“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 purposesa) 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

To: The 33 Local Government Chairmen and Residents of Oyo State


From: The Yoruba Referendum Committee.

ONA ABAYO

This Letter acknowledges the position you and the Oyo State Governor have taken in respect of the Supreme Court’s judgement on Local Government funding.

Contrary to allegations of criminality or illegality on the part of the Governor and all of you as Local Government Chairmen, we make bold to say that there is no criminality involved and no criminality can be imputed. This is because neither the Governor nor the Local Government chairmen can stop the Supreme Court judgement from taking effect. The Governor or the Local Government chairmen are not making the payments for or by themselves. The payment is to come directly from the Federal Government and directly into LG Accounts. The worst the LG Chairmen or Governor can or will do is not to touch the money. There is no crime in this.

So, what the governor is doing is challenging the Unconstitutionality of the judgement. He has the right, and the obligation, to do so.

This is because the judgement and the position you have taken, touches on the fundamental question of Federalism in Nigeria, more so when they occur at a time when a series of amendments/alterations to the 1999 Constitution is being contemplated.

We must assert that this is not simply a question of Law. It is a Constitutional matter. There is a major difference between the “law” and the Constitution. This is why the Constitution is described as the “Fundamental Law” of the land. The Constitution prescribes the law. The Constitution is also superior to the “law”, which is why laws which are not consistent with the Constitution are not valid.

Therefore, let no one intimidate us about the law. We are dealing with a Constitutional matter. This is why we propose the Referendum as the way to address and review the Constitution. It is our hope that you and the Governor will throw your weight into encouraging the Oyo State House of Assembly to pass the Bill for a Referendum into Law.

You may want to ask what the connection is, between Oyo State position on the Supreme Court judgement and the “Yoruba Referendum” especially when the process of amending the Constitution is already underway where we can simply send a memo to the National Assembly Committee on Constitution Review.


We do not need to send a Memo to the National Assembly for the following reasons:

We all know that the National Assembly alters the Constitution every four years, since 1999. This shows that something is fundamentally wrong with the Constitution if it must be altered every four years, since the Constitution is the fundamental Law binding all of us together. That this is being done, once again, requires a fundamental look at the Constitution itself, to figure out how it can become Nigeria’s guiding light, which a Constitution should be. Such a guiding light cannot continue to be altered every four years. Having to alter it every four years means there is something fundamentally wrong with it.

What then is this fundamental problem?

The Constitution was not properly made: (a) Its basic declaration of what Nigeria is; the foundation of Nigeria as said in the Constitution is fundamentally flawed. We all know that “We, the People” did not make the Constitution, as it claimed in the Preamble. (b) It declared that Nigeria is a Federal Republic. A Republic implies that there are no kings or chiefs in society, yet Traditional rulers and institutions are recognized by the Government at all levels, where elected and appointed government officials are also traditional title holders, in one form or another (c) It says Nigeria is a Federation of States and FCT. It goes on to list the States. There is no mention of Local Governments as part of the Federation. If the Local Governments are a tier in the Federation, they should have been listed in the Section which listed the States and FCT as the Federating Units. It did not do so. Rather, it created another section where the Local Governments are listed. This is fundamentally wrong because the states must have existed before the Federation could exist, therefore, the state must have had their local government system in place before the Federation came into being. We all know the history of Nigeria hence we will not dwell on this. (d) More importantly, the Federal Government has no land of its own, no mineral resources, yet the Constitution gives it the power to control the mineral resources of the Local Governments and the States. We can go on and on, pointing out the fundamental flaws of the Constitution but we believe these are sufficient for the purposes of this Letter.

Governor Seyi Makinde rightly said that elected officials swore to uphold the 1999 Constitution. Upholding it means abiding with its provisions and correcting any anomaly. The anomalies are so much that they require to be altered every 4 years.

According to Senate Leader, Senator Opeyemi Bamidele, the current Review exercise is “not just undertaking another review as the Parliament of the Federal Government. Rather, we are undertaking this national assignment as the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. He further stated that Section 4(1-4) of the 1999 Constitution vests the National Assembly with the power to specifically “make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof…” just as Section 4(7) also similarly empowers the State House of Assembly “to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the State or any part thereof…”The Senate Leader concluded by saying: “This power, as enshrined under the provision, distinctly includes the power to amend, review or even produce an entirely new federal constitution that will decisively address our current socio-economic and political realities".

The above implies that the People of Nigeria must have a definitive say in the entire Review process. We know that, from 1999, various Conferences had been held in the name of the People of Nigeria with nothing to show. This means we must investigate why this is so while simultaneously designing another process which will satisfy the aspirations and expectations of the People.

Our answer is that those conferences got nowhere because the attendees did not participate in the Conferences based on a clear mandate given to them by the people they claim to represent. This is why the government, as the conference organizer, was able to ignore the conference decisions.

Hence, for the People of Nigeria to have a say in the on-going Constitutional Review, a Referendum [/b]becomes necessary and vital because it provides a clear mandate. It is also recognized globally as the proper, legal, legitimate and valid process of manifesting the aspirations and expectations of the People where the People make decisions, even at the lowest level of governance. A [b]Referendum is holistic and will take care of all the anomalies of the 1999 Constitution without constant “alterations”. There is no law for or against this type of Referendum, hence it becomes a political choice for all of us, more so when it can also become a template for other states in Nigeria,
especially Ogun, Lagos, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti States whose Governors have even adopted a “Yoruba Anthem” which will be meaningless if we cannot decide how to govern ourselves. These combined efforts will become the basis for the new Federal Constitution for Nigeria.

Therefore, the state Houses of Assembly can jumpstart the process leading to a Referendum. The National Assembly can also inspire, encourage and enable the State Houses of Assembly to pursue this path, if it is to live up to its billing as declared by the Senate Leader.

With this, the Yoruba will be providing a service of historic proportions, becoming a beacon for not only other States in Nigeria but also the rest of Africa where comparable Constitutional questions exist and has led to continuous wars and conflicts. This will aid in the resolution of such conflicts.

Thank you.
Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

“O’nbo, O’nbo……….”

(i) To date, 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, for the Yoruba, the need for the[b] Yoruba Referendum.
[/b]
(ii) This is so because the Referendum provides a Legitimate and Legal path towards engaging Yoruba political leadership of all political tendencies to confirm the historical Yoruba quest for True Federalism, more so when other strategies embarked upon since 1999 led nowhere. These strategies revolved around government sponsored Conferences by which their conclusions and implementation were left to the vagaries of political exigencies, and this is possible because those strategies were not of our own making, even though Yoruba individuals were active in those conferences. This has happened over and over such that it will be meaningless to expect a different outcome from another round of conferences.

(iii) Moreover, the Tinubu Administration will not go that route because it has shown its hand by the spate of actions and decisions, anchored on utilizing the Legislative power of the National Assembly to drive home its agenda which clearly shows the move towards cementing the continuous de-Federalization of the country. This is euphemistically projected as part of the “Renewed Hope Agenda” beneficial to[i] “the people of this country at all levels, irrespective of faith, tribe, gender, political affiliation, or any other artificial line they say exists between us. This country belongs to all of us[/i]”; yet denying the same people of this country the democratic right to determine the Constitution of the country, even if it means validating the military-imposed Constitution.

(iv) With the above, our efforts should be recalibrated. This is not the time to reinforce our different organizational formations. What is needed is an overall strategy that will directly confront the creeping Unitarist/anti-Federalist agenda. We cannot be fiddling on Yorubaland’s roof when we are being emasculated by the combined efforts of the central executive, legislature and the judiciary.

(v) Therefore, our immediate task is to address this affront, also in a legitimate manner. The way to go about this is via the executive, legislature and the judiciary of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti states. This will show, as the Oyo State Governor said, that “the FG is not superior constitutionally to the state government”. Therefore, it is incumbent on us, either in our personal or organizational capacities, to endorse the "Yoruba Referendum", to challenge and be in opposition to the ongoing Unitarist measures. Hence, the "Yoruba Referendum” should be our rallying call. NOW.

(vi) At this point, we must acknowledge the mistake of our recent past when “Amotekun” was set up. Despite the state laws setting up the outfit, the central government refused to acknowledge those laws, reiterating the superiority of federal laws over state laws. The battle raged until the federal government “allowed” “Amotekun” to exist, with conditions. This conundrum came about because we reduced the essence of “Amotekun” to legalities instead of the political necessity that it is. That is, the quest to ban open grazing and its attendant security implications are/were of a political nature and not simply legal. Political in the sense that open grazing was a political decision taken by the colonial power to perpetuate a particular form of cultural/political economy.

(vii) Now, we stand the risk of repeating the mistake, with our Governors embarking on region-wide endeavors, including the wearing of Yoruba attires and using Yoruba Language for Legislative sessions at certain days of the week, and now with the “Yoruba National Anthem” with its roots in the social welfare philosophical pursuit of the Action Group, thereby making it a political decision, all of which have no Legitimate context save the pronouncement of the governors and which can, at best, become a form of tokenism.

(viii) Therefore, it is necessary to interrogate the nature of the Nigerian Post-Colonial State as it affects the various Peoples of Nigeria, with a view to ensuring adequate response more so when the current administration is strengthening the Post-Colonial State at the expense of our Democratic rights and responsibilities.

(ix) Africa’s post-colonial experience has been one of perpetual conflict between the Post-Colonial State and the various Peoples anchored on the separation between the People and the State, with control and dominance of the State being dependent on the hegemony of one Nationality over the other even as this is couched in “national” terms, and this, taking precedence over all other existential matters; social and cultural existentialism of the Peoples play no part in the Architecture of the State, thus making the State a “foreign” entity. This separation is reinforced by the fact that the Centralized Post Colonial State controls all the land and mineral resources of the people while “allocating” some to the people and telling them what to do with such allocations.

(x) This is what is expressed and objected to, by the Yoruba aphorism, as “shaving one’s head in his/her absence”. The 1999 Nigerian Constitution shaved our heads in our absence; the main reason for the societal dysfunction being experienced in Nigeria and the only way to remedy the situation is for the Yoruba to, in a Referendum within Yorubaland, determine the framework for their aspirations and self-actualization which then becomes the foundation for Restructuring.

(xi) It may be asked why a Yoruba Referendum when there is a National Assembly through which the Restructuring will go ahead via Constitutional Amendment. This route has been shown to be unworkable, and not beneficial to us. Considering how the current Administration has rammed through its Unitarist and anti-Federalist agenda, asking us to look forward to some legislation or Constitutional Amendment from the National Assembly towards True Federalism will be waving a flag at the problem; for, the current Constitution is the problem that must be resolved.

(xii) Furthermore, the process of amending the 1999 Constitution abridges the democratic right of the people and therefore of True Federalism in that the required concurrence of 24 states already denies the democratic rights of the Constituents, for, these states may or may not share similar existential prerogatives with others, hence asking one to determine the course of the other jeopardizes the other’s existence.

(xiii) The National Assembly’s pursuit of and the current Administration’s use of a “Constitutional Review” denies the faulty foundation of the 1999 Constitution; an attempt at filibustering the quest for True Federalism; grab domestic and international headlines, while promoting itself as “representatives of the Nigerian People”.

(xiv) The discourse on and advocacy for the Restructuring of Nigeria must therefore be put within the context of Peoples’ Democracy; the reason the Yoruba Referendum Committee is asking you all to join us in demanding that the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti States’ Houses of Assembly pass the Referendum Bill into Law and organize conducting the Referendum in their states.

Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde addressed Oyo State stakeholders on the recent judgment of the Supreme Court on Local Government Administration. As should be expected, he reiterated the activities of the Oyo State government while also concluding that the disconnect between the law and the Constitution has created a lot of confusion which means there is a problem with the structure (that is, the Constitution) thus behooving on them to remove the confusion as soon as possible.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee agrees with this conclusion, many of which are obvious to all the operators of the Constitution, which are nothing more than addressing the law while leaving the Constitution as it is, thereby creating more confusion, another round of which is ongoing. The Governor highlighted this confusion amid ongoing efforts at another series of “alterations” to mandate a once-and-for-all interrogation of the confusion and putting forth a pathway to a resolution.

Hence, the Yoruba Referendum Committee declares as follows:

i. Although any state in Yorubaland can absolve itself from some of the justification that has now created the confusion while tending to address aspects of the law, each state carrying its own cross as a separate entity will translate into rendering null and void the expectations from having a “Yoruba National Anthem” as well as other measures aimed at ensuring “Regional development” as each state carrying its cross will become a permanent feature at every turn of any future confusion.

ii. Now that the National Assembly is echoing the Federal Attorney-General’s desire to scrap the State Electoral Commission and have INEC conduct elections to the Local Governments, it is incumbent on the states to address this question. If the Attorney-General is quoted as having said that changing the National Anthem requires the "buy-in" of the citizens, it follows that the Constitution itself (the Grundnorm) must undergo a similar "buy-in" from the people.

iii. From this, the ball is now in your court to jumpstart the process for “stakeholder” involvement. You have started well with your meeting with Oyo State stakeholders. It must be followed up with Yorubaland’s stakeholders to give meaning and Legitimacy to the Yoruba-wide efforts you and fellow Governors of Yorubaland have embarked upon by providing those efforts with corresponding institutional, legal, legitimate, and valid guarantees as the bulwark against further erosion of the collective aspirations and expectations of Yoruba People, at home and abroad.

iv. Naturally, a[b] Referendum[/b] is the proper means to ensure that stakeholders’ involvement does not become sidetracked because of lack of Legitimacy, a major defect of the 1999 Constitution, which has been attested to by most commentators. Furthermore, we have experienced, since 1999, stakeholder involvements without a corresponding influence on later decisions such that the involvements end up meaningless. A Referendum will remedy this situation.

v. Yet, the Federal Government is a[b] STATE APPARATUS[/b], with the Federal Government as its administrator. It has NO territory of its own. It exists because the components, in this instance, the territories which made up the Colonial Protectorates, later becoming Regions and now “states”, as administrative and territorial entities, came to, or were forced together to create the Nigerian State. Beginning with the 1914 Amalgamation overseen by British colonial power and ending with the 1960 Constitution anchored on previous 1951 and 1954 Constitutions which formally recognized the territories as the lands belonging to the peoples inhabiting them while ensuring a common administration for all and for which it was called the Federal Republic of Nigeria, whose Sovereign authority is accompanied with the monopoly of the means of enforcement.

vi. The Local Government exists as a territory within the state. Hence, a local government, either territorially or administratively, cannot become a “tier” of the Federation. It can only be within the Federation because the state is. The Federation Account itself is derived from the sub-units or territories of the states, from where the under and above-ground resources are exploited, and proceeds remitted to the Federation Account to sustain the Federation.

vii. Therefore, a “third tier” of the federation, in this instance, is simply the manifestation of the military-induced consciousness legitimized by its 1979 and 1989 Constitutions both of which formed the foundation for the 1999 Constitution, upon which every other function rests, hence curing the confusion cannot result from another series of confusions requiring serial alterations. This is the core issue.

viii. It must be noted that Nigeria’s quest for Independence pitted forces who wanted to deny the diversity of Nations making up Nigeria (Unitarists) and those who wanted to recognize it and plan accordingly (Federalists). The Federalists won, despite the backing and encouragement of the Unitarists by Britain, hence the formation of Nigeria as a FEDERAL STATE.

ix. The Military with the 1976 Dasuki “reforms” inserted local government administration into the Constitution to tie it into the Federal Government's apron strings, following the intent and footsteps of British colonial power with its 1946 Richards and 1951 McPherson Constitutions. As the Federalists resisted Britain’s intention and eventually succeeded in the formation of Nigeria as a Federal State, it is up to us to act like the pre-independence Federalists by addressing Unitarism from its Constitutional foundation. The first republic ran its local councils and its regional governments before the military neutralized them, even though it (the military) could not come up with a superior form of governance.

x. This shows that Unitarism is its end, and its after-effects are what we are experiencing today. That's why the Federal Government, as the administrator, does not have any political or economic reference point in all its years of administration. All our reference points are in our regional experience. Even its major supporters, like General Obasanjo, cannot but admit its inadequacies and now think it fit to call for “Restructuring”.

xi. Reinforcing the confusion is the process of its alteration, where the concurrence of the National Assembly with 24 State Legislatures is considered sufficient. Yet, the Federalism that led to Independence was accompanied by direct elections, with results approximating the multi-ethnic nature of the country.

xii. Therefore, the way to clear the confusion is by way of a New Constitution derived from a Constitutional Convention, itself preceded by “Nationality Referendums” , which, for the Yoruba, will be the “Yoruba Referendum” as the most peaceful, legitimate, and valid way to address the confusion. What exists now is the opportunity for you and fellow governors of Lagos, Ogun, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti States to embark on this pathway through the instrumentality of the Houses of Assembly. The Draft Bill for a Yoruba Referendum has already been sent to all the Governors of Yoruba States, the Speakers, and members of the House of Assembly.

Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Time is of the essence (2)

1. Whereas a Yoruba truism says that one’s head cannot be shaved in his or her absence.

2. Whereas there is a current attempt to shave our heads in our absence by the Federal Attorney-General touting scrapping the State Electoral Commission, with the Supreme Court endorsing the desire of the President Tinubu Administration to place Local Government Administration under the Central Government by controlling its finances.

3. Whereas the President, towards this end, emphasizes that the onus is now on local council leaders to ensure that the broad spectrum of Nigerians living at that level are satisfied that they are benefitting from people-oriented service delivery.

4. Whereas the President says “By virtue of this judgement, our people - especially the poor - will be able to hold their local leaders to account for their actions and inactions. What is sent to local government accounts will be known, and services must now be provided without excuses”.

5. Whereas the President says the Renewed Hope Agenda is about the people of this country, at all levels, irrespective of faith, tribe, gender, political affiliation, or any other artificial line they say exists between us.

6. Whereas the President says that the Supreme Court judgement stands as a resounding affirmation that we can use legitimate means of redress to restructure our country and restructure our economy to make Nigeria a better place to live in and a fairer society for all our people,

7. Whereas the President affirms that the decision of the Supreme Court to uphold the constitutional rights and ideals of local governments as regards financial autonomy, and other salient principles, is of historic significance and further reinforces the effort to enhance Nigeria's true federal fabric for the development of the entire nation.

Be it noted, and it is hereby noted that:

8. We know (presumably) the amount of money that comes into the Federation account from which allocations to local governments are made. Despite this knowledge, the Federal Government has not been known for good service delivery to the people, otherwise Nigeria will not be what it is today with the Regional era of development becoming the reference point, almost 60 years after. Therefore, knowing the amount of money sent to the local councils does not necessarily guarantee any service delivery more so with the lopsidedness in the “allocation formula” which does not address any peculiarities in expected services but simply made a uniformity out of them. Furthermore, even with any uniformity, the Federal Government directly funding Local Governments is anti-thetical to True Federalism. We have the Awolowo Era or the Western Region era, which has become known as our “Golden Era”, as a guide. They did not depend on any “allocations” to either the local or Regional governments from the center. Rather, the Region at one point lent money to the Federal Government.

9. A notable Yoruba elder, Ambassador Yemi Farounbi, in his response to the issue, made the following comments, to wit: (a) "Alexander Hamilton said "the Constitutional principle on which a Federation is based is the division between two levels of government: federal and states ".(b) K. C Wheare, one of the earliest and greatest authority on the concept of federation... wrote of two tiers of government: the center and the federating units. He said the two tiers must be equal and counter balancing. (c) When Regions were abolished in 1966 by the Unification Decree, some people celebrated. The people were the ones who fought a secession war and are still clamoring for secession. (d) In 1977-78, those who championed the overburdened center and centralized federalism during the CONFAB spent the later days of their lives in regret and agony. (e) Those who are clamoring today for an autonomous third tier of government will live to regret this greatest assault on the concept of true federalism in Nigeria. (f) They will live to regret this obstacle they are creating on the need to restructure Nigeria to allow for the multi - diversity in Nigeria to become our strength as is Switzerland. (g) They will soon discover that when you forcefully impose uniformity on diversity you create the rationale for forceful resistance. (h)They will soon realize that by the schedule of LGAs in the constitution, Lagos State will forever remain 20 LGAs, even though the old Kano State that used to have 20 LGAs like Lagos State now consists of Kano and Jigawa States both with 89 LGAs. (i) Of course, today's political leadership are not men like Hamilton or Jefferson of USA. And the leadership in the Judiciary are not men like Charles Warren of USA or Lord Dening... they are non- patriots who have forgotten the concept of federalism that they were taught in POL. SCIENCE 101 in whatever university they attended."

