pay back for Awo's thwarting of his quest to rule Western Region.
There was nothing like UPGA-AG alliance. The UPGA was a coalition between NCNC and AG. So how can there be UPGA-AG (ie (AG-NCNC)-AG alliance again? Perhaps you meant UMBC-AG alliance. However there was nothing really wrong with aligning with any other party as long as the constitution permitted it. But if your logic still insists that Awolowo was wrong to have "split" the Middle Belt off the Core North by aligning his AG with UMBC and thus had to be haunted by Balewa, then Zik was even guiltier for aligning his NCNC with NEPU and thereby splitting even the Core North and deserved to be more haunted by Balewa. Then Balewa himself was, by your logic as well, guilty of spliting the South by aligning first with NCNC, and later splitting the Western Region by aligning his NPC with Akintola's NNDP, thus Balewa should have haunted himself too. Can you see that your theory fails flat if extended to interprete other alliances? It also means Zik was guilty again of spliting the Midwest by later aligning his NCNC with MDP. Now if Balewa was out to hunt Awo for allegedly splitting the North by the UMBC-AG alliance, then why did he also not hunt Zik too for splitting the Core North for that matter with the NCNC-NEPU alliance?
Any way you twist and cook it it can't be denied that Zik's greed and lust after Awo's Western Region instead of him concerning himself with his own Eastern Region was the ignition spark of the chain events that put Nigeria in this mess. Nzeogwu and co knew this and that is why Zik made it into their hit list while Awolowo did not.
Can you simply explain why Zik was never okay or satisfied with just minding his Eastern Region's business but always wanted to meddle in the Western Region's affairs? It was his penchant and precedent of meddling in the Western Region's affairs that gave Balewa too the moral courage to attempt same.
Did Awolowo Ever meddle in the internal affairs of Zik's Eastern Region?

Who was actually power hungry between Zik who left his own region to seek premiership of an entirely different region where he had no single stake; and Awolowo who never stepped out of his own region to seek to rule another region which was not his, but disciplined himself and limited his activities to only looking after his own region's protection from aliens? No other politician back then ever was so undisciplined greedy and lustful after power to the extent of leaving thier own region to try capturing power in another. Not even the born-to-rule- chanting Ahmadu Bello ever contemplated such in the wildest imagination. It only shows that Zik was in fact the real born-to-rule apostle because he proved it by his actions while Ahmadu Bello only said it verbally. And you know that actions speak louder than words. I think power hunger has another definition to you anyway.

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi's claims about Yorubas impresses only very shallow minded Igbos. Here is a man who reconstructed events of history and concluded that Yorubas were the problem but spared no single line in that speech to condemn his Hausa-Fulani brothers who, in those circumstances, ironically always massacred Igbos while leaving unharassed the Yorubas he believes were the problem with Nigeria. Can't you see his insincerity there? A goro-chewing mallam has played on the intelligence of a chest-beating Biafran again.
Also, in the account of events he left out the part from 1914 to 1960 which was the time his own brothers sowed the remotest seeds of suspicion and unhealthy tribal rivalry by their born-to-rule philosophy in a democracy. That was an antithesis. How could a people espouse such an utterly anti-democratic slogan in a democratic environment and yet a man who came out to trace the problem with Nigeria's democracy intentionally failed to mention it and also failed to mention how his same brothers were the first to massacre igbos unprovoked just because his brothers were responsible? And yet an igbo man is taking such a very dishonest man as his oracle!
Just two months ago the same SLS delivered a speech in a book launch in which he said "......anybody still preaching that Hausa, Yoruba, Ijaw, is the problem with Nigeria does not love Nigeria.....". You can google it. You'll notice that he purposely left out Igbos in the tribes he mentioned, thus this might mean he has become freshly convinced that Igbos are actually the problem.
Jeremiah Useni, a Northerner too, gave an interview in which he placed the blame of Nigeria's woes entirely on Igbos. Even FFK recently gave an analysis by which he made it clear that Igbos have been the problem of Nigeria.

pazienza:
1. Well, we can also agree that Awolowo had no right trying to usurp the Balewa government. Awo insubordination inspired Nzeogwu and co, it was the origin of all insubordination in Nigerian history, little wonder Nzeogwu and crew adored Awo.

2. Ironsi never dissolved the regions. Ojukwu, Katsina and Fajuyi were the governors of the three regions, I had discussed on widely on this issue here :https://www.nairaland.com/2679915/biafran-intention-exposed/3

3. Well Ironsi was a regular ambitious and power hungry soldier. Awo's greed that set the Western region on fire set in place a cascade of events that opened up the opportunity for Ironsi to pounce on. Once again, the blame stops on Awolowo's desk.

