Ooduapathfinder's Posts

Nairaland Forum › Ooduapathfinder's Profile › Ooduapathfinder's Posts

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 10 pages)

Politics › The Right Diagnosis, The Wrong Remedy: A Response To “concerned Citizens”, by ooduapathfinder(op): 7:27am On Jun 17

Our attention has been drawn to a statement titled, “State of the Nation”, issued on 8 June, 2026, by a group of prominent Northern Nigerians under the banner of “Concerned Citizens.”

The signatories are: (1) Dr Husseini Abdu; (2) Ambassador Fatima Balla (OON); (3) Dr Usman Bugaje; (4) Professor Ibrahim Gambari (CON); (5) Dr Yahaya Hashim; (6) Professor Jibrin Ibrahim; (7) Professor Attahiru Muhammadu Jega (OFR); ( cool

Professor Mohammed Kuna; (9) Abubakar Balarabe Mahmoud (SAN, OON);(10) Mallam Kabiru Yusuf.

The statement presents a detailed critique of Nigeria’s current condition and concludes with a series of recommendations aimed at reversing what the authors describe as a deepening national crisis.

Serious national problems require serious national conversations. However, while we agree with much of the diagnosis, we disagree fundamentally with the remedy.

The statement’s critique may be summarised under two broad themes.

First, it argues that Nigeria is at a dangerous crossroads, marked by declining democratic accountability, institutional weakness, and growing threats to the separation of powers.

Second, it situates Nigeria’s challenges within the wider crisis engulfing the Sahel, where terrorism, military interventions, and the weakening of regional cooperation have undermined state authority and civilian protection.

These are legitimate concerns.

Yet they rest upon a flawed assumption.

The authors repeatedly suggest that Nigeria’s crisis threatens the country’s “foundational constitutional principles.”

We disagree.

Nigeria’s problem is not that its constitutional foundations are under threat.

Nigeria’s problem is that those foundations were never properly laid in the first place.

The 1999 Constitution was neither debated nor democratically adopted by the peoples of Nigeria.

It was promulgated by military decree and presented as a Constitution made in the name of citizens who had no meaningful role in its creation. Its famous opening phrase: “We the People” remains its greatest contradiction.

The people did not make it.

The people did not approve it.

The people did not ratify it.

Yet, the political order continues to derive legitimacy from that claim.

That contradiction lies at the heart of Nigeria’s crisis.

It is also why the language of constitutional morality rings hollow when applied selectively.

One cannot condemn unconstitutional changes of government elsewhere, while ignoring the unresolved constitutional legitimacy questions at home.

The issue before Nigeria is therefore not merely one of governance.

It is one of political foundation.

The recommendations offered by the Concerned Citizens can be grouped into two broad categories.

The first category calls for reforms within the existing constitutional order: improved accountability, stronger civic engagement, judicial independence, electoral credibility, professional oversight, and greater responsiveness from public institutions.

The second category calls for improved management of Nigeria’s external environment: engagement with the Alliance of Sahel States (AES), renewed cooperation with ECOWAS, regional diplomacy, and stronger security coordination. Both categories assume that the present constitutional structure is fundamentally sound and merely requires better management.

That is where we part company.

The Crisis Is Not Administrative. It Is Foundational.

The recommendations treat insecurity as a governance problem.

We contend that insecurity is fundamentally a political problem.

The violence consuming parts of Nigeria cannot be understood solely through the lenses of poverty, climate change, weak institutions, or regional instability.

Those factors may contribute to insecurity, but they do not explain its political consequences.

The recurring outcome is displacement.

Communities are uprooted.

Territories change character.

Indigenous populations lose control over ancestral lands.

Traditional institutions come under pressure.

Political balances are altered.

These are political outcomes.

That is why insecurity cannot be separated from questions of power, identity, territory, and state structure.

Nor can Nigeria’s difficulties simply be attributed to instability in the Sahel.

Nigeria’s constitutional and political contradictions predate the current Sahel crisis by decades.

The roots of today’s tensions stretch back to the colonial state, the constitutional struggles before independence, the regional crises of the First Republic, military intervention, and the unresolved question of federalism.

The crisis in the Middle Belt, today, arose out of the determination of the ruling elite in the then Northern Region to suppress the peoples of the Middle Belt agitating for their own Region.

That was the genesis of the current insecurity manifesting in the displacement of indigenous peoples of the Middle Belt, and now moving southwards.

The splitting of Jos Local Government into two, ensuring a local government controlled by the Fulani, was not the handiwork of “insecurity in the Sahel”.

Besides, the carte blanche given to Fulanis across West Africa to enter and settle anywhere in Nigeria was not the handiwork of “insecurity in the Sahel”.

The problem is therefore deeper than terrorism.

It is a crisis of political architecture.

Federalism or Centralisation?

The recommendations repeatedly call for accountability, rule of law, credible elections, stronger institutions, and civic engagement.

These are worthy objectives.

But they do not exist in a vacuum.

They are products of a political system.

The question therefore becomes:

What kind of political system produces accountability?

What kind of political system encourages democratic participation?

What kind of political system reduces the struggle for state power?

Nigeria officially describes itself as a Federation.

Yet the centre controls security, policing, major revenues, political incentives, and much of the constitutional process itself.

As long as the centre remains the primary source of power, every election becomes a struggle for control of that centre.

Every policy debate becomes a contest over access to centralised authority.

Every institutional reform remains vulnerable to political manipulation.

This is why calls for electoral reform, judicial reform, and administrative reform inevitably return to the same question: Is Nigeria genuinely Federal?

Until that question is answered, reform efforts will remain limited.

The Missing Question

The recommendations by the “Concerned Citizens” also appeal to civil society, the private sector, traditional rulers, religious leaders, and the judiciary.

We have no objection to such appeals.

However, these institutions are themselves products of the existing constitutional order.

A judiciary derives its authority from the Constitution.

A legislature derives its authority from the Constitution.

The executive derives its authority from the Constitution.

Even the role assigned to traditional rulers is shaped by the Constitution.

When the foundation itself is contested, every institution built upon it is affected.

This does not mean such institutions should cease functioning.

It means their limitations must be acknowledged.

The real question is not how to improve every institution within the present arrangement.

The real question is whether the arrangement itself reflects the consent of the peoples who live under it.

That is the question missing from the Concerned Citizens’ recommendations.

The Necessary Remedy

We therefore submit that Nigeria’s crisis cannot be resolved through institutional adjustments alone.

It requires constitutional re-founding.

The country needs an Autochthonous Constitution; that is, a Constitution derived from the peoples themselves.

Such a constitution cannot emerge from elite negotiations alone.

It cannot emerge from another committee.

It cannot emerge from another constitutional amendment exercise.

It must derive its legitimacy directly from the peoples who constitute Nigeria.

That is why Nationality Referendums become indispensable.

The peoples of Nigeria, not merely political parties, elected officials, or government agencies must determine the constitutional basis of their association.

Only then can questions of federalism, security, representation, resource control, traditional authority, and democratic governance be resolved on a legitimate foundation.

Conclusion

The Concerned Citizens have performed an important service by drawing attention to Nigeria’s deteriorating condition.

Their diagnosis identifies many real problems.

But their recommendations remain trapped within the framework that produced those problems.

The crisis is not simply one of accountability.

It is not simply one of governance.

It is not simply one of insecurity.

It is a crisis of constitutional legitimacy.

Until that issue is confronted, Nigeria will continue to treat symptoms while leaving the underlying condition untouched.

The remedy is not another adjustment to the existing order.

The remedy is a new constitutional foundation, validated by the peoples of Nigeria through Nationality Referendums.

That is where the debate should begin.

And that is where it must ultimately lead.

Signatories

1. Professor Darah
2. Professor SWE Ibodje
3. Professor Ropo Sekoni
4. Chief Tokunbo Ajasin
5. Professor William Ehwarieme
6. Mr Taiwo Akinola
7. Professor Victor Jike
8. Barrister Luke Aghanenu
9. Chief Samuel Oluwadare Yerokun
10. Professor Lucky Akaruese
11. Engineer Caleb Osiobe
12. Dr Femi Folorunso
13. Alagba Femi Odedeyi.

:
[quote author=ooduapathfinder post=139742996]Our attention has been drawn to a statement titled, “State of the Nation”, issued on 8 June, 2026, by a group of prominent Northern Nigerians under the banner of “Concerned Citizens.”

The signatories are: (1) Dr Husseini Abdu; (2) Ambassador Fatima Balla (OON); (3) Dr Usman Bugaje; (4) Professor Ibrahim Gambari (CON); (5) Dr Yahaya Hashim; (6) Professor Jibrin Ibrahim; (7) Professor Attahiru Muhammadu Jega (OFR); ( cool

Politics › No, Mr. President: Nigeria Needs A New Constitution, Not Another Amendment by ooduapathfinder(op): 7:04am On Jun 06

The Presidency has announced that significant progress has been made toward establishing state police and that a Constitutional amendment is imminent following consultations among the Executive, the National Assembly, and security agencies.

We say: No, Mr. President. Not another amendment.

Nigeria does not suffer from a shortage of Constitutional amendments.

Nigeria suffers from a crisis of Constitutional legitimacy.

For over twenty-five years, the political class has amended, altered, adjusted, and tinkered with the 1999 Constitution.

Yet insecurity has worsened. Federalism has weakened. Institutions have deteriorated. Public trust has collapsed.

And now we are told that state police will be achieved through yet another amendment.

The question is simple:

Why should Nigerians expect a different outcome from the same process that has repeatedly failed?

The answer is that they should not.

The issue before Nigeria is not state police.

The issue is not even security.

The issue is legitimacy.

This is why every security proposal eventually becomes a Constitutional question.

Amotekun became a Constitutional question.

State Police has become a Constitutional question.

Tomorrow's security initiative will become a Constitutional question.

The recurring obstacle is not the absence of ideas.

It is the absence of a Constitutional order derived from the consent of the peoples who must live under it.

Every discussion about security eventually runs into the same wall: the 1999 Constitution.

Every discussion about Federalism runs into the same wall.

Every discussion about resource control, local autonomy, judicial authority, fiscal federalism, and political representation runs into the same wall.

That wall is a Constitution that begins with the words "We the People" even though the people neither debated it, approved it, nor enacted it.

A military decree cannot become legitimate merely because it has survived for decades.

Age does not create legitimacy.

Repeated amendments do not create legitimacy.

Political convenience does not create legitimacy.

Legitimacy comes from the people.

That is precisely what is missing.

The tragedy is that this reality was understood from the beginning.

In 1998, as the military prepared its transition program, many Yoruba leaders and activists insisted that the Constitutional question had to be settled before participation in the transition process.

At the August 3, 1998, Yoruba Summit in Ibadan, the prevailing sentiment was clear: Nigeria needed a Constitution founded upon the consent of its peoples.

Instead, participation came first.

Constitutional reform was postponed to the future.

The argument was simple enough: once elected into office, democratic leaders would produce a new Constitutional order.

Nearly thirty years later, that promise remains unfulfilled.

Instead of a new Constitution, we have had amendment after amendment.

Instead of restructuring, we have had endless committees.

Instead of Federalism, we have had increasing centralization.

And now, instead of confronting the question of legitimacy, we are again being invited to celebrate another Constitutional alteration.

The Yoruba people have seen this movie before.

We know how it ends.

History also teaches another lesson.

When the Western Region was dismantled, Chief Obafemi Awolowo opposed the fragmentation. Others embraced it.

Today, however, one of the enduring symbols of Yoruba regional achievement remains Oodua Investments, preserved largely because the late Mr. C. S. O. Akande had the foresight to institutionalize the region's economic assets before the political structure was broken apart.

The lesson is straightforward:

Political opportunities come and go.

Moments of decision do not last forever.

Those who fail to act during decisive moments eventually inherit the consequences of their hesitation.

That is where we stand today.

The Constitution presently being amended does not recognize the peoples of Nigeria as Federating units.

That is not a side issue.

That is the issue.

Everything else is secondary.

Section 2:2 says, “Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory.” and Section 3:1 prescribes the 36 states.

But Peoples make up Nigeria.

Nationalities do.

Historic communities do.

They can organize themselves in any administrative formation that suits their purpose.

The current amendment process therefore begins with a false premise.

The Executive is consulting the National Assembly.

The National Assembly is consulting security agencies.

Political elites are consulting one another.

Yet the people themselves remain spectators.

Exactly as they were when the military decree was imposed.

Exactly as they have been throughout every Constitutional alteration exercise since 1999.

And then we are told that this process represents democracy.

It does not.

Even the claim that the National Assembly represents "the people" collapses under scrutiny.

Members of the National Assembly represent political parties.

Political parties are creatures of the existing Constitutional order.

Their structures, regulations, finances, and operational frameworks are ultimately determined by the central state.

To suggest that partisan institutions alone can resolve the legitimacy crisis of the Federation is to assume the center can substitute itself for the people.

It cannot.

Nor should it.

The contradiction becomes even more glaring when lawmakers operating under different legal and Constitutional realities, (including states governed in part through Sharia legal systems) are expected to negotiate Constitutional arrangements for peoples whose political aspirations may be entirely different.

The result is predictable:

A Constitution negotiated by elites.

A Constitution amended by elites.

A Constitution interpreted by elites.

But never a Constitution authored by the people.

That cycle must end.

The answer is not another amendment.

The answer is a new Constitutional process.

The answer is legitimacy.

The answer is Referendums.

For the Yoruba people, that means a Yoruba Referendum.

Not because the Yoruba are uniquely entitled.

Not because they seek privilege.

But because every people must have the right to define the terms upon which they consent to political association.

That is the foundation of every legitimate Federation.

Anything less is administration.

Not Federalism.

Anything less is management.

Not consent.

Anything less is control.

Not union.

In the meantime, the security crisis does not require Constitutional paralysis.

States can immediately strengthen local security through their traditional institutions.

Obas can serve as first responders and first lines of defense within their domains.

Community-based security structures can be established without waiting for Abuja's permission or another Constitutional amendment.

What is lacking is not legal possibility.

What is lacking is political will.

And that brings us to our final point.

We do not oppose President Tinubu's pursuit of a second term.

That is his Constitutional right.

But Yoruba leaders must understand that history has returned to their doorstep.

The choice before them is the same choice that confronted an earlier generation in 1998.

Accept another Constitutional compromise.

Or insist upon Constitutional legitimacy.

Accept another amendment.

Or demand a new foundation.

Accept permanent management of the crisis.

Or address its root cause.

The Yoruba Referendum provides a path toward a genuinely Federal Nigeria founded upon Constituent Nationalities, regional autonomy, internal security, judicial authority, and negotiated Federal powers.

That is the path that deserves our energy.

Not another amendment.

Not another committee.

Not another exercise in political cosmetics.

The question before Nigeria is no longer whether the Constitution should be amended.

The question is whether the people will finally be allowed to make one of their own.

That is the issue.

That is the battle.

That is the future.

Editorial Board

Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › Open Letter To Governor Makinde: Security Is A Political Question by ooduapathfinder(op): 7:35am On Jun 04

Sir,

This is a response to your recent call for citizens to bring forward “better ideas about the security architecture and what we can do in the medium to long term,” coupled with your promise to listen and act where appropriate.

While we cannot dictate how you should secure the release of the abducted children and teachers, neither do we intend to second-guess your immediate strategy. We will therefore refrain from speculation and instead take you at your word.

We are seizing this opportunity to present our own medium and long-term ideas concerning security architecture in Yorubaland and Nigeria.

We cannot claim with certainty that our ideas are superior, since we do not know all the options currently under consideration.
However, we are familiar with many of the approaches pursued by successive governments.

These include ransom payments, the rehabilitation and reintegration of so-called repentant terrorists, official rhetoric that appears to excuse or rationalize terrorist activity, demands that communities choose between preserving their lives and retaining their ancestral lands, and the continued warehousing of victims in Internally Displaced Persons camps.

Measured against these approaches, we are confident that our proposals deserve serious consideration.

Before discussing solutions, however, we must first identify the source of the problem.

Various explanations have been offered for the insecurity crisis: poverty, climate change, economic hardship, nomadism, and ECOWAS transhumance protocols that allegedly facilitate the movement of herders across borders.

None of these explanations adequately addresses the core issue.

They function more as excuses than explanations.

This is because the end result is remarkably consistent: the displacement of indigenous populations from their ancestral lands.

If poverty, climate change, or economic necessity were truly the driving forces, they would not repeatedly produce the same political outcome, to wit: the removal of communities from territories they have historically occupied.

People are not placed in IDP camps because of climate change alone. They are displaced because violence compels them to abandon their homes.

For this reason, we contend that insecurity and banditry in Nigeria have become political enterprises.

Across large parts of Northern Nigeria, entire communities have been displaced while government authorities maintain them in IDP camps

The lands they once occupied remain politically counted as part of the affected states and regions, yet the original inhabitants are effectively stripped of meaningful representation.

At the same time, many perpetrators are recycled into society under various rehabilitation and reintegration programs, creating a cycle in which violence is repeatedly rewarded while victims remain marginalized.

This situation differs fundamentally from movements such as MEND, the Niger Delta Volunteer Force, or even the OPC.

Whatever one may think of those organizations, their struggles centered on resource control, political rights, or self-determination and not territorial expansion.

Indeed, government amnesty programs ultimately neutralized many of those movements while leaving their underlying demands unresolved.

Today's insecurity presents a different challenge.

It combines economic disruption, territorial encroachment, population displacement, and attacks on traditional institutions.

In many respects, the pattern resembles historical campaigns of conquest in which political authority was established through territorial domination and the weakening of indigenous structures.

The state's response has often neutralized southern self-help initiatives while appearing incapable of decisively confronting forces that threaten indigenous communities.

Consequently, insecurity has evolved into a mechanism through which political power is acquired, consolidated, and maintained.

If the problem is political, the solution must also be political.

And political solutions ultimately depend upon political empowerment.

The Long-Term Solution: Establish Political Legitimacy

The first task is to address the political environment that permits insecurity to flourish.

The experience of Amotekun is instructive.

The political will demonstrated by Yoruba governors eventually led to its establishment.

Yet Amotekun emerged in a limited form, constrained by Constitutional and political pressures from the central government.

The ongoing debate over state police faces similar limitations.

You yourself have repeatedly pointed to the structural obstacles imposed by the current Constitutional arrangement.

The lesson is clear: security reform cannot succeed without political will.

The question then becomes: what kind of political will?

Our answer is this: the political narrative itself must change.

The present Constitutional order empowers the central government while simultaneously denying the people recognition as the true Federating units of the Federation.

The 1999 Constitution derives legitimacy from that arrangement, and every Constitutional alteration since then has operated within its confines.

Yet none of those amendments has addressed the fundamental question of political legitimacy.

For decades, Nigerians have demanded Restructuring and True Federalism.

The problem has never been the absence of proposals.

It has been the absence of a legitimate mechanism to implement them.

Numerous Constitutional conferences, political conferences, and reform committees have come and gone since 1999.

Their recommendations have largely gathered dust.

Why?

Because they lacked the legitimacy necessary to compel implementation.

Most were government-sponsored exercises designed to manage public pressure rather than fundamentally resolve the Constitutional question.

If Constitutional Re-formation is the solution, then the issue of legitimacy must first be resolved.

This is where the Referendum becomes indispensable.

For Yorubaland, that means a Yoruba Referendum.

This was the essence of the recent position advanced by Chief Wole Olanipekun, who called on the National Assembly to suspend its current Constitutional alteration process and instead pursue an Autochthonous Constitution through Referendums in which the Federating units themselves determine the process, parameters, and outcome.

We urge you to endorse this position.

Since 2022, the Bill for a Referendum has been submitted to the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo , Osun, Ekiti and Ondo State Houses of Assembly.

So, this has been a long-standing pursuit whose time has probably come.

Hence, we once again call upon you to encourage the Oyo State House of Assembly, and, by extension, other Yoruba Houses of Assembly to pass the Bill for a Referendum into law, secure gubernatorial assent, and initiate the Referendum process.

Such a step would immediately signal that a new political era is emerging.

It would communicate to both the perpetrators and enablers of terrorism that the political environment sustaining insecurity is being challenged.

That is what genuine political will looks like.

The Medium-Term Solution: Community Security Under Traditional Authority

While the long-term solution addresses political legitimacy, immediate institutional reforms are also necessary.

Our proposal is straightforward.

The current concept of private security outfits should be replaced with a Community Security framework operating under the direct supervision of traditional rulers within their respective domains.

Training, logistics, communications, and equipment should be provided by state government.

Under this arrangement, Obas would serve as the first responders and primary custodians of security within their communities.

Their responsibilities would be owed first to their communities, second to their councils of traditional rulers, and third to the state government.

Such a system would create local accountability, local intelligence gathering, and local ownership of security outcomes.