10. A " legitimate means of redress to restructure our country and restructure our economy " can only be achieved via a new Constitution to be arrived at through a Constitutional Convention of Nationalities as Federating Units and preceded by Nationality Referendums, and which for the Yoruba, is the Yoruba Referendum. This ensures a direct engagement and resolution of the issues at hand by creating a Legitimate, valid and Legal pathway towards the expected Restructuring of the country.

11. The National Assembly’s Review Committee sidelines the Peoples of Nigeria as “stakeholders”, balkanizing them into different economic and social categories while the 1999 Constitution it seeks to amend does not recognize them as the Federating or Constituent Units, substituting them with the administrations of the States and Local Governments, just as the required concurrence of 24 states already denies the People, where, for example, the time-honored values of the Yoruba which drives her civilization is simply made dependent on choices favored by other Peoples.

12. This Yoruba Referendum will allow the Yoruba to ensure a fundamental intervention in Re-Federalizing Nigeria, now entering a new phase, with the National Assembly’s Constitutional Review Committee and the assault on Federalism by the current Administration amid calls from prominent personalities, various sectors and sections of the country for Restructuring and returning the country to the Parliamentary, Regional model of Governance, which had been beneficial, and providing the example for development.

13. The current assault also shows the different currents of opinion within Yorubaland at home and the Diaspora on what should be the Yoruba Response, manifesting the overall Yoruba preference for multiplicity of views and opinions, reflected in several Yoruba aphorisms; all combined, giving a specificity to Yoruba Existentialism. This Cultural Existentialism is embedded in the resolution of social contradictions and translated onto the economic and political spheres through the establishment of a Social Democratic, Welfarist Region experienced during our “Golden Era”.

14. The Yoruba have the capability to resolve the current differences through the combination of her Cultural experience and the internationally recognized Referendum mechanism, already used in many instances all over the world, including Scotland, which played a key role in the colonization of Nigeria by the United Kingdom.

15. The Yoruba in Kogi and Kwara States have expressed their desire for a Referendum to decide the acceptability or otherwise of their desire to become part of the Yorubaland and its Geo-Political space.

16. The Yoruba Referendum Committee is therefore asking you, as the Governors of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti States as well as the Speakers of the Houses of Assembly, to begin the process of re-Federalizing Nigeria by passing the Bill for a Referendum into Law and conduct the Referendum. The Bill had been sent to the Speakers, for action.

Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee.

Open Letter to Governors Biodun Oyebanji; Dapo Abiodun; Babajide Sanwo-Olu; Seyi Makinde; Lucky Ayedatiwa, Ademola Adeleke and Speakers of Ekiti, Ogun, Lagos, Oyo, Ondo and Osun States’ Houses of Assembly.



Recent developments in Nigeria, especially the moves by the current Administration, show that Nigeria is moving towards a Centralized and Unitarized State contrary to the interests of the various Nationalities making up the country. It is worse for the Yoruba because it will erase everything the Yoruba stood (and still stands) for, from the formation of Egbe Omo Oduduwa whose main goal is to collaborate with others in Nigeria to establish Nigeria as a Federal State, as stated in its founding Constitution. This quest for True Federalism is not only at the heart of Yoruba politics in Nigeria’s context but has also remained a constant.
The Administration is taking these steps because it knows the political and economic importance. The Administration’s economic policies, aimed at correcting the underdevelopment of the past, and which have caused major dislocation in the economic well-being of the people, need political measures to sustain it.
We make bold to say that this necessarily implies the creation of a supra-national state. Supra-national here is in the sense that all ethno-national centers of power would have to be neutralized as a necessary pre-condition, which directly translates into reducing the influence of State governments by controlling the Local Government from the center. This has been the recurring decimal in Nigeria since Independence, starting with the Coalition of the NCNC and NPC with the dual aim of neutralizing the AG and imposing their Hegemony. The battle for Hegemony between them led to the first military coup, resulting in the ban placed on socio-cultural groups and the abolition of the Regions. Eventually, the military substituted itself for the national center of power, becoming the alternative and/or new power base.
This is now being cemented by what is being called “Local Government Autonomy” as well as the call by the country’s Attorney-General to scrap the State Electoral Commissions and transfer their operations to INEC.
These moves strike at important aspects of Federalism, hence we are calling on you to rescue Yorubaland by pursuing “True Federalism.” It is so named only because what currently obtains and is being pursued by the current Administration is False Federalism.
You have a critical role to play in the sense that your office is now at the cusp of history, to wit: whether you want to see Yorubaland and everything the Yoruba had stood for, since the anti-colonial days, go to waste under your watch.
Hence, we urge you to consider the following:
1. You have embarked on a series of actions aimed at integrating Yorubaland, prominent among which are the enabling of the “Yoruba National Anthem,” regional economic cooperation, especially on Agriculture as well as strengthening collaborations between the states. These are well-intentioned moves without any evidence of sustainability. They are dependent on the ability of current occupants of the offices of Governors without corresponding institutional, legal, legitimate, and valid guarantees that may be susceptible to any political changes, more so when “Local Government Autonomy” would have whittled away some of your powers as executive governors.
2. Yet, what is called “autonomy” for the local government is a negation of the principles of Federalism recognized and applied all over the world. A Federal State is a coordinate relationship between the Center- (the national)- and the Federating Unit- (the subnational), where the internal dynamics of the subnational is entirely of its own making. The 1999 Constitution even recognizes Nigeria as a “Federation of states and federal Capital Territory” thereby making the inclusion of all the local governments in the same Constitution an aberration. Such cannot be cured by adding another layer of aberration.
3. Problems with Local Governments arose through the implementation of the 1976 Dasuki Committee on Local Government Reforms. We all know that the contest for controlling the Center has been the recurring decimal in Nigeria’s political firmament and has given rise to quests for control of the natural resources, first, of the Regions and later, of the States and the weapon of choice in the control of Local Governments by both military and civilian gladiators.
4. This was started via the gradual reduction of Regional/State resources to the current situation where the Federal Government now controls the largest part. Furthermore, this resulted in the replacement of the “derivation” principle which existed at Independence to what currently operates as “allocations” and which has led to distortions in Census figures; “allocation” of Local Governments to states, which ensured Lagos State with a much bigger population than Kano State has less Local Governments-- just as the current suit by the Attorney-General is anchored on "allocations." We believe it is not necessary or logical to make local government autonomy a precondition for payment of federal transfers due to local governments. In other democracies including the United States, transfers from federal governments to state and local governments do not involve the creation of autonomous entities at the grassroots level. The simplest thing to do is to amend the constitution that says federal transfers must go to joint-local government accounts.
5. This is where the problem is. Manipulated Census figures gave birth to territorial “allocations” which made Northern Nigeria the largest and which gave rise to misplaced allocations which gave birth to Constitutionally mandated Local Governments and which in turn gave birth to the war to control the center. These distortions invariably gave birth to the myriads of problems now associated with Local Governments and these cannot be cured by getting the Federal Supreme Court to deny the organic or umbilical connection between grassroots communities and the nationality units that house grassroots communities.
6. The Attorney General says some experts advised the scrapping of State Electoral Commissions without telling us who these experts are and how they arrived at their conclusions. We make bold to say that an expert, in the person of Prof Auwal Yadudu, presided over the drafting of the current 1999 Constitution which had been and is still being subject to “alterations.” This shows the limitations of experts who donated the ideas that have been driving the Federal Attorney General. 
7. Yet, in the Attorney-General's intervention on the issue of changing the National Anthem, he said: “In some cases, the national anthem emerges from open national competition among interested citizens. In other instances, the proposed national anthem is subjected to a plebiscite or referendum before its eventual adoption or declaration. Consequently, it is my considered view that the decision to change Nigeria’s National Anthem whether by replacing it with the old one or a new one, should be subjected to a wider process of citizen participation through zonal public hearings, resolutions of the Federal Executive Council, Council of State, National and State Assemblies, etc.”
8. In the same vein, it is also our considered view that the National anthem embodies or is supposed to embody the "spirit, soul, and body" of the country. Since the Attorney General is now saying the process of arriving at a new anthem must get the "buy-in" of the citizens, it follows that the Constitution (the Grundnorm) of the country must undergo a similar "buy-in" from the people.
9. We can go on faulting these moves by the Federal Government, but this is not about any critique but a call to preventive action as these issues fall within our existential necessities.
10. We need not rehash the fact that our existence as a Region provided the foundation for our development and the series of interventions by notable and “unsung” Yoruba governance icons like the late Mr. C.S.O. Akande, who, as the Secretary to the Western State Military Government ensured the survival of what we now know today as “Oodua Investments,” arguably the flagship of our Regional achievements.
11. Just as we also know that the Region was atomized to ensure her underdevelopment as part of de-Federalizing Nigeria, the Yoruba played a major part in this process even though some came around to regret their actions when it was too late. The most prominent of whom is General Olusegun Obasanjo, who spent his tenures as military Head of State and civilian President neutralizing Federalism and has now joined the clamor for Restructuring/True Federalism.
12. We are therefore asking you to choose where you want to belong.
13. We are calling on you to utilize your powers and influence with the State Legislatures to advance the cause of re-Federalizing Nigeria and openly speak against de-federalizing the country from administration to administration while looking away from referendum to hear from the people.
14. We are saying, as the Yoruba aphorism says, that our heads cannot be shaved in our absence. Therefore, the road open to you is for you to aggregate the wishes of Yoruba People within the context of the ongoing Constitutional Amendment process to address, finally, the problem plaguing Nigeria—the failure to obtain a conducive structure for functioning federal governance.
15. Since the 1999 Constitution says, Nigeria is a “Federation of States and FCT’, it follows that the states can Legitimately decide, for and among themselves, their administrative preferences; hence they can either keep their current atomized status or seek to change it in a Legitimate manner.
16. This is why we are asking you to support and enable a Yoruba Referendum to be conducted by the State Electoral Commissions after the Bill has been passed into Law by the Houses of Assembly. The Referendum will provide a Legitimate and Legal basis for your collaboration and will prevent such a regional effort from being derailed by unforeseen political situations. It will also help in setting the stage for Re-Federalizing Nigeria.
17. Time is of the essence. The push to scrap the State Electoral Commissions is not only to completely disenfranchise the People but also to de-Legitimize your authority. You have the authority, power, and Legitimacy to ensure this does not happen. 
The Draft Bill for a Yoruba Referendum has been sent to you and the State Houses of Assembly.
Here is a copy, for the benefit of readers.
Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee.

    
DRAFT BILL FOR A REFERENDUM LAW
 
A Law of Ekiti State House of Assembly, Ogun State House of Assembly, Osun State House of Assembly, Oyo State House of Assembly, Ondo State House of Assembly and Lagos State House of Assembly for the holding of a Referendum on the proposal to Federate Ekiti State with Ogun State, Osun State, Oyo State, Ondo State and Lagos State and constitute same into Oduduwa Region of Western Nigeria, within the Federation of Nigeria.
 
A: REFERENDUM ON FEDERATION OF EKITI STATE WITH OGUN STATE, OSUN STATE, OYO STATE, ONDO STATE AND LAGOS STATE AND CONSTITUTION OF SAME INTO ODUDUWA REGION IN A FEDERATION OF NIGERIA.
1.     On the…………. Day of ……… 202, a Referendum shall be held in Ekiti State, Ogun State, Osun State, Oyo State, Ondo State and Lagos State of Nigeria on:
(i)                 Whether the Governments of Ekiti, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Ondo and Lagos States should negotiate with each other with a view to forming a FEDERATION of STATES to be known as the ODUDUWA REGION OF WESTERN NIGERIA and (ii) whether the said REGION should negotiate with the Government of Nigeria and the remaining 30 states or any group of states that have also agreed to Federate  and the administration of the Federal Capital Territory to achieve AUTONOMY/SELF-DETERMINATION for the said REGION within a Federation of Nigerian Constituent Units.(ANNEXURE)
2.     The questions or propositions to be voted on in the Referendum and form of the ballot paper to be used for that purpose are to be in the form set out in the schedule herein contained.
3.     Those entitled to vote in the Referendum are the persons who, on the date of the Referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in the electoral area/ward of the State in which they live and/or conduct business.
4.     The Governor of Each State shall appoint a Chief Electoral Officer who shall appoint an electoral officer for each Local Government Area.
5.     Each Local Government Electoral Officer shall (a) Conduct the counting of votes cast in the area under his/her authority in accordance with any directions given by the Chief Electoral Officer and (b) Certify the number of ballot papers counted by him/her and the number of votes cast for each question/proposition.
6.     The Chief Electoral Officer must certify:
(a)    The total number of ballot papers counted for the whole of Each State and (b) the total number of votes cast for each proposition/question for the whole of the State.
7.     The result of the Referendum shall constitute the entire position of the people of Ogun State, Oyo State, Osun State, Ekiti State, Ondo State and Lagos State (WESTERN/ODUDUWA REGION OF NIGERIA).
8.     In the event of a YES vote on the Referendum, the Governors of each State shall appoint members into a Constitutional Council of Western/Oduduwa Region.
9.     The Constitutional Council of Western/Oduduwa Region shall include not more than twelve (12) other members chosen at random throughout the Region and four (4) members from Kwara and Kogi States.
10.The Constitutional Council of Western/Oduduwa Region shall be vested with powers to present and represent the views of Western/Oduduwa Region and negotiate on behalf of the Western/Oduduwa Region with all the agencies of the Nigerian Government and non-Governmental organizations involved in the process.
 
 
B:               The short title of this Law is “Referendum Law of Ekiti State, Ondo State, Osun State, Oyo State, Ogun State and Lagos State”.
 
                                                   
                                                SCHEDULE
 
FORM OF BALLOT PAPER:  Ekiti State House of Assembly, Ondo State House of Assembly, Osun State House of Assembly, Oyo State House of Assembly, Ogun State House of Assembly and Lagos State House of Assembly, have decided to consult the People of Each State on this ………. Day of ………, 202 on the proposal to Federate the Government of Ogun State, the Government of Osun State, the Government of Oyo State, the Government of Ekiti State, the Government of Ondo State and the Government of Lagos State with a view to constituting a REGION of Western Nigeria within a Federation of Nigeria.

 THUMBPRINT in the box containing[b]: (YES) [/b]
1.     I AGREE that the  Governments of Ekiti  State, Ondo State, Oyo State, Osun State, Ogun State and Lagos State should negotiate  with each other with a view to forming a FEDERATION of STATES to be known as the ODUDUWA REGION OF WESTERN NIGERIA which shall  negotiate  with the  Yoruba persons in Kwara and Kogi States, whether they want to be part of the ODUDUWA REGION or not;  shall further negotiate with the Government of Nigeria and the remaining 30 states and the administration of the Federal Capital Territory to achieve AUTONOMY/SELF-DETERMINATION for the said REGION within a Federation of Nigeria.
  OR
                                                                                  (NO)
2.     I DO NOT AGREE  that the  Governments of Ekiti State, Ondo State, Oyo State, Osun State, Ogun State and Lagos State should negotiate  with each other with a view to forming a FEDERATION of STATES to be known as the ODUDUWA REGION OF WESTERN NIGERIA  which shall negotiate with the Yoruba in Kwara and Kogi States as to whether they want to be part of the ODUDUWA REGION or not, and further negotiate  with the Government of Nigeria and the remaining 30 states and the administration of the Federal Capital Territory to achieve AUTONOMY/SELF-DETERMINATION for the said REGION within a Federation of Nigeria.

                                                    
                                                         ANNEXURE
• A Federal Nigeria, through a valid Federal Constitution, to be known as The Union of Nigerian 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.
• Western/Oduduwa Region shall be a Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Union/COMMONWEALTH.
• Western/Oduduwa Region shall adopt a Parliamentary System of government.
• The Central Government of the Union shall have no power to interfere nor 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Each Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Federation shall control primary interest in its own resources with an agreed Tax Model for the Federation.

Dear Senator Opeyemi Bamidele,

The Yoruba Referendum Committee appreciates your intervention in the on-going Constitutional amendment process being undertaken by the current National Assembly of which you are the Senate Leader.

Our response to your interview published in the "Premium Times" on Monday, May 20, 2024, touches on what we consider as the heart of the matter, hence the relevant portions of your statement with our comments are as follows:

QUOTE 1: " It is therefore paramount to critically dissect state police purely from the perspective of political economy. As an approach, political economy literally measures how politics defines the economy and how the economy in turn redefines politics. The interplay of politics and economics, either formally or informally, plays out daily in the conduct of our nation’s affairs. But we rarely emphasize the application of this approach to dissecting the functionality of our federation. This interplay, if methodically applied, can deepen our understanding of the timeless demand for an alternative."



COMMENT: Looking through the prism of political economy means the issue of "state police" cannot be separated or divorced from other aspects bedeviling the country and treated as a stand-alone, otherwise it will make nonsense of political economy itself. Hence, the same political-economic paradigm must be applied to the 36 states making up the Federation. That is, whether the political economy of 36 states is sufficient for a combined and even development of which insecurity is a part. Therefore the question of "state police" is tied to the question of what or who the Federating Unit is. Hence the first problem to be addressed is the make up or configuration of the Federation itself. On the one hand, current states are administrative entities imposed by a Unitary military administration, totally dependent on the Center and can therefore not serve the purposes of a Federation. On the other hand, the Federating Unit may be characterized as "States" or "Regions" and which invariably vests Policing within the Federating Unit thereby rendering the debate on "state police" superfluous. Furthermore, many Nationalities, indigenous to their territories, have been balkanized into different states, where they became minorities thereby exacerbating power conflicts. Their concerns must be addressed.



QUOTE 2:"Unlike the previous political dispensations, this process has not merely spurred renewed debates about our national security architecture and governance structure at large. It has equally elicited public confidence in the resolve of the National Assembly to deliver a fairly recalibrated political order that will bolster the aspirations of all Nigerians, whether poor or rich, old or young. At the end of the review, we all hope the outcome of this process will transform to a new constitutional order that will birth a more functional federal system."

COMMENT: Transforming into a new Constitutional order to birth a more functional federal system cannot be achieved by bureaucratic shuffling of the Constitution through serial amendments but by setting into motion the process of setting up the new Constitutional order.



QUOTE 3: "However, the conversation has gained more traction with the resolve of the National Assembly to review the grundnorm that governs our federation. Unlike the previous exercises, we are not just undertaking another review as the Parliament of the Federal Government. Rather, we are undertaking this national assignment as the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, a legislative power derived from Section 4(1-4) of the 1999 Constitution. Under this clause, the National Assembly is vested with the power to specifically “make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof…”This power, as enshrined under the provision, distinctly includes the power to amend, review or even produce an entirely new federal constitution that will decisively address our current socio-economic and political realities"



COMMENT : Since the National Assembly is vested with power to specifically “make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Federation or any part thereof…” which includes the power to produce an entirely new Federal Constitution, the question is whether it is better to produce a new Constitution or add another set of amendments, with the probable expectations of future amendments. It is better and profitable to produce a new Constitution because it will address a lot of issues, beyond "state police" and create the necessary nexus between politics and economy. In which case, the National Assembly can start the process towards a Constitutional Convention, especially going by what you said is its resolve to be fundamentally different from earlier amendment exercises.

A Constitutional Convention is necessary because it will address the fundamental question of the Federating Unit as well as doing away with the Unitarism currently passing off as a Federation whilst also reducing or ending the proclivity of each National Assembly to amend the Constitution.



QUOTE 4: "However, the sub-national governments have justified their resolve to create vigilante groups on Section 4(7), which empowers the State House of Assembly “to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the State or any part thereof…”"



COMMENT: making laws for "peace order and good government " requires direct participation of the people now being exercised through periodic elections. Now that the Grundnorm of the country itself is at stake, the people must also have their say. Since this is not about partisan issues, the way for the people to have their say is through a Referendum. This will be in two phases (1) A Referendum within the Federating Unit and (2) a countrywide Referendum to ratify the outcome of the Constitutional Convention.

The state Houses of Assembly can jumpstart the process leading to #1 more so when it tallies with Section 4(7) you referenced. The National Assembly can also inspire, encourage and enable the State Houses of Assembly to pursue this path, if it is to live up to its billing as "not just undertaking another review as the Parliament of the Federal Government. Rather, we are undertaking this national assignment as the Parliament of the Federal Republic of Nigeria."

Thank you.



Editorial Board

Yoruba Referendum Committee

Response to Chiefs Emeka Anyaoku, Ozekhome, Gbenga Daniel et al

As part of the on-going interrogation on the necessity to Re-Federalize Nigeria, a sizable segment of the Nigerian elite gathered in Lagos on March 18, 2024 to deliberate on “Lawful Procedures For Actualizing A People’s Constitution for Nigeria” at an event convened by the group known as “The Patriots” in honor of one of its leaders, Prof Ben Nwabueze who passed away last year just as it was also to celebrate the 10th anniversary of the 2014 National Conference.