4. Once again, Ironsi didn't abolish the regions, Gowon did. So I don't know where you are heading to with that propaganda. See this thread again:https://www.nairaland.com/2679915/biafran-intention-exposed/3

5. That was so, because Gowon claimed to not be part of the counter coup plotters, Ojukwu reasoned that if that be the case, then the highest in command who happened to be Ogundipe should take over, just as Ironsi not being part of Nzeogwu coup, took over after the coup. But if Gowon was going to take over, then the powers must be dissolved, since the tail can not be the head, unless of course it first severed the head, but Gowon already claimed not to have severed the head, so that is it.

6. Well, it takes only a sincere Igbo man to trace the genesis of Nigeria's problems to Awolowo's greed that created the wild wild west, that led to Awo trying to usurp the central government, an act that inspired Nzeogwu and the other coup plotters that came after them to also usurp the FG.

Awolowo placed Nigeria in its current comatose state, this the fact that every Arewa-Odua person living or late must make peace with.

In actual fact Awolowo's attempt to usurp Balewa's government was a reaction to an earlier attempt by Zik and Balewa to usurp the autonomy of the Western Region of which Awolowo was the leader. Recall that the Zik-Balewa duo refused to let the Western Region crisis take its natural course but illegally and unconstitutionally intervened by first abusing federal power to prevent the Western Region parliarment from sitting to vote in determination of whether Akintola would continue or not as premier; and secondly later re-instating Akintola without an election in clear violation of the Western Region's constitution; and thirdly by making a retroactive law with which they (Zik and Balewa) disobeying the Privy Council's (Supreme Court equivalent) ruling that Akintola should vacate the seat . It was in the face of all these acts of lawlessness and bad examples of leadership by Zik-Balewa that Awolowo had to resort to self help since such executive rascality at the top was an indication that the institutions meant to protect democracy had all failed. It was that executive rascality by Zik and Balewa that inspired Nzeogwu and co to intervene thus Zik was top in Nzeogwu's hit list.
To underscore how intolerable it could be to be a victim of executive rascality, even Zik himself later resorted to self help by his attempt to usurp Baslewa's powers by rooting for the military's assistance towards stalling Balewa's second inauguration due to Balewa's massive rigging against Zik's UPGA.
In essence Zik's lust after control of the western Region aided by Balewa's plot to perpetrate himself in power by employing extra-constitutional means was what brought in the dog-eat-dog situation which led Awo to attempt power usurpation in self defence.
What appears to you as Ironsi leaving the regions intact is the fact that, immediately he seized power in January, he had no choice than to appoint military governors into the regions first in order to furnish himself with the calm atmosphere to plot his dismantling of the regions which he did within the next three months and finally executed in the month of May which was the month that the anti-unification decree riots broke out and massacred igbos. Of course he had to first leave the regions intact while he mapped out plans to dismantle them later and also plans to create his 35 provinces. These are endeavours that require time to plan before execution, and they took him three months. So the time he left the regions intact were while he was actually plotting to finally crush them.
He could not have first crushed them before planning what to replace them with.
If Ironsi did not dismantle the regions then what was the meaning of Gowon's decree 56?
If Zik and Balewa had allowed the Western House issue to run its natural course without interference; Awo would not have resorted to self help, Nzeogwu and co would not have had any excuse to strike... thus military coup culture would not have entered Nigeria, Ironsi would not have ever smelled power and the regions would never have been tampered with, and ojukwu would never have had to demand for a restructuring thus Aburi Accord would not have ever come up, and the Biafra war would have been avoided. The whole chaos and failure of Nigeria is therefore traceable to Zik's unquencheable lust after control of the Western Region which was not even his region in the first instance.

And against one of your propositions here, Igbo massacres had already started in the North as far back as 1945 in Jos. Another happened in Kano in 1953 and the casualty figures were high. In 1966 right under Ironsi's nose it happened again with the casualty figure in thousands. I wonder whether you feel that it should have reached a million before classifying it as out of Igbo control. A single life lost paints a situation out of control.
Agreed that Northerners have refused to correct the mistake Ironsi made and for whic they killed him. However, the thrust of the warning to Ironsi against centralization was that once he pioneered it, it would become difficult to reverse since the taste and temptation of an over centralized purse and power would become irresistible by all future leaders irrespective of which part of the country they would come from. And that is where we are today.

pazienza:
Ironsi never dissolved the regions. He left the regions intact, he only centralized the civil service.

Every Tom, Dick and Harry knows that military regimes work in centralized format, Ironsi was a military man, he needed a form of control over the regions, but he never desolved the regions.

It was Gowon and not Ironsi that killed the regional system, and in turn created dysfunctional entities he called states with aim of dividing the East and proliferating the number of governmental units in the North.