It would also restore practical relevance to traditional institutions whose authority has steadily diminished despite their continuing influence within their communities.

Will some traditional rulers misuse such authority?

Perhaps.

But that possibility exists in every institution, whether political, military, judicial, or bureaucratic.

The more important principle is that the Oba of a community should bear direct responsibility for the security of his domain and be held accountable accordingly.

A security architecture that excludes those closest to the people cannot effectively protect the people.

Sir, you asked for better ideas.

We have offered them in good faith.

Our central argument is simple: insecurity in Nigeria is fundamentally political in character.

Therefore, any lasting solution must also be political.

The long-term answer lies in restoring legitimacy through Constitutional Re-formation and a Referendum process that places authority back in the hands of the people.

The medium-term answer lies in empowering communities and traditional institutions to take responsibility for their own security.

We respectfully urge you to give these proposals serious consideration.

A crisis of this magnitude demands more than administrative responses.

It requires political courage, political imagination, and political will.

The future security of Yorubaland may depend upon all three.

Thank you, sir.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › The "Ibadan" Test: Governor Makinde Can Fulfill His Pledge Now by ooduapathfinder(op): 9:03am On May 31

Governor Seyi Makinde has stated that Nigeria's Constitutional structure prevents states from effectively addressing insecurity.

He has also pledged, if elected President, to pursue reforms that would give states greater capacity to secure their territories.

Hence, the question is no longer whether such reforms are necessary.

The question is whether he must wait until he becomes President to begin implementing them.

We believe he does not.

Indeed, the true test of his pledge begins now.

Before the attack, Governor Makinde had invoked “Ibadan” as the city associated with the violence that followed the shamelessly rigged Regional Elections of 1965.

We responded by invoking another Ibadan: the city that hosted the Constitutional discussions that helped lay the foundation for Federalism in Nigeria.

Today, events have brought us back to Ibadan once again.

In the aftermath of the attack, Governor Makinde announced his intention to seek the Presidency of Nigeria.

He has now been declared the Presidential candidate of his Party(APM).

Accepting the nomination, he pledged to prioritize the Restructuring of the nation's security architecture to give states greater capacity to respond to security threats within their territories.

More importantly, he openly acknowledged that the Constitutional structure placing security agencies under Federal control has left him unable to effectively confront the growing wave of kidnappings and abductions in Oyo State, despite his designation as the state's Chief Security Officer.

This is a remarkable admission.

It means the Governor understands that insecurity is not merely an operational problem.

It is a Constitutional problem.

It is not simply a matter of personnel, funding, equipment, or deployment.

It is a matter of political structure.

In other words, Governor Makinde recognizes that Constitutional reform is a necessary condition for meaningful security reform.

That brings us to the central question:

Can Governor Makinde begin implementing the substance of his pledge now, while still serving as Governor of Oyo State, rather than postponing it until a possible presidency?

Our answer is an unequivocal yes.

Indeed, the Governor is uniquely positioned to precisely do that.

This is not the first time Yoruba people have heard promises about Restructuring.

During previous presidential campaigns, politicians from various parts of the country came to Ibadan and spoke passionately about restructuring Nigeria into a truly federal state. They understood that federalism occupies a principal place in Yoruba political thought and sought to ride that sentiment.

Yet after the elections, those promises disappeared. Once the ballots were counted, restructuring was quietly shelved until the next electoral cycle.

The result has been a recurring pattern: promises before elections, silence afterward.

Governor Makinde now has an opportunity to break that cycle.

Even if he never becomes President, he can establish a legitimate and practical framework for Constitutional reform while remaining Governor. Doing so would transform his pledge from campaign rhetoric into demonstrable political action.

The Governor himself has already pointed to the core obstacle. He identified the Constitutional arrangement that places security under federal control as the principal reason states struggle to address insecurity effectively. He has also expressed skepticism about purely bureaucratic approaches to creating state police, reportedly describing such efforts as inadequate to the scale of the challenge.

If that assessment is correct-and we believe it is- then meaningful restructuring cannot occur without Constitutional change.

The next question therefore becomes straightforward: must we wait until Governor Makinde occupies Aso Rock before urgent Constitutional reforms can begin?

The answer is no.

Bandits and terrorists are not waiting for the next election cycle.

Insecurity is not pausing while politicians seek higher office.

As Governor of Oyo State, Makinde already possesses the political standing and institutional access necessary to initiate a process that could fundamentally reshape the Constitutional conversation.

He can engage the Oyo State House of Assembly and encourage similar action among other Yoruba Houses of Assembly.

Together, they can consider and pass legislation providing for a Yoruba Referendum.

Such a Referendum would allow the people themselves to address questions of governance, security, constitutional authority, and political legitimacy.

The proposed Referendum framework already contains provisions relating to internal security and judicial powers and has been submitted to legislative bodies within Yorubaland.

Supporting such a Referendum would demonstrate seriousness.

It would show that the Governor intends to move beyond speeches and begin creating mechanisms through which the people can directly express their Constitutional preferences.

There is also a practical political consideration.

Suppose Governor Makinde wins the presidency.

How does he then implement Constitutional restructuring through a National Assembly composed of representatives from regions whose commitment to political, economic, or security restructuring may range from lukewarm to openly hostile?

How does he avoid becoming captive to the same political arithmetic that has frustrated previous reform efforts?

A Referendum process would provide a foundation.

It would establish a clear democratic mandate.

It would create a political platform from which broader Constitutional negotiations could proceed.

Most importantly, it would demonstrate that Constitutional reform is being driven by the people rather than by elite bargaining alone.

This distinction matters because members of the National Assembly do not primarily represent indigenous nationalities or cultural communities.

They represent political parties.

Political parties have their own interests, priorities, and power calculations.

Their centers of gravity are often far removed from the aspirations of the peoples they claim to represent.

This reality helps explain the ease with which politicians frequently change party affiliations while retaining their seats and influence.

If Constitutional reform is left entirely to partisan institutions, it risks becoming another exercise in elite negotiation rather than popular sovereignty.

That is why any serious Constitutional reform process must ultimately be validated by the people themselves.

A Referendum offers such validation.

It creates the possibility of a genuinely new Federal Constitutional arrangement derived from popular consent rather than inherited military decrees or elite accommodations.

Meanwhile, the National Assembly has embarked upon yet another Constitutional alteration process.

Among its priorities is the creation of state police as a response to growing insecurity.

If Governor Makinde's pledge is truly about Constitutional reform, it cannot be reduced to state police alone.

Nigeria's challenges extend beyond policing.

Questions of political authority, Federalism, resource control, judicial autonomy, citizenship, representation, and legitimacy are all intertwined.

Insecurity itself cannot be understood solely as a law-enforcement problem, particularly where issues of territorial control and political power are involved.

This broader reality is why a Referendum becomes important.

The six contiguous Yoruba states possess common historical experiences, linguistic ties, cultural affinities, and shared political concerns.

If their elected Assemblies choose to facilitate a Referendum process, they would be exercising a collective political voice.

Such a process would not merely be a legal exercise.

It would be an assertion of democratic legitimacy.

The question would no longer be whether Constitutional reform is technically permissible under existing arrangements.

The question would become whether the clearly expressed aspirations of a people can be ignored indefinitely.

This takes us to the deeper Constitutional issue.

The 1999 Constitution begins with the famous words:

"We the People of the Federal Republic of Nigeria..."

Yet many Nigerians dispute the legitimacy of that claim because the Constitution was not drafted through a process of direct popular participation.

Rather, it emerged from a military transition process and was promulgated by decree.

This creates a fundamental contradiction.

If the people did not directly make the Constitution, then the claim that it derives its authority from "We the People" remains open to challenge.

From this perspective, Constitutional legitimacy cannot rest solely on legality. It must also rest upon consent.

A Constitution is not merely a legal document. It is a moral and political covenant. It reflects the values, aspirations, and collective understanding of a people.

Every society possesses ethical foundations that predate formal law.

Yoruba society, like all enduring societies, has inherited norms and values that shape conduct, obligation, responsibility, and justice.

A legitimate Constitution should reinforce those values rather than diminish them.

That is why the present moment presents Governor Makinde with an opportunity.

He does not need to wait for a presidential election before demonstrating commitment to Constitutional reform.

He can begin now.

He can use the authority of his current office to advance a process through which the people themselves can participate in determining the Constitutional future they desire.

Such a step would not merely strengthen his political credibility.

It would distinguish him from the long line of politicians who have spoken eloquently about restructuring during campaigns only to abandon the subject afterward.

More importantly, it would return the Constitutional conversation to the people.

That would be a meaningful contribution to Nigeria's future.

And it would demonstrate, beyond doubt, the true meaning of the “Ibadan” he invokes.

Editorial Board

Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › Re: From Amotekun To Iru Ekun — Ekun Nko? by ooduapathfinder(op): 2:14pm On May 26

Mynd44:
It doesn't until the same is done to you.

You in your stubbornness, have mixed it all up.

When you call Tiger "Ekun", you are then moved to call Leopard "Amotekun" and then what will you call a Cheetah?

Get it? the misnaming of the Tiger is the begining of your errors

Now if you had used the descriptive adaptation of Tiger, you will have correctly named Leopards and the Cheetah can also be named correctly but in your arrogant defence of your ignornace, you have displayed the lack of research and correctional chances.

Now why should any sensblie person take your article seriously when you dont even know your basics?

"It's a free world"-- you don't have to take the article seriously. It's your call.
You refuse to recognize the fact as stated in what you attached. And I am the arrogant one?

The word "Ekun Abila" exists. And it is not "Leopard". They all belong to the same "Cat" specie.

Here you are now saying it is not so.

Anyway-- whether it is Tiger or Leopard or Cheetah-- the point still is: where is the body? There is now the tail-- where is the body.

Any serious person will ask such a question and not "major in minor" as they say.

Thank you

Politics › Re: From Amotekun To Iru Ekun — Ekun Nko? by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:36am On May 26

ooduapathfinder:
The last sentence in your attachment says "Ekun Abila is a perfect name for Tiger in Yoruba".

"Ekun" refers to a group of carnivores/predators with similar yet distinct characteristics, hence the "Abila" differentiates between the "spots"( Leopard) and the "stripes"( Tiger).

Bottom lime: there would be no reason to ascribe "stripes" to an unseen/unknown creature.

Besides, the issue is not about the nativity but existence.
So, even if the Tiger is not native, it doesn't nullify its usage in native discourse.

Politics › Re: From Amotekun To Iru Ekun — Ekun Nko? by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:33am On May 26

Mynd44:
Who described tiger as Ekun Abila to you?

These term is a derived term meaning (Stripped Leopard) and it was recently named.

See attached image

The last sentence in your attachment says "Ekun Abila is a perfect name for Tiger in Yoruba".

"Ekun" refers to a group of carnivores/predators with similar yet distinct characteristics, hence the "Abila" differentiates between the "spots"( Leopard) and the "stripes"( Tiger).

Bottom lime: there would be no reason to ascribe "stripes" to an unseen/unknown creature.

Politics › Re: From Amotekun To Iru Ekun — Ekun Nko? by ooduapathfinder(op): 5:56am On May 26

Mynd44:
Ekun is the Yoruba word for Leopard not Tiger.

So, a tiger does not exist in these parts but a descriptive differentiation was made between the Tiger and the Leopard--hence a tiger is described as "Ekun Abila" precisely in reconition of its distinct stripes? If they had no experieince with it, how come they were able to make the distinction?

Politics › Re: From Amotekun To Iru Ekun — Ekun Nko? by ooduapathfinder(op): 5:44am On May 26

Mynd44:
For someone on a so-called editorial board of something called Yoruba Referendum Committee, your knowledge of Yoruba is questionable.

Ekun is not tiger. There are no Tigers on this side of the world so those who name things could have had any encounter with one to warrant giving it a name.

Ekun is Leopard.
While Amotekun: which is smaller but similar to leopard is cheetah

1 Like

Politics › From Amotekun To Iru Ekun — Ekun Nko? by ooduapathfinder(op): 5:06am On May 26

Where Is the Tiger?

This is an alert against the growing habit of responding to existential threats in Yorubaland, and Nigeria generally, with knee-jerk reactions rather than strategic resolution.

What we need is not another round of reactive security initiatives, but a deliberate political framework capable of securing our future.

For our non-Yoruba audience: Ekun means “Tiger”; Amotekun means “Leopard.” Both are predators, but they symbolize different things.

The Leopard is stealthy and watchful. The Tiger represents overwhelming force and unmistakable presence.

Iru Ekun translates as “Tiger’s tail.” And as the saying goes, it is suicidal to hold a Tiger by the tail.

That is where the metaphor ends.

Because in practical terms, we are increasingly being presented with the tail of power without the body of power itself.

We recall the struggle that led to the establishment of Amotekun.

The Ibadan rally of Yoruba groups created the momentum, but the process immediately ran into resistance from the Nigerian state.

Then Governor Rotimi Akeredolu had to confront the Attorney-General of the Federation, who threatened fire and brimstone should Amotekun proceed.

The first lesson was clear: the security of Yorubaland remains tied to Nigeria’s centralized power structure.

Amotekun eventually emerged, but in a heavily restricted form.

It was effectively defanged because it lacked juridical authority-a direct consequence of the absence of constitutional power at the regional or ethno-national level.

Now comes another initiative: Iru Ekun-the Tiger’s tail.

But without a Tiger, what exactly is the tail attached to?

Again, the proposed structure depends on “approval,” “registration,” and supervision by central and state authorities.

From the Amotekun experience, it is obvious where this road leads: another security arrangement operating within constitutional limits
designed by the same centralized structure that created the insecurity crisis in the first place.

In short, another tail without the Tiger.

The history of the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC) offers another important lesson.

The OPC emerged during military rule as a Yoruba self-determination movement aimed at defending Yorubaland against Fulani hegemonic expansion and preserving Yoruba autonomy.

But over time, it became vulnerable to manipulation by central and state authorities. Internal crises followed. Eventually, its political essence weakened and it drifted toward survival, including seeking pipeline security contracts.

Just as Niger Delta militancy was absorbed into the state through patronage, the OPC was neutralized through incorporation into the same political structure it originally sought to confront.

The result is obvious.

The OPC neither secured Yorubaland nor achieved Yoruba self-determination.

Why?

Because there was no Tiger.

That is, there was no direct confrontation with the fundamental Nigerian power equation itself.

And it is that power equation that sustains the operational environment for terrorism, banditry, and organized insecurity.

We see this clearly in the endless rationalizations by government officials, in the rehabilitation of so-called “repentant terrorists,” and in the abandonment of victims in internally displaced persons camps across Northern Nigeria.

In Yorubaland, there are hardly any formal IDP camps. People flee quietly and survive however they can.

Meanwhile, the Nigerian state continues to reinvent itself through constitutional alterations while the rest of us merely adjust ourselves around the edges of the same centralized structure.

The latest example is “State Police.”

What is being proposed is not genuine federal policing, but a version anchored firmly within the existing Nigeria Police architecture.

In effect, it is another mechanism for managing insecurity without surrendering real constitutional power to the people most affected by it.
Again: another defanged arrangement.

The Tiger is Self-Government.
The Tiger is the recognition of the Yoruba as a Federating Unit.

And that recognition can only emerge through the instrumentality of a Yoruba Referendum [/b]capable of confronting the false constitutional narrative that “states” are the federating units of Nigeria.

That is the real issue.

[b]The Bill for a Yoruba Referendum already contains provisions for regional security, including juridical authority.

Such a framework would establish a legitimate constitutional basis for securing Yorubaland without perpetual dependence on Abuja or the whims of any governor temporarily occupying office.

That is how real security architecture is created.

Naturally, the Nigerian state will resist.

The National Assembly will continue its serial constitutional alterations.

But every alteration still requires ratification by State Assemblies.

And that is where the Referendum becomes decisive.

In practical terms, let Abuja secure its twenty-four states if it wishes.

The real question is whether those states can permanently override the democratic will of at least six contiguous states united by common nationality, language, culture, and historical identity.

That is not merely a judicial question.

It is a political question.

The so-called requirement of twenty-four states exists only because all thirty-six states silently accepted being labeled “federating units,” even though none of them was ever asked whether they desired such a status.

That contradiction alone calls the legitimacy of the entire constitutional arrangement into question.

Which means the struggle ahead is fundamentally political.

And while that political struggle unfolds, Yorubaland cannot continue outsourcing its security to distant constitutional arrangements that neither reflect its realities nor protect its people.

The task before us is therefore clear:
To create the Tiger.

Nothing less will suffice.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

1 Like 1 Share

Politics › The Yoruba Must Act: REFERENDUM Now, Not More Illusions by ooduapathfinder(op): 7:36am On Apr 02

Once again, we are told that salvation is at hand.

This time, it is called “State Police.”

A new roadmap has been presented.

It speaks of decentralization, accountability, oversight, and phased implementation.

It sounds reassuring.

It sounds technical.

It sounds like progress.

It is none of these.

It is a misdiagnosis.

We are told that insecurity exists because there is no State Police.

But look closely at what is being proposed.

Terrorism.
Banditry.
The very threats that have brought Nigeria to its knees are to remain under[b] Federal/Central control.[/b]

What, then, is left for “State Police”?

Armed robbery.

Domestic crimes.

Community intelligence.

This is not State Police.

This is a shadow structure.

It gives the appearance of power without its substance.

It offers decentralization in form but preserves centralization in reality.

The absence of State Police did not create:

Negotiations with terrorists.
Payments to violent groups.
The rehabilitation of “repentant” killers.
The normalization of ransom as public policy.
These are not policing failures.

They are failures of governance.

The real problem is this:

The people have been separated from power.

Communities cannot defend themselves.

Regions cannot determine their own security priorities.

Everything is controlled from the Centre and the Centre has failed.

We are now offered a five-year implementation plan.

Five years while insecurity deepen daily.

Five years while existing regional efforts like Amotekun remain constrained.

Five years built on endless Constitutional “amendments” that have changed nothing since 1999.

And even this so-called State Police will be funded from the Federation Account.

Meaning?

Dependence continues.

Control remains at the Centre.

Nothing changes.

This is centralization repackaged.

We have seen it before:

Local Governments controlled from Abuja;
Development Commissions dictated by federal priorities;
States dependent on allocations, not productivity.
Now, the same model is being extended to security.

And we are told to celebrate.

Distinguished legal authority, Chief Wole Olanipekun , has already spoken with clarity and courage.

He has called on the National Assembly to halt further amendments [/b]to the 1999 Constitution.

His position is unmistakable:

Nigeria does not need more alterations.

It needs a [b]complete overhaul.

A new Constitution.

A negotiated, Autochthonous order.

This is the moment to rally behind that call.

The only Legitimate Path: REFERENDUM

The Yoruba Referendum Committee has been consistent:

There is no legitimacy without Referendum.

A Constitution must come from the people, not from legislative tinkering.

Through Referendum:

Legitimacy is restored.
Authority is grounded.
Governance becomes accountable.
Anything else is managed instability.

A Draft Referendum Bill [/b]has already been submitted to the Houses of Assembly of:

Lagos
Ogun
Oyo
Osun
Ekiti
Ondo
It provides for:

A regional system of governance rooted in proximity and accountability.
A judicial structure that reflects our realities.
Most critically, [b]an independent internal security system [/b]capable of addressing both local and existential threats.

This is not theory.

It is a[b] workable pathway.

This moment cannot be left to politicians alone.

History does not move by memoranda.

It moves by[b] pressure.[/b]

We therefore call on the Yoruba public at home and in the diaspora:

Engage your State Houses of Assembly
Write, visit, organize, and demand clarity
Insist on a Referendum-driven Constitution
Reject superficial reforms disguised as solutions
Let every Representative know:

We are watching.

We understand the stakes.

We will not accept half-measures.

We call on the Houses of Assembly of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti, and Ondo States to:

Reject the illusion of State Police under a broken system
Support the call to halt endless Constitutional amendments
Advance the Referendum Bill already before them
Stand on the side of history and the people
Nigeria does not need another layer of policing.

It needs a new foundation.

Security is not a slogan.

It is a function of power, legitimacy, and structure.

Until the people reclaim that power, insecurity will remain.

The time for analysis has passed.

The time for action is now.

Yoruba must act.

Engage the Assemblies.

Demand the Referendum.

Reclaim the future.[size=8pt][/size]

Editorial Board

Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › Re: Once Again: On "State Police" by ooduapathfinder(op): 4:08pm On Mar 31

Lithiumite:
What resources is a state like osun contributing to the country or Gombe state?