The take-aways from their deliberations, from various Press reports, are all anchored on their rejection of the 1999 Constitution and the necessity for a new “Peoples Constitution” and their suggested methodologies of actualizing same, include, in no particular order, the following: the possibility of another “Doctrine of Necessity” [/i]floated by Senator Tambuwal; Senator Gbenga Daniel’s push for implementing the decisions of the 2014 National Conference; Chief Emeka Anyaoku’s advocacy for [i]“true federalism, with considerable powers devolved to the federating units" as the 1999 Constitution as amended lacks the legitimacy that flows from a democratically made constitution while suggesting either accepting the 2014 national conference as an acceptable platform, or we go for a relatively inexpensive directly elected Constituent Assembly on all parties basis for producing such a widely desired constitution,”; and Mike Ozekhome’s declaration that the 1999 Constitution was merely a Schedule to Decree 24 of1999 which was not backed up by any Referendum hence urged Nigerians to [i]“own their own constitution through a popular referendum of the people like was done to the Midwest constitution on the 10th of August 1963 when it separated from the Western region”.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee hereby responds to all the issues raised as follows:

(i) "Legitimacy”, canvassed by Chief Emeka Anyaoku, is derived by democratic means, or, in cases of social revolutions, by the forcible overthrow of an extant regime by mass revolts manifesting as either urban or rural insurrections. imposed by force of arms. Hence, if we are seeking Legitimacy for a New Constitution, and we are not in a social-revolutionary situation, the best way of going about it is through Democratic means. This can only be through a Referendum. Yet, the question as to what manner of Referendum must be addressed.

(ii) This cannot be a single, countrywide Referendum. A countrywide or Pan-Nigerian 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 countrywide Referendum already denies the existence of the subnational as a Constituent.

(iii) Mike Ozekhome’s reference to the Mid-West Referendum has nothing to do with a new Constitution for Nigeria, because the Nigeria of that time had a Legitimate Constitution and from which derived the specific purpose of creating the Mid-West Region, hence the Referendum was conducted only among the Mid-Westerners. In the case of a new Constitution for Nigeria, such a Referendum must be conducted by Nigerians who would be the Federating Units.

(iv) Therefore, the first issue to be addressed is who or what the Federating Unit is. Since it is agreed that the 1999 Constitution must be changed, it follows that its definition of Nigeria must be redefined. The 1999 Constitution says, “Nigeria is a Federation of States and Federal Capital Territory” [/i]as if these states are devoid of people; a major reason for this being the denial of our multinationalism, multilingualism, and multiculturalism, which has led to the architecture of the State as a direct competitor of, and in opposition to, the aspirations and expectations of the people/citizens.

(v) We posit that the Federating Units cannot be the current atomized states, especially with the same ethno-nationality balkanized into the different states. Rather, it is the various Peoples/Ethno-Nationality administered either as Regions or States, based on the architecture of the new Nigerian State as a Multi-National State to be arrived at via a Constitutional Convention. Therefore, a new Constitution cannot be based on “States as federating units” but on the various Peoples/Nationalities inhabiting the geo-political space called Nigeria. The new Constitution must be derived from a Constitutional Convention, itself the culmination of the various Nationality Referendums[b][/b], from which it will derive its Legitimacy thereby making a countrywide Referendum superfluous.

(vi) Furthermore, this Nationality-specific Referendum addresses the question of “devolution”. Devolution is anti-Federal because it presupposes the prior existence of a center, or authority which devolves powers. The only existing authority is the National Assembly which is a product of the 1999 Constitution we are seeking to replace. Therefore, the question of devolution does not even arise. Also, this cannot be resolved through a “[i]Doctrine of Necessity” because an authority must also exist to enable and empower such a doctrine and will keep for itself, the power and authority on devolution. Federalism is the opposite because it is a system of coordinating a center/national with the sub-national who would have, a priori, agreed to the form of coordination. As the saying goes, “power devolved is power retained”. Devolved power can be reclaimed.

(vii) It is not possible to have an “inexpensive directly elected constituent assembly on all party basis," simply because the political parties are not the Federating or Constituent Units. The parties do not stand for the Federating units or Nationalities. Unlike the run up to the pre-independence Constitutional Conferences where elections had been conducted by 1951/52 and the victorious parties roughly corresponded with their Regions, and which provided them the needed Legitimacy. In such a case, the parties could be said to stand for their Regions. Not in this present case.

(viii) Advocacy to implement the 2014 Confab must also be derived from a Referendum because there must also be an authority to decide which of the over 6oo recommendations are right for the various Peoples of Nigeria, thereby depriving the various Peoples of Nigeria the opportunity to Legitimately determine their preferences, more so when the delegates to the Confab did not represent their peoples. They can be said to stand for their people only when their people have mandated them to do so. This was not the case.

(ix) The 2014 Confab forced the people to literally surrender their inherent capacity to advance the quest for self-actualization because they are either absent or absent-minded when crucial decisions were being made, despite being represented by either political or “socio-cultural” leaders and organizations supposedly selected by those in charge of the country’s central government that has appropriated to themselves, the authority to take decisions reflecting the general expectation of the People(s),

(x) We recall that the Richards Constitution was rejected because the principle of a Union or Federation is based on the Peoples and not on administrative units. Indeed, every Union or Federation in the world is based on a Union of Peoples which may be administered either as states (as in the US) or regions as in Germany. For a Federation or Union to exist, therefore, the People inhabiting a geographical space must make that decision.

(xi) When the case is made that the current states are now a reality that we cannot run away from, the short answer to that is, Yes, we can run away from it, in the sense that the political and economic circumstances that make for their creation are the root cause of Nigeria’s problems today, such that their retention or change can only be by the Peoples affected themselves and not by fiat from the Center. Thus, the Yoruba, for example, may decide to make every Yoruba town or city an administrative center—that will be our choice based on our economic and political imperatives.

(xii) With the above and more, it can be concluded that rather than proceed on another round of “electing representatives” to a partisan or non-partisan Constituent Assembly, the best way out is through the[b] Nationality Referendums[/b] which would have Legitimized, Validated, and Legalized the aspirations and expectations of the Peoples, and which will lead directly to a Constitutional Convention out of which a new Federal Constitution to usher in a Federal Multi-National State will be established. This will be a Multi-National State capable of addressing the “Leadership Question” in Nigeria because it ensures that the Nationalities are active participants in their development.

(xiii) The National Assembly’s role will be limited to legislating on convening of the Constitutional Convention, 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. If it is said that the State Assemblies were also created by the same 1999 Constitution that we seek to replace, our short answer is that since we are not advocating anarchy or a military coup, the State Assemblies or any preference by atomized nationalities in Nigeria provide the most peaceful pathway towards a new Constitution more so when the National Assembly has no provision for or against a Referendum. Hence, the decision must rest with the Nationalities as the Federating/Constituent Units.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

The Yoruba Referendum Committee knows you've begun to make efforts in the direction of re-federalizing the Nigerian State. However, since the foundation of the state determines the capacity and capability of the structure, this foundation must be anchored on the necessary political imperatives that will drive the economic reforms of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Hence, the reforms' success and sustainability depend on political restructuring, i.e., the Constitutional Re-Formation of Nigeria, as the only guarantor of the economic reforms. Therefore, the reforms must go parri-passu with political restructuring; otherwise, the reforms will be susceptible to the vagaries of political contest for power, as we experienced during the 2023 elections.

Our reasons are as follows:

(i) Amendments to the 1999 Constitution cannot guarantee the reforms. The sole reason for continuously amending the Constitution since 1999 is that it could not provide an adequate foundation for a truly federal and democratic Nigerian State. Furthermore, perennial Constitutional amendments offer the avenue to use such amendments to waste economic and political achievements, thereby creating more instability. Therefore, knowing that the 1999 Constitution has a faulty foundation, it behooves us to redesign and fashion a new Constitution.

(ii) The above is even more specific when it is realized that punch lists for Restructuring abound, all centered on the reports/recommendations of the various conferences since 1999, with some making the 1960/1963 Constitutions their take-off points. Remarkably, the 1960 Constitution came into being as the result of the various Constitutional Conferences with the representation of the peoples via the then-existing political parties whose decisions were legitimized by the 1959 Elections, while the reports and recommendations of a series of conferences on Nigeria’s federal system have no imprimatur of the people because “representatives” were appointed for such conferences by governments–military or civil.

(iii) This is why these punch lists have been reduced to certain expectations, to wit: state police, reduction in the cost of governance, changing the narrative on “residual “and “exclusive” lists etc. The common factor in these is that they are presented as if tinkering with one or the other with legislation is needed. This cannot be the case because these issues are at the heart of Nigeria’s existence, and as such, we must address whatever existential paradigms are necessary. This is the only way to ensure and assure a proper foundation is laid. And the proper way to go about it is through the instrumentality of the Nationality Referendum as the pathway towards Restructuring/True Federalism through which the People, as the Federating Unit, will manifest their aspirations and expectations.

(iv) The pre-independence Constitutional Conferences could negotiate residual and concurrent lists with the colonial power because it was a transition of power from an external source. In this case, it is not a transfer of power but the re-establishment of the wishes and aspirations of the Federating Units and the relationship between them.

(v) Therefore, to achieve this, we must address the foundational issue of the Federating Unit. We posit that the Federating Units cannot be the current atomized states, especially with the same ethno-nationality balkanized into the different states. Instead, it is the various Peoples/Ethno-Nationality administered either as Regions or States, based on the architecture of the new Nigerian State as a Multi-National State to be arrived at via the Constitutional Convention, which will also become the conclusion of the various Nationality Referendums which would have Legitimized, Confirmed and Legalized the Peoples aspirations and expectations. Hence, the Constitutional Convention is only to smoothen any rough edges in the architecture of the Nigerian State.

(vi) Furthermore,[b] Nationality Referendums [/b]also serve the following purposesa) 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–Southwest, Northwest, Southeast, etc.; (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 a Nationality-specific Referendum, 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 to re-Federalize Nigeria, toward a new constitution where the People make decisions, even at the lowest level of governance.

(vii) Towards this end, we have sent a Bill for a Referendum to the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti Sates’ Houses of Assembly to be passed into Law and for them to conduct the Referendum. Other Nationalities/People can use the same template or design their own based on their peculiarities.

(viii) The “Nationality Referendum” combines political restructuring and economic reforms and guarantees a proper foundation because it provides the platform for a new Constitutional Convention to arrive at a Re-Federalized Nigeria. The Convention will culminate the Referendums conducted within the various Nationalities as Federating Units that their chosen delegates will represent. The Constitutional Convention will be anchored on the Legitimate and Legal results of the various Nationality Referendums, thereby avoiding unnecessary acrimony while simultaneously being the closest replica of the pre-independence Constitutional Conferences.

(ix) Therefore, the basic Referendum Question is to be based on the composition of the Federating Unit, either as a merger of states, as the Yoruba Referendum posits, or setting up the form of relationships between different Nationalities, which would be based on the following, adaptable scenarios: (a) Each Region shall be a Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Union; (b) shall adopt a Parliamentary System of government; (c)The Central Government of the Union shall have no power to interfere or intervene in the affairs of the REGION, save as shall be agreed to by three-quarters of the members of the Region’s Parliament; (d)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 the Region. (e)The[b] Judicial[/b][b][/b] power of the Region shall be vested in the [i]Supreme Court of the Region, Court of Appeal, High Court, Customary Court, and other lower courts [/i]as the Parliament may establish. There shall be a Court of Appeal in each of the provinces. Each province shall have a High Court from which appeals shall lie to the Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of the Region; (f) Each Region shall have its internal security system; (g) Each Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Federation shall control primary interest in its own resources with an agreed Tax Model for the Federation.

(x) Furthermore, the Yoruba Referendum Committee defines the new Multi-National Nigerian State as “A Federal Nigeria, through a valid Federal Constitution, to be known as The Union of Nigerian 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.”

(xi) The Federal Presidential Council answers the debate on choosing between Presidential or Parliamentary Systems because the Executive and Legislative power of the State would rest in the Council with the extra provision for the Executive to appoint Ministers outside the Council. As a Balanced Federation, the Federating Units will have equal representation in the Council.

(xii) The Presidential System distorts the political economy of electoral politics, which translates into the distortion of the political economy of the country at large and which will affect the sustainability of the economic reforms. Hence, the necessity to jettison the current presidential in favor of the Parliamentary System, where the political economy of electoral politics will be limited to one’s constituency, becomes logical. This will further resolve the necessity or otherwise of countrywide political parties because mandatory countrywide political parties negate the principle embedded in the Parliamentary System, where representation is local while hence representation in the Federal Presidential Council, must be left to be decided by the Federating Unit, if there is equal representation at the Federal Presidential Council.

Thank you for your time, sir.
Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

The flurry of activities around Restructuring, flowing from heightened insecurity compounded by economic underdevelopment, etc., has led to calls for “state police” as an imperative in Restructuring Nigeria. This was followed by the reported agreement between the Central and State governments on working towards the modalities for achieving the same. At the same time, the National Assembly has, once again, established a Committee on Amending the 1999 Constitution just as some members of the NASS are championing a change from the current Presidential System to Parliamentary, all of which have formed the content of your interventions on the subject in the recent past.
Yet, we have been traversing this road since 1999 with nothing to show. To avoid a repetition of the same processes, the Yoruba Referendum Committee is appealing to you to use your influence to change the narrative on Restructuring from the merry-go-round of the past to a narrative embedded in ensuring that the voice of the people is made manifest through the instrumentality of the Referendum as the pathway towards Re-Federalizing Nigeria.
Our reasons are as follows:
i. It is instructive that the Lagos State House of Assembly is the first Institution in Yorubaland to make a categorical statement on the new attempt at amending the 1999 Constitution by demanding “State Police” as an imperative. It can, therefore, be assumed that the Lagos State House of Assembly, NASS, the President, and State Governors are oblivious to the calls by you and others that what is needed is not an amendment but a completely new Federal Constitution.
ii. Despite this, the Yoruba Referendum Committee acknowledges the emerging consensus on Restructuring/True Federalism among the cream of the Yoruba elite, of which you are a part, and which is also in tandem with the aspirations and expectations of Yoruba People. Yet, there is no inkling of any responsibility on the part of Yoruba people on this crucial existential necessity as it appears you have shunted the responsibility onto NASS.
iii. Yoruba people have not been placed in a position to be active participants in providing an effective quality of life for themselves, judging by what you have explicitly said, which is akin to repeating what we have experienced over time. We cannot continue doing the same thing repeatedly while expecting a different result. Furthermore, with the absence of the people, our heads would have been shaved in our absence.
iv. Our earlier experience with “zonal” conferences or legislative contrivance shows that the outcomes of such conferences were at variance with the people's expectations. We recall the IMF debates, Political Bureau, Niki Tobi's Constitutional review, Abubakar's Consultations, Obasanjo’s “Technical Review Committee,” Yar Adua’s Constitutional Review, Jonathan’s “Confab” APC’s Committee on Restructuring, all of which were carried out by way of “Zonal Consultations.” They all yielded no positive result because the Central Government ignored those conclusions. This was possible because these Conferences, through their various “Zonal Consultations,” had no roadmap/pathway for Legitimizing the conclusions of their “Zones” to which the central Government would be bound, which further enabled the central Governments to ignore those conclusions.
v. Your demands are anchored on a belief that the Constitutional Re-formation of Nigeria will be achieved through NASS, more so when some, like Aare Afe Babalola, placed the onus on NASS. At the same time, the rest of you have not specified any roadmap towards achieving the quest. Yet, NASS cannot perform this task despite any claims to its legitimacy as representatives of the People. While its members can rightly claim to represent the people by their being elected, it is equally true that the question of “State Police” or a change from the Presidential to the Parliamentary System cannot be solely decided by NASS without the imprimatur of the peoples of Nigeria.
vi. Moreover, “State Police” is a non-starter without prosecutorial and judicial powers. That is, a “State Police” formation must be empowered to prosecute offenders of State Laws without looking over its shoulders about possibilities of appealing judgements in its favor outside the judicial system of the State. Under this circumstance, we will be looking at 37 new judicial systems.
vii. This brings into sharp focus the expected development of Nigeria based on current state lines, considering that the current states were created to atomize cultural homogeneity and, in the process, reduce the quality of life, regardless of any humongous increases in the state's IGR such that adding the burden of a “State Police” onto the current economic situation will only compound matters.
viii. Hence, the first port of call is in reversing this atomization through the instrumentality of a Referendum to be conducted by the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti, and Ondo State Houses of Assembly, with a “YES” or “NO” question as to whether the six contiguous Yoruba states will agree to be merged into one Region or not. The result will also provide a special consideration for the Yoruba people in Kwara and Kogi states. This is crucial since the Yoruba believe that development and quality of life manifested in the period of Regional Government widely dubbed as our “Golden Era.”
ix. Your interventions also assumed that “reasoning” alone will lead to Restructuring, assuming that forces of Unitarization can 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 power politics, hence the importance of the Lagos State House of Assembly's institutional response to the new attempt at amending the 1999 Constitution. This is because the Referendum is to be conducted by the State Houses of Assembly, which mandates engaging them as to their foundational responsibility in ensuring combined and even development for Yoruba people in and outside Nigeria.
x. As a major part of the Yoruba elite, you can, individually or collectively, engage and influence the Houses of Assembly in Yorubaland as the Legitimate institution through which the Yoruba will validate their wishes and aspirations, thereby legitimizing the voice of the people through the instrumentality of the Referendum as the pathway through which the various peoples of Nigeria will validate their wishes and aspirations. Other contiguous Nationalities can emulate this Referendum pathway, while non-contiguous societies can use any mechanism that will serve the same purposes.
xi. Towards this end, the Yoruba Referendum Committee has defined our expectation of a new Federal Nigeria as a Multi-National Nigerian State in the following manner: a “Federal Nigeria, through a valid Federal Constitution, to be known as The Union of Nigerian 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”.
xii. The advantages of this form of State include but are not limited to, permanently taking care of the North/South and Christian/Muslim divides by representation of the “Zones” or Nationality in the Presidential Council, confining “monetization” and Nationality/Religious questions within cultural and social boundaries in existence within the zones/Nationalities and from where resolutions can be advanced, etc.
xiii. In passing, it is noted that what eventually saved American democracy on January 6, 2021, was that the “electors” were the states whose decisions were to be confirmed by US Congress and which the “storming” of Congress tried to prevent and did not achieve. The confirmation of the “electors” from the States is a major pillar of Democracy in the United States. Comparably, the Federating Unit will become the “electors” to select or elect its representatives to the Federal Council, whose decisions cannot be overturned except by the Federating Unit itself.
xiv. So, the onus is now on you, as a critical section of the Yoruba elite, to engage our State Houses of Assembly on the need for the Referendum to achieve True Federalism. Towards this end, the Yoruba Referendum Committee has sent a Bill for a Referendum to the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti State Houses of Assembly. We are hoping you will join us in this quest.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Coming on the heels of the Armed Forces Remembrance Day, held on January 15 every year, former military president, Ibrahim Babangida hit the nail on the head by unequivocally saying that “failure to achieve True Federalism is one of the aberrations of military regimes” which also “countered the democratic process”.

The first of these military regimes came into being on January 15, 1966, through a military coup, repeated on December 31,1983, and reinforced on November 18, 1993, after the annulment of the “June 12” democratic elections. The resistance to the military regime, with NADECO in the forefront, ushered in the current democratic dispensation with emphasis placed on Re-Federalization of Nigeria.

On his part, Chief Bisi Akande, APC’s deputy Chairman of the ruling APC Party, advised the members of the National Assembly to dump the 1999 Constitution written by the military leaders and adopt the 1960 Constitution for Nigeria to move forward, while Nze Chidi Duru, APC’s deputy National Organizing Secretary and a member of the Party’s National Working Committee said the Party is working towards the implementation of the El-Rufai Committee Report on True Federalism. All of them are united in anchoring their pursuit of True Federalism on “devolution” as a general principle from which other issues would be addressed.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee adds its voice to the calls made above, with the following additions:

(i) Having experienced various calls for True Federalism since 1999 without a specific pathway towards achieving it, it is now mandatory for the discourse to shift from merely calling for it, as was done by the three personalities named above, (and others before them) to devising the mechanism for actualization. The three Statesmen represent their various political constituencies in the quest for Re-Federalization, with Gen Babangida, though retired, clearly an active participant in military politics since 1966 thus would be considered an important voice in the military, while Chief Akande and Nze Duru clearly spoke on behalf of their political party.