It boggles my mind when Odua elements jump in to defend their Northern masters even with the use of propaganda.

1. In the first instance Ironsi was not even supposed to take over power but to simply take the honourable path of rescuing democracy by simply swearing in Dipcharima, replacing the slain premiers with their deputies and then exiting the stage as a hero.
2. Ironsi actually dissolved the regions and broke Nigeria up into 35 very weak provinces to be administered by an overwhelmingly strong centre. That was unitary system format.
3. Without prejudice to his self imposition, Ironsi's only genuine duty was to return law and order. And the chaos in question was caused by the rift between Akintola and Awo over party alliances, and with Zik and Balewa taking advantage of it to further disorganize the West leading to the Ifeajuna coup. Thus the problem Ironsi purportedly set out to solve had nothing to do with the structure on ground but was rather all about who formed alliances with who at the centre. So if Ironsi was sincere he should have just stopped at apprehending the coupists and executing them, scrapping NPC, NCNC, AG, NDC, UMBC, NEPU, etc and banning all the surviving major political players like, Zik, Aminu Kano, Joseph Tarka, Awolowo, Okpara and Akintola from further participating in politics. That would have returned peace. But he chose to dabble into the issue of structure which had nothing at all to do with the problem on ground.
4. If Ironsi did not abolish the regions with his Unification and Anti-secession Decrees then Gowon, on getting to power, would not have found it necessary to issue his own Decree 56 which reversed Ironsi's.
5. The theory that it is only through a centralized arrangement that a military man can effectively rule fails in the face of the fact that the proposals of Ojukwu, a military officer himself, at the Aburi meeting were in favour an extremely decentralized Nigeria to still be headed by Gowon, another military man, with himself, Ojukwu, controlling the Eastern part as a military man as well.
6. It does not take only an Oodua person to lay the truth bare that Ironsi pioneered the mutilation and bastardization of our constitution at a time the public did not demand a constitution review, thereby giving the moral courage to all his military successors to follow his path and further damage it to the sorry state it is in today. Any sincere Nigerian who has read up Nigeria's history from 1914 till July 1966 would not deny that Ironsi set in place a chain of reactions that eventually corrupted the enviable and working constitution we began with in 1960.
Please see below Ironsi's speech by which he abolished the regions and justified it with his belief in "national unity". In the speech he renamed Nigeria from "Federal Republic of Nigeria" to just "Republic of Nigeria"... meaning that the federating units no longer existed.

The Cardinal Okojie in whose words you now seem to find solace in your half baked quest for restructuring is an Edo person, yet you've been claiming Edo people are against restructuring and that Edo people are in support of the North's quest for a retention of the status quo. What a self contradiction! Why could you not find an Igbo man making all this analyses? Okojie's analyses above is another eye opener to the fact that right from even pre-amalgamation era and till this day there was never a time Edos coveted or lusted after any other tribe's land and resources. Rather Edos have always been at the forefront in the struggle to see that Nigeria is run with a system based on equity, confederacy, resource control, etc that allows freedom of each tribe from being exploited by other tribes. Enahoro, with assistance from Arthur Prest, Igenuma and others, pioneered this struggle by proposing a 19 region confederal structure for which that myopic and big fat fool called Zik termed him a tribalist. Now, Cardinal Okojie, another Edo man, is at the forefront of the same struggle again not minding being a lone voice. Yet one flat head quoting him now will turn around two minutes later to claim that Edos/Deltans frustrated restructuring.

The simple truth remains thus:
As far back as 1952 Nigeria started being organized as a federal society with the federating units clearly created and distinguishable from one another so as to give everyone a sense of belonging and entrench equity and regional self-dependence. Three and later for regions were created and Igbos had one full federating region to themselves to govern. The constitution guiding that federalism was drafted in 1957 by Nigerians from all the constituencies back then.....making it a 'we the people constitution'.
By its nature such a constitution did not allow intrusion into one another's affairs as it made sure that no region had access to another region's lands and resources, thus foreclosing the chances of anyone reaping where he did not sow.
But due Igbos' nature of greed and covetousness after other people's lands and resources they felt insulted and constrained by such a constitution. They were not happy at all with that arrangement, thus they began to plot how to still pursue after other people's lands and resources within that arrangement. Their first onslaught was an attempt to grab the Western Region by trying to make an Igbo man the first premier there so that they could annex the land and then proceed to also annex the North. To achieve this they invented the very deceptive and dishonest catchphrase of "One-Nigeria" claiming they wanted a Nigeria where any citizen could live freely and nurse ambitions in any part of the country. However, the other regions saw through their trick which was actually to hoodwink others into falling prey for their expansionist drive. The other tribes successfully repelled them back to their region using democratic provisions of the constitution. However, this did not go down well with Igbos for they had come to realize that as long as that federal constitution remained in force their expansionist drive would forever be curtailed. But they would not just give up. So they resorted to plotting ways of destroying that federal constitution which they realized was the barrier to that expansionist drive of theirs. They went about it by first citing corruption, misrule and tribalism in governance for which they put the blame on that federal constitution. They then organized a coup by which they killed politicians from all other regions while allowing those from their own region to escape even though those politicians from their own region were the arrowheads of the said corruption, misrule and tribalism in that government. They also purported that a key Western Region figure was to benefit ultimately from the coup. This they did to hoodwink the unsuspecting and highly principled non-Igbo or non-core Igbo army officers into the plot.
Their next step was to contrive another scenario whereby the originally intended beneficiary "foiled" the coup so as to blur the Igbo colour of it. This ultimate beneficiary finally seized power as actually programmed from the beginning, and on getting to power it did not take him much time to betray the primary intention of the coup which was to dismantle the federalism and constitution that had been the stumbling block to their expansionist drive. The fact that he attached more priority and urgency to the alteration and mutilation of the federal constitution than to the arrest and prosecution of the coupists says it all.
However, as one of the ironies and mystries of life, the mutilated and corrupted constitution soon began to work against Igbos who had invested so much to bring about its mutilation. The corrupted constitution began to boomerang on those who corrupted it. Then their next step was to start seeking a return to status quo ante. That was when Aburi Accord demands came into the mix. But the other tribes had resolved that Igbos be taught a bitter lesson for their greed and covetousness with which they dismantled the federal constitution they were now seeking a return to through the Aburi Accord.
It was in th heat of learning this bitter lesson that they declared war on Nigeria and were taught the lesson so bitterly that till today their greed and lust after other people's lands and resources have been measurably tamed and brought under control as they themselves as of today are asking for federalism and ironically hate with a passion whoever recites the "One-Nigeria" slogan invented by them.

@Mr. 666, you have not answered a single one of the posers I raised for you, but you again slided into your usuall illogical repetitions which have been repeatedly punctured. Why can't you simply tell us why Igbos started the whole show that led to every other thing? The issue remains that Igbos started the whole problem by first trying to annex Yoruba land through Zik's inordinate ambition of becoming Western Region's premier when he had his own region also carved out for him to rule. This was followed by Zik's decision of allowing himself to be used by Balewa to distabilize the same Western Region through the Igbo members of the Western Region's assembly. It was in reaction to the Zik-assisted Balewa attempt to distabilize the West that made Awolowo resort to self-help in the form of a planned bloodless civilian coup. Had Zik (an Igbo) and Balewa allowed the Western Assembly to sort themselves out Awolowo would never have contemplated a coup. No one watches with folded arms when being oppressed. Even Zik himself, in what could pass for a coup, later openly tried to bypass the constitution by his attempt to instruct the army to stall Balewa's second inauguration when Balewa and Akintola began to distabilize and oppress Zik's Eastern Region too. Had Zik left the Western Region to manage their internal affairs by themselves Akintola would have been removed as premier with Adegbenro replacing him, and that would have restored peace and tranquility to the Western Region, and the subsequent fraudulent censuses, fraudulent elections, etc would have been avoided thus Nzeogwu's coup too avoided, Ironsi's rise to power and his dismantling of federalism avoided thus Aburi issue would not have later come up, the Hausa counter-coup too avoided, the Biafra war avoided, and Nigeria would have known peace and progress. Zik started the action which led to the long chain of events that still haunt Nigeria till today. In any sad story you blame the starter and not those in the middle of the chain when it had become dog eat dog. The problem with you is that you keep posting and posting falsehood about how others ill-treated Igbos without acknowledging the truth that Igbos actually started the whole show by being the first to intrude into other tribes' internal affairs in a federalism. Igbos stirred the hornets nests in several ways. But when the natural reactions and reprisals began to boomerang they started crying victimization. Why start a fight you cannot even fight let alone finish? You threw the first blow and in response your opponent battered your face with 100 blows and you start complaining he was to brutal on you. Then why did you throw the first blow?
Ironsi's dismantling of federalism and the regions was not only about the oil of the Midwest and Eastern minorities domain. It was about Igbos gaining control of every resource of all other regions in addition to oil. His calculation was that under a unitary Nigeria Igbos would always be in charge of affairs at the centre and therefore be able to dictate how the proceeds of the Southern minorities' oil, Yorubas' cocoa, Northerners' groundnuts, etc are shared.
If he wasn't after other regions resources, then why dismantle a system which guaranteed resource control? No matter how you try to wash Ironsi clean of the dismantling of federalism he will never really be clean. He has that stain on him permanently.