Response: If Osun or Gombe contributes nothing--why? Is it because there are no resources OR such resources are controlled by the Center which reduces the capabilities of Osun to develop its own resources

State police in a federal system isn't inferior tobthe federal but the latter is only above in hierarchy....the fbi is above the LAPD or NYPD fir instance......
Response The framework clearly made terrorism exclusive to the Federal Police Service, so this is not about hierarchy. The FBI is "not above LAPD or NYPD". The FBI is completely different [/b]from both, in conception, in practice and in organization.

if someone steals your car and drives into ogun state, lagos police can't go and get it for you over there simply for lack of jurisdiction,it will have to be refered to the federal police.

[b]Response: Car theft is not [/b]terrorism

The major concern should be funding,how will indigent states be able to fund their respective policing requirements, thats the real elephant in the room that no one is talking about.....

[b]Response: No. Not funding. The problem is what constitutes an "indigent state"? Which also translates into how states are in control of their resources If indigent, it will design its policing structure(s) accordingly and not as determined by the center.

I feel there is no way states can take off without commensurate support from the federal govt and local govts also have to have a stake also the citizens which in most cases have been funding some independent security architecture currently would also have to integrate all this into this arrangement.
Response: How did the states come into being? They were created by the central government (military). So, their "take off" was determined by those who created it. And that is the problem. That's why we are asking for an Autochtonous Constitution. The Yoruba may decide to have more than 6 states. Or less. That will be our decision to make. Alongside the control of our land and mineral resources. And our security. Including terrorism.

Terrorism is a crime against the entire country and not the state it is taking place....
Response: In that case, the entire country must also deal with it. And states are part of the entire country.

it has to be combated by both the state police when established and the federal but prosecution and adjudication can only be done at the federal level
Response: : But the framework has already removed it from the states. So, the states cannot even prosecute because they can't arrest

.

Politics › Re: Once Again: On "State Police" by ooduapathfinder(op): 2:17pm On Mar 31

Lithiumite:
We need ti start from somewhere.....terrorism is a federal crime anywhere in the world,the law doesn't stop borno state police dept from confronting boko haram if they have the capacity ro do so or protecting the people against them,the primary essence of policing is maintaining law and other.

Their has to be a multi layered policing structure that all work in synergy to drive the engine of security.....the community based policing structure will also be integrated.

Interstate crimes,robbery,smuggling,financial crimes,treason,terrorism all fall within the ambit of federal crimes.

Nigeria is grossly under policed far below the UN recommendation of ratio 1:450.....the estimated police strength we have is 371k for a population of about 200m,thats about 1 police to 539 citizens.

There is no way the federal police will need that many men in its employ if state police takes effect, so its normal some of them can be seconded to individual states of their origin and state govts should be ready to fund and equipments them in collaboration with the fg.

"Starting from somewhere" is not the problem. The problem is in the "where"

If "the law doesn't stop borno state police dept from confronting boko haram if they have the capacity to do so"--- how will Borno have the capacity when it did not create the mechanism? Borno can only do so if it created the policing system itself. That is not the case. And this goes for all states.

If "terrorism is a federal crime anywhere in the world"---(a) everywhere in the world is not a federal (b) in Federal societies, the crime is investigated by all levels of policing, as a "Federal crime" and not exclusively restricted to Federal police as it is being suggested in this instance.
If "Nigeria is grossly underpoliced"--the solution is not in restricting the "state police" to a subordinate level.

We keep saying the "states should fund this and that because they are getting more allocations.

Yet, the logical way for this to happen is for the states to have control over their resources so they can effectively address their concerns. Not by the center doling out allocations, deciding the type of security, deciding the number of local governments.

In short, the center decides everything and then tells the states to manage them. Tat is the fundamental problem that needs to be addressed, hence the need for a new Constitution.

Politics › Once Again: On "State Police" by ooduapathfinder(op): 7:45am On Mar 31

It has been reported that the Inspector-General of Police has submitted a roadmap for the implementation of “State Police.”

At first glance, the roadmap appears comprehensive. It outlines familiar bureaucratic elements, to wit: decentralization, oversight mechanisms, accountability frameworks, body cameras, ombudsmen, and the now-standard language of “community policing.”

But these are procedural details.

For the Yoruba Referendum Committee, the central question is far more fundamental: what is the true purpose, the raison d’être of State Police?

According to the roadmap, a dual structure is proposed: a Federal Police Service responsible for national security, terrorism, interstate crime, and protection of federal assets while State Police formations are limited to localized crimes such as armed robbery, homicide, domestic violence, and community-level intelligence gathering.

This distinction is revealing and deeply problematic.

For years, the primary justification for State Police has been the urgent need to confront terrorism and banditry-the most existential threats to lives, communities, and national stability. Indeed, many advocates presented State Police as a step toward True Federalism, where Federating units would possess the authority and capacity to secure themselves.

Yet, under this roadmap, that core responsibility is explicitly removed.

Terrorism-the very reason State Police gained traction, is now reserved exclusively for a centralized Federal Police. What remains for State Police is a narrow, secondary role.

What, then, is being proposed is no longer State Police in any meaningful Federal sense. It is a shadow structure: devolved in form, but hollow in substance.

Worse still, this arrangement does not advance Federalism; it actively undermines it.

Nigeria’s existing security architecture has already demonstrated its inability to effectively combat terrorism.

This reality was underscored recently when the Chief of Defense Staff, speaking at the Nigerian Armed Forces’ inaugural lecture in Abuja, advocated for the rehabilitation of “repentant terrorists”-a policy that has been in place since at least 2015, yet has yielded no measurable reduction in terrorist activity.

And yet, this same central structure, already overstretched and ineffective, is now to retain exclusive control over the most critical security function.

This is not reform.

It is repetition.

The roadmap also proposes a 60-month (five-year) phased implementation, beginning with Constitutional amendments.

This raises further concerns.

First, it ignores the existence of multiple state-level security initiatives such as Amotekun which are already attempting, within constraints, to fill the security vacuum. A five-year transition plan that fails to integrate or meaningfully empower these existing structures merely prolongs the current dysfunction.

Second, the timeline contradicts repeated assurances by the present administration that political restructuring would follow economic reforms. Even under the most generous assumptions, including a second presidential term, the proposed timeline extends beyond the practical window for implementation.

Third, the roadmap’s reliance on Constitutional amendments is itself questionable. Since 1999, Nigeria’s Constitution has undergone continuous “alterations,” often without addressing its foundational defects. If amendments can be made in the first year, they can just as easily be reversed or diluted in subsequent years, especially beyond the tenure of the current administration.

In effect, the process lacks permanence, legitimacy, and coherence.

Another critical issue arises from the proposal that up to 60% of existing police personnel [/b]would transition into State Police structures.

This immediately raises the question: [b]what becomes of existing regional security outfits?

Within the logic of the roadmap, such formations are either:
● Absorbed into a loosely defined “community policing” framework; or
● Rendered redundant.

Neither option strengthens security. Both dilute initiatives.

More fundamentally, the proposed funding model, allocating 3% of the Federation Account to State Police reveals the underlying contradiction.

Rather than empowering states, this arrangement deepens their dependence on the Centre.

State Police, under such a structure, would not be autonomous. They would function as extensions of a centralized fiscal system which will be no different from current state governments whose survival depends on federal allocations.

This is not decentralization.

It is centralization by another name.

We have seen this pattern before.

Local Government allocations are controlled by the Centre.

Development Commissions are centrally funded and directed.

Each “reform” promises autonomy but delivers dependence
.
The inevitable consequence is predictable: an intensified struggle to control the Centre, since that is where real power resides.

This is the contradiction at the heart of incremental, piecemeal approaches to Federalism. Instead of moving Nigeria toward genuine decentralization, they entrench the very centralization they claim to dismantle.

This moment, therefore, demands clarity.

Nigeria’s security crisis cannot be solved by administrative rearrangements within a structurally defective system. It requires a fundamental rethinking of the Constitutional order.

This is why the Yoruba Referendum Committee continues to advocate Nationality Referendums as the only credible pathway forward.

For the Yoruba, this will be the “Yoruba Referendum”

A Referendum is not merely a political exercise. It is the basis of legitimacy, validity, and legality in Constitution-making. It stands in stark contrast to the serial amendments that have characterized Nigeria’s constitutional history since 1999.

Amendments that tinker at the edges while leaving the core untouched.

In this regard, the Committee aligns with the position advanced by Chief Wole Olanipekun, who has called on the National Assembly to suspend its ongoing amendment process and instead pursue the creation of an Autochthonous Constitution as a foundational document derived from the will of the people through Referendums.

This is the path to a new social order.

It is also the path to meaningful security.

As outlined in the Annexure [/b]to the Draft Referendum Bill already submitted to the Houses of Assembly in Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti, and Ondo States, the proposed framework is clear:

● Judicial authority resides within the Region, with a structured hierarchy of courts up to a Regional Supreme Court.
● Governance is organized at regional and provincial levels, ensuring proximity and accountability.
● Crucially, the Region maintains its [b]own internal security system.

This is not theoretical.

It is a coherent institutional framework that directly addresses the failures of the current system.

Security, in this model, is not outsourced to distant authorities. It is rooted in the community, legitimized by the people, and enforced through institutions that are accountable to them.

This is what Federalism looks like in practice.

The debate on State Police, as currently framed, is therefore a distraction.

It offers the appearance of reform without its substance.

It substitutes structure with procedure.

It avoids the central question: who truly holds power over security-the people, or a distant Centre?

Until that question is answered honestly, Nigeria will continue to cycle through reforms that change nothing.

The time has come to move beyond incrementalism.

The time has come to confront the structural reality.

And the time has come to return sovereignty to the people through the Referendum, through legitimacy, and through a Constitution that reflects their will.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › On Gani Adams And The South-west Stakeholders Group by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:43am On Feb 21

Gani Adams, the Aare Ona Kakanfo of Yorubalnd, in a statement on Friday, February 20, 2026, over the killing of a Yoruba Oba in Ondo State, stated, among others, that : he is ready "to lead the South-West Security Stakeholders Group , which comprises over 30 security-related subgroups, to halt the persistent insecurity in the region......Adams called for collaboration between the federal and state governments, traditional institutions and security stakeholders to stem the menace."

Below is the Yoruba Referendum Committee's comment:

First, it was Amotekun. Now, it is the South-West Security Stakeholders Group. Tomorrow, it will likely be State Police. Each is introduced with urgency, each announced as a decisive response to insecurity, and each operates within the very same political and security architecture that gave birth to what is now euphemistically called "banditry."

Yet the insecurity persists.

If Amotekun were structurally capable of resolving the crisis, there would be no need for a new umbrella body styled as a "Security Stakeholders Group."

If such a group were sufficient, there would be no renewed agitation for State Police.

The endless multiplication of security formations is not evidence of progress; it is evidence of systemic failure.

We are layering institutions on top of a broken foundation and wondering why the structure keeps collapsing.

The problem is not the absence of security outfits. The problem is that all these formations, to wit: Amotekun, stakeholder groups, proposed State Police etc operate under the same political order, the same constitutional logic, and the same centralized security framework that has already demonstrated its incapacity to deal with the problem.

Reproducing that framework under different names does not change outcomes.
Rather than continually creating new "security solutions," we must confront the core issue that everyone recognizes but prefers to avoid by working around it.

Historically, Nigeria's crises have been explained in phases.

First, it was corruption, the justification for the military coups beginning on January 15, 1966, and later the rallying cry of civilian politics.

Decades later, corruption remains embedded, systemic, and unresolved.

Now, the dominant frame is insecurity, manifesting in terrorism, banditry, kidnapping, and communal violence.

Tomorrow, it will be reframed again, perhaps as a crisis of competence, or a failure of production over consumption, as if any of these can be meaningfully resolved within the same defective structure that produced them.

Across all these shifting explanations, one critical element remains conspicuously absent: the people
.
The military claimed to act on behalf of the people. Nothing fundamentally changed.

Civilian politicians claim to act on behalf of the people. The outcomes speak for themselves.

Meanwhile, the so-called "bandits" act entirely on their own behalf, regardless of who sponsors them or what larger agenda they serve.

In practice, they have become their own distorted version of "the people": armed, organized, decisive, and unconstrained by the lethargy of the Nigerian state.

The crucial question, therefore, is this: how are the actual people, that is, the victims of banditry and insecurity addressing the threats confronting them ?

Appeals to federal and state governments for "collaboration," "stakeholder engagement," or "more decisive action" can only reproduce what already exists.

We have seen the results of these appeals: endless meetings, overlapping jurisdictions, institutional buck-passing, and no structural shift in power or accountability.

Continuing along this path, doing the same things repeatedly while expecting different results fits the commonly accepted definition of insanity.

What is required instead is a fundamentally different approach: one that defines and institutionalizes the role of the people themselves in resolving their collective problems .

This begins with a simple but radical proposition: the people must set the parameters of their own governance.

That, in turn, requires that the people be Constitutionally recognized—not as abstract citizens managed from the center, but as concrete, historic, and indigenous collectivities with political agency.

In other words, the peoples of Nigeria must be recognized as the Federating Units of the Federation, contrary to the present arrangement under Article 2 of the 1999 Constitution.

Once this is acknowledged, the implications follow logically..

If the peoples are the true Federating units, then the current Constitution-imposed, centralized, and structurally dismissive of those peoples
cannot stand.

It must be abrogated. And that process cannot be postponed indefinitely under the guise of stability or gradual reform. It must begin now.

This requires the establishment of a clear political red line, articulated without ambiguity:

We, the People, will no longer consent to governance without representation at the level of our collective identities.

Practically, this red line takes the following form:

a boycott of the 2027 elections if the National and State Assemblies do not agree to conduct Referendums among the Peoples of Nigeria, recognized explicitly as the Federating Units of the Federation.

This is not electoral nihilism. It is conditional consent. It is the assertion that legitimacy flows upward from the people not downward from institutions that no longer represent them.

This approach strikes at the heart of insecurity and banditry for a simple reason.

Bandits and their backers have grown accustomed to a predictable pattern: a lackadaisical state response, ritual condemnations, helpless or compromised traditional institutions, and endless calls for "more action" that never materializes. They have learned to operate comfortably within this vacuum.

A decisive assertion of people-based sovereignty disrupts that pattern.

Once the people seize the initiative, once they assert Constitutional ownership of their political space, the calculus changes.

Those who rely on state paralysis will be forced to either escalate openly or retreat.

Either way, ambiguity disappears. Power relationships become clearer. Accountability becomes unavoidable.

To illustrate: if the Yoruba, for example, are Constitutionally recognized as a Federating Unit, there would be no need for appeals urging "collaboration between the Federal Government and South-West governors."

Such collaboration would be inherent, not negotiated. The political existence of Yorubaland as a Federating entity would itself constitute coordination, authority, and responsibility.

Security would no longer be an outsourced plea; it would be an internal function of a recognized political community.

This is the crux of the matter. Insecurity is not merely a failure of policing or intelligence . it is a failure of Constitutional imagination .

Until the people themselves are restored to the center of governance as owners rather than spectators, no number of security formations will resolve what is, at its core, a crisis of political legitimacy.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › To Afenifere by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:53am On Feb 15

In raising "alarm over escalating terror in South West states", Afenifere, through Mr. Jare Ajayi, its Publicity Secretary, concluded thus: “The problem therefore is not lack of information, but the will to use the information in the interest of the people. State Police should take off immediately while communities should also be enabled to have local security arrangements.” “It is high time governors in Yorubaland go beyond sermonization and swing into decisive actions that will really make the region a very secure place,”

To which the :Yoruba Referendum Committee responds as follows:

Security Is Not a Sermon. It Is Sovereignty.
Ajayi is right on one point: Nigeria does not suffer from a lack of information.
It suffers from a lack of political will.

But political will alone is meaningless when exercised inside a broken structure.

Calling for State Police under the existing Nigerian arrangement is not reform.
It is recycling failure.

A State Police trapped inside the same constitutional cage will fail exactly as the federal police has failed—regardless of funding, uniforms, or slogans. Billions in “security votes” have already proven this point beyond dispute.

We are also told to empower “local security arrangements.”
But we already have them.

Amotekun exists.

If Amotekun, operating under current constraints, cannot decisively secure Yoruba land, then multiplying constrained forces will not deliver security. You cannot cure paralysis by adding more limbs to a shackled body.

Governors are again urged to “do more.”
To strengthen security.
To provide logistics.
To cooperate.

This is political ritual, not political action.

They have been doing all of this yet insecurity has only worsened. Repeating failed actions is not leadership; it is avoidance.

Let us speak plainly.

The problem is not tactics.
The problem is structure.

Nigeria’s political arrangement neutralizes its Nationalities. What the 1999 Constitution calls “states” are not federating units; they are administrative dependencies. They cannot determine their own existential necessities. They cannot fully defend their people. They cannot act with sovereign urgency.

This is why terrorists act with impunity.
This is why bandits mock the state.
This is why they now flirt with foreign intervention by attacking churches—fully aware that this is the red line for the United States.

These actors do not fear the Nigerian state because the Nigerian state has ceased to function as a real state.

To continue demanding “more of the same” is to surrender, intellectually and politically, to the terrorist paradigm.

The only serious response is to open the path to an alternative State Formation.

This does four things immediately:

First, it signals to terrorists that a new political order is coming—one that ends any strategic accommodation with a failed state. They will either openly declare war or retreat.

Second, it restores Yoruba self-awareness as a federating people capable of defending its own existence.

Third, it places those in power under real historical pressure—forcing them to choose between relevance and betrayal.

Fourth, it affirms a timeless truth: man shall not live by bread alone. Economic reforms without existential security are empty technocracy.

None of this is new.

This is the unfinished business of Re-Federalization.

What is new is the moment.

We must move from analysis to action. From conferences to consequences.

That action is a Yoruba Referendum.

The Referendum Bill already lies before our Houses of Assembly.
Afenifere must rise to history’s demand and publicly endorse its passage into law, [/b]and insist that Yoruba governors assent to it.

This single act changes everything.

A [b]YES vote confers democratic legitimacy.
Legitimacy confers authority.
Authority restores capacity.
Capacity enables survival.

To those who ask whether the Yoruba can stand alone, the answer is clear: pressing our governors to endorse a Referendum also obliges them to challenge their peers across Nigeria to do the same. And where all imposed solutions have failed, we reserve the right—morally and politically—to define our own.

The Referendum is not a threat.
It is a democratic remedy.

The time for sermonization is over.
The time for decisive, historic action is now.

Afenifere must publicly endorse the Yoruba Referendum.

Editorial Board

Yoruba Referendum Committee

.

1 Like

Politics › To The Yoruba Nation And President Tinubu by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:37am On Dec 07, 2025

(i) A river that forgets its source will soon dry up. This popular Yoruba proverb speaks to identity, memory, and continuity. While the saying is often taken literally, referencing Ile-Ife as the physical and spiritual “Source”, the Yoruba Referendum Committee invokes it metaphorically to warn that forgetting our political source can prove just as fatal. For the Yoruba people, that source is Federalism: the system that once allowed us to exist as a distinct cultural nation within Nigeria. If we neglect the principles and structures of Federalism, all other aspects of our society will eventually erode, and our development will stagnate.

(ii) Let us start by revisiting the historical foundation of the Yoruba political economy. The Western Region, established under the leadership of Chief Obafemi Awolowo and the Action Group pursued Federalism single-mindedly. Their push for regional autonomy produced an unparalleled developmental trajectory for the West: free education, industrial investment through the Western Nigeria Development Corporation (WNDC), and robust social welfare schemes.

(iii) The Motion for the creation of more states moved by the Action Group on April 4, 1961, in Nigeria’s House of Representatives remains the most far-sighted attempt to address nationality tensions. It proposed a Federal structure that balanced regional autonomy with national unity. Subsequent state creation by military fiat ignored these Federalist principles and served unitarist ambitions instead.

(iv) The erosion of Federalism began with the 1966 military coup. The abolition of the Regions and the establishment of a unitary system were followed by a series of state creations that fractured the old regions without addressing the core nationality questions. These decisions plunged Nigeria into a civil war and continue to fuel insecurity today.

(v) Despite the formal return to civilian rule in 1999, the military’s centralist project lives on in the Constitution and administrative structures. The 1999 Constitution, which the people did not see or ratify, states in Chapter 1, Article 2:2 that “Nigeria is a Federation consisting of states and a Federal Capital Territory”. By describing the state as the primary unit of the Federation, the Constitution erases the nations and nationalities that existed before the states and reduces them to mere administrative districts. The people have no territorial recognition having been balkanized into different states thereby losing their social and cultural aspirations; the states created for them have no historical legitimacy; and the real source of sovereignty: the Yoruba people, the Tiv people, the Berom people, etc. is ignored.

(vi) The continuing security crisis in Nigeria, often labeled “banditry” or “terrorism”, is a direct outcome of this erasure. In the North and Middle Belt, Indigenous communities face armed groups that seize land and displace populations with impunity. These atrocities have intensified since 1999, regardless of which party holds the presidency. The culprits are often called “bandits,” “Fulani herdsmen,” or “Islamists,” but these labels obscure the political dynamic: a powerful core is using violence to control peripheral territories.