(ii) The military, having “countered the democratic process” with a Constitution that is now expected to be discarded cannot be expected to provide the pathway, either directly through another military coup or indirectly through sustenance of its aspirations expressed through the 1999 Constitution, itself derived from legitimizing previous military coups through its many Constitutions, all aimed at homogenizing all the Peoples of Nigeria into one. This is administratively pursued through the atomization of the various Peoples into states which are made dependent on the central administration from where the ability and capability for the aspirations and expectations of the various Peoples are “packaged and managed”.

(iii) The National Assembly is not likely to simply dissolve itself by dumping the 1999 Constitution and adopting the 1960 Constitution. Even if it does dissolve itself, it cannot simply reconvene and convert itself into a Constituent Assembly to adopt another Constitution because it would have, by the dissolution, lost its Legitimacy and a new election into a partisan or non-partisan Constituent Assembly will be farcical and a waste of time and resources. Moreover, the 1960 Constitution can only be valid as a guide, with its general principles as the basis for further Constitutional negotiations. The El-Rufai Committee’s Report placed emphasis on the Constitutional Amendment expected to be conducted by the National Assembly to actualize its recommendations. The Amendment exercise was conducted without reference to the Committee’s recommendations.

(iv) From the above, and despite the attraction of “devolution” as the expectation of True Federalism, a major impediment is in the assumption that “devolution” as a cure-all is expected to be handed down to the Peoples of Nigeria by a benevolent authority (Presidency or National Assembly), which is tantamount to shaving our heads in our absence and which has become the obstacle in actualizing any of the aspirations and expectations.

(v) Experience in other climes shows that “power devolved is power retained”, hence, “devolution” is dependent on the authority or power behind it. Therefore, “devolution” is not the first port of call but the recognition of the power or authority behind it which is to be found in the Federating Units, and who, by virtue of their being the Federating Units, decide what is to be retained and what is to be given. States, as Nigeria's "Federating units" were imposed by military fiat and declared as such as a function of atomization of the Peoples hence they are, at best, administrative entities. This is one of the consequences of the aberrations of military rule.

(vi) Whether the Federating Units are called "states” or "Regions" is immaterial. A Federating Unit can be ethnic, as in Nationalities within a contiguous territory or territorial, as is the case with many Nationalities in Nigeria; the major point being that each Nationality/Federating Unit should be able to decide its preferences based on their historical and cultural considerations, which will allow them to take the fullest advantage of “devolution” by retrieving what they had lost during the previous dispensation.

(vii) Insecurity as currently on the rampage provides a good reference point. Security is primarily a "confidence" question. That is, the people should be able to have confidence in the security personnel working on their territory. With this as a consideration, most of the personnel will be indigenous thereby increasing intelligence gathering, investigations will tend to rely on such confidence, itself driven by the "doctrine and architecture" of not only the security forces but also the political entity it represents, to wit, self-recognition as a Federating Unit. On the contrary, a security doctrine and architecture grafted onto existing “states as federating units” will only compound the existing problems within the states, almost all anchored on internal power relations which will ultimately affect security/insecurity.

(viii) It can be said that Devolution’s “punch list” as stated by the three statesmen mentioned above, to wit: state police, more resources, and powers to the states, etc. are quite well known and accepted by advocates of True Federalism and all that is needed is to put them in place.

(ix) The Yoruba Referendum Committee does not share this view because the question arises as to why had these not been put in place since its advocacy since 1999? To put this failure at the altar of bad leadership is to wave a flag at the problem. Rather, we posit that this inability is because the beneficiaries of the “punch-list”, the people as Federating Units have no say in the development of the “punch-list” hence have no means of ensuring its application. This is why we advocate “Nationality Referendums”, and in the case of the Yoruba, a “Yoruba Referendum” to be conducted by the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti State Houses of Assembly. Similar Referendums can be conducted in culturally contiguous territories, while a mix of Nationalities within a territory can conduct theirs via their cultural and/or community institutions, mediated, if necessary, by the Houses of Assembly in the territories. These Referendums will be the Legitimate, Valid and Legal representation of the “punch-list” and cannot be traded away. This will provide the foundation for actualizing Re-Federalization of Nigeria.

(x) Therefore, the first steps to True Federalism and avoiding the past problems are in naming and recognizing the Federating Units. This can be done in several ways, to wit: there are recognizable and recognized Nationalities in currently existing states; the Yoruba, for example, whose historical and cultural existential realities demand a “regional” structure while Nationalities in the Middle Belt or Niger Delta/South-South can arrive at a workable structure within themselves without being limited to any forced relationships with any other. At the end, a new Federal Nigeria will be a mix of contiguous Nationalities and territories derived from a mix of Nationalities.
Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee.

Your Royal Highnesses,

The Yoruba Referendum Committee welcomes your direct intervention in the efforts to Restructure Nigeria. The Communique at the end of your Annual General Meeting held on Monday, November 27, 2023, provides a good basis for an engagement with the aim of arriving at a practical road map that will usher in a Restructured Nigeria of our dreams.
Your Communique demanded, among others, the following from the Federal Government: (A) to have specific constitutional roles for all traditional rulers in the country as a fourth tier of the government, (B) immediately expedite action granting Local Government Autonomy to Local Government authorities (C) create a special intervention fund for security which would be administered by the traditional rulers as a way to improve on the spate of insecurity in the country.(D) to critically look into the suggestions proffered during the last Constitutional Review Conference and (E) the Local Government Authorities and Traditional rulers as well as the States to have better control of resources within their domain.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee humbly responds to your Communique as follows:
i. The Federal Government cannot be asked to have specific Constitutional roles for all traditional rulers in the country as a fourth tier of government because there is no such tier in any Federation. A Federation is a system of coordinate jurisdiction between the Center (National) and the Federating Unit(sub-national). Therefore, asking the Federal Government to make traditional rulers a fourth tier of government already neutralizes the concept of Federalism.

ii. Traditional rulership is culture specific, especially in a Multinational and Multi-cultural country like Nigeria. As Yoruba Obas, you represent a specific culture within the Nigerian context, therefore, your role in governance of Yorubaland ordinarily should have no input from the center as the Yoruba and their Obas have, over the centuries, during pre-colonial, colonial, and post-colonial periods, established proven relevance and authority of the Oba, in their varied good, bad, and ugly components. Hence, for the Yoruba, our political space is also a cultural space with time-honored values. This historical and contemporary reality cannot be surrendered to the Federal Government. Besides, were the Federal Government to accede to this request means already the quest for Restructuring is already defeated because it presupposes that the existing STRUCTURE is a given; that is, the question to be answered is no longer the STRUCTURE of the Federation but merely the reconfiguration of its mode of governance.

iii. Similarly, “Local Government Autonomy” is anti-Federal in the sense that the Autonomy will depend on funding from the center. The entire quest for Local Government autonomy is anchored on its separation from the State Government with the excuse that the Local Government is nearer to the people and such autonomy will advance development without being hampered by the excesses of the State Government.

iv. We know, from our experience in the Western Region, that development, local or Regional, was not a function of the distance from the people, but the result of definitive policies geared towards development, with relevant agencies by both the local and Regional Governments. Hence, the Obas played pivotal roles in the development and application of the free primary education policies, local councilors played their roles in agricultural extension services, etc. These were neutralized by the various military interventions through which Local Government Administration became centralized via the Dasuki Reform recommendations and which has now led us to where we are, today.

v. The problem created by the continuous centralization of Local Governments cannot therefore be resolved by vesting the same central Government the authority to have direct funding, and therefore control, of Local Governance. Flowing with this will be the annexation and subordination of local security by the Center because it will control the utilization of the said funding. Our contention is that if the center will disburse special intervention funds for security, it also reserves the power to interfere and intervene in the execution of any security policy that will be put in place. The institution of the Oba will become an appendage of the political forces controlling the center at any point in time thereby removing them further away from their primary cultural constituency, comprising the people they govern as Oba. This is further reinforced by your demand on the government to critically review the solutions proffered during the last Constitutional Review Conference.

vi. The Conference avoided taking any decision(s) on the most fundamental issue before it, to wit: the nature of the Federation as well as control of the resources which was shunted to another time. Incidentally, one of your demands centered on resource control by “local governments, traditional rulers and states”.

vii. Based on the above, the thrust of the message we want to pass to you is that reviewing the conference is not necessary as it negates everything related to Federalism. What is needed is another approach towards achieving a Truly Federal Nigeria.

viii. We begin by acknowledging the major roles played by Yoruba Obas in the founding and activities of the Egbe Omo Oduduwa, founded by Chief Obafemi Awolowo in London, England, in 1945 and formally launched in Ile-Ife in 1947. One major reason stated at the Egbe’s formation was “the propagation of the ideal of a modern Yoruba State and Federal State of Nigeria through the agency of reliable persons who share our ideals”.

ix. Towards this end, the Egbe, through its memo to the Regional Committee on the amendment to the Richards Constitution established by the then Governor MacPherson, advocated the “grouping of Nigeria into various Autonomous States or Regions purely on ethnical basis” and that Regional Autonomy should be the prerequisite for a Central government and that if there was any area in which the colonial government wanted to experiment in giving Nigerians complete control over internal affairs, that area should be in the Regional Administration.

x. Chief Obafemi Awolowo drew extensively on the global models of shared governance between National and sub-national governments in arriving at this Federalist option. Yet, the Conference relegated this global imperative to the background in its conceptualization by denying Nationalities the freedom to choose who to speak for them at such an important meeting. This method of selecting or appointing delegates alienated most delegates from the Nationalities whose direct voice was needed on such crucial aspect of Restructuring the polity in Nigeria. None of the delegates represented any of the Peoples of Nigeria, hence were not bound to defend any imperative of the Nationality from which they were selected. Hence, the Conference could not align itself with the hopes and aspirations of the People which was supposedly the raison d’etre for organizing such Conferences in the first instance. It merely provided the ammunition to further unitarize Nigeria, thereby entrenching the country’s foundational crisis, which was against what the Yoruba had always advocated as being the basis for Federalism.

xi. The Conference did so by assuming the singularity of the geo-political space called Nigeria and all its solutions to its problems were relegated to maintaining that singularity while turning issues of Federalism into an administrative convenience even when it is obvious that the problem is exactly in that singularity. That is why the Conference promoted the ridiculous position that “states are Federating Units”. States, as we have them in Nigeria, are administrative entities, which were not even created by the residents but by military fiat. A country can have any form of administrative unit, which was why Aguiyi Ironsi replaced the Regions with “groups of provinces” which are now more or less the “states”.

xii. Every Union or Federation in the world is based on a Union of Peoples which may be administered either as states (as in the US) or Regions as in Germany. For a Federation or Union to exist, therefore, the Peoples inhabiting a geographical space must make that decision. That the Conference refused to see this point underscored the confusion in its understanding of the concept of Federalism in a post-colonial State like Nigeria.

xiii. When the case is made that the current states are now a reality which we cannot run away from, the short answer to that is, Yes, we can run away from it, in the sense that the political and economic circumstances that make for their creation is the root cause of Nigeria’s problems today, such that their retention or changing can only be by the Peoples affected themselves and not by fiat from the Center. Thus, the Yoruba may decide to make every Yoruba town or city an administrative center—that will be our choice based on our economic and political imperatives. While the Conference floated the idea of merging of States that may wish to, it did not prescribe the methodology for doing so and it could not have.

xiv. The above, and more, are the reasons the Yoruba Referendum Committee is proposing, for your consideration, the pursuit of a Legal, Valid and Legitimate mechanism that will aggregate Yoruba demands as the way forward. The mechanism is what we have called the “Yoruba Referendum” which will address the lack of political integration preventing the establishment of a Yoruba Regional entity and identity that will drive Yoruba economic, cultural, and social imperatives.

xv. Towards this end, the Bill for a Referendum has been submitted to the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti State Houses of Assembly, to be passed into Law and conduct the Referendum.

It is our candid hope that you will throw your weight behind this endeavor.
Thank you, sirs,
Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

.

Nigeria: Restructure or reconfigure (10), By Afe Babalola


In continuation of his published series on “Nigeria: Restructure or reconfigure,” Aare Afe Babalola further proposes the following as critical to the quest: (a): Single six-year tenures for the office of the President and Governors, noting that many of the most progressive governments in the world have enjoyed continuity and stability in leadership which allows officeholders to consolidate and implement development programs without frequent policy reversals that are associated with frequent change of government or leadership. (b) Streamlined qualification and remuneration for political office holders so that competent, qualified people with a great sense of humility, responsibility, and absolute commitment to service seek leadership positions. (c) Need for clear party ideology since elections in Nigeria are largely organized and decided by party affiliations. However, several of the political parties in Nigeria are non-ideological and serve a diversity of incoherent interests that often change like weather and(d) electoral reforms.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee responds as follows:
i. Continuity, stability, coherence, and sustained governance result directly from the established political traditions or institutions which serve as fuel to economic policies. These, in turn, are derived from a “foundational imperative,” that is, the recognition of the reason(s) for the existence or establishment of the State. The State is the highest expression of this “foundational imperative;” hence, all its apparatus and paraphernalia are geared toward ensuring its sustenance. Therefore, a “transformational leadership” is the product of the “foundational imperative.” To arrive at such a juncture, the historical, cultural, and contemporary experiences of the citizens must come into play. This is not the case with Nigeria and other African countries.
ii. Hence, the tenure of political officeholders may not be the only issue. Since Nigeria is part of the global economy, whose ebbs and flows, inflation, depression, trade wars, etc. affect Nigeria’s economy, any government in power will be affected by any of these such that putting a term limit will be detrimental to the office holder, more so, when global downturns can persist during much of the office holder’s term.
iii. Nigeria’s economy, like most economies in Africa, is a negation of the human development of their peoples because the political superstructure is built on an economic structure purposely designed to under-develop the society in favor of the colonial economy, often forcing the society to adjust to its dictates and impetus.
iv. Hence, the problem is not in the lack of ideology but in the type of ideology currently in practice and its relevance to development. Ideologies are a function of the “foundational imperatives” that determine the road toward economic development in the sense that certain measures, arising directly from the Federating Unit’s needs, must be taken to ensure competitiveness within the global economic order. This order is determined, largely, by the Bretton Woods Institutions whose main mandate is to ensure that economic competition among the major powers does not descend into wars, and which made it possible to enroll former colonies into their economic orbits.
v. Hence, the ideologies of the political Parties flow from this reality, and because the State through which the ideology is manifested is almost a carbon copy of the colonially inspired State, the parties’ ideological disposition cannot but follow the trajectory laid down by the colonial powers.
vi. The major reason the Action Group stood out was precisely its recognition of the above and its determination to construct a different type of State from the colonial imperative. This was foundational to the AG as it formed the basis for its advocacy and pursuit of Federalism.
vii. Therefore, rather than say there is a lack of ideology, we say the ideologies in operation are not capable of addressing the fundamental issues of development and underdevelopment; hence, what is needed is an ideological shift to upend Bretton Wood’s philosophical and cultural dominance while simultaneously engaging it in the quest for development.
viii. The above is possible only when the Nationalities in Nigeria re-establish themselves as the Federating Units where all their deficiencies can be cured. This is the crux of the quest for Nationality Referendums. With this, issues on electoral cycles will be determined by the conscious efforts and necessities of each Federating Unit that will also become empowered to make further determinations as necessary.

Yoruba Referendum Committee

Nigeria: Restructure or reconfigure (9), By Afe Babalola
Sir,
As part of our continuous engagement with you on Restructuring/True Federalism which you have published as a series on the “Afe for Vanguard” weekly column, we hereby address the issues arising from the “Manifesto for Transformational Leadership”, your latest column, more-so when you unequivocally declared your public commitment “to continue to advocate for transformational leadership in Nigeria.” This declaration came on the heels of your being the third recipient of the Chief Obafemi Awolowo Prize for Leadership in 2019, after Professor Wole Soyinka in 2012 and Thabo Mbeki in 2014.
There is no doubt of your leadership qualities in Nigeria in general and Yorubaland in particular, thus making the following proposal worth considering.
(i) At a critical point in the anti-colonial struggles different forms of combatting and engaging the colonial authorities were deployed, from civil disobedience to labor strikes as well as cultural determinations, alongside global political and economic realities resulting from the effects of the 2nd world war which compelled the colonial powers to address the question of independence for their colonies.
(ii) For Nigeria, it was the period for direct political engagements via universal suffrage and elections. This was the point at which Awo was faced with some options, to wit: (a) the Nigerian Youth Movement, which was already “dead” thus requiring too much energy to revive (b) the Nigerian National Democratic Party formerly led by Herbert Macauley which had virtually become restricted to Lagos and affiliated with Nnamidi Azikiwe who was keen on destroying any independent Yoruba platform (c) the Egbe Omo Oduduwa which was primarily a cultural organization which would not be effective for the required political Party.
(iii) Awolowo decided that the formation of a new political party was the way to go, hence the formation of the AG as a pan-Nigerian party combining the best of capitalist development and its social imperatives with a decidedly Yoruba worldview without dissolving into Nigerian generalities. This trajectory eventually led to the AG’s victory at the 1951 Western Nigeria Parliamentary Elections, thus providing the political foundation for what we now describe as the Yoruba “Golden Era.” Restructuring/True Federalism will be a mirage unless we create the political foundation for its actualization.
(iv) With due respect, sir, this foundation is neither in “a transformational shift in the manner in which leaders are elected, the demand and expectations of the electorate, as well the priorities and focus of government programs” nor in inviting “all current and future leaders of Nigeria to uphold and commit to the following principles of transformational leadership” but in the current elite, or parts of it, taking a critical examination of current choices from which the road towards actualization is to be chosen.
(v) The elite are aware of the “Principles” you enumerated, to wit: (a) True Federalism is a necessary pre-condition for growth in Nigeria(b) "Full Constitutional Restructuring in Nigeria is a National Priority" because they have, at various times, participated in the conferences aimed at arriving at those principles, at least since 1999. The intellectuals and academics among the elite are not found wanting either, just as the people have also demonstrated their fidelity to those principles that enabled the AD to sweep the entire SW in 1999 and have been aligned with any Party that seems closest to that paradigm. Yet, it is also true that hopes in the direction of actualizing those principles have been dashed.
(vi) We cannot put this down to the “badness” of the human element or a flawed leadership, for doing so will be waving a flag at the problem. Rather, we posit that the elite, in its different dimensions, was unable to determine a point of departure as Awo did. This stems from non-recognition of epochs and the necessary choices that must be made. The Yoruba elite, unable to chart a pathway for itself, resorted to acquiescing to prescriptions of the militarized "Federalism,” attended or participated in all their conferences to "restructure," even when they dictated or imposed their criteria and directly or indirectly chose delegates while asking "them"-- whoever "they" are-- to do this and that, ranging from "return to the 1960/63 Constitution" to implement the 2014 Confab, to "restructure" etc. Thus, Awolowo recognized the epoch, that is, previous efforts only led to catastrophe, and for his True Federalist dream to materialize meant creating the political vehicle for it.
(vii) We are literally in a similar situation. As we stated in Part 2 of our response, there is no agency of the State that can or will compel any electoral candidate to run on any “Principle,” unless such an agency has been predetermined and which would have vitiated the entire quest for True Federalism. Furthermore, each candidate will have his/her definition of True Federalism which will even make it difficult or impossible for voters to decide without introducing extraneous issues deriving from what will be considered as the “badness” of the candidate.
(viii) Yet, these problems can be overcome, once a path towards True Federalism is chosen, hence, the first step towards True Federalism or either of the “Principles” is not contesting elections on such principles but reversing the atomization of Yorubaland and other Peoples into different contiguous and non-contiguous states, thereby neutralizing the Peoples as Federating Units and replacing them with state administrations. This has resulted in the dilution of the political and economic power of the Peoples in favor of political parties whose centers of gravity do not reside within their societies, with the attendant effect of inter and intra-party squabbles with no direct correlation with the development of the Peoples.
(ix) For the Yoruba, to address atomization and its attendant negative consequences which have brought us to this sorry past requires a Referendum to Federate Ekiti State with Ogun State, Osun State, Oyo State, Ondo State, and Lagos State and constitute the same into Oduduwa/Yoruba Region of Western Nigeria, within the Federation of Nigeria.
(x) To achieve the above, the Yoruba Referendum Committee proposes that the current elite can jumpstart the process, especially with your declaration to advocate for transformational leadership in Nigeria. This is because leadership emerges directly from topical political, economic, and social contradictions that exist. Hence, monetization of elections will be greatly reduced once no one will have to campaign for the office of the president all over Nigeria or all over a state for Governor. That is a Parliamentary System where the locality will be the electoral ground for contests will not only reduce monetization but will also throw up leaders responsible to their communities because they will be voted for only by them.
(xi) The above, and others, have been incorporated into the Bill for a Referendum we have sent to the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti, and Ondo State Houses of Assembly to be passed into law. The Bill is attached for reference.
(xii) We believe that, as a respected Elder in Ekiti State, along with other elders like Chief Wole Olanipekun (who recently called for Nigeria’s name to be changed which is impossible without a constitutional change), Prof Bolaji Aluko, whose True Federalist credentials are legendary, Governor Oyebanji and others can jointly initiate the process of passing the Bill into law by the Ekiti State House of Assembly. Governor Oyebanji can further influence his colleagues in the SW Governors’ Forum just as the Ekiti State House of Assembly can initiate similar procedures with their colleagues, more so when collaborative legislative sessions exist between the Assemblies.
It is our sincere hope that the above proposal will be given some consideration as you proceed in the noble efforts of finding pathways to true federalism in Nigeria.
Thank you, sir.
Yoruba Referendum Committee


DRAFT BILL FOR A REFERENDUM LAW

A Law of Oyo State House of Assembly, Ogun State House of Assembly, Osun State House of Assembly, Ekiti State House of Assembly, Ondo State House of Assembly and Lagos State House of Assembly for the holding of a Referendum on the proposal to Federate Ekiti State with Ogun State, Osun State, Oyo State, Ondo State and Lagos State and constitute same into Oduduwa Region of Western Nigeria, within the Federation of Nigeria.

A: REFERENDUM ON FEDERATION OF EKITI STATE WITH OGUN STATE, OSUN STATE, OYO STATE, ONDO STATE AND LAGOS STATE AND CONSTITUTION OF SAME INTO ODUDUWA REGION IN A FEDERATION OF NIGERIA.
1. On the…………. Day of ……… 202… a Referendum shall be held in Ekiti State, Ogun State, Osun State, Oyo State, Ondo State and Lagos State of Nigeria on: (i) Whether the Governments of Ekiti, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Ondo and Lagos States should negotiate with each other with a view to forming a FEDERATION of STATES to be known as the ODUDUWA REGION OF WESTERN NIGERIA and (ii) whether the said REGION should negotiate with the Government of Nigeria and the remaining 30 states or any group of states that have also agreed to Federate and the administration of the Federal Capital Territory to achieve AUTONOMY/SELF-DETERMINATION for the said REGION within a Federation of Nigerian Constituent Units.(ANNEXURE)
2. The questions or propositions to be voted on in the Referendum and form of the ballot paper to be used for that purpose are to be in the form set out in the schedule herein contained.
3. Those entitled to vote in the Referendum are the persons who, on the date of the Referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in the electoral area/ward of the State in which they reside and/or carry out business.
4. The Governor of Each State shall appoint a Chief Electoral Officer who shall appoint an electoral officer for each Local Government Area.
5. Each Local Government Electoral Officer shall (a) Conduct the counting of votes cast in the area under his/her authority in accordance with any directions given by the Chief Electoral Officer and (b) Certify the number of ballot papers counted by him/her and the number of votes cast for each question/proposition.
6. The Chief Electoral Officer must certify:
(a) The total number of ballot papers counted for the whole of Each State and (b) the total number of votes cast for each proposition/question for the whole of the State.
7. The result of the Referendum shall constitute the entire position of the people of Ogun State, Oyo State, Osun State, Ekiti State, Ondo State and Lagos State (WESTERN/ODUDUWA REGION OF NIGERIA).
8. In the event of a YES vote on the Referendum, the Governors of each State shall appoint members into a Constitutional Council of Western/Oduduwa Region.
9. The Constitutional Council of Western/Oduduwa Region shall include not more than twelve (12) other members chosen at random throughout the Region and four (4) members from Kwara and Kogi States.
10.The Constitutional Council of Western/Oduduwa Region shall be vested with powers to present and represent the views of Western/Oduduwa Region and negotiate on behalf of the Western/Oduduwa Region with all the agencies of the Nigerian Government, non-Governmental organizations and the international Community involved in the process.


B:The short title of this Law is “Referendum Law of Ekiti State, Ondo State, Osun State, Oyo State, Ogun State and Lagos State”.


SCHEDULE

FORM OF BALLOT PAPER: Ekiti State House of Assembly, Ondo State House of Assembly, Osun State House of Assembly, Oyo State House of Assembly, Ogun State House of Assembly and Lagos State House of Assembly, have decided to consult the People of Each State on this ………. Day of ………, 202 on the proposal to Federate the Government of Ogun State, the Government of Osun State, the Government of Oyo State, the Government of Ekiti State, the Government of Ondo State, and the Government of Lagos State with a view to constituting a REGION of Western Nigeria within a Federation of Nigeria.
THUMBPRINT in the box containing: (YES)
1. I AGREE that the Governments of Ekiti State, Ondo State, Oyo State, Osun State, Ogun State and Lagos State should negotiate with each other with a view to forming a FEDERATION of STATES to be known as the ODUDUWA REGION OF WESTERN NIGERIA which shall negotiate with the Yoruba persons in Kwara and Kogi States, whether they want to be part of the ODUDUWA REGION or not; shall further negotiate with the Government of Nigeria and the remaining 30 states and the administration of the Federal Capital Territory to achieve AUTONOMY/SELF-DETERMINATION for the said REGION within a Federation of Nigeria.
OR
(NO)
2. I DO NOT AGREE that the Governments of Ekiti State, Ondo State, Oyo State, Osun State, Ogun State and Lagos State should negotiate with each other with a view to forming a FEDERATION of STATES to be known as the ODUDUWA REGION OF WESTERN NIGERIA which shall negotiate with the Yoruba in Kwara and Kogi States as to whether they want to be part of the ODUDUWA REGION or not, and further negotiate with the Government of Nigeria and the remaining 30 states and the administration of the Federal Capital Territory to achieve AUTONOMY/SELF-DETERMINATION for the said REGION within a Federation of Nigeria.


ANNEXURE


• A Federal Nigeria, through a valid Federal Constitution, to be known as The Union of Nigerian 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.
• Western/Oduduwa Region shall be a Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Union.
• Western/Oduduwa Region shall adopt a Parliamentary System of government.
• The Central Government of the Union shall have no power to interfere nor 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Each Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Federation shall control primary interest in its own resources with an agreed Tax Model for the Federation.

"..... too long to read and no time to waste time(i.e.no time to read)..."
A society that cannot create time to read is lost.

Our response to Part 7 of your published series covered some of the issues you have raised in Part 8; hence this response is an addendum because of the two options introduced.
We therefore proceed as follows:
(i) You propose an “Executive Bill to the National Assembly to be presented to the National Assembly by the President of the country, asking the Senate to pass a law for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference, SNC… SNC itself will be made up of elected representatives of the Nigerian people. To ensure fair and effective representation, the SNC should be convened and constituted to include two to three members from each state of the Nigerian federation, who are elected on zero party basis, as well as representatives of professional bodies who will be distinguished personalities with unimpeachable records.”
(ii) The above calls the concept of such a Sovereign National Conference into question. For it is generally assumed (and accepted) that Sovereignty resides with the People. In which case, the question of who the “People” are, must be answered for a Sovereign National Conference to be meaningful or even necessary.
(iii) Inability or unpreparedness to answer or address this question was one of the reasons previous Conferences fell flat on their faces, even though they were not Sovereign. Those Conferences forced the people to literally surrender their inherent capacity to advance the quest for self-actualization because they are either absent or absent-minded when crucial decisions were being made, despite being represented by either political or “socio-cultural” leaders and organizations supposedly selected by those in charge of the country’s central government that has appropriated to themselves, the authority to take decisions reflecting the general expectation of the People(s), thereby making it possible for the central government to discard, disregard or ignore any agreements as has been the case through the various conferences.
(iv) A major reason for this lies in the denial of our multinationalism, multilingualism, and multiculturalism, which has led to the architecture of the State as a direct competitor of, and in opposition to, the aspirations and expectations of the people/citizens. Nigeria’s Constitution describes the country as “a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory,” as if the people occupying the states do not exist. Hence, “National Sovereignty” often translates into attempts at suppressing ethno-nationalism by a dominant nationality via the State.
(v) Yet, other Federations did not fail to recognize their Peoples. Even the United States, which is a Federation of territories—for reasons of her coming into being—started by acknowledging “the people” with its Preamble. Russia and China recognize their multinational nature as foundational to their existence, recognized, and constitutionally guaranteed. The Russian Federation is described as consisting of “republics, krays, oblasts, cities of federal significance, an autonomous oblast and autonomous okrugs, which shall have equal rights as constituent entities of the Russian Federation whose multinational people are the “bearer of sovereignty and the sole source of power in the Russian Federation,”. China describes itself as “a unitary multi-national state built up jointly by the people of all its nationalities,” whilst recognizing “Regional autonomy in areas where people of minority nationalities live in compact communities; organs of self-government are established for the exercise of the right of autonomy. All the national autonomous areas are inalienable parts of the People's Republic of China.”
(vi) Yet, the Nigerian State already assumed the singularity of the geo-political space called Nigeria, and all its solutions to its problems are relegated to maintaining that singularity while turning issues of Federalism into an administrative convenience even when it is obvious that the problem is undeniably in that singularity. That is the reason for the ridiculous position that “states are federating Units”. States, as we have them in Nigeria, are administrative entities, which were not even created by the residents but by military fiat. A country can have any form of an administrative unit, which we experienced when the Regions were abolished and replaced with “groups of provinces” which are now more or less the “states”.
(vii) The Richards Constitution was rejected because the principle of a Union or Federation is based on the Peoples and not on administrative units. Indeed, every Union or Federation in the world is based on a Union of Peoples which may now be administered either as states (as in the US) or regions as in Germany. For a federation or Union to exist, therefore, the People inhabiting a geographical space must make that decision. When the case is made that the current states are now a reality that we cannot run away from, the short answer to that is, Yes, we can run away from it, in the sense that the political and economic circumstances that make for their creation are the root cause of Nigeria’s problems today, such that their retention or change can only be by the Peoples affected themselves and not by fiat from the Center. Thus, the Yoruba, for example, may decide to make every Yoruba town or city an administrative center—that will be our choice based on our economic and political imperatives.
(viii) With the above and more, it can be concluded that rather than proceed on another round of “electing representatives” to a Sovereign National Conference, the best way out is through the Nationality Referendums which would have Legitimized, Validated, and Legalized the aspirations and expectations of the Peoples, and which will lead directly to a Conference of Nationalities out of which a new Federal Constitution to usher in a Federal Multi-National State will be established. This will be a Multi-National State capable of addressing the “Leadership Question” in Nigeria because it ensures that the Nationalities are active participants in the process of their development.
(ix) The National Assembly’s role will be limited to legislating on convening of the Conference of Nationalities, after the State Houses of Assembly have passed their Bills for Referendum into Law. Such Referendums are to be conducted by the various State Electoral Commissions or in the case of smaller Nationalities, by their preferred methodology.
(x) As an alternative to a Sovereign National Conference, you proposed a “Transformational Election to evolve a national awakening and decision that the next election will be a restructuring election. That is, the sole criterion for selecting the next crop of leaders in this country – across executive and legislative arms at federal, state, and local government levels- should be unequivocal commitment and promise to implement a manifesto for transformational leadership in Nigeria.”
(xi) Aside from the reality of contention on who or which agency of the State will make that determination, the capacity, and ability of the Nigerian State to ensure any Party voted into power on this basis lives up to its expectation must also be examined. More so when it is known that political parties all over the world represent certain political, economic, and cultural interests that may be contradictory to either the rest of the society or even the country itself.
(xii) A good example is the ongoing crisis in Niger Republic and the response of ECOWAS. With certain actors in Nigeria’s political firmament directly subverting ECOWAS because of their “cousins and brothers and sisters” in Niger, a political party will not be able to sustain a Federalization momentum for electioneering purposes, simply because its political power base rests with its relationships within and without; hence, the question of Restructuring in Nigeria is not only a Nigerian affair as it can indeed provide the template or the way out of the various conflicts bedeviling the Continent.
(xiii) Furthermore, many political parties will be advocating similar issues, more so when the election will be limited in scope because it will be a single-issue election, despite political parties having different ideas on Restructuring. This calls forth the question of separating the wheat from the chaff, the serious from the unserious, with a limited choice of relying on the “personality” or “character” of the party members and leaders. Yet, political opportunism cannot be ruled out, regardless of the presumed integrity of party members, who will not be operating out of a vacuum but as direct members of the community who have undergone common social, economic, and cultural experiences that would have shaped their choices.
(xiv) Therefore, the best way out is for each Nationality to take collective responsibility for its aspirations and expectations which would be Legitimized, Validated, and Legalized through the Nationality Referendum and whose result(s) would be binding on any political party emerging from that Nationality. Pan-Nigerian alliances could be formed within the Multi-National State, which would be predicated on the results of the Nationality Referendums.
(xv) The cause of conflicts and underdevelopment in Nigeria since the amalgamation of Nigeria has been the diversity of the groups that have been cobbled together to constitute the Nigerian State. It is, therefore, logical to put the country’s nationalities at the center of a restructuring process. We should not continue to assume that sovereignty resides in the Nigerian State as captured in the 1999 Constitution put together by an unelected military dictatorship.
Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

RE: Nigeria: Restructure or reconfigure (7)

Sir,
We trust that this letter will find you in good health.
The Yoruba Referendum Committee has been following your interventions on Re-Federalizing Nigeria through your published articles in the “Vanguard” Newspaper, titled “Nigeria: Restructure or reconfigure”. Part 7 was published on October 11, 2023. Although you wrote that there are “three main options for undertaking a restructuring process” you zeroed in on the Referendum or Plebiscite.

Without prejudice to the remaining two options, the questions you posed at the end of Part 7 are directly related to our approach to solving the structural problem of Nigeria, hence the need for this letter, not only to acknowledge your suggestion but also to state that the Yoruba Referendum Committee has affirmatively answered the questions you posed through our Bulletins, to wit: Referendum is the most effective, peaceful, legitimate, legal, and valid option.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee came into being as the catalyst for Referendum in Yorubaland as the roadmap/pathway towards Legitimization of the quest for True Federalism in Nigeria, while, for the rest of the country, it could be described as “Nationality/Zonal/Regional” Referendums.

The questions you raised: “The key question is: Do we have a crop of leaders and system in place to conduct and implement a free, fair, and credible referendum to usher in a constitutional restructuring process? First, will governments at all levels support a referendum for important constitutional questions of the day? Secondly, do we have a credible electoral process in place to conduct a fair and transparent referendum in Nigeria? And thirdly, even if we conduct a referendum, will the leaders on all sides respect and implement the end result of the process? It is difficult to answer any of these questions affirmatively. The current winner-takes-all system that we operate in Nigeria has created perverse incentives for rulers to suppress the will of the Nigerian people. It may therefore be a mere wishful thinking in Nigeria of today to expect a free, fair, and credible referendum process to be conducted.”

The Yoruba Referendum Committee responds as follows to your questions:
(a) Since we all agreed that all efforts at Restructuring since 1999 have fallen flat on their faces, the question we asked ourselves was “Why”? We concluded that those efforts failed because they were not backed by the legitimate power of the Constituent Units(subnational), described either as Nationalities, Zones, or Regions.

(b) With due respect sir, we agree with the Yoruba truism that says one’s head cannot be shaved in his/her absence. The previous attempts or conferences shaved our heads in our absence. The main reason for the societal dysfunction being experienced in Nigeria and the only way to remedy the situation is for the Constituents to, in a Referendum within their regions or territories, determine the framework for their aspirations and self-actualization which then becomes the foundation for RESTRUCTURING.

(c) The leadership and system to carry out this function lies with the State Houses of Assembly because they are the critical social and political institutions necessary for this task. Neither the Constitution nor any law approves or denies a Referendum in Nigeria; hence it becomes a political issue, especially for the elites of the Constituent Units or subnationals to ensure its realization. A countrywide or Pan-Nigerian 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 countrywide Referendum already denies the existence of the subnational as a Constituent. Therefore, the solution is for subnational governments to take the bull by the horns 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.

(d) Hence, for the Yoruba, this will be the “Yoruba Referendum.” Other nationalities with contiguous states can similarly describe their Referendums, while smaller Nationalities or groups can utilize their traditional leadership mechanisms or traditional institutions to organize their Referendum or “partner" with contiguous larger groups with their own special demands or expectations. Each Nationality or a combination thereof can work out the specifics according to their situation. The results of the various Referendums will provide the basis for negotiating a new Federal Nigeria. It is important to recognise that taking such actions at the subnational level certainly requires cooperation between the people and the elite in each state or region.

(e) The State Assemblies and Governments must be engaged towards this end; part of which includes the resolve by the elite of the various Constituents to pursue the Referendum Pathway in such a manner that it becomes the topical issue in the land, indeed the “political slogan” of the land as it serves several purposes, which include the following: (i) provides the platform for, and legitimizes our engagement and pursuit of Re-Federalization/Restructuring (ii) becomes the standard and the mobilization “SLOGAN” by codifying Re-Federalization or Restructuring as a Nationality-specific Referendum as the expression of our resolve to address the contradictions of the Nigerian State (iii) Act as a mobilizing mechanism to various sectors of the society, the country at large and the international community. (iv) Embeds the “ethos” of weaving demand for re-Federalization into the aspirations and expectations of the Peoples of Nigeria(v) obviates the need for any “National Conference” as had previously been the case.

(f) Therefore, the issue to resolve is the acceptance of the Referendum as the pathway which will be backed by law made by the State Assemblies. Nigeria’s National Assembly cannot conduct a Referendum for Nigeria because the Assembly is not an Assembly of the various Peoples who are Constituents of Nigeria. Similarly, the political parties represented in the National Assembly do not represent the various Peoples of Nigeria but their party partisan preferences which may be mostly incongruent with the wishes and aspirations of the Peoples, primary of which is found in the parties’ operations without reference or deferring to the cultural, social, political, and economic aspirations of the Peoples. An example is the Yoruba preference for the Political Economy of the Western Region, now generally accepted as our “Golden Era.”

(g) This Referendum, being the collective and legitimate expression of the aspirations of the People will have to be respected and implemented by the political leadership because it is the foundation for the Constitutional negotiations towards a new Federal Nigeria. Towards this end, the Yoruba Referendum Committee has defined our expectation of a new, Federal Nigeria as a Multi-National Nigerian State in the following manner: a “Federal Nigeria, through a valid Federal Constitution, to be known as The Union of Nigerian 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”. The Committee has also sent a Bill for Referendum to the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti States’ Houses of Assembly to pass into Law and commence preparations for it, although we have no official response yet. What we garnered is that it is seen as a political matter that will be decided upon by the Yoruba Political Leadership, whatever that means.

(h) In passing, 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 failed to achieve. The confirmation of the “electors” from the States constitutes a major pillar of Democracy in the United States. In a comparable manner, the Federating Unit will become the “electors” to select or elect its representatives to the Federal Council whose decisions cannot be overturned except by the Federating Unit itself.

Sir, we hope this letter provides the context for further engagement with the “Yoruba Political Leadership” across political parties that can benefit from inter-elite dialogue in the Yoruba region as a model to recommend to other regions.
Thank you, sir.
Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Does it make any sense for anyone to forge a certificate/diploma from the school one graduated from?
Tinubu graduated from CSU. Now proven. No ifs, no buts.
So, why would he forge CSU's diploma? The only plausible reason to forge a CSU diploma is if he did not graduate.
Methinks the forgers are his traducers just so they can carry out their nefarious activities.