(vii) In many Northern states, the displaced Indigenous populations are shunted into IDP camps, while the state governments continue as if nothing has happened. The Constitutional recognition of the state as the federating unit allows these governments-often controlled by the same elites perpetrating violence-to remain in charge. The people, unrecognized as nations, lose both land and representation.

(viii) The neutralization of Yoruba development also has roots in a policy of “Nigerianization” that began under the Obasanjo military regime. The Federal Government took over institutions built by the Western Region, such as the University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) and the Western Nigeria Television (WNTV/WNBS). It removed history from the curriculum, undermining our collective memory and cultural consciousness. The economic assets of the Western Region were nationalized. Only timely intervention by individuals like Mr. C. S. O. Akande preserved some Western assets under the umbrella of Oodua Holdings.

(ix)Today, many Yoruba leaders, including state governors, appear more invested in Abuja-driven initiatives such as the “Development Commissions” with the Governors using the “DAWN Commission” as their preferred vehicle rather than revitalize and re-engineer Oodua Investments as the primary developmental vehicle to rebuilding regional autonomy. These initiatives align with the President’s preference for a “Nigerian variant of Federalism,” which is essentially Unitarist: centralizing development funds and authority while limiting genuine regional control. When push comes to shove, a hostile Federal Government can render these commissions useless.

(x) One reason for this drift is a lack of understanding of political economy. Policymakers often chase economic reforms without considering the political architecture underlying them. They rely on “political pragmatism” and “expediency” rather than principle, failing to recognize that Nigeria’s Constitutional arrangement transfers sovereignty from the people to the state. Every month, governors travel to Abuja to secure revenue allocations. Political office holders, particularly in the Yoruba region, thus become dependent on the same central authorities they should be challenging. This dependency leads to compromises with Fulani hegemonic interests, allowing anti-Federalist forces to dominate national and regional politics.

(xi) The Yoruba Referendum Committee supported Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s candidacy in 2023 and will support his bid for a second term. Our support is rooted in identity and principle. Tinubu is Yoruba, and his political “source” was Federalism. As a NADECO activist, he fought military dictatorship. As Lagos State Governor, he used judicial autonomy and creative revenue generation to claim greater control over state resources. He, along with late Lam Adesina, were early supporters of the Yoruba Constitution Group, which produced the Draft Yoruba Constitution as part of a broader push for regional autonomy.

(xii) However, supporting a leader does not mean following him uncritically. The President’s current strategy, i.e., postponing political reform until after completing economic reforms, fundamentally contradicts his Federalist origins. By centralizing decision-making and economic power, his policies have strengthened the anti-Federalist North. Examples include his push for “local government autonomy,” which repudiates Federalist principles; the creation of centrally managed zonal development commissions; and his Tax reforms and revenue sharing which favors the “North”; the cancellation of Mother tongue as the language of instruction in primary schools etc. Even his Ministry of Livestock Development, ostensibly created to address herder-farmer clashes, risks institutionalizing open grazing and land seizures.

(xiii) Ironically, as the North benefits from these policies, it continues to use insecurity and terrorism to influence national politics. Many Northern leaders, both in and out of office, openly threaten to undermine Tinubu’s presidency with outlandish statements. This dynamic shows that Unitarism will not appease those who oppose Federalism. The North’s strategy is to centralize power under any president, extract concessions, and then return to its own hegemonic agenda.

(xiv) It is naïve to believe that Federalism can be achieved through policies emanating from the center. True Federalism is political architecture, not a set of programs. Central reforms, no matter how well-intentioned, will always protect the interests of the central authority and as the saying goes: the road to hell is paved with good intentions. When economic reforms “succeed”-- by whatever parameters that may be used– under a Unitary Constitution, they make demands for a new Constitution appear redundant which means that this crisis is not about economic management; it is about power and sovereignty.

(xv) The National Assembly will soon embark on its periodic constitutional “alteration.” As an organization dedicated to Federalism, we must ask: can a legislature elected on party lines, not nationality or regional lines truly create a Federalist Constitution? Members of the National and State Assemblies are elected primarily to advance party interests, which often change at will. Parties do not represent nationalities, regions, or zones; they represent whichever alliances secure power. A genuine Federalist Constitution cannot emerge from such a process.

(xvi) Nevertheless, we must engage with our lawmakers. Our goal is to compel our State Houses of Assembly-and, by extension, the National Assembly- to recognize the Yoruba nation as a federating unit through a Yoruba Referendum. We must learn from the past: had the Action Group lost the 1951 Western Nigeria Parliamentary Elections, there would be no Western Region to celebrate. Our ability to win recognition within the law is the essence of returning to our “source.”

(xvii) Some may ask: “Will a Yoruba Referendum make any difference as a stand-alone?” Our answer is Yes. A Yoruba Referendum will not only reaffirm our identity and autonomy; it will motivate other nationalities to do the same. In parts of the Middle Belt and North, communities are being massacred, and their lands are being occupied. Many homogenous Indigenous nationalities are “distributed” into several states thereby depriving them of their inherent cultural and social aspirations. A democratic demand for self-governance and territorial recognition by these communities, displaced or otherwise, would transform the fight against insecurity. Instead of waiting for federal protection that never comes, they would establish their right to defend their land under a legally recognized political structure.

(xviii) The Yoruba Referendum Committee therefore calls on all Yoruba at home and abroad to mobilize. We must press our State Assemblies to pass the Bill for a Referendum into Law, compel the Governors to assent, and begin preparations to hold the Referendum. This is not a request; it is a right. They owe us that much.

(xix) We do not forget that a Federal Nigeria was once real and vibrant. We remember that our social democracy, our educational-economic model and institutions, and our cultural renaissance were built on Federalist foundations. We also remember how these structures were systematically dismantled by an anti-Federalist military regime and then entrenched into a civilian Constitution written without our consent.

(xx) If a river forgets its source, it dies. If the Yoruba forget Federalism, our political source, we will lose our capacity to navigate the waters of Nigerian politics. To the Yoruba nation, we say: the time has come to return to our source. To President Tinubu, we say: remember your own Federalist roots. Federalism is not a negotiation tactic; it is the foundation of our existence within Nigeria. Without it, we risk losing everything that makes us who we are.

Editorial Board

Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › The Coup: Nationalities As The Antidote by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:20am On Oct 21, 2025

"Every coup in Nigeria has promised to end corruption and tribalism. None ever did."

The Yoruba Referendum Committee has long maintained that one of the central purposes of the Yoruba Referendum is its value as the antidote to military coups.
Now, with fresh whispers of another coup in the air, the call for complete Re-Federalization of Nigeria is no longer a matter of debate — it is a national necessity.
A coup may seem attractive to the growing number of anti-APC forces who have, since the earliest days of the Tinubu administration, openly courted the idea.
But those who forget history invite its worst repetitions.

The Lessons of Our Coups

Every military coup since January 15, 1966 claimed to fight "tribalism" and "corruption." Read their speeches — the sameness of their excuses leaps out. Yet none solved either problem.

The First Republic's developmental federalism was dismantled and replaced by nationalization and indigenization. These experiments birthed a centralized, inefficient economy, culminating in the Buhari civilian era — which the Tinubu administration now seeks to "correct," though by wrong and unsustainable means.
To expect salvation from another coup is not only naïve — it is insanity.

The Yoruba Position

Yorubaland, historically the bastion of Federalism, may once again hold the key. Ironically, it now risks becoming the battleground, simply because the incumbent president is Yoruba — and because he has dared to challenge Nigeria's laissez-faire capitalist orthodoxy.

Yet Nigeria's deepest fault line remains unresolved: the century-old struggle between Unitarism and Federalism.

President Tinubu's "financialism" — the notion that throwing money at every level of government will fix Nigeria — merely fattens the allocation system while deepening Unitarism. The illusion of fiscal abundance cannot mask the rot of centralized power.

The Real National Question

To prevent another coup, Nigeria must finally confront its National Question:
How can a multinational society live without endless violence, domination, or decay?
Our instability springs from the impossible ambition to forge one nation out of many nations.
This concentration of power at the center fuels ethnic tensions, insurgencies, and the rise of groups like Boko Haram.
So long as power remains trapped in Abuja, true development will remain impossible.
The outcome is predictable — ethnic conflict, one-party dominance, and a political elite increasingly reliant on the military they no longer control.

"The disease cannot cure itself. The antidote is Federalism."

The Federal Solution

A decisive resolution of the National Question in favor of Federalism is Nigeria's only way forward. It will stabilize the country, inspire Africa, and restore the dignity of black civilization worldwide.
We cannot copy State Capitalism like China or Russia — our diversity forbids such uniformity.
We cannot mimic unbridled capitalism as in the United States — we lack the military or institutional power to defend it.
Our true path lies in Social Democracy, the foundation of the old Western Region's success — blending regulated enterprise with social welfare.
Indeed, Yorubaland remains the only polity in Africa that has largely retained its pre-independence political paradigm: Federalism balanced by social responsibility.

The Framework for Renewal

Even if the Yoruba choice is not universally accepted, every nationality can chart its own course within a genuine multinational federation, as outlined in the Yoruba Referendum Bill:

A Union of Nigerian Constituent Nationalities, each a federating unit, under a Federal Presidential Council with a rotating Head of State.
The Western/Oduduwa Region as a Constituent Unit, governed under a Parliamentary System.
The Central Government barred from interfering in regional affairs without a three-fourths vote of the Region's Parliament.
A Regional Armed Forces Division, 90% indigenous, under a native commander.
A Regional Judiciary with full appellate hierarchy and internal security powers.
.Each Region to control its own resources under a fair, agreed tax model for the Federation

The Road to a New Nigeria

The Yoruba can lead this renewal.
By enacting Laws for a Referendum through the State Houses of Assembly, conducting the vote, and setting a democratic precedent, Yorubaland can chart the course for others.
Each nationality will then hold its own referendum, culminating in a Constitutional Convention that will birth a truly Federal Nigeria — the only lasting antidote to military coups.

"Federalism is not secession. It is survival."

"A Yoruba Referendum is not rebellion. It is renewal."

Editorial Board

Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › : Afenifere As The “yoruba Party”. by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:58am On Jul 14, 2025

In this season of political recalibration, with coalitions forming to unseat President Bola Tinubu in 2027, the Yoruba must reassess the role of their non-electoral socio-political platforms. Chief among these is Afenifere. While not a political party, Afenifere must now evolve into a partisan voice, without even attempting to register as one, as it won't be registered. It can do this by shaping the electoral conversation in Yorubaland and beyond. This is particularly urgent given that a Yoruba son, steeped in the Federalist cause, is now the primary target of national opposition.

Hence, the Yoruba Referendum Committee declares as follows:

(i) The coalition seeking to remove President Tinubu has based its campaign on the fallout of his economic reforms. These reforms represent a significant shift from Nigeria’s post-1970 statist economic paradigm. Yet, the coalition offers no coherent alternative economic vision. Their agitation seems more like a performance of opposition than a principled critique, an exercise in emotional extortion and political opportunism.

(ii) Nonetheless, the blame does not rest solely with the opposition. Much of it lies at the President’s feet. His refusal to recognize the inextricable link between Nigeria’s political structure and economic performance has weakened his reform agenda. When the respected group, The Patriots, petitioned for restructuring before economic reforms, the President dismissed the idea, pledging to fix the economy first. The reality is now clear: economic transformation without political restructuring is an exercise in futility.

(iii) Ironically, as the economy resists recovery, opposition forces are exploiting the political vacuum. Even though the Tinubu administration has capitulated to centralist pressures, to wit: advancing local government “autonomy”, contrary to known Federalist principles and without regional control, centralizing zonal development commissions, accepting the Northern-dictated tax regime, and maintaining the discredited revenue-sharing model-none of which satisfies the opposition. Their goal is singular: removal of the Yoruba president.

(iv) We have been here before. In 1999, the Yoruba were told to participate wholeheartedly in the elections to prevent hostile interests within and outside Yorubaland from dominating the political space. This led to a split within Afenifere and between it and the AD, the electoral platform for the Yoruba at the time. President Tinubu, then Governor, argued that AD could not be subservient to Afenifere since the latter was not an electoral platform. That conflict weakened the Yoruba strategic posture for years.

(v) Today, history threatens to repeat itself. The APC, President Tinubu’s party, is not a Yoruba party. Nor is it beholden to Yoruba political aspirations. Afenifere, despite lacking electoral registration, remains more central to Yoruba identity and strategic vision than any national party. Yet, without a concrete electoral instrument to pursue Yoruba objectives, especially non-violent objectives, our political future remains uncertain. Our path must be rooted in history. Egbe Omo Oduduwa, the ideological forerunner of Afenifere, stated its mission clearly: to combat tribal disintegration, protect minorities, and nurture a unified Yoruba identity. It sought a modern Yoruba state within a Federal Nigeria, to be achieved through principled leadership. This historical legacy must inform our current response to Nigeria’s democratic decay.

(vi) Among today’s Afenifere claimants, clarity is needed. The faction led by Oba Oladipo Olaitan has publicly renounced its Yoruba essence by saying it is not a Yoruba group and thus stands outside the bounds of this proposal. However, the Afenifere led by Pa Reuben Fasoranti, with Oba Olu Falae chairing its executive committee, maintains its Yoruba identity and thus remains central to this conversation.

(vii) Afenifere was the Yoruba-language rendering of the Action Group's philosophy and founding principles whose motto: “freedom for all, life more abundant” was translated into Yoruba language as “Afenifere” and found expression in its advocacy for True Federalism and the creation of regions along ethnonational lines. Then, the electoral structure allowed regional representation. Since 1999, however, national parties like AD and APC have abandoned regional roots in favor of national compromise, diluting their commitment to Yoruba aspirations. This was largely due to Afenifere's inability to establish a pathway towards True Federalism as its raison d'etre and therefore its electoral mandate. Afenifere, though consistent in rhetoric, failed to establish a practical roadmap toward Federalism and has instead aligned itself with parties that use Federalism merely as a campaign slogan.

(viii). The Yoruba Referendum Committee is not calling on Afenifere to register as a political party. Under current law, such registration would be blocked. Instead, we urge Afenifere to set a Yoruba-centered political and electoral agenda, a strategic platform that defines how Yoruba votes are earned, not assumed. A political party aggregates interests, often practicalized through electoral platforms. Therefore, Afenifere, as a Yoruba political party must set an agenda which will become the overriding electoral paradigm for both President Tinubu and the opposition coalition as well as any formation seeking Yoruba votes. This will be its essence as the “Yoruba Party”.

(ix) This agenda must be anchored in the Yoruba Referendum as the pathway to True Federalism. This Referendum-based approach would provide the litmus test for any party or candidate seeking Yoruba votes. Governors, House of Assembly members, and federal representatives would be judged by their willingness to pursue a Referendum agenda.

(x) Adopting the Referendum as an electoral standard would also serve Yoruba APC politicians well. It offers them a legacy beyond office-a demonstration of leadership that protects Yoruba interests without disloyalty to the party. They will face three options: embrace the Referendum, ignore it, or reject it. Each position will have electoral consequences in Yorubaland.

(xi) As of now, there is no Yoruba challenger to President Tinubu. Should one emerge, the candidate too must confront the Referendum agenda. Southern candidates from outside Yorubaland will also be compelled to respond, not only in Yoruba territories, but in their home regions, where calls for restructuring are equally strong. Even in the North, long presumed hostile to Federalism, voices are emerging in support of rebalancing the Federation.

(xii) Afenifere must now decide: will it become the Yoruba Party in substance, if not in legal form? The current electoral system and the 1999 Constitution are hostile to Federalist principles. No national party today is or can be committed to restructuring Nigeria. The entire electoral paradigm is wired against true autonomy for Nigeria’s nationalities. Yoruba, Ijaw, Igbo, Middle Belt, and others have all been absorbed into amorphous “zones” and the North/South binary, a bureaucratic shell game that conceals real power and crushes identity-based politics.

(xiii) This is why the Nationality Referendum becomes so crucial. It restores the agency of Nigeria’s constituent Nationalities. For the Yoruba, it provides a new rallying point, a political and moral compass. It is the anchor for an electoral agenda that transcends party loyalty.

(xiv) The time is now. Let Afenifere assume the historic challenge. Let it become, once again, the conscience and compass of the Yoruba nation. Not by entering the fray as a political/electoral party, but by declaring boldly, publicly, and programmatically, that any political formation seeking Yoruba support must commit to a Referendum. This will define the Yoruba position in 2027 and beyond.

(xv) Without such a clear political program, the Yoruba risk being pawns in another round of national politicking, useful only for votes, never for vision. But with a Referendum-based agenda, Afenifere can reclaim its rightful role, not merely as a cultural symbol, but as the living embodiment of Yoruba political aspiration. Let the "Yoruba Party" rise.

Editorial Board

Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › President Tinubu Has Set The Ball Rolling. by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:50am On Jun 19, 2025

At the recent high-level Legislative Dialogue on Nigeria’s National Security Architecture, President Tinubu, represented by the Minister of Defense stated unequivocally that Nigeria’s centralized security framework has outlived its usefulness. He warned that not realigning the Constitution with the lived realities of Nigerians poses a grave threat to the nation’s unity. According to him, while the 1999 Constitution may be foundational to Nigeria’s democracy, it is obsolete in addressing today’s security challenges—and must evolve, or risk becoming the very threat it was designed to avert.

The Chief of Defense Staff, General Christopher Musa, echoed this position, calling for urgent constitutional and legal reforms to address modern threats, including cyber warfare, insurgency, and hybrid conflict. The National Security Adviser, Nuhu Ribadu—represented by Maj. Gen. Adamu Laka—added that a responsive, inclusive, and forward-looking Constitution is crucial for unity, justice, and trust in the country.
The Yoruba Referendum Committee supports these observations. However, we must move from diagnosis to decisive action.

Let us be clear: the country’s foundational structure, as framed in the 1999 Constitution, is broken beyond repair. The problem is not merely one of obsolete provisions, it is a failure of political imagination rooted in the refusal to acknowledge Nigeria’s multinational character.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee urges us to consider the following:

(i) The President and his security chiefs have now acknowledged what Nigerians have long known: the 1999 Constitution is a central obstacle to peace and security. It fails at the very heart of federalism. Nigeria cannot continue pretending to be one nation while denying the cultural, historical, and political identities of its constituent peoples. Without recognizing and institutionalizing these, we cannot hope to forge real unity. Unity must be based not on uniformity, but on a foundation that embeds diversity into the country’s Constitutional order.

(ii) A critical first step is to be true to ourselves, recognizing that Nigeria comprises distinct Nationalities; not a mere collection of 36 states and an FCT. The current power struggles, including the endless debate on zoning and resource control, stem from the denial of this basic truth. If the Constitution suppresses the legitimacy of Nationalities, politics will continue to be defined by contests for federal power rather than by genuine cooperation within a true federation. The best way to achieve unity is by not only recognizing this diversity but also making it central and embedded in the Constitution. Otherwise, we will be perennially embroiled in serious, yet avoidable conflicts as our interrelationships will be defined more by and as power contests for dominance, which is what is happening now. The first point to address is therefore the non-recognition of the Peoples, (Nationalities) as the Federating units, the absence of which has led to inter-Nationality contest for power. Hence, Nigeria must become a Federation of Nationalities rather than the current designation as a “Federation of 36 states and FCT”.

(iii) It bears repeating that Nigeria is a product of British colonialism. Yet Britain recognizes the four nations within its United Kingdom: England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland. These are not mere geographical labels. They are cultural, political, and historical identities. Each enjoys varying degrees of autonomy within a shared structure. This same framework was reflected in Nigeria’s pre-independence constitutional negotiations, which were premised on regional self-governance. The post-civil war centralization and military tinkering with this arrangement created the distorted structure we now live under. Any realignment must restore the spirit of that original understanding: a federation of people, not of artificial states. Therefore, for our Constitution to realign with our lived realities must and definitively so, lead to one conclusion, to wit: a new Constitution that will address the fundamental issues raised by all of those at such a gathering.

(iv) This is even more so concerning insecurity which formed the basis for the Dialogue where the President made his remarks. The lack of judicial and policing powers to the so-called federating units has made them incapable of protecting their own people. States that have passed anti-open grazing laws cannot enforce them. They watch helplessly as lives and livelihoods are destroyed by marauding herders. This impotence is embedded in the structure of the Constitution, which refuses to allow states or Nationalities to defend themselves. The result is mass suffering, with no hope of redress.

(v) We must reject the illusion that constitutional amendments will fix what is fundamentally flawed. You cannot rebrand a defective product by repainting it. Every Constitutional amendment since 1999 has failed to address the root causes of Nigeria’s dysfunction. In fact, they have worsened them. Going the same route will be tantamount to doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The 1999 Constitution is not a living document capable of evolution. It is a dead end.

(vi) Senator Omo Agege, as Deputy Chair of an earlier Constitution review process said the National Assembly cannot write a new Constitution while the current Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele said that National and State Assemblies can make laws for security, peace. The conclusion from this is that the National Assembly can only pave the way for a new Constitution, as is now needed. Hence, the current review exercise must give way to a different method. This is more so when it will still conduct “public consultations” to arrive at some conclusions. At the end of the day, the expectation is to make the will of the people count.

(vii) Some may propose a Constituent Assembly, but history warns us against this route. The 1979 Constitution, though emerging from a Constituent Assembly, was later manipulated by the military. Worse, the 1999 Constitution was imposed without any form of democratic legitimacy. A new Constituent Assembly, particularly one derived from the existing state structure, would once again be beholden to national rather than Nationality interests. This will reproduce the very imbalance we seek to dismantle.

(viii) An amended 1999 Constitution or the product of a Constituent Assembly to be subjected to a national Referendum, aimed at an acceptable Constitution reflecting the will of the People is no better. In a country as culturally and religiously diverse as Nigeria, a single “yes” or “no” question cannot capture the multitude of existential demands. A uniform Referendum will erase minority aspirations, homogenize cultural identities, and suffocate the federal principle. For instance, Yoruba populations in Kogi and Kwara are still seeking integration with their kin in the Southwest, while the Middle Belt continues to struggle for recognition distinct from the “North”. These cannot be addressed through a blanket national vote.

(ix) Constitutional reform must not only be about power and structure. It must also protect language and culture and be integral to a new Constitution. Scholars emphasize that knowledge production in native languages is crucial for economic development, while global trends show that cultural identity strengthens socio-economic foundations. Knowledge production in Indigenous languages, linguistic diversity, and cultural aspirations is essential to long-term development. A Constitution that ignores these is not just outdated, it is dangerous, leading to the death of languages and the marginalization of cultural identities and spelling the death of the nation itself. Languages will die. Cultures will die. We believe this is not the intention of addressing the outdated Constitution.

(x)Therefore, instead of either a Constituent Assembly or amendments or national Referendum, the most practical path is through Nationality-based Referendums, organized either within homogeneous nationalities or within compatible geopolitical territories. This model will sad

a) Legitimize the aspirations of Nigeria’s actual federating units. (b)Acknowledge their sovereignty in matters of cultural identity, governance structure, and resource control. (c)Prevent future military interference by anchoring the Constitution in popular will.

(xi) These Nationality Referendums would culminate in a limited Constitutional Convention, not to redefine the entire structure again, but simply to decide on the scope, authority, and limits of the Federal government. All else would have been decided at the grassroots level. “Residual and Concurrent lists” would no longer be required.

(xii) The realignment of Nigeria’s Constitution must be more than symbolic. It must be structural, cultural, and deeply rooted in the aspirations of the people. Anything short of this is cosmetic and will only lead to greater crises. The 1999 Constitution cannot be salvaged. It must be replaced. The time for Nationality-based referendums is now.

(xiii) To make this happen, state governors and Houses of Assembly must begin the process of legislating for Referendums within their domains. For the Yoruba, a draft Referendum Bill already exists to be passed into Law by the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti State Houses of Assembly. This grassroots-driven approach will empower our people to take part directly in shaping their future. Inaction will mean surrendering our fate to a flawed process that cannot reflect our lived realities.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee.

Politics › Insecurity And True Federalism--response To NSA Ribadu by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:58am On Jun 03, 2025

At the recent signing of a Memorandum of Understanding between the National Counter Terrorism Centre and the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Abuja, an event ostensibly aimed at promoting agribusiness and livelihood empowerment in communities affected by terrorism, the remarks made by the National Security Adviser (NSA), Nuhu Ribadu, and the Minister of Livestock Development, Idi Muktar Maiha, were profoundly disconnected from Nigeria's lived experience and exposing a disturbing detachment from Nigeria's hard realities.

Their characterization of insecurity as arising from "poverty, lack of opportunity, and social exclusion" and their assertion that Nigeria is the only Sahelian country still standing amid regional collapses, was both dismissive and revisionist, defying both history and logic.

Minister Maiha's comment that "tractors should replace armored tanks, and milking machines should replace machine guns" masks deep-rooted, historically entrenched political tensions. and further trivialized the entrenched structural and political drivers of violence.

Their statements provide a compelling reason for Re-Federalizing Nigeria as a categorical imperative.

The Yoruba Referendum is still the most peaceful, legitimate and valid pathway to achieve it.

Several key issues must be highlighted to illustrate why:

(i) Ribadu's framing of Nigeria as the Sahel's last bastion ignores the domestic support for Niger's military junta from Northern Nigeria, their "cousins, brothers and sisters" which paralyzed Tinubu's administration and ECOWAS under his leadership. Ironically, the epicenter of insecurity lies in Northern Nigeria, where territorial expansion has displaced Indigenous communities and confined them into IDP camps.

(ii) As observed in our May 12, 2025, bulletin: "insecurity in Nigeria is a political enterprise. People are being displaced from their lands, particularly in the North, while the government keeps them in IDP camps, thereby stripping them of political representation. When Northern leaders meet, as the Northern Governors have done, those lands are counted as part of the "North," but the original, displaced inhabitants remain unrepresented. Instead, power remains with those complicit in their displacement. Meanwhile, perpetrators are reintegrated under the "repentant" doctrine, sustaining cycles of violence and preserving Northern dominance at both national and state levels ".

(iii) Insecurity manifests differently between the North and South. In the North, it's rooted in the historical conflict between landless Fulani settlers and Indigenous Nationalities, a continuation of colonial-era Fulani political hegemony, whose political dominance, a legacy of colonial favoritism, continues to drive unrest. This outcome of anti-colonial struggles secured Fulani dominance and political hegemony which it used to ensure its territorial control. Whereas in the "south" its manifestation has been largely through infiltration by herdsmen, often justified by what is called the "ECOWAS Trans-Humance Protocol on migration" and used to perpetuate all sorts of atrocities.

(iv) Ribadu himself once acknowledged that Frederick Lugard labeled Indigenous resistance to colonial authority as "banditry", a label still weaponized today, with the term being recycled to obscure Indigenous resistance to imposed authority. The Tiv's struggle against the Fulani-inspired "One North" paradigm was framed as riots, justifying the establishment of the repressive Mobile Police Force while the Yoruba demand for a Plebiscite on where they want to belong was denied based on the "One North" agenda. The violent suppression of the Tiv's quest for autonomy contrasts sharply with the peaceful referendum that birthed the Mid-West Region.

(v) This, in essence, is not happenstance but the foundation for "insecurity", where, in the "North" it is accompanied with territorial expansion but limited to common criminality in the "south" -- so far. Understanding this divergence is crucial.

(vi) Poverty and religion are not the root causes; they are symptoms of deeper political and colonial superstructures designed to homogenize Nigeria. Consequently, seeking to address the superstructure as the NSA and Livestock Minister have done is like treating the ringworm while leprosy festers.

(vii) Moreover, post-independence competition by global powers for spheres of influence, later inherited by petrodollar-flushed Arab nations, embedded intra-religious and ideological conflicts in Hegemonic aspirations especially in the North, and manifesting most clearly in Boko Haram's political terrorism. On the other hand, other "bandits" in the "North" are not monolithic. Tensions exist between Indigenous ethnic groups and the Hausa-Fulani ruling elite. The flood of arms from Libya and Niger only worsens these dynamics.

(viii) This has reached this proportion mainly by virtue of Article 2:2 of the 1999 Constitution which states that "[b]Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory" [/b]and proceeded to name those states in its Article 3:1.

(ix) These Articles effectively strip communities of ownership and security responsibility, centralizing power thereby fueling inter-ethnic tensions especially in heterogeneous states in the North, where Fulani hegemony stays entrenched. In homogeneous regions, consensus is more easily reached. In contrast, states with a history of expansionism experience protracted instability, with political power often staying in the hands of those facilitating displacement.

(x) Now that the National Assembly is, once again, aiming to get the "buy-in of the states" into its proposed amendments, this is the time (and opportunity) to address the foundational flaw codified by Articles 2:2 and 3:1 of the 1999 Constitution. Nationalities must reclaim their right to secure their territories through the instrumentality of "Nationality Referendums". Doing so would allow communities to reclaim ownership of their territories and security mechanisms, beyond the shallow prescriptions of "kinetic" and "non-kinetic" responses often dished out.

(xi) If Minister Maiha's call for tractors over guns were sincere, then the touted economic gains under Tinubu's reforms should have reduced insecurity. Clearly, they haven't; otherwise, a decrease in insecurity ought to have been recorded such that it would not be considered so serious today. All of which goes to show that terrorism or banditry will not end until its political motives are met and this is in imposing a Hegemony in Nigeria. Terrorism will persist as long as its political goals, namely, hegemonic control, remain unfulfilled or neutralized.

(xii) Should President Tinubu secure a second term, preserving his economic reforms will need installing a loyal successor. The trend toward centralization under his watch suggests that this pattern will intensify post-tenure. Regardless of Tinubu's tenure, Yorubaland must regain political and economic cohesion. The current system has dismantled our foundational regional models, like development banking. Amotekun exists, but toothless, lacking judicial authority. The Yoruba Referendum provides a bold framework for a regional judiciary and a regional economy rooted in our history and aspirations. The future lies not in foreign investment paradigms, but in redefining our own.

(xiii) At this point, it is pertinent to ask what this will cost us, as Yoruba. Despite increased federal allocations, Yorubaland is still constrained by centralized structures that stifle our regional economic thrust. Decades of deliberate divestment from our foundational socio-economic models have left us vulnerable with strategic economic investments which have made comatose, almost all of our foundational Regional political economy, dissolving these into a new-found "National economic" paradigm. Even enthusiasts of "gradual restructuring" [/i]among us cannot deny this reality. Some Yoruba leaders facilitated this divestment by not asserting ethno-national political economy. Reclaiming this is essential and can only be anchored by the Yoruba Referendum.

(xiv) The Buhari administration's resistance to Amotekun highlighted the limits of regional security or "state police" under the current system. Without prosecutorial powers and a Yoruba-determined judiciary, security autonomy is illusory. The Yoruba Referendum's[b] Annexure[/b] rightly proposes a full judicial architecture as the remedy, to wit: "[i]The Judicial power of the Region shall be vested in the Supreme Court of the Region, Court of Appeal, High Court, Customary Court and Other lower courts as the Parliament may establish. There shall be a Court of Appeal in each of the provinces. There shall be, in each province, a High Court from which appeals shall lie to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of the Region."

(xv) The above necessarily leads to the necessity for a seismic shift in our political economy. Current economic models are based on access to foreign direct investment and national economic metrics which were built primarily on a nation-state architecture that fuels insecurity. A shift toward ethno-regional political economy with Multi-National State architecture is not just necessary; it is urgent.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee.

Politics › Afenifere And The Path To Restructuring. by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:38am On May 31, 2025

The Yoruba Referendum Committee congratulates Oba Olu Falae on his recent appointment as the chairman of the National Executive Committee of Afenifere. His selection offers a timely opportunity to reposition the Pan-Yoruba socio-political organization. We also welcome Afenifere’s reaffirmation that Restructuring remains the most potent means of addressing Nigeria’s deepening crises.
However, we are struck by Afenifere’s call “on the Federal Government under President Bola Tinubu and the National Assembly to set the machinery in motion to restructure the country as a matter of urgency."
This approach mimics a failed experience, a repetition of a modus operandi that has, since 1999, sustained Nigeria’s centralized and militarized governance structure.

We urge Afenifere and the Yoruba public to reflect on the following:

(i) Afenifere has championed Restructuring since its rebirth in 1994 during the “June 12” crisis. It played a leading role in the anti-military struggle and took part in various Constitutional and National Conferences, midwifed by the various central administrations. It also took part in the National Assembly's serial reviews of the Constitution since 1999. All of these simply waved flags at the problem, yielding little beyond symbolic gestures. Repeating them under current conditions is a strategic misstep.

(ii) It is possible that Afenifere sees in the President certain characteristics which may make his administration take a different path from preceding Administrations but we also want Afenifere to recognize that Restructuring or Re-Federalization is a matter of self-expression, self-determination and not a gift from any administration, no matter how sympathetic it is to Restructuring.

(iii) President Tinubu may indeed mean well for the Yoruba, for Nigeria, for Africa, and for humanity as a whole; but as the adage goes: the road to hell is paved with the remains of good intentions! We want to be very clear about this: Neither the President nor the National Assembly’s Constitutional amendment process can deliver the degree of autonomy the Nationalities of Nigeria seek. Goodwill is no substitute for structural change.

(iv) Afenifere’s current posture recalls the pre-1999 experience, which, in its essence, saw the Yoruba participating in Abubakar's transition program without pre-conditions, despite holding considerable leverage. Indeed, a school of thought will claim that what was called a strategy was nothing short of a disorganized retreat from a position of strength. Let us not repeat that error.

(v) We further posit that the above stated shortcomings arose from a failure to fully appreciate the enormity of the obstacles attendant to the quest for Restructuring of Nigeria. Restructuring is blocked not by technical details but by deliberate resistance and diluting Ethno-National identities through presidential patronage. Essentially, these revolve around the robust determination to at best panel beat the Nigerian State into what may be called a “supra-national state”, a.k.a Nigeria's “unique Federalism” to be achieved partly through the creation of alternative and/or new power bases through the instrumentality of presidential patronage. This has been the practice since 1999 and can now be seen from the various policies and initiatives of the Tinubu Administration, strengthening the Unitary structure through its various political, economic and security policies.

(vi) It is clear to us that if the above programmatic line emerges victorious, it can only be to the detriment of the Yoruba because it will suppress our national aspirations. Even granted that this road may not be taken or that particular scenarios may not work out as anticipated, our only safeguard lies in advancing our own alternative openly and urgently.

(vii) This means we must address the fundamental question of the Nigerian State as Legitimized by the 1999 Constitution which silences Nigeria’s Ethnic Nationalities and substitutes administrative states for Peoples as Federating units. The path forward lies in restoring Legitimacy to Nigeria’s Constituent Nationalities through Nationality Referendums, reaffirming that it is the Peoples, not the states, who are the true Federating Units.

(viii) Afenifere's expectation on the National Assembly ignores the fact that the Assembly has already declared it cannot produce a new Constitution for Nigeria as it can only amend the flawed 1999 Constitution. Even Its amendment process, requires approval of 24 State Assemblies which guarantees deadlock in a multinational, multi-ethnic society unless detrimental compromises are made. This reinforces our assertion that the National Assembly does not represent the Peoples of Nigeria, more so when the 1999 Constitution it seeks to amend does not recognize the Peoples, substituting them with states as the Federating Units.

(ix) Even if we are to contemplate a country-wide Referendum, it will only reinforce Nigeria’s unitary structure because it will subject the aspirations of one Nationality to the veto of others. This has been a formula proven to be toxic in Nigeria’s political history. Furthermore, any national referendum through the National Assembly will be shaped by electoral structures and political calculations that marginalize Nationalities. Our experience teaches us that these mechanisms cannot be trusted.

(x) Therefore, the immediate task before us is the question of “Legitimacy”; our mere recognition of Restructuring as crucial and urgent does not confer Legitimacy on it. Politicians of all stripes are now repositioning themselves in anticipation of their becoming part of the[b] supra-national State.[/b] The Yoruba must instead reassert their own demands, on their own terms, with the moral and legal weight of Legitimacy behind them, compelling the Nigerian state to respond accordingly. In other words, the Yoruba quest for Federalism has its own raison d’etre and must be pursued primarily on that basis. Same goes for other Nationalities.

(xi) The above shows why the Yoruba Referendum matters. It is not just a demand; it is a categorical imperative. It is a roadmap to a legitimate and autonomous political and economic future because (a) It legitimizes the Yoruba demand for an autonomous political order, without being circumscribed by central authorities (b) It offers a strategic alternative to pan-Nigerian political entanglements and alliances by which our politicians are forced into unnecessary alliances that dilute our interests.( c) It anchors Yoruba political direction on a firm demand, outlined in the Annexure to the Bill for a Referendum, enabling us to shape an alternative vision rooted in our values, history, and aspirations whereby we can address our present challenges by creating the necessary political and economic atmosphere.

(xii) With the above, the Yoruba Referendum Committee calls on Afenifere to (a) remember the Yoruba National Anthem, composed by the founders, especially its last line, to wit: “awa ni imole gbogbo adulawo”, the light for Africans.(b) publicly endorse[b] Nationality Referendums[/b], which, in our case, is the Yoruba Referendum as the pathway to Legitimize their Nationality aspirations as the precursor to a Constitutional Convention of Nationalities to arrive at a new, Federal Constitution for Nigeria (c ) become part of ongoing efforts on ground to engage our Governors and Houses of Assembly to pass the Bill for a Referendum into Law and conduct the Referendum. This is not merely about political reform. It is about restoring dignity, agency, and direction to Yoruba people and society. Let us lead ourselves decisively and lawfully into the next chapter. The time to act is now.
Once again, our heartfelt congratulations to Oba Oluyemisi Falae.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › Resetting The Yoruba Center Of Gravity: Beyond 2027 And Electoral Politics by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:22am On May 27, 2025

The Yoruba Referendum Committee says as follows:

(i) The surge of political activity ahead of the 2027 elections compels Nigeria’s Constituent units to assess how these power shifts will benefit them. The 1999 Constitution excludes the people as true Constituents, recognizing only states, thus reducing electoral victories to state-level calculations

(ii) Nonetheless, people’s aspirations, rooted in cultural and historical identities predating creation of these administrative states, remain vital. Concerns about language extinction and erosion of cultural norms cannot be overridden by economic reforms, however beneficial. When President Tinubu champions market-driven reforms, the Yoruba proverb “Ona kan o w’oja”, literally, there are many paths to the market-from the laissez faire, unbridled to the bridled-becomes relevant. Economic policies and/ or reforms must align with social and cultural expectations, more so when Africa's developmental challenges are tied to decolonization, bringing forth choices on the type of market forces we must follow. These cannot be reduced to oil subsidy removals and/or foreign exchange stability since both are tied to the global economy, itself a function of the dynamics between the “developed” and “underdeveloped” countries.

(iii) In advanced economies, subsidies are common tools of political economy and statecraft. Demonizing them in Nigeria while insisting their removal is a prerequisite for growth ignores our own history, especially the Western Region’s developmental model driven by state intervention, still remembered with pride almost seventy years after the abolition of the Region as a semi-autonomous geopolitical entity.

(iv) Nigeria’s over-centralized political economy, fueled by oil revenues and cemented by false population-based allocations and mechanical division of the country into “north” and “south”, reinforces the political economy of Amalgamation and colonial rule and has denied regions meaningful economic autonomy. This has been the modus operandi of the Nigerian economy since 1970 until the emergence of President Tinubu in 2023 and subsequent removal of fuel subsidies which brought about foreign exchange stabilization as the totality of the economic reforms with the political consequence of further centralization and unitarization; the center sharing or allocating unprecedented amount of money while holding on to unprecedented political power now resulting in a mass influx of the opposition figures into his party and unwittingly reviving the contest between Federalism and Unitarism.

(v) The Yoruba’s historic social-democratic model has been sidelined by market fundamentalism with its unbridled market forces without a chance for the Yoruba (and other Nationalities) to have a say in determining their economic choices, to choose their pathway to the market as in “ona kan o w'oja”. Economic direction is now set without the people’s input. Political parties, though central to governance, neither reflect ethno-National identities nor allow cultural expression.

(vi) Yet, historically, dominant Yoruba-supported parties like the Action Group, UPN, and later AD had their Center of Gravity in Yorubaland, enabling them to drive regional development. While not ethnic parties, they aligned with Yoruba aspirations. This balance was disrupted by military coups, civil war, and the increasing centralization of power. Current political parties are not even allowed to have their language or Nationality in the political party formation and its practice.

(vii) This has led to the gradual descent into further centralization of Nigeria's political economy. Today, Tinubu’s administration faces a crossroads: loosen the grip of the center or reinforce it.

(viii) A choice must be made. This choice cannot be divorced from both the organizational and politically partisan vehicle of its expression which will also allow or ensure the flowering of various ideological/philosophical tendencies. This mandates an examination of current organizational and political choices to arrive at a resolution.

(ix) Although the APC dominates in Yorubaland, its Center of Gravity is not in Yorubaland despite being the President's political home thereby making it vulnerable to decisions that conflict with Yoruba interests. The 2027 elections will mark a critical point: a choice between further Centralization or Re-Federalization in a terminal battle. Nationality Referendums [/b]secures the latter and confers Legitimacy and validity. The Yoruba must pursue this Referendum because it is also the expression of the people’s will and a direct challenge to Unitarist dominance.

(x) The Yoruba must therefore reset their Center of Gravity, not in a partisan, electoral sense, but in engaging the current reality with an agenda anchored on the [b]“Yoruba Referendum” as the pathway to Restructuring/True Federalism and which will not be dependent on, or tied to electoral promises.

(xi) This call to reset recognizes that, hitherto, calls for Restructuring have assumed that its opponents will be able to see the logic in the demand and act accordingly, hence the expectation that "reasoning" will prevail. Reasoning has not prevailed, and it will not! Restructuring of Nigeria will begin to have practical meaning and impact when it is taken from the realm of "reasoning" and placed within the context of practical politics, hence the need for a concerted effort to demand the Yoruba Referendum from our state Assemblies. The framework for this exists in the “Bill for a Referendum,” specifically Article 10, which outlines the creation of a[b] Constitutional Commission[/b]. This Commission would act as the Yoruba's political and ideological anchor on Re-Federalization, our Center of Gravity, based on the[b] Annexure [/b]to the Bill for a Referendum, engaging other Nationalities and insulating Yoruba politicians from external pressures.

(xii) This will ensure the movement to Restructure and Re-Federalize Nigeria is grounded in the concept of “Indigenous-People-as- Constituents.”
The Yoruba Referendum is the starting point for this reset, and it must become the central political issue leading up to 2027.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee.

Christianity Etc › Letter To The Church In Nigeria: From ‘balanced Ticket’ To A Balanced Federation by ooduapathfinder(op): 7:17am On May 20, 2025

Letter to the Church in Nigeria: From ‘Balanced Ticket’ to a Balanced Federation

This letter is prompted by the recent stance of the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety), a leading Nigerian research and advocacy group, which rejected the “undeserved” papal invitation extended to President Bola Tinubu to attend the inauguration of the 267th Pope, now known as Pope Leo XIV.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee does not dismiss Intersociety's call as a mere protest, rather we see it as a wake-up call to both the leadership and laity of the Church in Nigeria.

Intersociety, known for its rigorous documentation of human rights abuses, provided alarming statistics about Christian persecution in Northern Nigeria. However. beyond the compelling statistics on the persecution of Christians in Northern Nigeria lies a deeper issue. to wit: Nigeria’s failure to recognize its diverse Ethnic Nationalities as foundational units of the Federation.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee emphasizes that the controversy underscores Nigeria’s unresolved “National Question”, to wit: the deliberate erasure of its Peoples as Constituent units, replaced by impersonal administrative entities called “states”, a legacy entrenched in the fraudulent 1999 Constitution, which falsely declares that “Nigeria is a Federation of States and FCT.”

We now have a system that substitutes real communities with artificial “states,”; this deception is central to Nigeria’s dysfunction, and the Church has been largely silent.

The Church in Nigeria is not only complicit by association with power, as Intersociety argues, but more fundamentally by its failure to advance the cause of its people.

It has neglected the intersection of Faith and Nationality a failure that leaves Christians, especially those in the North, politically voiceless and socially vulnerable. Yet. Christians are part of specific Ethnic Nationalities whose identities are erased in national discourse. Official narratives often reduce mass atrocities to generic “clashes” between “Christians and Muslims,” or “banditry”, glossing over the nationality identities of the victims.

Christians in Northern Nigeria are not a monolith; they belong to specific Ethnic nationalities. Yet, official narratives blur their identity, often grouping victims as “Christian and Muslim” without acknowledging their national heritage.
Meanwhile, Northern Muslims recognize the Fulani Sultan of Sokoto as their ethno-religious leader, giving them both spiritual and national representation. Christians have no such leadership structure, rendering them invisible in national power equations. This absence weakens their collective voice and political agency.
This vacuum is even more critical in Northern territories where both Muslim and Christian communities are victims of terrorism. Recognizing them by their true national identities is key to empowering them to resist oppression on their own terms, ethno-nationally.

Even among Northern Muslims who are also victims of violence, recognition of their ethno-national identities would empower them to resist terror on their own cultural and territorial terms. The displacement of Christian communities and seizure of ancestral lands are not incidental; they are part of a calculated strategy of territorial domination by Fulani elites under the guise of national unity.

The dispossession of ancestral lands and farmlands in Northern Nigeria, as documented by Intersociety, is part of a long-standing project of Fulani hegemony to dominate territory through displacement and homogenization.

As noted in our May 12, 2025, Bulletin:

“……insecurity in Nigeria is a political enterprise. People are being displaced from their lands, particularly in the North, while the government keeps them in IDP camps, thereby stripping them of political representation. When Northern leaders meet, as the Northern Governors have done, those lands are counted as part of the "North," but the original, displaced inhabitants remain unrepresented. Instead, power remains with those complicit in their displacement. Meanwhile, perpetrators are reintegrated under the "repentant" doctrine, sustaining cycles of violence and preserving Northern dominance at both national and state levels."

During the 2023 elections, the Church’s response was limited to opposing the “Muslim-Muslim Ticket” and demanding a religiously “balanced” ticket, that is. a Christian-Muslim or Muslim-Christian pairing. This reaction was shortsighted. A balanced ticket in a fundamentally imbalanced Federation is mere window dressing and meaningless.

The Church must now move from advocating for religious balance in politics to demanding a Balanced Federation based on the recognition of Nigeria’s Indigenous Nationalities. It must now shift its focus from religious parity on election issues to Constitutional justice for Nigeria's Nationalities. It is not enough to seek symbolic inclusion in a broken system. The Church must push for Constitutional Restructuring through Nationality Referendums, the only viable path to justice, peace, and development. The Christian community must rally not around candidates, but around a cause: the Re-Federalization of Nigeria through Nationality Referendums.

President Tinubu may continue to promote his economic reforms, fund various central programs, enable FAAC-fueled state spending—none of these addresses the foundational crisis: Nigeria has become an illegitimate union of unequal partners which cannot be ameliorated by any type of zonal electoral permutations. Nigeria’s faulty foundation can only be corrected with a Federation of Nationalities, not states as the only path to peace and progress.

Africa’s underdevelopment stems, in large part, from adopting Nation-State models imposed by Europe that ignore the continent’s cultural and national realities. Nigeria, like much of Africa, cannot thrive without first confronting this inherited dysfunction. The Church, which helped lead Europe's political reformation, must now help chart a similar course in Nigeria.

In theory, Nigeria is a democracy where citizens “render unto Caesar” through their votes, taxes, and participation in governance. But in practice, the state ignores the people’s authority, weaponizing public finance against them.

This contradiction demands the Church reexamine its role: is it truly rendering unto God the things of God, namely, restoring the people’s God-given identities and sovereignty?

Christians must reclaim their civic and spiritual agency. They must act on Christ’s command for justice, truth, and peace. This begins not with electoral cosmetics, but with a systemic reset: a Balanced Federation built on the recognition of Nigeria’s Ethnic Nationalities.

Christians must assert both their civic and spiritual responsibility. Voting is not the issue, voting with vision is. For too long, Nigerian Christians have voted for “balanced tickets” that failed to deliver security, dignity, or justice.

The record is clear: Nigeria has had Christian Presidents and balanced tickets for decades. None resolved the persecution, marginalization, or insecurity Christians face today. Repeating the same broken formulas is not godly wisdom, it is political delusion.

As the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. History repeats itself for those who refuse to learn.

President Obasanjo, a Christian, presided over the dismantling of ethno-national power centers in the South and ignored the rise of Islamic extremism in the North. He even dismissed the Christian Association of Nigeria.

President Jonathan, another Christian, flirted with reform but failed to let the people drive the process. One delegate, Sir Olaniwun Ajayi, infamously said, “we went there to play.” The entire national conference became a mockery.

Godly wisdom demands that we break this cycle. Christians must still vote—but now with purpose; not to prop up old structures, but to forge a new path that reflects justice, truth, and equity. We are past symbolic inclusion. The Church must lead the movement toward structural justice through Nationality Referendums and a Re-Federalized Nigeria.

The Church must now fully commit itself to the quest for Nationality Referendums and a true Federation of Nationalities as the foundation of Nigeria’s future. Anything less is complicity in our collective destruction.

This means supporting candidates, movements, and policies that advance the cause of a Re-Federalized Nigeria, built on Nationality Referendums, not fake state lines drawn by colonial and military rulers.

This must become the central plank of the Church’s public engagement heading into 2027.

The time for symbolic participation is over. The Church must now lead the demand for structural Re-Formation of Nigeria. Nothing less will suffice.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee.

Politics › Letter To The Church In Nigeria: From ‘balanced Ticket’ To A Balanced Federation by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:50am On May 20, 2025

Letter to the Church in Nigeria: From ‘Balanced Ticket’ to a Balanced Federation

This letter is prompted by the recent stance of the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety), a leading Nigerian research and advocacy group, which rejected the “undeserved” papal invitation extended to President Bola Tinubu to attend the inauguration of the 267th Pope, now known as Pope Leo XIV.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee does not dismiss Intersociety's call as a mere protest, rather we see it as a wake-up call to both the leadership and laity of the Church in Nigeria.

Intersociety, known for its rigorous documentation of human rights abuses, provided alarming statistics about Christian persecution in Northern Nigeria. However. beyond the compelling statistics on the persecution of Christians in Northern Nigeria lies a deeper issue. to wit: Nigeria’s failure to recognize its diverse Ethnic Nationalities as foundational units of the Federation.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee emphasizes that the controversy underscores Nigeria’s unresolved “National Question”, to wit: the deliberate erasure of its Peoples as Constituent units, replaced by impersonal administrative entities called “states”, a legacy entrenched in the fraudulent 1999 Constitution, which falsely declares that “Nigeria is a Federation of States and FCT.”

We now have a system that substitutes real communities with artificial “states,”; this deception is central to Nigeria’s dysfunction, and the Church has been largely silent.

The Church in Nigeria is not only complicit by association with power, as Intersociety argues, but more fundamentally by its failure to advance the cause of its people.

It has neglected the intersection of Faith and Nationality a failure that leaves Christians, especially those in the North, politically voiceless and socially vulnerable. Yet. Christians are part of specific Ethnic Nationalities whose identities are erased in national discourse. Official narratives often reduce mass atrocities to generic “clashes” between “Christians and Muslims,” or “banditry”, glossing over the nationality identities of the victims.

Christians in Northern Nigeria are not a monolith; they belong to specific Ethnic nationalities. Yet, official narratives blur their identity, often grouping victims as “Christian and Muslim” without acknowledging their national heritage.
Meanwhile, Northern Muslims recognize the Fulani Sultan of Sokoto as their ethno-religious leader, giving them both spiritual and national representation. Christians have no such leadership structure, rendering them invisible in national power equations. This absence weakens their collective voice and political agency.
This vacuum is even more critical in Northern territories where both Muslim and Christian communities are victims of terrorism. Recognizing them by their true national identities is key to empowering them to resist oppression on their own terms, ethno-nationally.

Even among Northern Muslims who are also victims of violence, recognition of their ethno-national identities would empower them to resist terror on their own cultural and territorial terms. The displacement of Christian communities and seizure of ancestral lands are not incidental; they are part of a calculated strategy of territorial domination by Fulani elites under the guise of national unity.

The dispossession of ancestral lands and farmlands in Northern Nigeria, as documented by Intersociety, is part of a long-standing project of Fulani hegemony to dominate territory through displacement and homogenization.

As noted in our May 12, 2025, Bulletin:

“……insecurity in Nigeria is a political enterprise. People are being displaced from their lands, particularly in the North, while the government keeps them in IDP camps, thereby stripping them of political representation. When Northern leaders meet, as the Northern Governors have done, those lands are counted as part of the "North," but the original, displaced inhabitants remain unrepresented. Instead, power remains with those complicit in their displacement. Meanwhile, perpetrators are reintegrated under the "repentant" doctrine, sustaining cycles of violence and preserving Northern dominance at both national and state levels."

During the 2023 elections, the Church’s response was limited to opposing the “Muslim-Muslim Ticket” and demanding a religiously “balanced” ticket, that is. a Christian-Muslim or Muslim-Christian pairing. This reaction was shortsighted. A balanced ticket in a fundamentally imbalanced Federation is mere window dressing and meaningless.

The Church must now move from advocating for religious balance in politics to demanding a Balanced Federation based on the recognition of Nigeria’s Indigenous Nationalities. It must now shift its focus from religious parity on election issues to Constitutional justice for Nigeria's Nationalities. It is not enough to seek symbolic inclusion in a broken system. The Church must push for Constitutional Restructuring through Nationality Referendums, the only viable path to justice, peace, and development. The Christian community must rally not around candidates, but around a cause: the Re-Federalization of Nigeria through Nationality Referendums.

President Tinubu may continue to promote his economic reforms, fund various central programs, enable FAAC-fueled state spending—none of these addresses the foundational crisis: Nigeria has become an illegitimate union of unequal partners which cannot be ameliorated by any type of zonal electoral permutations. Nigeria’s faulty foundation can only be corrected with a Federation of Nationalities, not states as the only path to peace and progress.

Africa’s underdevelopment stems, in large part, from adopting Nation-State models imposed by Europe that ignore the continent’s cultural and national realities. Nigeria, like much of Africa, cannot thrive without first confronting this inherited dysfunction. The Church, which helped lead Europe's political reformation, must now help chart a similar course in Nigeria.

In theory, Nigeria is a democracy where citizens “render unto Caesar” through their votes, taxes, and participation in governance. But in practice, the state ignores the people’s authority, weaponizing public finance against them.

This contradiction demands the Church reexamine its role: is it truly rendering unto God the things of God, namely, restoring the people’s God-given identities and sovereignty?

Christians must reclaim their civic and spiritual agency. They must act on Christ’s command for justice, truth, and peace. This begins not with electoral cosmetics, but with a systemic reset: a Balanced Federation built on the recognition of Nigeria’s Ethnic Nationalities.

Christians must assert both their civic and spiritual responsibility. Voting is not the issue, voting with vision is. For too long, Nigerian Christians have voted for “balanced tickets” that failed to deliver security, dignity, or justice.

The record is clear: Nigeria has had Christian Presidents and balanced tickets for decades. None resolved the persecution, marginalization, or insecurity Christians face today. Repeating the same broken formulas is not godly wisdom, it is political delusion.

As the saying goes, insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly and expecting a different result. History repeats itself for those who refuse to learn.

President Obasanjo, a Christian, presided over the dismantling of ethno-national power centers in the South and ignored the rise of Islamic extremism in the North. He even dismissed the Christian Association of Nigeria.

President Jonathan, another Christian, flirted with reform but failed to let the people drive the process. One delegate, Sir Olaniwun Ajayi, infamously said, “we went there to play.” The entire national conference became a mockery.

Godly wisdom demands that we break this cycle. Christians must still vote—but now with purpose; not to prop up old structures, but to forge a new path that reflects justice, truth, and equity. We are past symbolic inclusion. The Church must lead the movement toward structural justice through Nationality Referendums and a Re-Federalized Nigeria.

The Church must now fully commit itself to the quest for Nationality Referendums and a true Federation of Nationalities as the foundation of Nigeria’s future. Anything less is complicity in our collective destruction.

This means supporting candidates, movements, and policies that advance the cause of a Re-Federalized Nigeria, built on Nationality Referendums, not fake state lines drawn by colonial and military rulers.

This must become the central plank of the Church’s public engagement heading into 2027.

The time for symbolic participation is over. The Church must now lead the demand for structural Re-Formation of Nigeria. Nothing less will suffice.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee.

Politics › On The Northern Governors Call For State Police by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:24am On May 13, 2025

On the Northern Governors Call for "State Police"

The Yoruba Referendum Committee notes the Northern Governors Forum's call for "state police" and its appeal to the National Assembly to "expedite action on the enactment of the legal framework for its take-off." However, we urge the Northern Governors Forum, Nigerians at large, and the Yoruba people in particular to consider the following:

(i) While the National Assembly is already reviewing the 1999 Constitution and may accommodate this demand, selective amendments cannot adequately address, let alone resolve, Nigeria's deep-seated insecurity. With the growing violence across the country, particularly in the North, it is clear that resolving insecurity requires more than simply introducing state police; it demands a fundamental restructuring of our Constitutional framework.

(ii) Many states have already established local policing outfits of sorts, more or less versions of "state police" yet, their lack of prosecutorial and judicial powers renders them ineffective. This demonstrates that addressing insecurity requires empowering Constituent units with full juridical authority.

(iii) A legitimate Constitution must reflect the sovereignty of the people. Yet, Nigeria's 1999 Constitution defines Nigeria as a "Federation of states and FCT" , not people. These states, created by military fiat, never consented to be Federating units. Assigning them the rights and powers of a Federating Unit undermines both Federal principles and popular sovereignty. Under such a framework, creating state police only adds another bureaucratic layer without addressing the root causes of insecurity. We must first identify whether insecurity is driven by political agendas or mere criminality.

(iv) The Yoruba Referendum Committee asserts that insecurity in Nigeria is a political enterprise. People are being displaced from their lands, particularly in the North, while the government keeps them in IDP camps, thereby stripping them of political representation. When Northern leaders meet, as the Northern Governors have done, those lands are counted as part of the "North," but the original, displaced inhabitants remain unrepresented. Instead, power remains with those complicit in their displacement. Meanwhile, perpetrators are reintegrated under the "repentant" doctrine, sustaining cycles of violence and preserving Northern dominance at both national and state levels.

(v) Unlike MEND, NDVF, or OPC who pursued resource control without seeking territorial expansion. The "Amnesty" offered circumscribed their inherent powers to determine their expectations and short changed their advocacy for "Resource Control". The current wave of insecurity involves land seizure and displacement. The state's response has neutralized southern groups while, in this case, enables actors who threaten indigenous populations. Insecurity has thus become a tool for seizing and maintaining control of the Nigerian state.

(vi) This point is underscored by Femi Adesina, former President Buhari's spokesperson, who once said indigenes should surrender their ancestral lands or be killed. President Buhari's silence on the matter was tacit approval. Today's security crisis is the outcome of that stance. In such a context, state police is an inadequate solution. True reform must begin with re-Federalization; otherwise, we will continue to suffer and contest power in an unstable system.

(vii) Re-federalization is straightforward. There is no need for another Constitutional review by the National Assembly, which has never addressed the fundamental question of who the constituent units are. Every Conference since 1999 has failed. The National Assembly and the various Conferences took the Constitution's description of Nigeria as an article of faith, which further enables insecurity to shift the balance of power in favor of the North, regardless of who is in office.

(viii) Therefore, the Yoruba Referendum Committee cannot support either the Northern Governors Forum's demand for "state police" or their call for the National Assembly to expedte action on the demand.

(ix) Instead, we call for a new Constitution, initiated through Nationality Referendums that recognize the people. not the states as the true Constituents with the right to organize their own security systems. The Referendum process affirms this sovereignty, especially in the North, which hosts the largest number of displaced persons.

(x) Referendums can cover anything from local issues to Constitutional changes. Since our aim is a new Federal Constitution, the type of Referendum must be clearly defined: (a). A nationwide Referendum is unsuitable, as it risks overriding regional and cultural aspirations in a multi-ethnic, multicultural country.(b). Zonal or regional Referendums are also problematic, as they may suppress minority identities, e.g., the Middle Belt being subsumed under "the North," or preventing Yoruba populations in Kwara and Kogi from continuing their push for integration with the Southwest.(c) . Nationality-based Referendums offer the best path forward. They incorporate sociocultural values and ensure all ethnic groups are properly represented in the restructuring process.

(xi) The "Nationality Referendum" is comprehensive. As detailed in the draft Bill for a Yoruba Referendum, it includes provisions to address insecurity through a regional judiciary and internal security system, provided for, in the Annexure to the Draft Bill for a Yoruba Referendum, to wit: "The Judicial power of the Region shall be vested in the Supreme Court of the Region, Court of Appeal, High Court, Customary Court and Other lower courts as the Parliament may establish. There shall be a Court of Appeal in each of the provinces. There shall be, in each province, a High Court from which appeals shall lie to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of the Region. Western/Oduduwa Region shall have its own internal security system.

(xii) The Yoruba Referendum Committee believes this approach addresses all concerns raised by the Northern Governors Forum. What remains is for us, in Yorubaland, to put more pressure on the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti State's Houses of Assembly to pass the draft Bill into law, for the governors to assent to it, and for the Referendum to be held. This will not only initiate the re-Federalization of Nigeria but also send a clear message to the enablers of insecurity that the people are ready to take control of their future. A well-structured,Nationality-based Referendum process offers the best foundation for a secure and united Nigeria

Editorial Board

Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › Hakeem Baba Ahmed: A Wake Up Call For Yoruba Elite. by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:42am On Apr 22, 2025

Hakeem Baba Ahmed: A Wake up call for Yoruba Elite.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee is not privy to all that transpired during Hakeem Baba-Ahmed’s tenure as Special Adviser (Political) to President Tinubu, whose office was located in the Vice President's wing. However, we are surprised by the reasons he gave for his resignation—ranging from allegations of Tinubu’s supposed schemes against the North to claims of Northern discrimination, concluding with a veiled threat: “If they think they’re going to do the same fraud they did in 2023, maybe this country won’t be as it is now.”
We are less concerned with what prompted this outburst and more focused on repositioning of political forces in expectation of 2027 elections; first by partisan forces working towards an electoral alliance, and spearheaded by the North, and now by non-partisan forces, ostensibly to be driven by Hakeem Baba Ahmed, all seemingly aimed at removing President Tinubu from office.
This should serve as a wake-up call to the Yoruba elite.
Hakeem Baba-Ahmed replied to our July 2023 Bulletin #33, written as a response to his interview in Punch as Secretary of the Northern Elders Forum.
His response was anchored on the need for inter-elite engagement as “t[i]he most elementary step to achieve a national consensus” over either a Nationality Referendum as we propose or any other pathway and that “there is no reason why the administration should be expected or pressurised into convening a national dialogue over our future.The elite of various groups should kick-start a productive national dialogue."
[/i]
At the time, Restructuring—not the 2027 elections—was his focus. With this newfound opposition to the Tinubu Administration, we expect him to advance the steps he proposed: that elites initiate a productive national dialogue.
Regardless of the reason for his disenchantment with the Tinubu Administration, we expect him to rally Northern elites towards this path, rather than resort to threats over future elections based on a widely acknowledged faulty structure.
This is because such a “National Dialogue” would necessarily facilitate a new Constitution for the country. To avoid pitfalls of previous dialogues/conferences, the new Dialogue must have an in-built mechanism for Legitimacy. This can only be guaranteed by “Nationality Referendums” as its prelude because the Referendum is already the Legitimate expression of the people's aspirations and expectations.
Hence, we expect Hakeem Baba Ahmed to encourage or mobilize the elite of the North to toe this pathway instead of threatening fire and brimstone on account of some future elections planned on a foundation which has been agreed to be faulty.
Of course the same condition applies to other elite, if not more so, especially our own Yoruba elite.
Our Bulletin #33 under reference addressed the issues posed in the said “Punch” interview. We distilled his points into three categories: drastically reducing corruption, cost of governance and Restructuring as the solution
He described corruption as a function of “societal corruption which percolates down to every other sections of governance”. Yet, It is well known that each society/nationality already has its shared values, regardless of the individual profession of faith and which mediates and modulates social relationships, and which affects its leadership.
To “drastically remove corruption” must therefore entail and embrace the particular social values of each Nationality. Hence the emphasis must be on arriving at inter-Nationality shared values, which can only be achieved by recognizing the realities of current Intra-Nationality shared values whose relevance will be brought onto the sphere of the political architecture.
Further, he called for good governance, security, and compassion from the Tinubu administration. He advocated Restructuring as essential, noting: “The North can’t sustain 19 governors, legislatures, and judiciaries. Governance consumes a massive portion of resources. Until we solve this—through common policies, strategy, and awareness—the North will remain burdened.”
As a way out, he suggested a forum to define Nigeria’s future and possibly change the Constitution. This is to be achieved by way of convening “some kind of forum that will genuinely look at what Nigeria needs to be, either incrementally or in one gulp, including changing the Constitution.
The Yoruba Referendum Committee takes the opposite view, to wit: what is needed are Nationality Referendums as the “informed strategy” because (a) various governments in the past convened forums for Restructuring and nothing came out of them. (b) The APC Government and party also set up the El-Rufai Committee on Federalism and, so far, nothing has come out of it. (c) Even if it is possible for the Tinubu Administration to be different, that is, it can convene such a forum with something coming out of it, we cannot afford to rely on such an assumption, mainly because such forums become substitutes for the People, often replacing the people's will with elite consensus. (d) Despite the characterization of such representatives as representing the people, the people, i.e. the citizens are prevented from exercising their veto power on decisions that may negatively impact them. (e) The answer is not in convening any forum as a first step but in ensuring that the wishes of the citizens are made manifest through the Referendum process after which any negotiations would commence. (f)The “Referendum Process” is what we call, for the Yoruba, the Yoruba Referendum. Other Nationalities can describe their process according to their realities, the central issue must be on emphasizing the Peoples'will by the Referendum vote. (g) These Referendums will provide the basis for a “National Dialogue” to result in a new Constitution and the composition of the Center, which the Yoruba Referendum Bill has defined as “a central Legislature made up of an equal number of representatives from the Federating Units(Nationalities) and superintended by a Presidential College consisting of one representative selected or elected from each Federating Unit and from which a “primus inter pares” will be selected/elected to hold the office of the President on a rotational basis. (h) This will permanently alter the over-reliance on the Center, thus reducing inter-Nationality conflicts and thereby making Nigeria become the expression of African post-colonial aspirations for functioning multinational federal democracies. This will also reduce overcentralization, resolve inter-ethnic conflict, and create a true multinational federal democracy—fulfilling Africa’s post-colonial promise.
Hakeem Baba Ahmed's criticism of the North’s 19-state structure further underscores the need for the North to hold its own Nationality Referendums to determine governance preferences. This is crucial not just for Restructuring, but also to reduce governance costs nationwide.
The above sums up our response to Hakeem Baba Ahmed's position.
Yet, Hakeem Baba Ahmed has forgotten about the Restructuring he advocated before his assumption of office and has now become an advocate for dislodging Tinubu from office.
This is why we are once again calling on the Yoruba elite to seize the moment by ensuring the passage of the Bill for a Referendum by the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun,Ondo and Ekiti States’ Houses of Assembly.
We cannot be reacting to what the “North” does or doesn't do, especially now that we have been served a 6-month notice.
The above is the import of Hakeem Baba Ahmed's resignation and the reasons he adduced.

The ball is in our court.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee.

Politics › Vice President Shettima Is Wrong--ab Initio by ooduapathfinder(op): 7:47am On Apr 14, 2025

Vice President Shettima Is Wrong—Ab Initio

The Yoruba Referendum Committee takes strong exception to Vice President Shettima’s remarks at the 17th Leadership Annual Conference and Award, held at the State House Banquet Hall, Abuja.

As reported, the Vice President emphasized that the Administration is not seeking to replicate another country’s model, but to build a Federal structure suited to Nigeria’s unique values—one that ensures accountability and promotes development. He stated that Federalism is not one-size-fits-all, that no perfect Federal system exists, and that every Federation evolves based on its unique realities. He warned against romanticizing foreign models and prescribing imported solutions that ignore Nigeria’s social, ethnic, and demographic complexities. He further attributed Nigeria’s challenges to mismanagement, not Constitutional flaws, and cited the Administration’s pursuit of local government autonomy as a bold reform step towards Federalism.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee responds as follows:

(i) It is regrettable that the Vice President would criticize “photocopying” foreign Federal models, when it is well known that the 1979 Constitution drafted under military rule and predecessor to the 1999 Constitution, was modeled closely on the American presidential system. Nigeria’s very political architecture is imported—from the Parliamentary system at independence to the Presidential model adopted post-civil war. Nigeria did not invent these systems; it inherited them. Even the country itself is a foreign creation, drawn up by foreign powers without the consent of its indigenous nations. As Yoruba, the closest historical precedent we have is the constitutional monarchy of the Oyo Empire. If we are to reject foreign constructs, then the office he occupies should be first to go. Dismissing “imported” systems while operating within one is hypocritical. The real issue is therefore not whether our systems are borrowed, but whether they reflect our social, cultural, and historical realities, aspirations and expectations.
(ii) Furthermore, recognizing Nigeria’s diversity while refusing to make it the basis for Federalism is contradictory. The 1999 Constitution’s declaration of Nigeria as “a Federation of 36 states and the FCT” atomizes genuine ethnic and regional identities into mere administrative units, and then falsely proclaims a Federation. The call for true Federalism is therefore not imported; it is a recognition of Nigeria’s true makeup.
(iii) The above highlights a common pattern among Nigeria’s political elite: denying historical and contemporary realities, of even their own existence, to preserve a dysfunctional status quo as their route to power. Otherwise, we will not have a Vice President lamenting the practice of foreign systems when his position as VP is a foreign import.
(iv) To claim that there is “no universal model” for Federalism not only ignores the existence of a basic, universal definition but also does not address how Nigeria’s version came into being, thereby obscuring the real issue. Nigeria’s so-called Federal structure does not meet even the basic criteria: the Federating units did not negotiate their existence, and the Constitution they operate under was not democratically enacted. Yet, Federalism at its core, is a relationship between distinct entities—the center and the subnationals, necessitating organic national consensus and ensuring each Federating unit determines how it develops its human and material resources.
(v) What we call “Federalism” today is, in reality, the subversion of Federalism by the military utilizing existing institutions of the Nigerian state to create a Unitary, Supra-national state. Supra-national here is in the sense that all ethno-national centres of power would have to be neutralized as a necessary precondition, replaced with the creation of alternative and/or new power bases through the instrumentality of presidential patronage, driven by a “Federation Account” financed by oil revenues and which sustains a bloated presidential system, monetized elections, state allocations, and appointments dictated by “Federal character”.
(vi) When the Vice President blames mismanagement instead of Constitutional flaws, he misses the point. The real issue is not mismanagement; it is the foundational definition of Federalism. Mismanagement is not the root—it is the fruit of a structurally defective system. In the First Republic, regional leaders governed effectively because they operated within their cultural and political contexts. The disruption of that structure—under the pretext of promoting unity—ushered in decades of dysfunction,led directly to the civil war, and the postwar centralization laid the groundwork for the mismanagement that followed. All systems manage resources, but how they are managed is a political decision, not merely an economic one. Mismanagement stems from political choices. To ignore the Constitution’s foundational flaws is akin to ignoring the cracked foundation of a house.
(vii) The Vice President’s claim that the Administration has “chosen the path of reform” is based on a flawed premise, to wit: Federalism is or will be arrived at as a series of cumulative “reforms”. It is not so.
(viii) Reform is not unique to Federalism—every society undergoes reform to avoid stagnation. The Administration’s “reforms”—removal of oil subsidies and FX unification/stabilization—are not new. They are long-standing proposals dating back to the SAP era of the 1980s. Calling these “bold” is simply an attempt to frame necessary but delayed decisions as groundbreaking.
(ix) Even despite the “reforms”, the economy remains dependent on oil, and “trillions” shared across government tiers come not from internal production or taxation, but from floating the Naira; unlike devaluation which ordinarily leads to cheaper exports. Devaluation cannot be a viable reform option because of the economy's dependence on imports, which impairs the quality of the reforms. Meanwhile, “reforms” have been integral to Nigeria's political economy since 1976 when Obasanjo’s military regime “indigenized” and “nationalized” key sectors. In practice, these moves suppressed genuine indigeneity because “indigeneity” became associated with the entire country even though we know the country is controlled by the Hausa-Fulani. Hence, enterprises created by the Western Region were appropriated by the center without returning value to their communities. Indigenization without acknowledging indigenous nations is erasure. Nationalization without honoring regional institutions that built them merely created dependency on central largesse and a recipe for corruption and failure.
(x) Babangida's military regime instituted its own reforms via SAP, with similar end-goals as current reforms while Abacha carried out his, mainly based on relaxation of oil prices. Obasanio's civilian administration took his earlier reforms further by “photocopying” the Korean Chaebols model which has not yielded the desired results except its definitional paradigm of family monopolies with no impact on social welfare.
(xi) The much-touted “Local Government Autonomy” reform is also a continuation of the 1976 Obasanjo military-era reforms that stripped local governments of their community roots. Local government, by virtue of Nigeria's multinational and multicultural reality, is culturally defined. An Emir is not an Oba. The imposition of uniformity via the 1976 LG reforms—and their recent validation by the Supreme Court—is fundamentally at odds with Federalism. In Federal systems, local governments are under the control of Federating units, not the center.
(xii) None of the above reforms, from 1976 till 2023 cumulatively established Federalism. They were predicated on the assumption that the Nigerian State is already Federalist. Yet, each military and civilian regime also organized a series of Conferences to Federalize Nigeria, which further shows that there is no correlation between those reforms and Federalism. The Conferences went nowhere because of their denial of Nigeria as a multi-national, multicultural entity which must be the foundation of her Federalism. The focus has now shifted to the National Assembly's Constitution Review mechanism, aimed at arriving at true Federalism. With this, ascribing this Administration's reforms to movement towards Federalism is, at best, an attempt at working to the answer.
(xiii) Real reform must begin by correcting the corruption of ideas that has plagued Nigeria since 1966. No amount of administrative or policy reforms can fix a foundation that is fundamentally broken. If we are serious about development, unity, and accountability, we must return to the roots of Federalism—a voluntary union of distinct nationalities, each with the autonomy to chart its path within a common framework. This is why the Yoruba Referendum Committee urges all Yoruba people—at home and abroad—to demand a Yoruba Referendum from our leaders as the path to true Federalism and a restructured Nigeria. Such a Referendum will allow us to articulate, as a people, the kind of Federal relationship we believe in and are willing to participate in. If Nigeria is to thrive, we must get the structure right by making “our distinct social, ethnic and demographic complexities” the basis for our Federalism.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › Professor Wole Soyinka's Call To Action by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:55am On Mar 25, 2025

The Yoruba Referendum Committee acknowledges Professor Wole Soyinka’s response to the declaration of a State of Emergency in Rivers State, particularly his emphasis on Federalism in Nigeria. Unlike the opportunism displayed by other political leaders, his response is a direct call to action to formally address Nigeria’s flawed Federal structure. Of particular significance is his call for a national discussion on the matter, underscoring that:
"Nigeria must hold a national conference to change the country’s foundation. The federal spirit of association is a cardinal principle, and for that reason, some of us have called again and again for a national conference to truly give ourselves an authentic people’s constitution."

This is a direct challenge to advocates of Restructuring/True Federalism, as Nigeria has held several national conferences since 1999—including the 2006 PRONACO conference—with little to show for them. The much-celebrated 2014 Confab turned out to be nothing more than a talking shop. Even the late Yoruba elder statesman, Chief Olaniwun Ajayi, a participant in the Confab, lamented:
"We went there to play."

Given this history of ineffective conferences, the pressing question is: Why have these conferences failed to achieve meaningful change?

Unless President Tinubu chooses to act differently from his predecessors, which remains uncertain, another conference will not address the fundamental critique of Nigeria’s Federalism. The challenge goes beyond policy decisions; it is a contest between various forces within the country.

This is evident in the 1999 Constitution, which erases the identity of the people by stating:
"Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory."

By this definition, the people of Nigeria are written out of the Constitution. The “state”, considered as the Federating Unit, is a mere administrative and geographical entity, subject to adjustments at will. This has effectively depersonalized and deculturized the people, leaving them without control over their cultural, social, and economic environments.

The State of Emergency declared in the Western Region in 1962 failed to achieve its intended purpose, to wit: the destruction of Awo and the Action Group—not because of bureaucracy but because the Yoruba retained their capacity to address political contradictions on their own terms, and which they exhibited in 1963, 1964 and 1965.

Additionally, the Western Region (like other regions at the time) was not financially dependent on the central government as it is now. This allowed the people to determine and protect their own interests.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee asserts that the first step in this renewed call to action is recognizing the People as the Constituent or Federating Unit—not just states created by military fiat.

Past conferences (except PRONACO’s) were organized by sitting presidents, and their validity depended on presidential authority. Delegates were neither directly nor indirectly elected as representatives of their peoples; they were handpicked and recognized by state and central administrations. As a result, these conferences became bureaucratic and political exercises, disconnected from the democratic will of the people.

Consequently, presidential administrations were not bound by the conferences’ conclusions because they lacked legitimacy. However, these same presidents derived legitimacy from being democratically elected, meaning any solution must also be legitimized by a democratic process.

The 1999 Constitution opens with a false premise:

"We, the People of the Federal Republic of Nigeria,...... to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God…"

However, the people never participated in drafting this Constitution—it was imposed by military decree. The phrase “We, The People” is therefore a fraudulent claim, making the principles and rights purportedly enshrined in the Constitution null and void.

Since no authority was ever delegated to the military to create this Constitution, only “We, The People” have the right to make, amend, or replace it. This right cannot be constrained by provisions within the same flawed Constitution. In other words, the people’s sovereignty overrides any constitutional amendment procedures dictated by the document itself.

The legitimacy of a Constitution is not just a legal matter; it is also a moral and ethical one. Every society has inherent values that guide behavior long before the application of laws. For instance, a Yoruba person instinctively understands acceptable and unacceptable behavior, shaped by family and community upbringing.

A legitimate Constitution must reinforce cultural values rather than undermine them. Yet, the Nigerian state—born out of colonialism—has attempted to impose a false, rootless "Nigerian Personality" disconnected from language and culture.

The preamble defines Nigeria as an “indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God,” implying that the Constitution aligns with God’s prescriptions for nations. If we accept God’s Sovereignty as stated, we must also acknowledge the cultural essence of humankind as created by God.

The post-colonial state—a creation of man—cannot be mistaken for the work of God. God’s design recognizes cultural identity, and in turn, humankind must acknowledge His Sovereignty in its affairs. To be “under God” means embracing and expressing our God-given essence. Any attempt to negate this essence undermines the very Sovereignty of God.

Living together and positively influencing one another is a human political construct, which, in our case, manifests as Federalism—a system where the expectations and aspirations of "We, The People" become the fullest expression of God within us.

The Federalism that led to Nigeria’s Independence was discarded in favor of this artificial construct. As a result, Nigeria has failed to address even its most basic social and economic challenges.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee posits that any call to action, including Professor Soyinka’s, must first resolve the legitimacy question by ensuring that the people—not just state governments—have a direct say in defining their governance.

For this reason, the Committee has submitted a Bill for a Yoruba Referendum to the State Houses of Assembly. The goal is to give Yoruba people a direct voice in determining their political future.

This model may not be suitable for other ethnic nationalities, but each can devise its own mechanisms for a referendum. The outcome of these nationality referendums will then form the basis for a genuine National Conference and, ultimately, a new Federal Constitution.

Professor Wole Soyinka has sounded the call. The ball is now in our court.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › Letter To Gen Akinrinade, Baba Akande Et Al (2) by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:50am On Feb 11, 2025

A Call for Re-Federalization: Addressing the Mediating Factors for a New Nigeria

Former Governor of Ekiti State, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, was quoted by The Cable as saying:
“[i]Power knows the truth, but does not act on it because sometimes there are many mediating factors. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has done many good things; we must all acknowledge that. He’s been bold in taking on some of the most difficult decisions that previous leaders have been reluctant to make. The fallout from those decisions has caused us a huge cost of living crisis, including the removal of the fuel subsidy and the convergence of the FX window. However, he is well-meaning, but well-meaning is not enough in leadership; intentionality is critical to success. Whether you talk about student loans, other efforts at resisting insurgency, taming insecurity, tax policy reform, or increasing revenue into the federal coffers, clearly some elements are there but need to come together. This is where an effective policy framework goes hand in hand with leadership acumen to change the narrative. Maybe that’s the area where we need t[/i]o do a lot more.”

The Yoruba Referendum Committee responds as follows:

Changing the Narrative:

When power knows the truth but does not act on it because of mediating factors, it is essential to identify these factors to create a pathway for addressing them. We all know the truth that is not being acted upon: the de-federalization of Nigeria, and the solution to this is re-federalization, also known as "Restructuring" or "True Federalism."

Therefore, the mediating factors cannot be limited solely to those in power, such as the Presidency. They must also include those outside it—like Dr. Kayode Fayemi and others—who are conscious of the need to address the issue, as they too are affected by these mediating factors.

So, what are the mediating factors preventing the re-federalization of Nigeria? Let us focus on the most important factor—the crux of the matter: the non-existence of a clear pathway toward re-federalizing Nigeria.

Truth is dependent on its legitimacy. Therefore, the pathway and methodology for acting on it must also possess legitimacy.

For the President, legitimacy lies within the Constitution, through which he has attempted to change the narrative via legislation. The most prominent of these is the “Tax Bills war,” which seeks to sustain the unitary structure of Nigeria, centered around allocations from the federal government. This structure has driven Nigeria to its current state and forms the basis of the President’s economic paradigm.

On the other hand, those outside power have wrongly assumed that the quest for re-federalization rests solely with the Presidency. This has resulted in endless conferences since 1999 with little to show for it.

On both sides, the aspirations and expectations of the peoples and nationalities of Nigeria are left out of the equation, making them passive recipients of whatever power decides to give. This omission is the most significant mediating factor, as it denies the legitimacy of the peoples' existence by failing to recognize them as the federating or constituent units in the Constitution.
This is the narrative we need to change.

This denial is a product of political pragmatism, which has made the 1999 Constitution sacrosanct and therefore limited by it.

A constitution should be sacrosanct only when the conditions of its creation reflect the actual or near-actual representation of the society it governs. We all know that the 1999 Constitution did not meet this test, but it was accepted based on pragmatism.

Pragmatism is a necessary part of reality, but it becomes problematic when it substitutes the dynamics of reality itself. When the Decree was handed down as the Constitution, politicians from different divides adopted the pragmatic approach, while those from where the current President emerged attempted to pursue re-federalization. Yet, this approach points to the limitations of pragmatism, as it has failed to achieve its purpose, continually yielding to pragmatic dictates.

All of this stems from the lack of legitimacy given to the aspirations and expectations of the peoples. This was further confirmed when the President responded to “The Patriots,” stating that he would address the “political” issues only after completing his economic reforms. In doing so, he transformed pragmatism from being merely a part of reality into the essence of reality itself—substituting a part for the whole.

This also demonstrates that economic reforms are intertwined with the “political.” They are continuous and ongoing as long as societal economic development is dependent on the relationship between labor and capital, both of which depend on human development, itself driven by the existential imperatives of the peoples.

The denial of the legitimacy of the peoples' aspirations has also led to the drive to control the state as the essence of governance, the raison d'être of politics. This has created conditions for perpetual conflict and economic underdevelopment, where political pragmatism often sustains the status quo, or leads to wars of dominance and attrition, mediated by pragmatic alliances, including foreign support and weapons.

Despite all challenges and obstacles, the Nigerian state was founded as a federal system, which accounted for the expectations and aspirations of its people. For the Yoruba, it remains a beacon of hope. This hope was rooted in the Action Group's decisive victory in the 1951 Western Nigeria Parliamentary Elections, which further legitimized the socio-cultural identity of the Yoruba people and defined the region’s political economy.

Arguably, Yorubaland has sustained its political paradigm since the 1950s, despite various challenges, unlike other African countries whose anti-colonial paradigms collapsed after the demise of their leaders. This is because "Ethno-National" Federalism, championed largely by the West, became the foundation of Nigeria’s independence, allowing for the convergence of cultural, political, and economic imperatives.

The quest to suppress federalism led to its replacement with the current system, which is a direct cause of the economic policies we now face.

Therefore, the effects of these policies are the direct consequences of sustaining a nation-state instead of allowing Nigeria to evolve naturally as a multi-national state, akin to countries like Switzerland and Canada—models for other African nations.

The pressing question is how to regain legitimacy for the peoples of Nigeria, which involves developing a strategy for re-federalization. We currently have several advantages: (i) The presidency, despite its challenges, still holds potential for re-federalization; (ii) Homogeneous state assemblies; (iii) A large segment of our political leaders were "born" in the crucible of anti-military struggles, so they have some understanding of what re-federalization entails; (iv) The Constitution is undergoing amendments; (v) The Senate leader, Opeyemi Bamidele, has indicated that both the National Assembly and state assemblies can pass laws for order and peace.

These advantages can be used to our benefit if Dr. Kayode Fayemi and others in Yoruba leadership adopt the "Yoruba Referendum" as the pathway for re-federalization, which also addresses the "mediating factor" preventing action on the truth—the legitimacy of the people's aspirations. Other nationalities in Nigeria can follow this "Yoruba pathway" according to their own aspirations, leading to a Constitutional Convention that will create a new, necessary Nigeria—one that will shine as a beacon for the entire continent.
This will be a lasting legacy.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee.

Nairaland General › Yoruba Referendum: The Time Is NOW! by ooduapathfinder(op): 6:40am On Oct 05, 2024

The Yoruba Referendum Committee is once again calling on our Governors and Houses of Assembly to step up and seize the opportunity now being presented by the National Assembly in its current attempt at reviewing the amended 1999 Constitution.
The Governors and State Assemblies can do this by passing into Law, the Bill for a Referendum in Yorubaland which has been sent to them. Passing the Bill into Law will enable them to begin preparations for conducting the Referendum as the precursor for a New and Federal Constitution for Nigeria.

This is necessary considering a member of the National Assembly's Constitution Review Committee's summary of their review as centered on “Federalism, State Police and Local Government Autonomy” as if they are separate issues.
On his part, the Senate Leader, Opeyemi Bamidele, stated that if Regionalism is to be addressed as part of Re-Federalizing Nigeria, “the political stakeholders, the civil society, as well as other stakeholders in the country, would have to debate on it and come to a conclusion”.
Of course, the Legitimate and peaceful path towards this is the Referendum Pathway.
Yet, some Yoruba propose going along with continuous amendments to the 1999 Constitution because they believe that the amendments can devolve more powers to the Federating Units.
The question of Federalism has been the fundamental issue for Nigeria, pre- and post- Independence. All other issues are subsumed under it. Therefore, it must be addressed directly.

We therefore proceed as follows:

(1) It is not possible to amend a Unitary Constitution into arriving at Federalism. It will be tantamount to working to the answer. Unitarism and Federalism are opposites, in contradiction to each other. The amended 1999 Constitution being further amended is a Unitary Constitution by virtue of its centralization of all powers seized by military force after which allocations are distributed to the states and local governments. This is despite defining Nigeria as a “Federation of 36 States and FCT”. Hence, it looked to make a “Nation-State” out of a multi-national society. This is why there will be continuous amendments because its foundation was not wired by Federalist principles.

(2) A Constitution is the Grundnorm, the Basic Law, the Fundamental Law, because it is expected to have embedded the existential essence of a people/ society and therefore cannot become an object of serial amendments. Serial amendments mean we are yet to grasp the meaning of our existence. A Constitution defines the expectations and aspirations of a society, hence the vision embodied in the Constitution must be interrogated to decide its relevance to the expectations and aspirations of the people. Hence, we ask what the vision of the 1999 Constitution is?

(3) It was and still is, the military vision of and for Nigeria anchored on ensuring that the balance of power remains within the military vision of a monolithic and homogenized Nigeria, neutralizing indigeneity as the precondition for Federalism, clothing it with the veneer of democracy through periodic elections as if elections, by themselves, determine the essence of democracy.

(4) Democracy is the Anglicized contraction of two Greek words: “demos”, meaning “People” and “kratos” meaning “power”. Exercising power by the people implies that their existence is recognized, not an abstraction devoid of its material reality, but formed by specific social and cultural indicators.

(5) Political parties come and go and are regulated by the people in government. Hence, the first expression of Democracy does not lie with electoral contests but with showing and recognizing the existence of a People who may organize themselves as kingdoms, states, provinces etc. according to their geo-political realities. This is the essence of the Referendum since it serves the purpose of proving indigeneity as the rightful foundation for Democracy with elections embedded as a matter of course, except if they choose to be governed by their monarchies. It is therefore incumbent on our Governors and State Assemblies to show or reestablish the centrality of the People in a democracy over the current tendency to limit it to periodic elections.

(6) Furthermore, economic reforms do not necessarily enhance Democracy. If, after almost 40 years of economic "reforms" the Naira is yet to find its value, something must be wrong with the economic fundamentals or foundation of such "reforms". The global competition of currencies, occurring within the context of the global political economy, demands that the first steps in any reform are political. A political system incongruous with the economy cannot create a sustainable reform. In other words, a centralized state, as Nigeria is, cannot sustain a decentralized economy. One will have to yield to the other. And the centralized state cannot yield, hence the economic back and forth of the "reforms". Major currencies in the world are "floated” without creating upheavals in the local economy. This means there is a correlation between their economy and their settled political paradigm. The only way to "defend" or float the Naira and bring down inflation in all ramifications is political restructuring to Re-Federalize Nigeria.

(7) The Yoruba Referendum has answered this question via its Annexure which states that: (a) Nigeria shall be a Federation/ Union of Constituent Nationalities with “a Federal Presidential Council, whose members will be selected or elected from each of the Nationalities as Federating Units and from whom a Head of State will be selected or elected as the primus-inter-pares with an agreed term. (b) Western/Oduduwa Region shall be a Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Union. (c) Western/Oduduwa Region shall adopt a Parliamentary System of government. (d) The Central Government of the Union shall have no power to interfere or intervene in the affairs of the ODUDUWA REGION, save as shall be agreed to by three quarters of the members of the Region’s Parliament. (e) There shall be a Division of the Federal Armed Forces in the Region, 90% of which personnel shall be indigenes of the Region. The Divisional commander shall be an indigene of Oduduwa Region. (f) The Judicial power of the Region shall be vested in the Supreme Court of the Region, Court of Appeal, High Court, Customary Court and Other lower courts as the Parliament may establish. There shall be a Court of Appeal in each of the provinces. There shall be, in each province, a High Court from which appeals shall lie to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court of the Region. Western/Oduduwa (g) Region shall have its own internal security system. (h) Each Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Federation shall control primary interest in its own resources with an agreed Tax Model for the Federation.

( cool

The above can be adapted by other Nationalities based on their realities thereby providing the basis for Federalism via a democratic paradigm strengthening the existence of the Demos(people) who will be able to exercise and defend their “kratos” (power) and enhance electoral paradigms. What is therefore needed is the boldness of our political leaders, the Governors and members of the State Houses of Assembly to tackle this political necessity.

(9) Without such a Referendum we would have given our heads to be shaved in our absence as we have been doing since 1979. The National Assembly does not and cannot stand for the collective aspirations of Yoruba people or any other people of Nigeria. Its members stand for the interests of their political parties, and which do not stand for the interests of any Nationality. This is the import of the Senate Leader's statement.

(10) Furthermore, the amendment will have to be endorsed by at least 24 states. The Yoruba say " eyi wunmi ko wun o ni omo iya fi n jeun [/b]l'[b]otooto”. So, what is acceptable to the Yoruba may not be acceptable to any other, therefore the fate, expectations and aspirations of one cannot be made dependent on the other. Nevertheless, a spirit of compromise and unity is engendered because of the recognition of differences. There is no need to subject for determination by other non-Yoruba states whether we, as Yoruba, in the 6 states (and the Yoruba in Kogi and Kwara states) want to be a Region. Same goes for other peoples of Nigeria. The Yoruba cannot make such a determination for them.

(11) With all the above, isolating “state police” and local government from the fundamental issue of Federalism amounts to a disservice to the Peoples of Nigeria as such a “state” police force will necessarily be an adjunct to existing national police just as the current state Judiciary is. To have any impact or meaning, the "state police” must be accompanied by a "state Judiciary" up to a State Supreme Court; otherwise, the “state police” will become a glorified and toothless vigilante. A Local Government exists because it is part of a larger entity. This entity is not and cannot be the Federal Government. This is even unwittingly acknowledged by the 1999 Constitution which specifically designated Abuja as the “Federal Capital Territory” which was forcibly appropriated from the indigenes. With this, the Federal Government cannot give autonomy to what it does not have. The aberration of the 1999 Constitution provides it with the opportunity to give what it does not have. Therefore, converting both as separate issues from Federalism itself does not do justice to Federalism.

(12) On its part, “Devolution” already takes away the ownership and administration from the indigenes and vests it in a central authority which goes ahead to distribute the power as it pleases hence the saying that “whoever devolves power also has the power to take away”. We are seeing this with the so-called Local Government Autonomy. “Devolution” is not synonymous with and cannot lead to Federalism. The UK is a good example because it was not only our colonizer but also provided the template for Nigeria's governance. The English is the dominant Nationality exercising its Hegemony over the rest just as the Fulani/ North were placed over the rest of us.

(13) Power was devolved to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. There are regional and Metropolitan police forces as well as Regional Parliaments. Yet the UK is a Unitary State, so much so that when Scotland, with its devolved powers voted against Brexit and England voted for it, Scotland was forced to go along because the Brexit vote was a UK vote.

(14) The various Constitutional Conferences in Nigeria enabled the Political parties, roughly corresponding to the Nationalities, to decide their preferred mode of governance which directly led to the Federalist 1954 Lyttleton Constitution in repudiation of the Unitary 1951 MacPherson Constitution, and which eventually led to Independence. The 1954 Lyttleton Constitution was the basis for the 1960 Independence Act of the British Parliament. We can therefore see that the Regions-as-Federating Units CREATED the Federal Government, despite colonial power. This is the ESSENCE of Federalism. The Federating Units create a Center to serve their purposes. Not the other way round and not by “devolution”.

(15) From the foregoing, it is incumbent on you to rise to this occasion and prepare the ground for our “Demos” to show their “kratos”. As the Yoruba National Anthem which you have endorsed says, we (Yoruba) are the light of the Black Race. This is the opportunity for you to put it to practice because the “Democratic Question” in Nigeria applies to all “Black” Africa.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Politics › The President, “the Patriots” And A New Constitution by ooduapathfinder(op): 7:23am On Aug 13, 2024

“The Patriots”, a group of eminent Nigerians led by the former Commonwealth Secretary-General, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, visited President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and gave the President a proposal for Constitutional Re-Formation of Nigeria.

The President promised to review both The Patriots’ proposal as well as other options, once his priority, his economic reforms, are in place. Other options in circulation range from a return to the 1963 Constitution, a change to the Parliamentary System, an adjustment to the current Presidential System, including what some have characterized as Nigeria’s “home grown democracy” etc. all of which can also be placed under “Constitutional Review”, since none of these options can come to fruition without a review of the Constitution.

Based on both the President’s promise as well as the Patriots’ proposal, the Yoruba Referendum Committee asserts as follows:

(i) The only way for the President’s economic reform to “be in place” is through political reforms, also known as Restructuring/True Federalism. This is because both the economic and the political space complement each other. The cumulative effect of substituting the principle of “derivation” with the principle of “allocation” is the cause of Nigeria’s economic (and political) problems. Therefore, to address it involves a reversal. Thus, the twin issues of fuel subsidy removal and floating the exchange rate, as the immediate causes of the current crisis would have taken a different turn had the President not been fixated with sustaining extant economic paradigm. All that the President needed to do was to keep the subsidy and exchange rate mechanism for a period while simultaneously embarking on a reversal of the economy from allocation principle back to the derivation principle.

(ii) This could have been done through a Review and complete overhaul of Section 162 of the 1999 Constitution to vest control of mineral, land and water resources (including the sea) in the states as Federating Units. All other options mentioned above would be attached to it. Even if the fuel subsidy is removed and the exchange rate floated, during this Review process, their impact would be reflected differently across the country and the economy will not go into a tailspin as it has done. Hence, there would be no need for proposals from different organizations as everything would have been subsumed in this reversal process.

(iii) On the part of “The Patriots”, they seek “the convening of a national Constituent Assembly with the mandate to produce a draft people's democratic Constitution”. This presupposes that members of such an Assembly already have the mandate of the areas or people they stand for, even before they are elected. In the alternative, they have already been vested with the capability of knowing what is best for their electors. Yet, there is no opportunity for these electors to express their expectations from a Constituent Assembly. For “The Patriots”, it is enough for a contestant to merely promise to be in the Assembly for the purposes of producing a Constitution. This is a claim that can be made by anyone. Therefore, for an election into a Constituent Assembly to serve a useful purpose, the contestant must have a mandate beyond his or her promises.

(iv) “The Patriots” propose that the Constituent Assembly “could be made up of 3 elected individuals, on a non-political basis, from each State” and that the Constituent Assembly “should be aided by seven constitutional lawyers, one drawn from each of the six geo-political zones and the FCT. The deliberations of the Constituent Assembly should take into full account the 1960/63 Constitutions, as well as the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference and indeed of the various national conferences that considered the Nigerian Constitutions”.

(v) Since a Constitution is a political document, a non-political Constituent Assembly cannot draft a Constitution for a political entity. A Constitution must reflect the political reality of the society to which it becomes its Fundamental Law. Hence, the Uniformity of Nigeria’s military informed on the Unitary Constitution it imposed on the country, serving its Unitarist, military purposes. It did not work, and it could not have worked for the civilians who took over in 1979 and 1999. This is because the civilian dispensation reflected Nigeria’s natural diversity yet using a Constitution which denies and is incongruous with it. The participants at the various Constitutional Conferences which led to Independence were political leaders standing for Nigeria’s natural diversity, hence were able to devise a Constitution reflecting such diversity, despite quite a few of them being lawyers by profession. Lawyers, with or without specialty in Constitutionalism are therefore not a prerequisite for producing a Constitution.

(vi) Furthermore, a non-political election into a Constituent Assembly will automatically create a conflict between currently elected officials, who stand for the political aspirations of the electors and those expected to be elected to the Assembly, for these potential Constituent Assembly members must campaign for their election. This will throw up the question of the basis for contesting in the first instance. To avoid which there must be a political basis for the election.

(vii) “The Patriots” proposal to put the Draft Constitution to a National Referendum will merely compound the problems because Nigeria’s diversity compels and reflects different realities. Thus, many in the East are seeking their own Referendum based on their experience in Nigeria; the situation in the Middle Belt invalidates the “One North” paradigm; the Niger Delta is still agitating for Resource Control; Herder invasion and destruction of farmlands; the recent anti-government protests with its geo-political expressions etc., all of these reflect the natural diversity of the country.

(viii) With all these, a "National Referendum Question", even if based on accepting or rejecting the conclusions of a Constituent Assembly, will be difficult if not impossible to arrive at; and that is if such a Constituent Assembly will arrive at a conclusion acceptable to Nigeria’s natural diversity. A “National Referendum” will deny the aspirations and expectations of the various Constituents, thereby neutralizing Federalism as a co-equal relationship between the National and the subnational since the “National Referendum” already denies the existence of the subnational as a Constituent by the denial of our multinationalism, multilingualism, and multiculturalism, which has led to the architecture of State as a direct competitor of, and in opposition to, the aspirations and expectations of the people/citizens. All the above means any Referendum must be based on our particularities or diversities.

(ix) This is why the instrumentality of the[b] Nationality Referendums [/b]is the pathway towards Restructuring/True Federalism through which the People, as the Federating Unit, will address all issues about all the options earlier summarized which the President promised to review. The “Nationality Referendum” combines political restructuring and economic reforms and guarantees a proper foundation because it provides the platform for a Constitutional Convention to arrive at a new Constitution for a re-Federalized Nigeria.

(x) [b]Nationality Referendums [/b]also serve the following purposes sad

a) serving as the bulwark against any untoward political happenstance as it already prepares a legitimate response because they are at once a Legitimate expression as well as a negation of any unwanted or unwarranted illegitimate assumption of power from any quarter or region (b) being a democratic process providing the platform for an immediate, practical and practicable response to any eventuality; (c)becoming the standard by codifying Re-Federalization or Restructuring as Nationality-specific, attractive to various sectors of the society and the international community;(d) embedding the relevant socio-cultural “ethos,” by weaving it into the aspirations and expectations of the Peoples toward a new Constitution where the People make decisions, even at the lowest level of governance.

(xi) With the above, the subnational becomes the focal point of the Referendum. Therefore, the new Constitution is to be anchored on the subnational governments confronting the problem head-on by creating a law that enables policymaking via Referendum, preparatory to conducting a state-wide Referendum on the preferred structure for relations between the state and the central government.

(xii) A[b] Constitutional Convention[/b] to arrive at a Re-Federalized Nigeria will culminate the Referendums [/b]conducted within the various Nationalities as Federating Units and their Convention delegates will be bound by the Referendum decisions since these will be anchored on the Legitimate and Legal results of the various[b] Nationality Referendums, which will become the foundation for the architecture of the new Nigerian State as a Multi-National State, more so when the various Nationality Referendums would have Legitimized, Confirmed and Legalized the Peoples aspirations and expectations.

(xiii) The National Assembly’s role will be limited to legislating on meeting the Constitutional Convention, to hold after the conclusion of the various Nationality Referendums. Such Referendums are to be conducted by the various State Electoral Commissions or in the case of smaller or balkanized Nationalities, by their preferred method. The State Assemblies or any preference by atomized nationalities in Nigeria provide the most peaceful pathway towards a new Constitution. Hence, the decision must rest with the Nationalities as the Federating/Constituent Units.

(xiv) In conclusion, it is noted that what eventually saved American democracy on January 6, 2021, was the fact that the “electors” were the states, whose decisions were to be confirmed by US Congress and which the “storming” of Congress sought to prevent and did not achieve. The confirmation of the “electors” from the States makes up a major pillar of Democracy in the United States. In a comparable manner, the Federating Units will become the “electors” to select or elect their representatives to a Federal Council and whose decisions cannot be overturned except by the Federating Unit itself.

Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 (of 10 pages)