“Niger, conflicts, and us”: Yoruba Referendum Committee’s Response to Hakeem Baba Ahmed

The Yoruba Referendum Committee acknowledges the Northern Elders Forum’s intervention in the evolving political and military situation in the Niger Republic, deviating from the general trend anchored on specious reasoning by various leaders and interests, all tending towards providing an excuse for the military coup.
Situating the intervention within the context of global politics, its consequences, and Africa’s capacity and capability to address the problem, the NEF concluded that “the military cannot be the answer to Africa’s search for good leaders that should lead it out of its massive restrictions. The Western world preaches democracy during the day and exploits us in the night. If Africa will develop, it cannot do so the way the Western world, Russia, or China wants it. Africa’s challenge is to see through the falsehood that we are owed any good by the rest of the world. We can grow and develop, but we have to do it our way.”
To which the Yoruba Referendum Committee responds as follows:
(i) We agree that the military cannot be the answer, not simply because it is the military but because of Africa’s experience with the military, especially when its colonial origins enabled it to truncate Africa’s march towards development in the immediate post-colonial period. Looking towards the military in this period will therefore be akin to doing the same thing over and over while expecting a different result. This is further proven by the military rulers of Burkina Faso, who have begun a process of what they described as “depoliticization” of governance. This is meant to ensure that government bureaucracy is depoliticized. Yet, in Nigeria, in the First Republic, in the Western Region, the Civil Service was adjudged a shining example and the head of the Civil Service, at the time, Chief Simeon Adebo, was seconded to the UN on the strength of the performance of the Region’s civil service, the achievement which was negated by military rule. What the military rulers of Burkina Faso are proposing as “revolutionary” had been the practice about 60 years ago under a civilian and democratic administration in Nigeria.
(ii) With the above, the question to be answered is how to prevent the military from its self-imposed mission as the solution, especially when the military is not an external force but a part of the body politic with a specific mission of defending the territorial integrity of the country. This is the crux of the problem.
(iii) If, as NEF says, we cannot do it the way the “Western world, Russia, and China want it,” it follows that this can be possible and feasible only when we do not define the problem according to their terms. Hence the question of defending the “territorial integrity” of any country in Africa translates into utilizing the ways of the West because the territory was created by the West and controlled by its Nation-State paradigm. We note that the Nation-State is a Western notion, forged through the various wars against the “divine right of kings” which led to the abolition of the monarchies and eventually the Peace of Westphalia in 1648 and which brought about the Nation-State paradigm because the emerging States at the time, especially those which eventually became the colonial powers, that is, Netherlands, England, Germany, France, Portugal, and Spain, were made up of people of the same Nationality, hence the State and its apparatus of administration/government reflected the Nation or Nationality.
(iv) On the other hand, Russia and China are different because their multinational nature is foundational to their existence, recognized, and constitutionally guaranteed. The Russian Federation is described as consisting of “republics, krays, oblasts, cities of federal significance, an autonomous oblast and autonomous okrugs, which shall have equal rights as constituent entities of the Russian Federation whose multinational people are the “bearer of sovereignty and the sole source of power in the Russian Federation,” China describes itself as “a unitary multi-national state built up jointly by the people of all its nationalities,” whilst recognizing “Regional autonomy in areas where people of minority nationalities live in compact communities; organs of self-government are established for the exercise of the right of autonomy. All the national autonomous areas are inalienable parts of the People's Republic of China.”
(v) Therefore, grouping Russia, China, and the Western world into a “foreign” category and in the process making it become the prism of our engagement with them, often lining up behind one or the other as the military regimes in West Africa are doing, without addressing the foundational nature of their State formation but merely reinforcing the Nation-State paradigm, thereby denying the realities of the West African(African) States as Multi-National societies. This shows that, aside from global politics and foreign intervention in African affairs, a major problem in Africa is the denial of our multinationalism, multilingualism, and multiculturalism, which has led to the architecture of the State as a direct competitor of, and in opposition to, the aspirations and expectations of the people/citizens, which flows from and endorses Nation-State paradigm. Nigeria also provides a good example when it describes itself as “a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory,” as if the people occupying the states do not exist. Hence, defending territorial integrity often translates into attempts at suppressing ethno-nationalism by a dominant nationality through the instrumentality of the military.
(vi) In 1883/1884, Europeans gathered in Berlin and arbitrarily drew maps that have now become the Nation States in Africa and upon whose existence their sovereignty rests. Therefore, the first step in addressing the preponderance and/or resurgence of military coups lies in correcting the 1883/84 anomaly. If Europeans can carve out territories according to their whims backed by their military forces, nothing should stop Africans from reversing it as a means of addressing the problems caused by Europe.
(vii) Hence, NATIONALITY REFERENDUMS in Nigeria as the precursor to the construction of the Federal Multi-National State as proposed by the Yoruba Referendum Committee is also applicable to West Africa because conflicts in West Africa are within the context of the Nation-State which discarded the Nationalities as foundational to State formation because of their inherent cultural and social aspirations play no part in its formation. This has played out over and over, and in the case of current experience in West Africa, these ethnonational conflicts are often tagged as “terrorism,” “jihadism” etc. The Tuareg Rebellion in Mali and the resurgence of a similar rebellion in Niger with the new military coup, the crisis in Cameroon, and the Central African Republic’s experience are prime examples.
(viii) It is understood that war and violence have generated their own momentum, becoming the norm; yet we believe a start can be made by and from Nigeria which can also become the beacon for the rest. This is why the Yoruba Referendum Committee is advocating Nationality Referendums in Nigeria as the route toward peaceful and non-violent resolution. As we have noted, the Bill for Yoruba Referendum includes provision for “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.” This can be adapted by any Nationality in West Africa, within their own contexts.
(ix) The implication of this provision is that a military coup against the Federal Multi-National State will be impossible without the concurrence of all the Divisional Commanders and by extension, the Divisional Army. This will enable the Nationalities to become the primary defenders of their security unlike the current situation where they are helpless against terrorists and jihadists despite the efforts of the National armies. We are convinced that if this is adopted, it would make coup plotting redundant as every Nationality in Nigeria, nay in the African region, would see no reason to take arms up against other nationalities. For, as is well-known, most coups on the continent usually have ethnic coloration in addition to other factors. Otherwise, it will be an unwanted war of all against all.
(x) Ethiopia provides an example. The attempt at dissolving its Federal Multi-National State derisively described as “Ethnic Federalism” and substituting it with “Ethiopianism” has not only led to the current war situation but has also elevated the atrocities committed by the various parties to the level of terrorism which is experienced as a daily occurrence in West Africa, even if these atrocities are not described as such. The reality on the ground in Ethiopia shows the necessity to address the “National Question” as was done by the post-military administration, which, again, points to the fact that the prevention of military coups depends on the ability of the various National groups to provide the doctrines and architecture of their own security and therefore their political preferences, all of which point to the architecture of State as a Federal Multi-National State. We also note the current “Ethiopianism” is a return to “Ethiopia Tikdem,” the Ethiopian military (the Derg) slogan for its State and from which a coalition of Nationalities in Ethiopia fought a bitter civil war to overthrow the Derg and constitute the Federal Multi-National State.
(xi) “Doing it our own way,” therefore, demands recognition of ourselves as part of a multinational society which must inform on our architecture of State. The Yoruba Referendum Committee has taken the step of providing the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti State Houses of Assembly with the Bill for a Referendum to be passed into Law as part of their responsibility to conduct the Referendum. It is our hope the Northern Elders Forum will take a cue from this move and apply it to the North, within its context.
Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

The Yoruba Referendum Committee declares as follows:
(i) The Yoruba Referendum was designed as the preferred peaceful and legal pathway towards Re-Federalizing Nigeria through the instrumentality of the Legitimate and elected Houses of Assembly in Yorubaland, with the expectation that citizens from other parts of Nigeria will use similar mechanisms for the same purpose. It is also expected that REFERENDUM will be the preferred pathway towards the resolution of similar issues in the various multi-national and multi-cultural post-colonial countries in Africa.
(ii) The above is to show that the Yoruba Referendum Committee is not canvassing war or violence as a method of resolving issues among African people but is nevertheless conscious of, and conversant with the reality of international relations, particularly in addressing conflicts among sovereign entities, who have, at one time or the other, entered into agreements and covenants regulating their bilateral or multilateral relationships, violations of which may be arbitrated peacefully and sometimes with force.
(iii) The military coup in Niger Republic, the latest among the several coups in the French-speaking areas of West Africa, is a violation of ECOWAS protocols and conventions, regardless of any rationalization and ECOWAS was, and still is, toeing the right path in its insistence on a reversal, preferably through peaceful means but also with the option of force.
(iv) The controversy generated by some Nigerian political, religious, and ethnonational leaders and organizations to the response by ECOWAS is a denial of the reality on the ground, to wit: Niger’s military has, so far, turned deaf ears to all attempts at dialog, hence preparing itself for a fight, with a loud silence to this stance from the Nigerian promoters of dialog, who, instead, heaps all the blame towards violence on the Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who is also the Chairman of ECOWAS, accusing him of warmongering because of his insistence on a reversal of the military coup, backing it up with the imposition of sanctions up to and including the use of force to revert to the status quo.
(v) This is further accompanied by rationalizations, ranging from saying the obvious that Nigeriens are of Kanuri, Hausa, and Fulani Nationalities who are brothers to those in Nigeria hence a war between brothers is not acceptable, to the more spurious idea that the military coup was a democratic choice of the people.
(vi) It is strange that Nigerians who have experienced a spate of military coups over a period of time and which led to secessionist demands and the break up of Nigeria can ascribe a military coup to a democratic choice of the people, just as it is equally offensive for some to promote their brotherhood with their kin in Niger Republic while denying same to others in Nigeria, all in their bid to demonize the Nigerian president while simultaneously acquiescing to the violation of ECOWAS convention and protocols by Niger’s military.
(vii) The above is a manifestation of their failure to address the reality of the architecture of the African Nation-State paradigm, forced down our throats by colonial powers and sustained by its colonial military system, now parading as the purveyor of good governance and development in Nigeria as well as in Niger. Niger’s coup and the reactions from Nigeria noted above also show the centrality of the National Question in Africa playing itself out, borne out by the fact that the coup, whose leader is Hausa, refused to meet with ECOWAS, AU, and UN peace delegations, preferring to meet, instead, with the former Emir of Kano Sanusi Lamido, leader of the mostly Kanuri Tijjaniya Muslims in West Africa, and the Sultan of Damagaram, Niger Republic, also largely Kanuri, after having snubbed the Leader of Fulani in West Africa, Sultan of Sokoto, Nigeria.
(viii) Within the above context, the solution is not in a Manichean division between dialog and violence as it is being made out to be. Rather, the solution is in addressing the fundamentals centered on the recognition of the artificiality of Africa’s borders whose contradictions play out under the guise of sovereignty, reflecting the quest for control of the sovereign entity while masking the inter-Nationality quest for hegemony. Questions about fidelity to bilateral or multilateral conventions are subordinated to the whims of the dominant hegemony.
(ix) This is also a reflection of the balance of power and forces in the sovereign entity, which enables the dominant hegemony to create an imbalance in relations between the Nationalities within the sovereign entity and which mandates a recalibration to arrive at a balance where the Nationalities will be recognized as equals. This is the alternative to the dialog/violence conundrum.
(x) The coup in Niger, therefore, provides the opportunity to change the narrative of conflict resolution in the sovereign entities in West Africa, to ensure that military coups are no longer possible because the internal and national security of the Nationalities are to be embedded within the Nationality itself, from and through which bilateral and multilateral conventions are derived, and entrenched within their social and cultural matrices, all leading to strengthening Regional and Continental blocs.
(xi) The coup in Niger provides the opportunity for Nigeria to take the lead in this direction, with Nigeria’s internal political development providing the needed platform, more so when it is evident that the “north” is expressing its brotherhood with their kin in the Niger Republic, just as it is obvious that other nationalities in Nigeria have their brothers across the borders. Both show the artificiality of the colonial borders and the failure to address in the run-up to the formation of the OAU as political leaders chose to avoid the call by citizens to redraw the boundaries imposed on African states by colonialists. The negative effects of such failure are now playing out in the reactions of leaders of nationalities in the north of Nigeria to the coup in Niger, and ECOWAS’ positions on what should be done.
(xii) For Nigeria to play its part in this historical necessity, the current architecture of the Nigerian State must be addressed to reflect her multi-cultural and multi-lingual realities. Adopting a “top-down” approach will lead to strengthening inter-Nationality rivalries resulting in further imbalances in power and sustaining a cycle of violence which may lead to more instability. Hence, the need for a legitimate, valid, and legal pathway upon which the Yoruba, and by extension, Nationality Referendum, is anchored.
(xiii) The Yoruba have been in the forefront of both the quest for Federalism and anti-militarism in Nigeria, and this is an opportune time to put this experience to use by ensuring Nigeria’s Re-Federalization because (a) the economic and political realities in Nigeria call for it, further strengthened by the unfolding situation in West Africa (b) provides an opportunity to right the historical wrongs occasioned by colonial rule and place Africa in the center of achieving world peace by greatly reducing propensity to violence (c) the fight against terrorism becomes Nationality-centered such that terrorists can only have their way via intra-Nationality implosion before attempting to confront the sovereign state, thereby reducing their capability(d) the Nationality Referendum provides for a new security architecture for the sovereign State which is embedded within the Nationality thereby not only making the planning and execution of any military coup impossible but also ensuring that the Nationality becomes the center of gravity for State security.
(xiv) Moreover, terrorism in West Africa is laced with aspects of the National Question, which can be addressed via Nationality Referendums to usher in a Federal Multi-National State as the alternative to the Nation-State in force since Independence and which has merely reinforced the quest for inter-nationality wars for dominance. The Bill for Yoruba Referendum takes cognizance of this by making provision for “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.” This can be adapted by any Nationality in West Africa, within their own contexts.
(xv) For the Yoruba, the onus is on the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti State Houses of Assembly to jumpstart the process towards this historical necessity by passing the Bill for a Referendum into Law and preparing for conducting the Referendum. The Bill for a Referendum has already been sent to the Speakers of the Houses of Assembly.
Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

PART 2
(vi) This is because sustaining the dominance will require further alliances which may be detrimental to good governance and development because there is no guarantee that other regions/zones will feel comfortable with the philosophical/ideological foundations and/or trajectory of the SW APC. Furthermore, the permanency of such alliances cannot be guaranteed. It is, therefore, necessary to prevent this possibility by ensuring that the foundation now being laid by the “Renewed Hope” is strengthened with Re-Federalization such that it will not be bankrupted or diverted because the political cost will be too high for the Yoruba. This is a political and economic emergency that must be addressed.
(vii) This is more so when Nigeria’s proposed economic trajectory is placed in perspective. Over 60 years after political Independence in Africa, the colonial architecture of the State has not engendered any form of development for her citizens. This is the reason for the nostalgia about the “Golden Era” of autonomous regions in Nigeria. In contrast, the continent becomes merely a playground for International economic forces with the capability to reproduce its own internal forces for the continuation of its economic hegemony while her hapless citizens continue to wallow in deep material poverty as well as consciousness.
(viii) Sustaining this economic playground requires a political façade, often procured through a periodic cycle of elections, where victors in all African countries seem to have only one prescription for Africa’s development, which is always a foreign investment, foreign investment, and foreign investment supposedly aimed at creating jobs for the youths coupled with finely woven words on economic development. Yet, none of these African countries have been able to translate any of these into reality.
(ix) This is so because the inter-Nationality conflicts and contest for power are embedded in the colonial architecture of the State. In retrospect, this form of state was Europe’s response, derived from its experience with the Haitian Revolution which overthrew the then slave state but whose prospects were aborted and ruthlessly suppressed by the combined actions of the US and France. This was at the onset of formal colonial rule, and it probably played a major role in Europe’s conception of its architecture of the colonial State; the slave revolution having occurred in 1804 and Africa’s formal partition in 1884 by virtually the same forces that suppressed the Haitian Revolution and from which it has not recovered till date.
(x) The revolution succeeded because the slave experience provided the necessary homogeneity among the African population in Haiti. The Haitian experience also enabled Europe to ensure that such homogeneity played no part in the anti-colonial quests of other Caribbean countries such that most of the Caribbean/West Indian anti-colonial activists ended up in the United States, fully immersed in the Civil rights movement, further founding their ways to Africa to participate in the anti-colonial efforts.
(xi) “Homogeneity” is therefore central to Africa’s political and economic development. This could have been easily achieved through the Multi-National Federal State, where the various Nations are able to pursue their aspirations in harmony with each other, without discounting any conflicts that may arise. For the colonial state however, deliberate imposition of one Ethno-Nationality over the others created conditions for continuous crises and conflicts where one colonially favored Nationality will seek to impose its status on the rest, thereby sustaining the cycle of violence while the post-colonial state continues its economic parasitism unmolested, preventing not only a “harmonious” anti-colonial opposition but also the prospects of a homogenous response in the mold of another “Haitian Revolution” in Africa, and which will jeopardize colonial aims at global dominance.
(xii) Therefore, averting the consequences of the contradictions of a National APC dependent on or dominated by a regional basis demands Re-Federalization through the Legitimization of the regional paradigm. Hence, the social movements owe the Yoruba People a duty to pursue this necessity by providing a credible pathway towards addressing homogeneity which will also enable them to close the gap between them and the dominant political party. Since none can confidently state categorically their preference supersedes the others among the Yoruba, it behooves them to arrive at a Lowest Common Denominator.
(xiii) The lack of the common denominator enables and simultaneously weakens the dominant political party in Yorubaland because the party’s methodology will have to be expressed without the direct input of the social movements; hence the party will be restricted to resolving its methodology within the context of the pan Nigeria balance of forces and power, thereby making it susceptible to expediencies which may not be advantageous to the Yoruba.
(xiv) This denominator is what the Yoruba Referendum Committee has defined as the “Nationality Referendums” and which, for the Yoruba, translates into the Yoruba Referendum which will ensure the channeling of the various demands along an acceptable and legitimate route.
(xv) Because it will be conducted by the State Houses of Assembly, any result would be Legitimate, valid, and legal representation. It must be noted that this is not an advocacy for Constitutional amendment but its reverse. It is the political and economic emergency that must be pursued, to close the gap between the dominant political party and the social movements and provide the sociological context for these groups and organizations as social movements.
(xvi) The Yoruba Referendum Committee believes that the Swiss Federal Model is relevant to a Multi-National, Multi-Cultural, and Multi-Lingual society like Nigeria, and which can also serve as a model for the rest of Africa. This is one reason a new Federal Structure with a Central Executive is defined as “a Federal Presidential Council whose members will be selected or elected from each of the Regions/ 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.”
(xvii) It is our hope that the various groups and organizations we referred to collectively as social movements will recognize the necessity to join the crusade for the Yoruba Referendum in Yorubaland as the pathway/methodology to Re-Federalize Nigeria.
Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

In your most recent interview as the Spokesman for the Northern Elders Forum, you expressed your expectations from the Tinubu Administration on good governance, secure country, and compassionate government. You went on to advocate “restructuring” as a necessity, saying that “The North can’t carry 19 governors, 19 legislatures, and 19 judiciaries. When people talk about the cost of governance, it is a mistake to talk about the size of civil servants. We have 19 governors, including the weight of the Federal Government. So, governance alone just takes a huge part of the resources of the North, and until we can find a solution to that – common policies, common strategies, an awareness of their own worth to the North, an awareness of their value to the rest of the country and an informed strategy for engaging the rest of the country”.
The Yoruba Referendum Committee condenses your response into two broad categories, to wit: cost of governance and the method of achieving Restructuring as the preferred answer to the cost of governance while venturing into issues about faith and corruption.
Hence, we say as follows:
(i) As it is now clear, the current economic state of the country brought about mainly by the removal of fuel subsidy as well as the merging of the foreign exchange regimes show that the “cost of governance” is central to the Nigerian economy, where the government admits over 50% of Nigeria’s revenue is used to service debt—external and internal. Although the government also says this implies a “revenue problem,” meaning the more the revenue, the less the percentage used to service debt, the issue cannot be limited to servicing the debt without addressing the type of debt, such that servicing it does not become the major pursuit of the Nigerian Government.
(ii) This is because the debts incurred by the government leave no room for any trickling down of investable funds by which the cost of production and consumption, including taxes, are reduced to such an extent that Nigeria’s reliance on oil exports for almost 70% of her revenue will be drastically reduced. This is further buoyed by the central government’s reduction of allocation to the states, with the aim of ensuring savings, as a distinct measure from the previous allocation regime, without negatively impacting on the operations of the central or state governments, thereby providing additional savings towards investable funds that will be released to the economy.
(iii) Yet, Nigeria cannot continue with this type of reduction in allocations mainly because these options are anchored on keeping existing architecture of governance, which is the problem that must be resolved via restructuring. Furthermore, the state governments will also have to cut their costs of governance, to be able to adjust to the new reality of reduced allocations. The conclusion from the above is that the cost of governance is the fundamental question that must be addressed if restructuring is to be meaningful.
(iv) While these may be considered temporary or initial steps, a permanent approach to drastically reduce the cost of governance is a desirable goal of economic restructuring. This will lead to an economy and governance anchored on the principle of Derivation, which places the exploitation and development of mineral and land resources under the auspices of the Federating Units with an agreed Tax schedule with the Central Government. With this, there will be no need for an increasing reduction of allocations based on any parameter.
(v) Furthermore, questions about remuneration for public and elected officials, the type of political representation (parliamentary or presidential), taxation in both local and central governments, economic philosophy, cultural imperatives, transparency, accountability, reduced monetization of politics and elections, as well as other existential questions will be embedded in the Derivation regimen.
(vi) This is more so in your placing the fight against corruption in its real context, to wit: “it is about societal corruption which percolates down to every other sections of governance”. 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 architecture of the Nigerian State, thereby enhancing Inter-Nationality shared values which also forms the bedrock of Federalism, without which the contest for power pits these values against each other.
(vii) The question now becomes how to achieve the above. For you, it is 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."
(viii) The Yoruba Referendum Committee takes the opposite view, to wit: what is needed are [b]Nationality Referendums [/b]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) Yet, it is possible that the Tinubu Administration will be different, that is, it can convene such a forum, and something will come out of it. (d) The problem with this is that we cannot afford to rely on such an assumption, mainly because such forums become substitutes for the People. 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. (g) These Referendums will 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.
(ix) The Yoruba Referendum is predicated on a “Yes” or “No” question as to the desirability or wish of the Yoruba in Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti States to govern themselves under one regional government, with adequate provision for the Yoruba in Kogi and Kwara States to determine by which values they want to be governed. The Regional Government will decide the organization of the Region into a desired number of states.
(x) Therefore, when you stated the undesirability of a 19-state structure for the North, the reduction or abolition of which will drastically reduce the cost of governance in the North, the onus is on the North to prepare the grounds for their Nationality Referendums to decide how they want the North to be governed. This will aid the efforts towards not only Restructuring but also reducing the cost of governance for Nigeria.
(xi) For the Yoruba, the Yoruba Referendum Committee not only started a Petition to the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti, and Ondo State Houses of Assembly (which is to be found here: http://chng.it/ybwX2ZR6Tt) but has also sent a Bill for a Referendum to each of the states. The Northern Elders Forum can join the process within the context of their realities.

Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

The 2023 elections have, once again, confirmed that the contradictions embedded in the Nigerian political firmament always raise their ugly heads at the onset of elections while simultaneously throwing up the necessity for the geo-political Restructuring of the country. It can, therefore, be deduced that these contradictions reflect the unfinished quest for Independence. Decolonization did not take cognizance of the fundamental questions posed at Independence arising from the nature of State for the newly independent country, that is, whether it must be a traditional Nation-State, where its architecture reflects the Nation over which it superintends or a Multi-National State where its architecture recognizes the multiplicity of Nations.
Nigeria started out, at Independence, with the traditional Nation-State, despite being a Federalist State without overt recognition of the Multiplicity of Nations within the country, hence the resultant drive towards homogenization of all the Peoples into one after a series of coup d’etats.
The “Punch” Newspaper, in its April 18, 2023, Editorial, echoing Professor Wole Soyinka’s earlier submissions, argued for the political and economic restructuring of Nigeria, summarizing as follows: Since Nigeria is a natural federation, it needs a new Constitution which will recognize this reality. Successive sessions by the National Assembly and State assemblies have failed and proved to be obstructionist rather than being enablers of positive change. Rather, it is shallow and did nothing to overturn the centralizing provisions of the Constitution. Hence, a new approach is needed, and this is to be achieved by adopting a doctrine of necessity to convene a national conference where representatives of Nationalities will be able to agree on a new Structure for Nigeria.
The “Punch” Editorial clearly expressed the necessity for a fundamental review of the question of the Nigerian State, but its assumptions need further interrogation to arrive at a definitive pathway by which the next government can be engaged.
The Yoruba Referendum Committee (ILU-SO-PE), therefore, wishes to fully endorse the call of the editorial with a call for a methodology that recognizes the centrality of nationalities to the democratic choice of direct representatives of each nationality or groups of nationalities via the process of a referendum:
(i) The “natural federation” is not recognized in the grundnorm, the fundamental Law of the country, even at Independence, which recognized the Northern, Eastern, and Western Regions as Federating Units, with only the Mid-West Region carved out of the Western Region, despite the rejection of demands for more Regions from the Northern and Eastern Regions.
(ii) This was possible because the Peoples, in their natural geophysical, political, and therefore indigenous spaces were not recognized as the Federating Units; the “natural” was substituted with the “unnatural”, that is, the geophysical entity of the “region,” thereby paving the way for the carving of the Regions into states and subsequently the atomization of the peoples against their natural development. These administrative entities have become the “federating Units.”
(iii) While it is agreed that the National Assembly has become obstructionist, this does not imply the invocation of a” “doctrine of necessity” to convene a national conference to include all stakeholders and representatives of the nationalities to agree to a new arrangement acceptable to all.
(iv) This is because such a “doctrine of necessity” already vitiates the “natural federation” in the sense that the doctrine would have deprived the nationalities of their natural right of representation. Such a doctrine cannot and should not be expected to decide the representatives of the nationalities unless it is said that the Nationalities are incapable of making such choices by themselves.
(v) Furthermore, we have experienced various iterations of “National Conferences,” with representatives of nationalities in attendance and with nothing to show for them. Expecting another “national conference” of such type will be akin to doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. The Yoruba say that a person’s head cannot be shaved in his/her absence, hence what is needed is not a “national conference” as being advocated by the “Punch” but a “Nationality Conference” where the various Nationalities will decide their relationships with other Nationalities based on their own expectations and aspirations. The summation of the Conference of Nationalities will become the basis for a New Constitution. The Yoruba Referendum Committee has further defined the “Conference of Nationalities” as a “Nationality Referendum”, in this case, the Yoruba Referendum, which in Yoruba Language is “ILU-SO-PE” ---the community has spoken.
(vi) The above is the reason the Yoruba Referendum Committee cannot deem the State Assemblies to have failed since these Assemblies have not been able to make any determination by themselves as the representatives of their various geo-political entities but always act as an extension of the National Assembly where they are merely expected to act on submissions by the National Assembly. Hence, the determinant of the State Assembly’s success or failure is dependent on its ability to act on its own prerogatives which can only be fueled by the demands of the People(s) themselves. In this instance, the Yoruba Referendum Committee has sent a Bill for a Referendum to the Houses of Assembly in Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti States, to be passed into Law.
(vii) This is why the Yoruba Referendum Committee is asking the Yoruba people in the contiguous States of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti States, to prevail on their State Houses of Assembly to pass the Bill into Law and conduct the Referendum. The Bill can also be domesticated by other Nationalities, based on their circumstances.
(viii) The Referendum is framed as a “YES” of “NO” question as to “Whether the Governments of Ekiti, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Ondo and Lagos States should negotiate with each other with a view to forming a FEDERATION of STATES to be known as the ODUDUWA REGION OF WESTERN NIGERIA and (ii) whether the said REGION should negotiate with the Government of Nigeria and the remaining 30 states or any group of states that have also agreed to Federate and the administration of the Federal Capital Territory to achieve AUTONOMY for the said REGION within a Federation of Nigerian Constituent Units”.
(ix) In cases where the Houses of Assembly are not homogenous and contiguous like the Yoruba, Socio-Cultural institutions within the Nationalities can assume the task or the Houses of Assembly specifically mandated to conduct it on their behalf.
(x) In passing, and for purposes of Presidential elections, it is noted that what eventually saved American democracy on January 6, 2021, was the fact that the “electors” (electoral college) were the states, whose decisions were to be confirmed by US Congress and which the “storming” of Congress wanted to prevent and did not achieve. The confirmation of the “electors” from the States is a major pillar of Democracy in the United States. In a comparable manner, the Federating Unit will become the “electors” to elect the representatives to the Conference of Nationalities whose decisions cannot be overturned except by the Federating Unit itself.
(xi) The Yoruba Referendum Committee is of the view that the above will address all questions surrounding Nigeria’s nationhood and structure of State and set up the atmosphere for peace, security, and development, not only in Nigeria but also for other parts of Africa going through similar problems.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee (ILU-SO-PE).

April 15, 2023

On-going contention within Afenifere necessitates this intervention by the Yoruba Referendum Committee (ILU-SO-PE). Since Afenifere is the Yoruba language rendering of the Action Group’s philosophy of “freedom for all, life more abundant” , any Yoruba organization, whose ideological/philosophical direction is anchored on one form of social welfarism or the other, is “Afenifere” -- at least in spirit.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee has proposed the “Yoruba Referendum” as the pathway towards Re-Federalizing Nigeria. Re-Federalization will enable a reversal of Yoruba underdevelopment, which has been rising in leaps and bounds since the abolition of the Federal System which ushered in the “Golden Era” of the Western Region. Social welfarism/social democracy and maximum use of our God-given human and material resources for the uplift of our people from the underdevelopment occasioned by colonial and post-colonial, especially Unitary rule was (and is still) the driving force.
Therefore, the Yoruba Referendum Committee is well positioned to intervene in the rediscovery of Afenifere as a philosophy of action.

We, therefore, state as follows:

(i) We begin by placing Afenifere within our historical context. Its formal presentation and representation began with the formation of Egbe Omo Oduduwa, whose Constitution contained the following, among others: “to study fully its (Yoruba) political problems, combat disintegrating forces of tribalism, stamp out discrimination within the group and against minorities and generally infuse the idea of a single Nationality throughout the Region” and “the propagation of the ideal of a modern Yoruba State and Federal State of Nigeria through the agency of reliable persons who share our ideals”.

(ii) It must be noted that “True Federalism/Restructuring” is a political question that is achievable through various political means, to wit: electoralism, that is, contestation for political power through electoral means, mass mobilization, direct and indirect engagement with electoral forces on ground, etc.

(iii) The exception is military rule which can decree a “Restructuring” of the country into existence and which we have experienced with the creation of states, anchored on certain political factors which brought such states into being. Yet state creation, while it “restructured” the Regions into states, ended up not only atomizing the various peoples of Nigeria but also turned the states into appendages of the central administration, thereby negating the central thrust of Restructuring, to wit: the manifestation of the expectations and aspirations of the peoples in their existential realities.

(iv) Earlier Presidencies also took political actions towards “Restructuring” through the instrumentality of various Conferences, all of which were carried out by way of “Zonal Consultations” but whose conclusions were ignored by every Presidency. These “Zonal Consultations” had no roadmap/pathway for Legitimizing their conclusions to which the central Government would be bound, which further enabled the central Governments to ignore them. Therefore, the political context for achieving True Federalism must rest within the historical and contemporary context of such engagements.

(v) Despite the Egbe’s existence, the necessity for a political party platform to contest the 1951 Parliamentary Elections led to the formation of the Action Group, whose welfarist philosophy, “Freedom for all, life more abundant” was translated into the Yoruba language as “Afenifere”. The Action Group dismissed the attempt at making the Egbe serve the partisan political purpose, by maintaining a noticeably clear identity from the Egbe, despite the initial and temporary overlapping roles of top members of the Egbe in the Action Group.

(vi) The victory of the Action Group in 1951 made it the dominant political party in the West, and it became the vehicle for Yoruba political activities in the run-up to Independence, even as the party was not a “Yoruba party”, despite its Center of Gravity being in Yorubaland. This enabled the party to lay the foundation for social democracy in Yorubaland. This was the case with the UPN, with its Center of Gravity in Yorubaland, and the dominant partisan Party in Yorubaland.

(vii) An aberration occurred during the “June 12” struggles, with the emergence of NADECO, with a new organization known as AFENIFERE, playing a significant role in it.

(viii) This organizational Afenifere leadership comprised most of those formerly in the Action Group and the UPN. Unlike the temporary overlapping between the Egbe and AG, the new “Afenifere” mixed up its organizational existence with the philosophical/ideological social welfarism (Afenifere) of the AG and claimed proprietary rights to both the philosophy as well as the organization.

(ix) The consummation of “June 12” struggles also required the formation of political parties, which led to the formation of the AD, whose Center of Gravity was also in Yorubaland but within a more centralized political atmosphere. Despite this limitation, it became the dominant partisan political party in Yorubaland and followed the informally established paradigm.

(x) However, “June 12” and its aftermath presented a dilemma, to wit: the comingling of the philosophy with the organizational structure, hence the issue as to whether AD is Afenifere or not. This was compounded by the drafting of the then Afenifere Leader, Pa Abraham Adesanya as the “Spokesperson” for the Yoruba, which was eventually converted to Leader of the Yoruba. This conversion formally brought the comingling of the philosophical with the organizational and brought the conflict between AD and Afenifere to a head.

(xi) Ordinarily, the issue would have been easily resolvable, in the sense that it had already been resolved by the AG. That is, the AG was the political party that fought the necessary battles with “Afenifere” as its ideological/philosophical weapon of choice; therefore, the AD could not have dissolved itself into the “new” Afenifere nor become subservient to it.

(xii) The conflict resulted in the extinction of the AD as a political party, which transmuted into various political formations, with a major faction becoming what is now known as the South-West All Progressives Congress (SWAPC).

(xiii) On the other hand, Afenifere, because it combined the philosophy with its organizational structure, foreclosed other groups from appropriating the same philosophy. Yet all these groups define their ideological/philosophical bent in one form of social welfarism or the other, in other words, as carriers of the “Afenifere” vision for the polity, thereby informally making all other groups philosophically Afenifere but organizationally distinct and have no input or stake in “Afenifere’s” organizational structure.

(xiv) Hence, the “Afenifere Question” cannot be divorced from the philosophical, organizational, and politically partisan vehicle of its expression. This mandates an examination of current organizational and political choices to arrive at a resolution.

(xv) We start by recognizing that Nigeria’s political contestation for power at the center since Independence has never been a function of “democracy”, justice, equity, or fairness, but on the balance of forces/power between the contending parties, mainly between Unitarist and Federalist forces, and which the Yoruba Referendum Committee believes has come to a head with the 2023 elections.

(xvi) The contestation was manifested in every instance of political power contest at the Center, reflecting the balance of forces between the political parties as well as the Nationalities, as these examples show: the Alliance between the NPC and NCNC to sustain their Parliamentary majority and rejecting creation of more Regions for a balanced Federation; the success of the January 15/16 Military coups largely dependent on the dominance of Igbo Officers in the Nigerian Army and whose outcome was the abolition of Nigeria’s Federalism; the “revenge coup” of July 1966 largely due to the command and influence of Officers and rank and file of mainly northern origin; the NPN/NPP Alliance of the second republic reflecting the earlier NPC/NCNC Alliance; the military interregnum largely dominated by officers of northern origin; the declaration of Biafra without taking cognizance of the wishes, expectations and aspirations of the minorities in the Eastern Region; the 1999 Transition anchored on sustaining Unitarist Nigeria by deflecting the “June 12” struggle via selecting a Yoruba candidate of their choice, and subsequent elections since then, anchored on different types of alignments and realignments of various political forces in order to take power.

(xvii) From all these, justice, equity, and fairness are directly tied to the question of Federalism and the forces for or against it.

(xviii) The PDP, for now, has become the party whose goal is permanent Hausa-Fulani Hegemony in Nigeria’s political firmament by failing to even honor its own unwritten agreement to field a southerner. This is despite its presidential candidate’s foray into the realm of “devolution”. The Labor Party, through its Presidential candidate, has stated that there is nothing wrong with the 1999 Constitution, has no known affinity with social democracy, is anti-Federalist, judging by the positions it has taken on Federalism and has consistently been made available as a Special Purpose Vehicle for all sorts of political opportunists--all of which are a negation of Yoruba existential, historical, and contemporary pursuits. The APC, though not a Yoruba Party, nevertheless has a SW Leadership as a continuum of the AG through the AD. The pursuit of True Federalism as stated in its founding Manifesto makes it amenable to direct and indirect political engagement by the Yoruba.

(xix) Afenifere, as an organization, will therefore be able to manifest its philosophy, that is, “freedom for all, life more abundant” [/b]by the practical engagement of the dominant political party in Yorubaland through the instrumentality of a pathway towards Re-Federalization. With this, Afenifere would have filled the gap between the dominant political party whose Center of Gravity is not in Yorubaland, and the necessity for achieving True Federalism.
Thank you for your attention, sir.
Editorial Board,
[b]ILU-SO-PE (Yoruba Referendum Committee)

AFENIFERE, The Yoruba socio-political Association (Ondo State Chapter)
12, Ojumu Crescent, Ijapo, Akure.
A COMMUNIQUE ISSUED AT THE END OF AN EMERGENCY MEETING OF ONDO STATE AFENIFERE LEADERS HELD AT AKURE, ON THURSDAY, 30TH MARCH, 2023.

INTRODUCTION
An emergency meeting of the Ondo State Leaders of Afenifere was held over the recent development within the Group. The meeting took particular notice of a Communique issued at the end of a meeting held at Isanya-Ogbo, Ogun State, under the Acting Leader, Chief Ayo Adebanjo announcing the purported suspension of Abagun Kole Omololu, the National Organising Secretary and Comrade Jare Ajayi, the Publicity Secretary, among other issues therein raised.

DELIBERATIONS AND RESOLUTIONS
The Leaders deliberated on the suspension of the two National Officers; the disrespect and abuse of Afenifere traditions; and the seeming embarrassment the Media Reports that the Communique had caused the National Leader, Pa Reuben Fasoranti, OFR; the Afenifere larger fold; the Ondo State Branch and the two National Officers so affected.
The Leaders Meeting therefore resolved as follow:
a) Ondo State Afenifere Leaders see the suspension of the two National Officers as not only unfair but highly violative of the Afenifere principles and traditions which had prevailed for over 70 years.
b) At no point was Abagun Kole Omololu, who is from Ondo State, reported to the State Branch for any misconduct, lapses or abuse of office, on the need for the branch to call him to order, neither is the Branch aware of his being invited to any meetings or appearance before a Disciplinary Committee. From the foregoing, the purported suspension of our son, Abagun Kole Omololu is hereby rejected.
c) The meeting therefore passed a vote of confidence in the two National Officers. Abagun Kole Omololu, the National Organising Secretary and Comrade Adejare Ajayi, the National Publicity Secretary of Afenifere, respectively on having been found very dutiful, committed, responsive and loyal in the discharge of their respective responsibilities and offices.
Signed:

Bashorun Seinde Arogbofa
Immediate Past Secretary-General

Hon. Chief Korede Duyile
State Chairman

Rt. Hon. Bakkita Bello, PhD
State Secretary
Afenifere

After slavery was abolished by England in 1807, British ships plied the West African and Central African coasts forcibly repossessing Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch slave ships that were enroute on the middle passage. The human cargoes were repatriated to Freetown, Sierra Leone.
Onboard of one of these ships of misery was a pre-teen boy who had been sold at the Opobo slave markets. The ship was captured by the British. Navigating towards the shore, the ship capsized and resulted in loss of lives.

One of the captives was a pre-teenage boy who was identified as a survivor. Eventually the boy adopted the name “Vivour” as his English name.

Vivour had a son who was born in Freetown in 1830. His name was William Allen Vivour (1830 – 1890). During the youngsters early years, his father frequently narrated to him the stories of the country from which he was captured. The boy developed a strong wish to return “home”.

At age 25 in 1855 William Allen Vivour migrated to the Opobo area of the country that later became Nigeria. With the meager funds that he brought with him from Sierra Leone, he purchased a piece of land that he turned into a small palm oil plantation.

He eventually became successful enough so become a source of competition and irritation to the famous King Jaja of Opobo. He eventually became squeezed out of the business as his palm oil products, all of a sudden, could not be shipped through the British middlemen. Business became so bad that he eventually moved eastwards to Fernando Poe.

In Fernando Poe, he acquired pieces of property that were estimated to be about 828 hectares of land on which he cultivated palm oil and cocoa. He eventually became the largest cocoa and palm oil cultivator in West Africa. He married a local Fernando Poe native named Amelia.
William Allen Vivour and Amelia gave birth to Garnett Vivour.

Garnett Vivour married a Yoruba Saro woman, Sarah Alice and gave birth to Justice Robert William Akinwunmi Rhodes-Vivour (1910 – 1987).
R.W. Rhodes-Vivour later became the Chief Justice of the old Bendel State of Nigeria. While in England studying law, R.W. Rhodes-Vivour had married Majorie Enid Walker (Born 1918). Out of the union was born Olawale and Olabode Rhodes-Vivour.

One of the Rhode-Vivour brothers impregnated an Igbo woman and refused to marry her. The young lady had her child and moved back home to Anambra State where she raised the child whom she had named Chinedu.

The boy, Chinedu Gbadebo is currently the Labour Party gubernatorial candidate for Lagos State in 2023.

By Dr. Biyi Oyefule.

Despite the moves to defenestrate the APC leadership from its support base through the cash-swap policy coupled with a scarcity of fuel in the period leading to the Presidential and National Assembly elections, peace and order eventually prevailed. With resilience and determination, the APC Presidential candidate, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, appealed to party supporters to eschew bitterness and violence and ensure they voted in the elections, while other major candidates acquiesced in the cruel implementation of those policies.

The major reasons given for the implementation of the policy at the time include the necessity to reduce monetization of the elections while APC Governors exposed that role of some “elements” or cabal within the administration to use those policies to destroy the credibility and electability of the APC as a party, in general, and the Presidential/Vice Presidential candidates, in particular.

Despite these impediments, the elections held, the sure and swift process adopted by INEC in attending to the announcement of results, despite some hiccups experienced during the process, put paid to fears of any cancelation reminiscent of the “June 12” crisis which turned Nigeria into the arena of authoritarianism, a potential “Déjà Vu” for the Yoruba. It is on record that Asiwaju Tinubu and others spent their time and resources to dismantle that state of affairs introduced in 1993, thereby ensuring the return to democratic governance in 1999.

It is therefore meet for the Yoruba Referendum Committee to, without prejudice to other Yoruba organizations and individuals, join Afenifere, Governor Rotimi Akeredolu, and the entire Peoples of Nigeria in congratulating the APC and other well-meaning Nigerians on the electoral victory of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and Senator Kashim Shettima as the President and Vice president-elect of Nigeria respectively.
Afenifere, in a statement by its Leader, Pa Reuben Fasoranti, asked Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu to "be fair to all concerned, unite the country, see and treat the country as one, be a Federalist, allow the big ethnic groups to exist and respect one another, allow the small ones to feel proud and wanted in the spirit of Federalism, tackle insecurity, solve our economic downturn, Restructure the country, and rebuild a nation never so badly divided on ethnic, religious and corrupt lines.” On his part, Governor Akeredolu emphasized the need to engage the Federal government on ensuring that the Nigerian State is administered to its acclaimed Federal status.

The election of Asiwaju as President is therefore a call to action on our part in ensuring Re-Federalizing Nigeria. This is more so when the APC itself had made True Federalism a part of its Manifesto and established a committee on it under the Chairmanship of Governor El-Rufai of Kaduna State.

Governor El-Rufai and other governors were instrumental in ensuring a power shift to the South in the run-up to APC’s primaries just as El-Rufai was also a vocal opponent of the “cash-swap” policy, thereby strengthening the resistance to it. Governor El-Rufai stated the following, as the reason for their actions: “We are Northern Nigerians. We are proud of our humble origins and remarkable history. We are a civilized and cultured people. Our word is our bond. We keep our promises. Agreements with us need not be in writing. Those that don’t observe these are either not real Northerners or rootless prodigal sons whether they are youths or elders.”.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee recognizes the role played by the dominant political forces in each geo-political Region of Nigeria as determinants of political responses of or from the Regions. Therefore, it can be concluded that the only effective driver of the Yoruba towards Re-Federalization/Restructuring must be situated within the dominant partisan political party, the APC.

It is within this context that the Yoruba Referendum Committee wishes to remind Afenifere and Governor Akeredolu of the “Yoruba Referendum” as the means of engaging Yoruba people towards Re-Federalizing Nigeria. The Bill for the Referendum has been submitted to the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti State Houses of Assembly to be passed into Law.

As the recent experiences show, monetization, vote buying, etc. during elections are political questions that cannot be resolved by mopping up cash in circulation at every election cycle but by a determined political change anchored on the existential prerogatives of the people as also made obvious by Governor El Rufai.

This, among others, is why the Yoruba Referendum provides the pathway towards Re-Federalizing Nigeria. It also becomes the pathway to be domesticated by other Peoples of Nigeria based on their political circumstances.
While wishing Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Senator Kashim Shettima, and their team well in pursuit of the “Renewed Hope for Nigeria,”, the Yoruba Referendum Committee simultaneously says that it is a season of “Renewed Hope” for Re-Federalizing Nigeria anchored on the wishes and aspiration of the various Peoples of Nigeria as the Federating Units.

Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, spokesperson for the Northern Elders Forum, recently called for a National Conference within the first year of assumption of office of the next president after Muhammadu Buhari. This Conference is to address issues on “inclusiveness, integration, allocation of resources, creation and distribution of wealth,” all of which, combined, constitute what the Northern Elders Forum considers as what is wrong with the country.
The Presidency, National and State Legislatures are to play active and leading roles towards this Conference, despite the experience with such Conferences under Presidents Obasanjo and Jonathan, whose conclusions, according to the Northern Elders Forum, were “filed away soon after the selected members of the conferences completed their sittings.”
The Yoruba Referendum Committee says that the problems alluded to by the Northern Elders Forum have been in existence since the 1966 Military coup which abolished Federalism. This singular act has been the underlying cause of the problems facing Nigeria. Every successive military or civilian government compounded these problems in such a manner that they have, today, become the talking points in the Nigerian political space.
Earlier Conferences by Presidents Obasanjo and Jonathan also adequately identified these problems and proffered solutions; hence, there is no need to envisage repetition of the type of National Conference being promoted by the Northern Elders Forum as such a conference would be another waste of resources.
Nigeria’s problems, according to most of the presidential candidates, are too astronomical to be subjected to cliched phrases of integration, wealth creation, and distribution when it is clear to citizens that the country desires to be positioned for its constituent parts to be able to create and secure citizens and wealth
Hence, the reason(s) for “filing away” the Conclusions of both Conferences must inform our approach to any future Conference, as this will provide a template for ensuring the success of any Conference contemplated for the future.
The Yoruba Referendum Committee makes bold to state that the major reason for the “filing away” of the conclusions was the fact that the delegates to both Conferences had no roadmap or pathway to legitimize their conclusions. Delegates to both Conferences were not directly or indirectly elected as representatives of their various Peoples but were selected as appropriate representatives and accorded recognition by the state and central administrations, thereby turning the entire exercise into a political and bureaucratic process, leaving out the democratic will of the people.
The Presidencies were thus not bound by the conclusions, because they lacked Legitimacy, thereby making it possible for the organizers to file such conclusions away.
This view rests on the fact that the Presidencies were Legitimate administrations by virtue of their being democratically elected; hence, any solution to any problem they intended the Conferences to resolve must also be Legitimized by democratic means embedded in the process towards the Conference itself.
Therefore, when the Northern Elders Forum is looking towards the incoming President, National and State Legislatures to act and convene another Conference, this must rest on their capacity to Legitimize the aspirations and expectations of the People on questions of “inclusiveness, integration, allocation of resources, creation and distribution of wealth.”
To achieve this, the incoming President only needs to use his influence, in conjunction with the National Assembly, to encourage the State Legislatures to ensure the Legitimacy of the demands and aspirations of the people of their States.
This will be achieved through the instrumentality of the Referendum to be conducted by the various State Houses of Assembly, especially in cases where the Peoples are homogeneous and contiguous. Where this is not the case, Socio-Cultural institutions within the Nationalities can assume the task or the Houses of Assembly can be mandated to conduct the Referendum on their behalf.
The Referendum provides the route towards engaging the incoming President and National legislature as the most democratic route towards Re-Federalizing Nigeria to enable the post-Buhari administration adequately address questions on “inclusiveness, integration, allocation of resources, creation and distribution of wealth.” The outcome will become the backbone of the envisaged National Conference and by extension, the foundation for a new Federal Constitution.
Based on the above, the Yoruba Referendum Committee calls on the various Peoples of Nigeria to impress on their Houses of Assembly, the necessity for “Nationality Referendums,” preparatory to any future National Conference. The Yoruba Referendum Committee also expects the Northern Elders Forum and similar organizations to embrace this call for Nationality Referendums.

Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

(i) We start by recognizing that Nigeria’s political contestation for power at the center since Independence has never been a function of “democracy”, justice, equity, or fairness, but on the balance of forces/power between the contending parties, mainly between Unitarist and Federalist forces, and which the Yoruba Referendum Committee believes will come to a head in 2023.

(ii) This was manifested in every instance of political power contest at the Center, reflecting the balance of forces between the political parties as well as the Nationalities, as these examples show: Britain’s acquiescence to the NPC’s demand for majority of seats in the Federal Parliament, the Alliance between the NPC and NCNC to sustain their Parliamentary majority, the success of the January 15/16 Military coups largely dependent on the dominance of Igbo Officers in the Nigerian Army and whose outcome was the neutralization of Nigeria’s Federalism, the “revenge coup” of July 1966 largely due to the command and influence of Officers and rank and file of mainly northern origin, the NPN/NPP Alliance of the second republic, the military interregnum largely dominated by officers of northern origin, the 1999 Transition, anchored on sustaining Unitarist Nigeria by deflecting the “June 12” struggle and deferring to the Yoruba, and subsequent elections since then, anchored on different types of alignments and realignments of various political forces in order to take power.

(iii) From all these, the question of justice, equity and fairness is directly tied to the question of Federalism and the forces for or against it and have nothing to do with the contest for the presidency.

(iv) Since the Yoruba have no political party in the mold of either the AG or UPN, that is, the Center of Gravity of the current political parties are not in Yorubaland, the question of Yoruba Leadership must be situated within the context of which political party approximates Yoruba existential pursuits, philosophically anchored on Social Welfarism (Afenifere), which majority of the Yoruba subscribe to, such that a proper foundation for Yoruba Leadership will be laid.

(v) The PDP has become the party whose goal is permanent Hausa-Fulani Hegemony in Nigeria’s political firmament by demurring to even honor its own unwritten agreement to field a southerner. This is despite its presidential candidate’s foray into the realm of “devolution”. The Labor Party, through its Presidential candidate, has stated that there is nothing wrong with the 1999 Constitution, which is a negation of Yoruba existential, historical, and contemporary pursuits. The APC, though not a Yoruba Party nevertheless has a SW Leadership as a continuum of the AG through the AD and it is also the dominant party in Yorubaland. It has also established a committee on “True Federalism” even as it has not done anything about it. Yet, it is amenable to Yoruba dictates through direct and indirect political engagement.

(vi) This engagement will be conducted by establishing a pathway that will lead to the resolution of the political and organizational conundrum and simultaneously address any eventualities in Nigeria, including changes to political party dominance thereby preventing the political and organizational vacuum witnessed at the onset of the “June 12” crisis.

(vii) This necessity places heavy responsibility on the existing dominant political party in the Region.

(viii) This[b] pathway[/b] must be clear as to its definition of Federalism as distinct from “devolution of powers” or a “return to the 1963 Constitution”. Devolution is anti-Federalism because devolved powers can also be taken back. The 1963 Constitution contained major anti-Federalist sections which was ultimately used against the Western Region.

(ix) Therefore, the quest for Federalism must be anchored on the Nationalities as Federating Units, as noted in Egbe Omo Oduduwa’s founding Constitution. This will lead to a New Federal Constitution for Nigeria to become a “Multi-National State” through the instrumentality of “Nationality Referendums”, with the Yoruba Referendum as a template. Switzerland is a good example. This was Egbe Omo Oduduwa’s original intent which was carried out through the Action Group whose Center of Gravity was in Yorubaland (West). Therefore, in this era, True Federalism must address the critical question of the Center of Gravity of any political party.

(x) Furthermore, such a pathway cannot be about creating a new “umbrella” organization because it is not possible or necessary and will create unnecessary and intractable tensions and problems as being witnessed now. Pursuing this path will either require the dissolution of all existing organizations, including “Afenifere”, “Ilana” as organizational structures or creating another coalition of groups which will be a repetition of earlier experiences. In the alternative, in case there is no single dominant partisan political party, that is, where the region is governed by different political parties and whose Centers of Gravity are not in Yorubaland, it may lead to another round of establishing such dominance throughout the Region, resulting in further atomization leading to regional political paralysis.

(xi) The Yoruba Referendum resolves these and other issues. The result of the Referendum will become the political solution as it will be the Legitimate and legal Yoruba “voice” aggregating of our political demands. It will also become a template for other Nationalities in Nigeria whose combined efforts will become the basis for the new Federal Constitution.

(xii) The Yoruba Referendum is a “YES” or “NO” vote on whether the Yoruba states of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti states should FEDERATE into a Region in a Federal Nigeria. This is a sine qua non for any form of Yoruba Leadership as well as any engagement with Nigeria and the outside world, especially considering the atomization of Yorubaland and the consequent impact of not having the Center of Gravity of our political processes in our land.

(xiii) A “YES” vote would be the solution to the organizational conundrum, because it will lead to the establishment of a[b] Constitutional Commission [/b]whose members will include Yoruba from Kwara and Kogi States and which “shall be vested with powers to present and represent the views of Western/Oduduwa Region and negotiate on behalf of the Western/Oduduwa Region(including the Yoruba in Kwara and Kogi States) with all the agencies of the Nigerian Government, non-Governmental organizations and the international Community involved in the process”.

(xiv) The answer to the Leadership question, therefore, is the Constitutional Commission, arrived at, through the instrumentality of the Yoruba Referendum, which will become the Legitimate “Yoruba Voice”, the new Yoruba Leadership because it will be established by Law, thereby reducing, or eliminating contestations for Leadership representations or ascriptions and foreclose the various diversions, in their different dimensions, currently bedeviling Yorubaland.

(xv) It will be Legally empowered and bound to, and by, the Annexure to the Referendum Law, to wit: A Federal Nigeria[/b], through a valid [b]Federal Constitution, to be known as The Union of Nigerian Constituent Nationalities, with a[b] 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. Western/Oduduwa Region shall adopt a Parliamentary System of government. The Central Government of the Union shall have no power to interfere nor 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. 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. 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. Each Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Federation shall control primary interest in its own resources with an agreed Tax Model for the Federation.

(xvi) With this, the Yoruba will be rendering a service of historic proportions, becoming a beacon for not only other Nationalities in Nigeria but also the rest of Africa where comparable Nationality questions exist and has led to continuous wars and conflicts. This pathway [/b]will aid in the resolution of such conflicts.

[b]Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

On-going contention among and between the various socio-cultural and self-determination groups on Yoruba Leadership necessitates this intervention by the Yoruba Referendum Committee and our solution to the problem.

Three broad categories are engaged in this battle for Yoruba Leadership, each ascribing the authority to speak on behalf of the Yoruba to itself, to wit: the socio-cultural groups represented by the various factions of Afenifere, alongside other non-Afenifere affiliated groups; the broad self-determination groups with each sub-group claiming Leadership, and the dominant political party in the SW, the APC.

Based on the above, the Yoruba Referendum Committee states as follows:

(i) We begin by placing Yoruba Leadership within our historical context. The formal presentation and representation of “Yoruba Leadership” began with the formation of Egbe Omo Oduduwa, whose Constitution contained the following, among others: “to study fully its(Yoruba) political problems, combat disintegrating forces of tribalism, stamp out discrimination within the group and against minorities and generally infuse the idea of a single Nationality throughout the Region” and “the propagation of the ideal of a modern Yoruba State and Federal State of Nigeria through the agency of reliable persons who share our ideals”. This clearly makes it a political entity, unlike those of today, who, while tracing their trajectory to the Egbe, describe themselves as “socio-cultural”.

(ii) It must be noted that “Self-determination/Autonomy/True Federalism/Restructuring” and “sovereignty” are Political questions which are achievable through various political means, to wit: electoralism, mass mobilization, direct and indirect engagement with electoral forces on ground etc. Even wars aimed at achieving any of these ends up utilizing the political mechanism for resolution. This has been the experience within the global quests for such ends, as we have seen and are seeing in Scotland, Catalonia, the Syrian, Turkish, Iraqi and Iran Kurdistan, Ethiopia etc. Yorubaland, and by extension, Nigeria, cannot be an exception.

(iii) This is more so when previous Presidencies took political actions towards “Restructuring” through the instrumentality of various Conferences, all of which were carried out by way of “Zonal Consultations” but whose conclusions were ignored by every Presidency. These “Zonal Consultations” had no roadmap/pathway for Legitimizing their conclusions to which the central Government would be bound, which further enabled the central Governments to ignore them. Therefore, the political context for achieving the objectives must rest within the historical and contemporary context of such engagements.

(iv) Despite the Egbe’s existence, the necessity for a political party platform to contest the 1951 Parliamentary Elections led to the formation of the Action Group, whose welfarist philosophy, “Freedom for all, life more abundant” was translated into the Yoruba language as “Afenifere”. The Action Group dismissed the attempt at making the Egbe serve the partisan political purpose, by maintaining a noticeably clear identity from the Egbe, and despite the initial and temporary overlapping roles of top members of the Egbe in the Action Group.

(v) The victory of the Action Group in 1951 made it the dominant political party in the West, and it became the vehicle for Yoruba political activities in the run-up to Independence, thereby informally becoming the Yoruba leadership, even as the party was not a “Yoruba party” although its Center of Gravity was in Yorubaland.

(vi) This was the Yoruba experience during the crisis in the Western Region, the exception being the proclamation of Chief Obafemi Awolowo as the “Leader of Yorubas” during the Nigerian crisis which led to the Civil war. During this period, and despite the existence of a military administration, there was no room for partisan political activities as the entire Yoruba Nation was under siege. He jettisoned the position immediately after the war amidst the onset of partisan political activities which led to the formation of the UPN.

(vii) After the war and a return to partisan political activities, Yoruba Leadership once again reverted to the informal paradigm, with the UPN, where the party, with its Center of Gravity in Yorubaland, was also rightly seen as the “Yoruba Leadership”, being the dominant partisan Party in Yorubaland.

(viii) An aberration occurred during the “June 12” struggles, with the emergence of NADECO, with a new organization known as Afenifere, playing a significant role in it.

(ix) This organizational Afenifere leadership comprised most of those formerly in the Action Group and the UPN. Unlike the temporary overlapping between the Egbe and AG, the new “Afenifere” mixed up its organizational existence with the philosophical/ideological social welfarism (Afenifere) of the AG and claimed proprietary rights to both the philosophy as well as the organization.

(x) The consummation of “June 12” struggles also required the formation of political parties, which led to the formation of the AD, whose Center of Gravity was also in Yorubaland but within a more centralized political atmosphere. Despite this limitation, it became, the dominant partisan political party in Yorubaland, consequently becoming the Yoruba Leadership, following the informally established paradigm.

(xi) However, “June 12” and its aftermath presented a dilemma, to wit: the comingling of the philosophy with the organizational structure, hence the issue as to whether AD is Afenifere or not. Attempting to repeat what obtained during the civil war but without similar conditions, the Afenifere leader was initially chosen as the “Spokesperson” for the Yoruba, which was eventually converted to Leader of the Yoruba. This conversion formally brought the comingling of the philosophical with the organizational and brought the conflict between AD and Afenifere to a head.

(xii) Ordinarily, the issue would have been easily resolvable, in the sense that it had already been resolved by the AG. That is, the AG was the political party that fought the necessary battles with “Afenifere” as its ideological/philosophical weapon of choice, therefore the AD could not have dissolved itself into the “new” Afenifere nor become subservient to it, with the added implication that the leader of Afenifere could not have been the leader of the Yoruba.

(xiii) From the above, it can be concluded that the only effective leadership for the Yoruba is situated within a dominant partisan political party whose Center of Gravity is in Yorubaland. If the resolution had followed this trajectory, the AD would either have become a Party comprising several tendencies or split as the AG did in 1962. Either of the options would have resulted in having the necessary partisan political platform for the various self-determination and socio-cultural groups caught in the AD/Afenifere crisis.

(xiv) The conflict resulted in the extinction of the AD as a political party, which transmuted into various political formations, and which has now ended up as the SW APC.

(xv) On the other hand, Afenifere, because it combined the philosophy with its organizational structure, foreclosed other socio-cultural and self-determination groups from appropriating the same philosophy. Yet all these groups define their ideological/philosophical bent in one form of social welfarism or the other, in other words, “Afenifere”, thereby informally making all other groups philosophically Afenifere but organizationally distinct and have no input or stake in “Afenifere’s” organizational structure.

(xvi) Hence when “Afenifere” promotes itself as the authentic Yoruba “voice” at the same time becoming an umbrella organization for all sorts of ideological persuasions, it became an organizational vehicle for political parties of which it had no control or influence and whose philosophy and ideological orientation were and still are incongruent with both the political dictates and the philosophy from which it derived its name.

(xvii) On their part, the various socio-cultural and self-determination groups embarked on political initiatives which are either farcical or tragic and laced with various shades of Yoruba Exceptionalism and atavism.

(xviii) Hence, the question of Yoruba leadership 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, and which is the hallmark of democracy. This mandates an examination of current organizational and political choices to arrive at a resolution. (To be continued)

Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee