₦airaland Forum

Seefinish:
When Igbo shouted Biafra, you betrayed and crucified them, now that you are beginning to shout Oduduwa, what should we do to you?
You go nowhere. One Nigeria by fire by force even with thunder

FALSE
We betrayed no one. Ojukwu betrayed the Igbo. Biafra invaded the Mid-West and West. you don't invade another territory in order to liberate yourself. Invasion is an act of conquest. Perchance, if Biafra had succeeded in taking over Lagos, the declaration will not be about Biafra but taking over Nigeria. And this much was attested to by the "orders" given to Victor Banjo. So, let's be clear about that. At this time, we are not asking others to do anything except for themselves as we are doing for ourselves That's why we advocate "Yoruba Referendum" --a Referendum to be conducted by the Yoruba for the Yoruba.

Sammy07:
What nonsense is this my brother?

You just wrote rubbish.

There is no law against State Houses of Assembly conducting a Referendum. And a referendum is not even in the Constitution. Hence, a Referendum is a political decision.

Sammy07:
They can't pass the bill for referendum.

Don't mind they OP.

Referendum must firstly be debated in the Senate.

Must pass 1st, 2nd and last reading

Must be approved by 2/3 of the Joint House

Then will be transmitted to State house of reps

Must be approved by minimum of 24 states

Before it can be included in the constit

No. The Senate has nothing to do with a Referendum conducted by the State Houses of Assembly. It is a decision anchored on the[b] POLITICAL WILL [/b] of the State Houses of Assembly

“Yoruba Nation Now” is part of the tendency opposed to the 2023 elections. While they all claim to reject the 1999 Constitution, their solutions revolve around seeking a “doctrine of necessity” to impose an “Interim or transitional government” which will thereafter mandate a new Constitutional order, while the “Yoruba Nation Now” is advocating “boycotting” the elections by the Yoruba, in Yorubaland, as its route towards “Yoruba Sovereignty”.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee posits that both are designed to disenfranchise the various Nationalities and strengthen Unitarism in Nigeria. For the Yoruba, they are a direct negation of our historical engagement with the Nigerian State, pre- and post-Independence.
Operating outside the historical context makes the land vulnerable to intended or unintended consequences, either of which will make Yorubaland become fish out of water.

Hence, the Yoruba Referendum Committee opposes both propositions for the following reasons:

(i) Their angst against the Nigerian State is anchored mainly on the singular question of “Amalgamation” and its effect on the Nationalities. Yet, Nigeria was not the only colony amalgamated by the British. In 1840, Upper Canada was amalgamated with Lower Canada into a Unitary Canada, just as the Northern and Southern Protectorates in Nigeria were amalgamated into a Unitary Nigeria in 1914. In lower Canada, the French-speaking Quebec’s animus against the English-speaking people led to a quest for Autonomy which eventually led to Canada introducing a Federal Constitution in 1867 and which has subsisted till date.

(ii) Canada’s Federalist System became the avenue to launch the Quebecois Independence/Sovereignty attempt, which was resolved through a Referendum in 1995, with a “No” vote becoming victorious. Current recourse to making a scapegoat out of the 1914 Amalgamation as a major reason for “Yoruba Sovereignty” denies this historical reality. As it was in Canada, so it was in Nigeria- Federalism was the driving Constitutional Imperative and for “sovereignty” of any Nationality to thrive, Federalism must be formally defeated.

(iii) In Nigeria, Federalism was the preferred option of the political parties, with a recommendation of three Regions (North, East and West) and the municipality of Lagos. The three Regions corresponded largely with the three major Nationalities. A series of Constitutional Conferences were held in 1953/54, which succeeded in ending the push for a Confederation and 1957/58, which became the Conference for Independence, with a Regionally based Federal Constitution.

(iv) Since then, there has been a continuous contest for dominance and power between the Unitarist and Federalist forces and which is yet to come to a head, despite the apparent advantage currently enjoyed by the Unitarist forces. The contest was anchored by Ahmadu Bello’s “One North” Policy which became dominant because of its affinity with the East on Unitarism as the only vehicle for dominance, hence their alliance against the West, which was the main promoter and bastion of Federalism.

(v) The eventual collapse of the alliance, through their competing militaries, eventually led to the creation of states, which, aside from the imperatives of the civil war, was supposedly aimed at neutralizing Regional Hegemonies by substituting them with states functioning as “Federating Units”. A recourse to “One North” is now back on the table, now that the “state” option is no longer tenable because of the overwhelming dependence of the states on the center.

(vi) Despite the detours of the 1966 Military coups and the subsequent civil war, “Yoruba Sovereignty” came into consideration only within the context of “Sovereignty for all”, as affirmed by Awo’s Address to the Western Leaders of Thought on May 1, 1967. In the Second Republic, the UPN replicated Action Group’s electoral victory in the LOOBO States (Lagos, Ondo, Oyo, Bendel and Ogun States) just as the AD did in the 1999 elections.

(vii) In none of these instances was “Yoruba Sovereignty” an issue, even after the 1983 Military coup. During the military interregnum, where questions on the Nigerian State came to the fore with demands for Sovereign National Conference and the various Conferences conducted by both military and civilian administrations, the question of why and how Federalism lost or is losing out, was not addressed, such that, now, “Yoruba Sovereignty” has become the redeeming feature.

(viii) The Yoruba Referendum Committee posits that the reliance on the various Presidencies to provide the solution through the various Conferences via “Zonal Consultations” but whose conclusions were not Legitimized and Validated by “Zonal Referendums” to which the central Government would be bound, enabled the central Governments to ignore those conclusions.

(ix) Today’s electoral atmosphere has formally reintroduced the contest between Federalism and Unitarism into the equation. This was at the instance of the Northern Elder’s Forum’s engagement with the major presidential contenders, in the form of a throwback to the “One North” policy, executed by the Northern People’s Congress through which the various Nationalities in the North were subsumed under Fulani Hegemony. Northern Elders were and still are, more concerned with protecting and projecting Northern Interests thereby seeking a candidate who will promote such. Atiku Abubakar stepped forward as the Northerner who will reactivate the “One North” policy.

(x) Therefore, seeking a “doctrine of necessity”, an “interim government” or “no elections in Yorubaland” without the commanding forces of achieving any of these ensures that its implementation will surely rest with the current Unitarist forces in control of Nigeria who have the means for its introduction and enforcement, with the various Peoples subjected to an almost perpetual Unitarist domination.

(xi) This is because the slow and steady pace of truncating Federalism in Nigeria is now at its apogee hence the importance of the 2023 elections, which will either sustain and strengthen the Unitarist forces or reiterate and reinforce the Federalist forces in a terminal battle for supremacy. For the Yoruba therefore, canvassing for “No election” will be akin to shooting ourselves in the foot and render Yorubaland prostrate to any force, political or military, which is able to take advantage of this would-be self-inflicted wound. Unless, of course, “Yoruba Nation Now” can muster a countervailing force.

(xii) Barring such a factor, the only Pathway towards defeating the Unitarists is by way of the Nationality Referendums which will confer Legitimacy and validity to our political choices. Referendums derive directly from the political exigencies of the moment, aimed at resolving extant political dispute(s) arising from the contest and politics of balance of power/forces whose result it will either validate or negate.

(xiii) Referendums are part of the democratic, and therefore electoral process just as the 2023 elections are. Thus, “No elections in Yorubaland in 2023” and simultaneously seeking a “Referendum on Sovereignty” through the instrumentality of the United Nations, any international agency or “powerful countries”, becomes self-defeating because neither the UN, the international agency nor the “powerful countries” will be an accessory to the termination of an electoral process.

(xiv) The history of UN intervention all over the world shows that its remedy to any collapse of order is the democratic or electoral process; “powerful countries” embark on overt and covert destabilization of “opposition” countries in such a manner that protects whatever is considered their interests and not necessarily for the benefit of the people concerned. This has happened over and over. Combatting global terrorism in its geo-political dimensions, especially in Africa, already precluded endorsement of “sovereignty” by these “powerful countries”. The “Yoruba Question” cannot therefore be an exception.

(xv) More importantly, the proposition absolves Yoruba elected officials from their responsibility to Yoruba people thereby subverting the entire concept of Self-determination or even Sovereignty it purports to project, just as it farms out the quest for Autonomy away from Yoruba people as direct beneficiaries, turning them into hapless victims of any conflicting global order.

(xvi) Political parties which were more or less representative of the various Nationalities were active participants in the pre-Independence Constitutional conferences just as they have been in the post-Independence era. Therefore, they cannot be wished away. These parties participated in the British attempt at addressing the question of Minorities through the Willink Commission, tasked with recommending appropriate measures for resolution. Its major recommendation was conducting Plebiscites/Referendum among the various Minorities to ascertain their wish for or against their own Regions.

(xvii) This recommendation was scuttled by the NPC(North) and the NCNC(East). This was how, for example, the Yoruba in Ilorin and Kabba provinces were forced to remain in the North and how the Minorities in the North were denied their identities as Nationalities. The resistance by the Tiv to this enforcement led to the “Tiv Riots” and the establishment of the “Mobile Police Force” (Kill and Go) to suppress them. All of these occurred despite the formidable opposition mounted by the Action Group. What could have happened to the Yoruba without the Action Group can therefore be left to the imagination. This is the intended or unintended outcome of “No elections in 2023”.

(xviii) The Yoruba Referendum Committee does not begrudge either the Northern elders or Atiku Abubakar. They have simply reiterated the need for other Regions or Nationalities to protect and project their own interests. In general, no Nationality needs any other Nationality to protect and project its interest. This is why the Yoruba Referendum Committee proposed Re- Federalizing Nigeria as a Multi-National State. This is the real essence of Self-determination.

(xix) For the Yoruba, the SW APC now has history to contend with, as stated in the Petition to the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti Houses of Assembly, to pass the Bill for Referendum into law and conduct the Referendum. Similarly, Yoruba people have a duty to compel the Houses of Assembly to act on the Petition before them. “Yoruba Nation Now” has already placed itself outside this history.

(xx) The above is important considering the state of affairs of Nationalities, not only in Nigeria, but also on the Continent where contestations for power revolve around the balance of power or forces between various Nationalities within the same Nation-State. This mandates a resolution located somewhere on the Continent. Nigeria fits the bill. Perfectly.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

The Yoruba Referendum Committee is of the view that it is imperative to address the entire question of “Self-determination/Autonomy/Sovereignty”, for the benefit of “Yoruba Nation Now” followers. This is more so because of misleading conclusions being advanced by the “Yoruba Nation Now” leadership. All claims are easily verifiable, especially by those in the Yoruba Diaspora, whose verified assertions could be passed on to the generality of their supporters at home. That they are not making this effort only shows that a portion are being led through a path that will not do the Yoruba at large, any good.
The Yoruba Referendum Committee therefore proceeds as follows:

(i) Self-determination/Autonomy/Independence/Sovereignty is a natural right by virtue of human existence. This right neither requires nor need legal validation because it is natural. By this, it can be achieved by its purveyor’s ability to entrench it, if abridged, within the human community, often by force of arms, which enables it to ascertain and sustain itself. This has been the history of sovereign human evolution since ancient times, up till date. Even when diplomacy is interjected, its success depends on the balance of forces at play, which is directly related to the overriding force of arms, on, in diplomatic language, balance of power. “Yoruba Nation Now” cannot, therefore, be an exception to this reality.

(ii) When legal validity is sought or required, it mandates the observance of any existing legal order. The legal order is also often the preserve of those able to impose their sense of order on the rest. This is why the United Nations and its related agencies become the last resort of those agitating for Self-determination, and why the United Nations itself established its parameters for Self-determination.

(iii) These parameters are divided into two, to wit: (a) those territories under foreign or colonial rule and (b) those entities within established States(countries) and subjected to various forms of discrimination based on their Nationality or Indigeneity. Hence, the “Yoruba Nation Now” takes the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People to Self-determination (UNDRIPS) as its reference point.

(iv) The territories under colonial rule obtained their independence in the early to mid-60s, hence it does not apply to them. There are other territories, which were “re-colonized” after the original colonial power left. One of these “recolonized” territories is Timor Leste (East Timor) which was recently used as an example to propagate “Yoruba Nation Now” by their leader. It is therefore necessary to summarize the East Timor example to discover its relevance or otherwise to the “Yoruba Nation Now” quest.

(v) East Timor was a former Portuguese colony. Portugal itself was considered the “poorest and most backward country in Europe” with large colonies. A military coup in Portugal, on the heels of anti-colonial movements’ activities, fast-tracked the decolonization process. This was “orderly” in Mozambique and Guinea Bissau but disorderly in Angola and East Timor. Hence, East Timor declared its Independence just as MPLA did in Angola. South Africa invaded Angola. Cuba and the USSR provided weapons and soldiers to fight off South African invasion and Africa, led by Nigeria, refused to be coerced by the US—some will recall Murtala Muhammed’s “We are no longer your servants” OAU speech in 1975.

(vi) Indonesia invaded East Timor. The closest geo-political power to East Timor and Indonesia, Australia, did not intervene, unlike how Cuba/USSR did in Angola. The East Timor anti-colonial movement did not give up and their activities eventually led to a change in Government in Indonesia. The new government agreed to a Referendum on the future of East Timor. The result favored Independence for East Timor.

(vii) The quick intervention of Angola’s international friends ended South African adventure, hence no need for UN intervention. Australia’s lackadaisical attitude led to continuous conflicts ultimately ending in UN intervention. From these, it is clear that East Timor was still under foreign occupation when international action became inevitable. Neither the case of Angola nor East Timor apply to the Yoruba.

(viii) Yet, it can still be said that the “Yoruba case” need not be a complete replica because her case can be made on its own merit. If that were to be the case, such a merit must also meet the existing international standard, which is the reason for “Yoruba Nation Now” reliance on UNDRIPS.

(ix) The UNDRIPS document shows that there is nowhere the UN encouraged or supported, directly or indirectly, sovereignty for Indigenous People. Rather, all references to Autonomy, self-determination are in relation to the continuous existence of the State and not its negation. Going by the document, the existential condition of the Yoruba in Nigeria today does not even qualify for “Indigenous people”. While the Yoruba are naturally indigenous to present-day Nigeria, and may have been on the “win some, lose some” range of the contestation for power, these hardly qualify for victimhood as Indigenous People within the context of the UN document.

(x) For example, since the pre and post-Independence period, the Yoruba have not been excluded from governance in Nigeria as Indigenous Yoruba people and have not been denied, in whole or in part, any of the rights mentioned in the UNDRIPS document. In today’s political climate, we have not been excluded from participation in the on-going electoral contest; indeed at least 3 Yoruba are contesting for the Presidency on different political platforms. Only “Yoruba Nation Now” advocates are opposed to the election, for their own reasons. All of these show that the “Yoruba case” cannot rest on the legality of a UN Declaration.

(xi) Furthermore, Article 46(i) of the Declaration states as follows: “nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, people, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act contrary to the Charter of the United Nations or construed as authorizing or encouraging any action which would dismember or impair, totally or in part, the territorial integrity or political unity of sovereign and independent states” (emphasis ours).

(xii) Of course, pursuit or advocating a sovereign Yoruba State is an act of secession or “dismembering, totally or in part, the territorial integrity and political unity of the sovereign and independent state”. In this instance, Nigeria.

Unless the” Yoruba Nation Now” is kidding itself or all of us. (To be continued)

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

The SW APC is the current dominant political party in Yorubaland, with an expectation of electorally retaining such dominance through the route mapped out in the Party’s Manifesto.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee recognizes that campaigns for elections have self-directed parameters with appropriate strategies and tactics devised and aimed towards victory. At the same time, we also recognize that Party Manifestos aim at resolving the society’s problematics, where the Party thinks it will be beneficial to all, regardless of Party affiliation. It is therefore our well-considered view that a synergy must exist between the needs and aspirations of the People and the expectations embedded in the Party Manifesto.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee makes bold to state that the weightiest decision expressed in the Manifesto is on Federalism. This is because all other issues or expectations in the Manifesto are tied to resolving the question of Nigeria’s Nationhood, manifested in its State Formation.

Hence this Open Letter to the Campaign Council of the SW APC, based on the following:

(i) Since the end of the Second World War and the establishment of the global liberal political economy dominated by Western Europe and North America, all efforts at human and material development of formerly colonized peoples, despite the “winds of change” spawned by the War, floundered largely because most of the emergent States were and still are unable to address, in a fruitful manner, the question of their State Formation, hence became paralyzed by continuous crises and which, for Africa, has sustained her underdevelopment.

(ii) The exceptions to this “rule” are divided into two: (a) The “Asian Tigers” who were and still are direct beneficiaries of the “Cold War” between the two major Alliances that emerged from the Second World War and through whom their proxy wars were fought and (b) what we now know as the “BRICS” countries—that is, Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.

(iii) Both are playing significant roles in global political economy such that global developmental trend tends towards either of the two. Therefore, Nigeria has to make a choice between these two roads. Historical precedence and contemporary economic reality will prevent the “Asian Tigers” route, primarily because African economies thrive as dependents on the Western paradigm, and which, by definition, is patently organized for Africa’s underdevelopment; the “Cold War” is over, hence “proxy wars” are no longer feasible or necessary and any wars along those lines will severely and negatively impact the Continent. Hence, the only viable option for Nigeria (indeed Africa) is the “BRICS” route.

(iv) It is noted that the “BRICS” countries were also former colonial possessions, directly or indirectly, to wit: Brazil was a Portuguese colony; Russia, before the 1917 Revolution, was considered as “England’s dumping ground”; India, like Nigeria, was a former British colony; China was occupied by Japan; the story of South Africa is too well-known.

(v) These countries resolved their State Formation by way of Constitutional recognition of their foundational premise, the Constitution being the fundamental Law of the Land. Thus, Brazil defined itself as a “Federative” State; Russia, a Multinational people of the Russian Federation; India, with her States identified by their Cultural/Lingual [/b]characteristics; China recognizing, upholding, and developing a relationship of equality, unity, mutual assistance, and harmony among all of China's [b]Nationalities, regardless of whether they are minorities or not; and South Africa with her recognition of Indigenous Languages and their importance to economic development. This recognition and affirmation formalized the overcoming of foundational problematics which has now enabled them to establish their own economic and political paradigms.

(vi) What could have passed as comparable to this BRICS paradigm was Nigeria’s experience in the First Republic which existed for 6 years, whose foundation was laid in the decade preceding Independence and anchored on a Federal System cognizant of geo-cultural sensibilities. This was the period between 1952 and 1960 which the Yoruba fondly recall as our “Golden Era”. Similarly, the Northern and Eastern Regions had things that engendered development of their Regions.

(vii) The developmental foundation of the “Era” would have, by now, made Nigeria a possible factor in BRICS and by extension, today’s global order. A pointer to this was exemplified by the University of Ife, where Portuguese Language was the first foreign Language of study, based on the recognition of Brazil having the largest number of Yoruba People outside the continent and with a potential economic relationship between Brazil and the Western Region, a sort of precursor to BRICS.

(viii) Since no appreciable improvement(s) have been made to the “Golden Era” since its abolition by military fiat, it simply follows that this deformation must be addressed in such a manner that the necessary foundation will be recreated for a progressive political economy which will encompass those being advocated by the Manifesto and which will become a beacon for the rest of Africa, and set Nigeria on the road to “BRICS”, and more. This necessarily leads to the question of Re-Federalizing Nigeria.

(ix) We recognize that this cannot be achieved by fiat. We are also cognizant of the fact that various governments since 1999, including the current APC administration, organized Conferences towards a solution, with nothing to show.

(x) The Central question now to be addressed by the SW APC is how to proceed on a pathway that will set the stage for rapid escape from the shackles of underdevelopment brought about by the abolition of the Federal System anchored on the Regions, even if the Party wants to combine its preference for the National Assembly as expressed in the Manifesto, with the desires and aspirations of the various Peoples in Nigeria with a view towards re-establishing the lost “Golden Era”.

(xi) The route towards this cannot be another round of Conferences. The Yoruba Referendum Committee also recognizes that electoral politics is often a result of the balance of power, embedded in not only electoral campaigns but also in inter and intra-party relationships which may not necessarily embrace the existential aspirations of the Peoples. Despite these, we are calling on your Campaign Council to set in motion, as part of your campaign, a procedure for engagement, between your Party and the Yoruba People.

(xii) This has nothing to do with whether your party wins or loses the elections. It simply means that, as the dominant party in Yorubaland, you have to utilize your powers to ensure Yoruba People (and by extension all other Nationalities in Nigeria) have a say in RE-FEDERALIZING NIGERIA as the way to avoiding all the failed Conferences that had hitherto been the case.

(xiii) Towards this end, the Yoruba Referendum Committee has proposed “Federating Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti States into a Yoruba Region in a Federal Nigeria”, through the instrumentality of a Referendum conducted by the Legislatures in these States. This pathway can also be domesticated by other Nationalities or groups of Nationalities in Nigeria.

(xiv) Further, the Committee has defined its vision of a new Nigeria 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”.

(xv) The Legitimacy and Validity of the Yoruba Referendum (and Nationality Referendums in general) reduces the risk of submerging Yoruba or any other Nigerian Nationality’s existentialism in the balance of power squabbles embedded in the operations of the National Assembly. On the contrary, it will Legitimize the actions of the National Assembly itself.
It is the Committee’s hope that our suggestion will be given the highest consideration.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee.

(i) The Yoruba Referendum Committee is compelled to respond to Senator Omo Agege’s call on 25 State Houses of Assembly to approve provisions of the 1999 Constitution pending before them on the ground that it is in the “interest of Nigerians”. Furthermore, the Senator said 24 states are making demands for the inclusion of other issues like “state police” in such a manner that all would be considered.

(ii) This is coming on the heels of Northern governors’ advocacy for State Police, riding on the back of persistent demands for same by the South and further reinforced by Southern Governors during their recent meeting, accentuated by the continuing face-off between Governor Akeredolu and the Central Government on the vexed question of arming state security agencies, and which has become a continuous source of tension between the states and the central Government.

(iii) The Yoruba Referendum Committee also recognizes the fact that “Restructuring” has now become an issue advocated by prominent personalities, including Presidential candidates and State Governors.

(iv) The above makes it abundantly clear that True Federalism must now take the front seat in the emerging political context. Previous ad hoc measures towards this end have failed mainly because of an assumed finality of the administrative units, the states, and not the various Peoples as Federating Units, hence the resort to always tinkering with the flaws in the Constitution through amendments and which has now led to this conundrum, where Senator Omo Agege is accusing 24 State legislatures of engaging in a quid pro quo in this amendment process.

(v) All of the above has given rise to the anti-thesis of Federalism, to wit: “devolution”—including “state Police”, as the ultimate goal. Yet, “Devolution” implies whoever devolves power also retains the capacity to take it back. Pursuit of “devolution” either in an incremental sense or as an end-goal becomes a token for the various Peoples of Nigeria who are further shortchanged by the tokenism embedded in “devolution”. Federalism is the other way round, to wit: the Nations/Peoples decide what powers and responsibilities to yield to the center.

(vi) As the “basic law” of a society, the Constitution embodies the socio-cultural essence of the People; it aggregates their existential paradigms physically manifesting in their administrative territories.

(vii) Hence, the Yoruba Referendum Committee agrees with the Yoruba truism that says one’s head cannot be shaved in his or her absence. All of Nigeria’s Constitutions since 1979 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 various Peoples and Nationalities in Nigeria to, in a Referendum, determine the framework for their aspirations and self-actualization which then become the foundation for Restructuring of Nigeria.

(viii) For the Yoruba, this will be the Yoruba Referendum, as proposed by the Yoruba Referendum Committee. The APC is currently the dominant political party in Yorubaland, with Legislative and Executive powers in its hands. The Party is therefore presently well-suited to endorse the Yoruba Referendum as the route towards re-Federalizing Nigeria.

(ix) The Yoruba Referendum provides a direct, practical, and achievable Pathway because the 1999 Constitution neither conferred upon nor denied the State Legislatures the capability and capacity to organize such a Referendum.

(x) The Referendum question is a "Yes" or "No" as to whether the states should "Federate" into a Regional Administration with a Constitutional Commission that will negotiate on behalf of Yorubaland.

(xi) This Constitutional Commission Legitimately and Legally resolves two issues simultaneously, to wit: it becomes the official Yoruba Leadership as well as providing the basis for negotiating with other Peoples and Nationalities in Nigeria.

(xii) The Yoruba Referendum Committee believes passing the Bill into Law and conducting the Yoruba Referendum by December 2022 will become the vehicle for engaging any incoming Administration towards a Constitutional Conference to arrive at a new Federal Constitution for Nigeria. Preparations for the 2023 elections cannot be an obstacle to this move. Indeed, it will aid in the preparations as it will galvanize the People towards their aspirations.

(xiii) The Bill for a Yoruba Referendum can be domesticated by others in Nigeria, as it will serve as a template even when they are not with a comparable situation with Yorubaland.

(xiv) Following up on this, the Yoruba Referendum Committee initiated a Petition to the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and Ekiti State Houses of Assembly to pass the Bill for a Referendum into Law and conduct the Referendum.

(xv) The Petition can be found here: http://chng.it/ybwX2ZR6Tt.

(xvi) The Yoruba Referendum Committee took this route because the National Assembly, as presently constituted, does not represent the Peoples of Nigeria, and the 1999 Constitution it seeks to amend does not recognize the Peoples as Federating Units; rather, the Peoples were substituted with administrations of the States and Local Governments as “Federating Units”.

(xvii) Furthermore, the process of amending the 1999 Constitution abridges True Federalism in that the required concurrence of 24 states already vitiates True Federalism, for, these states may or may not share similar existential prerogatives as now confirmed by Senator Omo Agege’s allegation of 24 states seeking a quid pro quo before proceeding on the amendment.

(xviii) At this point, we must remind ourselves that the Referendum for the creation of the Mid-Western Region in 1963 was conducted among only the people of the Mid-West and not the whole of Nigeria; the Northern and Southern Cameroon Referendum was carried out among the Peoples of the Cameroons and not with all of Nigeria, even as they were still part of Nigeria; the Scottish Referendum for Independence was conducted among the Scots; the Catalonia Referendum only among the Catalans; Quebec Independence Referendum within the Province of Quebec in Canada.

(xix) In all these instances, National Parliaments exist, yet there were no countrywide Referendums organized by these National Parliaments as the final arbiter of the wishes of the Peoples. There is therefore no reason the various Peoples or Nationalities of Nigeria cannot conduct their own Referendums.

(xx) With all the above, 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 will aid in the resolution of such conflicts.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

The Yoruba Referendum Committee is compelled to respond to Afenifere's Speech read at a Press Conference by Pa Ayo Adebanjo. This is to prevent the re-writing of history in our presence and also call the organization to order, since it assumes it speaks for the entirety of the Yoruba, which is not so.
Hence, the Yoruba Referendum Committee states as follows:

(A) AFENIFERE: “the campaign is tending to ethnicize the campaign instead of making it issue-based. Afenifere has therefore decided to address you today and through you educate the public on the ideological and equitable principles which have influenced our decision”.

Yoruba Referendum Committee: The entire issue of “Zoning”, Federal character” etc., is, by itself, the admission of ethnicity as a reality in Nigeria. It is therefore unhelpful to allege anyone of attempting to act within this reality. The “ideological and equitable principles” are not abstractions but embedded within this reality and is expressed through its application. Hence, when representations on “zoning” or “federal character” are required, the affected “zones” usually put their “best foot forward”. Therefore, Afenifere cannot be admitting the ethnicity embedded in the Nigeria problematic and at the same time running away from it under the cover of “ideological and equitable principles” --- these are principles that are the sole preserve of the “ethnicity” because what is “equitable and ideological principle” for one ethnicity may not be so, for another, as had been shown by the Nigerian experience.

Furthermore, the entire quest for True Federalism is already abjured by an abstract definition of “equity and ideological principle”—for if there were no fundamental existential differences, the necessity for a Federalism based on Ethno-National and Cultural realities will not be the basis for both the Egbe Omo Oduduwa and the Action Group’s advocacy for True Federalism and reiterated by Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s May 1, 1967, Speech to the Yoruba Leaders of Thought meeting in Ibadan.

(B) AFENIFERE: “In this quest for peace, based on equity and inclusiveness, the Yoruba took the first turn at the zoning arrangement in 1999, and that led to the emergence of Chief Obasanjo, the current Vice President is a Yoruba man and equity forbids us for presuming to support another Yoruba person for the presidency in 2023.”

Yoruba Referendum Committee: This is a FALSE rendering of history to which we are all witnesses. The two Yoruba candidates in 1999 came about because of the need to appease the Yoruba on the heels of the annulment and MKO's death. More so when the AD was not even qualified to be registered as a political party going by the requirements of the time and was only registered because the Yoruba, by virtue of the anti-military struggles, had the Nigerian State by the jugular at the time. Hence “Zoning” had absolutely nothing to do with the decisions of the military at that time.

Besides, the then Afenifere leadership supported Chief Olusegun Obasanjo in 2003.

Their reasoning at the time was based on their assumptions that Obasanjo will “restructure”. We are also witnesses to how this step led to the neutralization of the AD in the West, except Lagos. This step was taken by the then Afenifere leadership, despite warnings on Obasanjo by various political forces in the land, including the then Lagos state Governor.

Members of the “Action Group”, a component member of the then Alajobi Coalition, wrote to the Afenifere leadership and made the following statement, to wit: “THE OBASANJO LINE: For the Obasanjo regime, the achievement of his goal of "true federalism" using existing institutions of the Nigerian state 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. And this is to be achieved partly through the creation of alternative and/or new power bases through the instrumentality of presidential patronage. This scheme is more pernicious in Yorubaland where the attempt will be the achievement of the sort of neutralization program that was embarked upon by the Babangida-Abacha-Diya trio.”
Afenifere did not give any consideration to the paper.

This time, Peter Obi has categorically and openly stated that “there is nothing wrong with the 1999 Constitution”. Yet Afenifere says they are supporting him on the basis of “equity and ideological principles”?

(C) AFENIFERE: “We cannot continue to demand that the Igbo people remain in Nigeria, while we at the same time continue to brutally marginalize and exclude them from the power dynamic” .

Yoruba Referendum Committee: Again, the Committee affirms that this is False. The Igbo People have remained in Nigeria and boasting about it. They describe themselves as “nation builders” as if they are the only nation-builders in Nigeria. When they support one of their own, as they are presently doing with Peter Obi, they ascribe it as “nationalism” or “patriotism”; when others support one of their own, it becomes “tribalism”. This has been the nature of Igbo Politics in Nigeria since 1944.

Furthermore, it is not true to state that they are “marginalized and excluded from the power dynamic”. No one prevented Igbo delegates to any of the party conventions from voting for any Igbo candidate. There were Igbo candidates in the PDP when Peter Obi was contesting on the party’s platform. Seeing the writing on the wall, including the reality that Igbo delegates will not vote for him, he went to the Labor Party where the then Igbo candidate, Pat Utomi promptly stepped down for him.
Afenifere will now want us to believe that this is not ethnicizing politics?

Besides, Nigeria’s power politics is the maximum expression of “ethnic balance of power” as reflected in Nigeria’s political contestation for power at the center since Independence which has never been a function of “democracy, justice, equity, or fairness”, but on the balance of forces between the contending parties, mainly between forces of Unitarism and Federalism.

This “ethnic balance of power” is a manifestation of 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 this “ethnic balance of forces” of sustaining Nigeria’s Unitarism 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.
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, playing out within the contest for the presidency.

(D) AFENIFERE: “Afenifere is the Yoruba interpretation of the social welfarist ideology of Action Group, a political party founded by Chief Obafemi Awolowo and his colleagues in 1951 with strong advocacy for federalism as the best form of government to give the federating units the requisite autonomy to thrive and peacefully compete among themselves for the ultimate development of Nigeria.”

Yoruba Referendum Committee: While Afenifere is correct in saying that the word is the “Yoruba interpretation of the social welfarist ideology of the Action Group”, its practice since the “June 12” struggles has combined this philosophy with its organizational expression.
In other words, in 1951, the “Yoruba expression” had no organizational form outside the political party through which it was expressed. With the emergence of NADECO, a new organization known as AFENIFERE emerged and played a significant role in it.
This organizational Afenifere leadership comprised mostly 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) and claimed proprietary rights to both the philosophy as well as the organization.

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 then 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 conflict between AD and Afenifere to a head.

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 can neither dissolve itself into the “new” Afenifere nor become subservient to it, with the added implication that the leader of Afenifere cannot be the leader of the Yoruba.

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 Left and Right tendencies, including all sub-tendencies in-between 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. 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”.

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”. This action on Afenifere’s part informally prevented all other groups, philosophically Afenifere but organizationally distinct, from having any input or stake in “Afenifere’s” organizational structure.

Hence when “Afenifere” promotes itself as the only 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.
CONCLUSION:
It is clear that Afenifere as an organization, with this categorical statement, is at variance with Yoruba historical and contemporary reality. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Yoruba, especially those of the social democratic philosophical orientation, to distance themselves from Afenifere and pursue a course of action towards True Federalism which will not be tainted by Afenifere’s a-historicism.
The Committee makes bold to say that the course of action is in the Yoruba Referendum, where a “Yes” vote, as contained in the Bill, will ensure the emergence of a true Yoruba Leadership.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

2023 ELECTIONS— A response to Prof Banji Akintoye et al.

i. The Yoruba Referendum Committee holds the position that this is not the time to prevaricate on the 2023 elections, despite the lackadaisical attitude of the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Ondo, Osun, and Ekiti State Houses of Assembly towards the Bill for Referendum already placed before them. We hold that this resulted from the lack of sustained pressure by socio-political groups like Afenifere and various self-determination groups to become part of the Yoruba Referendum Committee’s efforts at enabling Yoruba people to pressurize and drag the Houses of Assembly, kicking and screaming, if necessary, to pass the Bill into Law and conduct the Referendum.
ii. We reiterate that the Yoruba Referendum, as a template for Nationality Referendums in Nigeria, is the most peaceful and legitimate pathway towards the necessary Constitutional Re-Formation of Nigeria, the sine qua non of any appreciable economic, social, and cultural development for the Peoples of Nigeria.
iii. We assert that Self-Determination and Electoralism are not parallel but interconnected. Electoralism may become the springboard for self-determination just as self-determination can become the fuel for electoralism, as shown by our experience.
iv. The Egbe Omo Oduduwa was a self-determination movement, based on its anti-colonial pursuits and advocacy of Federalism for an Independent Nigeria. This was later taken up by the Action Group whose electoral pursuits were also based on self-determination for the Peoples of Nigeria, by which the Party was able to demand the creation of more Regions in recognition of the rights of the minorities. Therefore, the line recently drawn separating the two and admonishing them to keep each other at arm’s length, is antithetical to the political nature and context of the quest for self-determination and Yoruba political history.
v. This Manichean division invalidates the political import of Self-Determination itself, while, electorally, the people are potentially disenfranchised. This may result in making the land politically prostrate in such a manner that non-friendly forces will become powerful enough to dictate Yoruba Political trajectory.
vi. Yoruba self-determination does not necessarily need to lead to a Sovereign Yoruba Nation-State. Within the context of Africa’s most recent history, independence resulted in imposing the Nation-State paradigm of the colonial powers, driven by their own experience in Europe. However, its projection into Africa without the sovereignty of the Nationality as the basis for independence ensured all Nationalities were subsumed under the hegemony of a colonially preferred Nationality which has engendered internal conflicts and fueled continuous instability.
vii. Federalism, based on Nationalities, as advocated by the Action Group, was the response and continues to be the response to the colonial Nation-State paradigm, now culminating in a contest between the forces of Unitarism and Federalism, a battle yet to be settled, with 2023 providing another dimension.
viii. Therefore, a replication of the Nation-State paradigm cannot be the answer, but its opposite, the multi-National state, which was and still is, the counter to the Nation-State. It is our contention that setting up new sovereign states in Africa will be detrimental to the present and future of Africa in the sense that new Nation-States cannot emerge simultaneously or around the same historical periods, as each will be dependent on extant global necessities with consequences like those experienced by former Yugoslav Republics.
ix. This is further reinforced by the experience of various Sovereign States emerging out of the USSR, including the break-up of Czechoslovakia at the instance of “Glasnost” and “Perestroika” (Restructuring) introduced in the USSR aimed at re-Federalizing the State Structure of the then Soviet Union but which was mishandled by her military, and which eventually led to its dissolution. This was encouraged by the Western World because its primary enemy, the Soviet Union, had ceased to exist.
x. For Africa, the collapse of the Siad Barre regime in 1991 led to the establishment of a National Somali Government which was rejected by a segment which unilaterally declared its Independence from the central regime. Despite all the trappings of a democratic State, Somaliland’s independence is still unrecognized by either the United Nations or any country in the world. Similarly, South Sudan fought against the North (Sudan) for over 30 years before the intersection of competing National Sovereignties between the US and China eventually enabled the UN to mediate an Independence Referendum.
xi. The above examples show the necessity to transit from the Nation-State paradigm to the Multi-National State as the unfinished business of decolonization as it redefines the State anew, where, instead of one Nationality suppressing the other or becoming antagonistic towards each other, all Nationalities, as victims of colonial plunder, have the ability and capacity to come into being, on their own.
xii. Switzerland is an example, where it was able to overcome its history of inter-Nationality violence by the formation of the Multi-National State, despite its assimilation into western Liberal economic trajectory.
xiii. With the above, it is clear that, within current circumstances, pursuit of Yoruba Sovereignty is inimical to Yoruba self-determination in the sense that the first crucial step towards any form of self-determination is yet to be taken to wit: the reversal of the atomization of Yorubaland and other Nationalities into different contiguous and non-contiguous states, thereby neutralizing the Peoples as Federating Units and replacing them with state administrations.
xiv. This has resulted in the dilution of political and economic power in the Nations in favor of political parties whose centers of gravity do not reside within the Nations, with the attendant effect of inter and intra party squabbles with no direct correlation with the development of the Nations.
xv. Therefore, rather than equivocate on the 2023 Elections, the Yoruba Referendum Committee says this is the time to make the resolution of the National Question, that is, self-determination, an electoral necessity.
xvi. This is because the Presidential category of the 2023 elections has, once again, brought into focus, the National Question in Nigeria, and the necessity for Re-Formation of Nigeria, preferably through Constitutional and non-violent means. This is not only because the three major contenders for the presidency are from the three major Nationalities but also because it marks a continuity with elections since 1959 where the electoral landscape were represented by the three major Nationalities. In 1979, this was increased to five, with each political party largely representing a major Nationality, to wit: UPN(Yoruba); NPP(Igbo); GNPP(Kanuri); NPN(Fulani); PRP(Hausa).
xvii. Despite the reduction of political parties into two by the time of the June 12, 1993, election, the National Question also became an issue because the major contenders from both parties were Yoruba and Kanuri, that is, M.K.O Abiola, Babagana Kingibe(SDP) and Bashir Tofa(NRC). This may partially explain the motive for the annulment.
xviii. Peter Obi of the Labor Party has openly stated that there is nothing wrong with the 1999 Constitution. The Labor Party has thrown its weight behind the amendment to the 1999 Constitution which neutralizes natural indigenship with a 5-year residency as the primary requirement. With the influx of non-Yoruba into Yorubaland and the looming prospects of a 2023 census, it is safe to assume that a demographic change in Yorubaland is in the offing, to be legitimized by the Census.
xix. On its part, the PDP has danced around “devolution” over a period of time. Despite this, the party refused to yield power to its members from the southern part of Nigeria. This made Governor Seyi Makinde (PDP) of Oyo state to lament the impossibility of a party unable to restructure itself being capable of restructuring Nigeria.
xx. Besides, “devolution” is an anti-thesis to Federalism because whoever devolves power also retains the capacity to take it back. It further negates the necessity for the self-expression of the various Nations in Nigeria who had to be “pacified” with whatever the center wishes to hand out. Federalism is the other way round, to wit: the Nations decide what powers and responsibilities to yield to the center.
xxi. This is the reason the Yoruba Referendum Committee defines a new Nigeria as a[b] “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”.[/b]
xxii. As for the APC and its presidential candidate, the resolution of the National Question has taken the back seat, despite the Rufai Committee Report on True Federalism. History may be about to repeat itself vis-a- vis the APC, with a Yoruba/Kanuri Ticket, whose potential victory may be upended either by a real or contrived PDP or Labor Party victory, failing which there is another possibility of an annulment or a contrived crisis leading to a declaration of a Doctrine of Necessity to usher in an Interim Government as being canvassed by some prominent persons.
xxiii. To avert any of these, the Yoruba Referendum Committee calls on the entirety of Yoruba People, regardless of any “self-determination” or electoralist ascription, to support Asiwaju Tinubu’s candidacy while simultaneously demanding that the Houses of Assembly in Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti and Ondo States, as presently constituted, pass the Bill for Referendum into Law. If the Referendum cannot be conducted before the 2023 elections, the Law must be grandfathered into any incoming Assemblies.
xxiv. This is the best guarantee to prevent Yorubaland from being dissolved into another round of agitations were history to repeat itself.

Editorial Board
Yoruba Referendum Committee

Balanced Ticket or Balanced Federation? (7)

First published February 2, 2018. Republished with updates on September 29, 2019; March 8,2020; April 19,2020; July 19,2020; now updated within the context of present circumstances.


It is written:
“Now it came to pass, in the eighteenth year of King Josiah, that the king sent Shaphan the scribe, the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, to the house of the LORD, saying: “Go up to Hilkiah the high priest, that he may count the money which has been brought into the house of the LORD, which the doorkeepers have gathered from the people. And let them deliver it into the hand of those doing the work, who are the overseers in the house of the LORD; let them give it to those who are in the house of the LORD doing the work, to repair the damages of the house— to carpenters and builders and masons—and to buy timber and hewn stone to repair the house. However, there need be no accounting made with them of the money delivered into their hand, because they deal faithfully.” Then Hilkiah the high priest said to Shaphan the scribe, “I have found the Book of the Law in the house of the LORD.” And Hilkiah gave the book to Shaphan, and he read it. So, Shaphan the scribe went to the king, bringing the king word, saying, “Your servants have gathered the money that was found in the house, and have delivered it into the hand of those who do the work, who oversee the house of the LORD.” Then Shaphan the scribe showed the king, saying, “Hilkiah the priest has given me a book.” And Shaphan read it before the king. Now it happened, when the king heard the words of the Book of the Law, that he tore his clothes”. (2 Kings 22: 3-11)

King Josiah tore his clothes because he was unaware of the Law, and therefore had not been fulfilling its commandments.

Your predisposition to addressing developmental issues, both as Governor of Lagos State and now as the Presidential contender are anchored on your ability to recognize, encourage, and promote talent and their worth for “doing the work”.

Yet, the necessity to read and put into practice, the “Book of the Law” supersedes these capabilities.

Therefore, hear this voice and it shall be well with you and by extension, all the Nationalities in Nigeria.

You are arguably the most effective political leader from Yorubaland today, regardless of any assumptions as a pan-Nigerian leader. You are engaged in a life and death struggle with the forces of darkness ravaging Nigeria. It must be restated that the fortunes of Yoruba Nation as a major factor in Global African Emancipation is not limited to Nigeria’s geo-political confines and therefore cannot be constrained by it.
You must know that historically, all efforts at mixing the fortunes of the Yoruba with that of the Nigerian colonial architecture had always ended up in misfortune for the Yoruba. And it is not fortuitous that the only manifestation of our potentials was through the attainment of Autonomous Self-Government between 1951 and 1959.

This is not an advocacy for Yoruba Exceptionalism. Our history testifies to this, where it is on record that we are a welcoming and tolerant people, very liberal to non-Yoruba people and proved by our existentialism, where we were the first among the various Nationalities in Nigeria to advocate for a “Balanced Federation” along Ethno-National, Lingual lines, through the instrumentality of Egbe Omo Oduduwa, whose 1945 Constitution stated, among others, “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” hence the agitation for creating more Regions championed by the West/Yoruba as Nations for, and in, themselves.

This was what led to the Willinks Commission, whose Report in 1958 recommended plebiscites for Minorities alongside boundary adjustments which, if implemented, would have led to a Balanced Federation.

The North and the East prevented its implementation.

Yet, it was the road towards a Balanced Federation, with emphasis on Minorities
.
It was, and still is, the “Book of the Law”.

It is gathering dust somewhere, just as the “Book of the Law” was, before it was found.

It has now been found because the 2023 contest for the Presidency has thrown up contestants from the three major Nationalities.
This was the situation during the time of the Willinks Commission, with the three major parties representing the three major Nationalities, and the question of Minorities loomed large in the quest for a Balanced Federation.

It must become the basis for engaging all the Nationalities towards a Balanced Federation for Nigeria.

You are aware that all attempts to dissolve Nationality particularities into Nigerian generalities have always ended disastrously for the Yoruba.
Nationality prerogatives trumped religious solidarity; therefore, while it is known that you do not play up your religious affiliations, you must recognize the role of Nationality in any quest for political power in Nigeria.

Yoruba National Imperatives have become subordinated to a pan-Nigerian agenda, all in the name of developing Nigeria into a modern geo-political entity. Yet, for the North and East, it is their raison d’etre; that is, controlling the center is its own end because they were and still are, against a “Balanced Federation”.

This was manifested in all their efforts at achieving power at the center, revolving around alliances between the two, as witnessed in the following: 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 Nigeria’s Unitarism by deflecting the “June 12” struggle, railroading the Yoruba into a “democratic” course without its essential element, to wit, a valid Constitution and subsequent elections since then, anchored on different types of alignments and realignments of various political forces in order to take power.

None of these pursued a “Balanced Federation” as its own end.

50 years after political Independence in Africa, the anti-Federal colonial architecture cannot engender any form of development for her various Peoples. Rather, the continent becomes merely a playground for International economic forces with a capability to reproduce its own internal elites for continuation of its economic hegemony while her hapless Peoples continue to wallow in deep material poverty as well as of consciousness.

Sustaining this economic playground requires a political façade, often procured through periodic cycle of elections usually dubbed as democracy, where victors in all African countries seem to have only one prescription for Africa’s development, which is always 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.

This is so, because the political agenda is yet to be fulfilled; such agenda being the imposition of one Ethno-Nationality over the others to bring about the homogenization of the cultures into one under the suzerainty of the other.

This is the cause of inter-Nationality conflicts on the continent where one colonially favored Nationality seeks to impose its status on the rest and the cycle of violence goes on while the post-colonial state continues its economic parasitism unmolested.

Chief Obafemi Awolowo attempted to reverse this phenomenon by combining the best of capitalist development and its social imperatives with a decidedly Yoruba world view. He also attempted to introduce this paradigm into the rest of Nigeria, with each Nationality/Culture as its own paradigm and the story of what happened to him is very well known.

Nigeria’s forces of darkness will avoid going for your jugular, that is, your physical annihilation lest you become another icon in the mold of Awo and MKO. But they will attempt to decapitate you with a debilitating strike, physically and politically.

This has started in earnest, and it is not subtle, it is a “roforofo” fight. To your credit, you will not give up easily as doing so is not your habit; you will fight with all your strength, but you need to change the narrative.

You need to change the name of the game now that you are contesting for President. Your strength, that is, political savviness, strategic impulses, historical astuteness will not lead to the required victory of the Nations in Nigeria. The victory does not lie in simply becoming Nigeria’s president, so this is not a matter of a new coalition for power and certainly does not lie in retaining Nigeria’s current political and economic formations.

You must identify the golden bullet for victory. It is already available, through the “Book of the Law”, waiting to be picked up.
Self-Determination/Autonomy for all the Peoples of Nigeria is the key. Any form of temporary or permanent coalition for power must be anchored on Self-Determination/Autonomy for all.

That is the golden bullet.

Wale Odeku
That which I have heard from the Lord of Hosts, the God of Israel, I have declared to you.

Balanced Ticket or Balanced Federation? (6)

ON OBEDIENCE (2)


It is written:

Then all the elders of Israel gathered together and came to Samuel at Ramah, and said to him, “Look, you are old, and your sons do not walk in your ways. Now make us a king to judge us like all the nations.” But the thing displeased Samuel when they said, “Give us a king to judge us.” So, Samuel prayed to the LORD. And the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed the voice of the people in all that they say to you; for they have not rejected you, but they have rejected Me, that I should not reign over them. According to all the works which they have done since the day that I brought them up out of Egypt, even to this day—with which they have forsaken Me and served other gods—so they are doing to you also. Now therefore, heed their voice. However, you shall solemnly forewarn them, and show them the behavior of the king who will reign over them.” So, Samuel told all the words of the LORD to the people who asked him for a king. And he said, “This will be the behavior of the king who will reign over you: He will take your sons and appoint them for his own chariots and to be his horsemen, and some will run before his chariots. He will appoint captains over his thousands and captains over his fifties, will set some to plow his ground and reap his harvest, and some to make his weapons of war and equipment for his chariots. He will take your daughters to be perfumers, cooks, and bakers. And he will take the best of your fields, your vineyards, and your olive groves, and give them to his servants. He will take a tenth of your grain and your vintage and give it to his officers and servants. And he will take your male servants, your female servants, your finest young men, and your donkeys, and put them to his work. He will take a tenth of your sheep. And you will be his servants. And you will cry out in that day because of your king whom you have chosen for yourselves, and the LORD will not hear you in that day.” Nevertheless, the people refused to obey the voice of Samuel; and they said, “No, but we will have a king over us, that we also may be like all the nations, and that our king may judge us and go out before us and fight our battles.” And Samuel heard all the words of the people, and he repeated them in the hearing of the LORD. So, the LORD said to Samuel, “Heed their voice, and make them a king.”
(1 Samuel 8: 4-22)

Although the message was directed at the children of Israel, not the entire world as it was known at the time, it is relevant to the Church in Nigeria today. This is because of the possible impact their actions or inactions can bring upon the various Nationalities of Nigeria.
It also shows that a people may be made to be aware of the consequences of their actions yet refuse to heed the warning and either sleepwalk into the problem or with their eyes wide open.
Without its own paradigm, anchored on the Scripture, the Church will continually fall for the worn “balanced ticket” mantra without making a dent on the problematic of the various Nationalities and become complicit in their continuous oppression as this will negatively affect the internal political trajectory of the Nationalities.
The Middle Belt has endured the most flooding in terms of their human and material losses. Therefore, making a “balanced ticket” paramount is akin to sentencing them to further “enemy action” especially when the “balanced ticket” has sustained Babylon since 1966.
It will be another farce in history, and this time, it will be a “tragic farce”.
This is confirmed by Peter Obi, which the Church leaders are directly and indirectly promoting from the pulpit, spiritualizing the “obidients”, covering them with the cloak of their offices as pastors and preachers.
With the Labor Party as his vehicle, he has defended the 1999 Constitution, saying that it is not the problem, that the problem is the leadership to run it, whilst also endorsing the Constitutional amendment recognizing anyone who has spent 5 years in any community as an Indigene.
This works primarily against Christians in the Middle Belt whose lands are being systematically taken over.
The Church, including Yoruba Christians, would have become the vehicle to sleepwalk the Nations into further captivity; for the Church would have enabled further Unitarization which the Labor Party stands for.
Human reasoning and wisdom suggest that a useful product is a product of the environment from which it emerges. Therefore, if the leadership is bad, its enabling environment must be bad, otherwise, the environment should be able to take care of it.
Nigeria has been going downhill with bad leadership anchored on a “balanced ticket” since the promulgation of Decree 24 as the 1999 Constitution and which was not even made available to the contending political parties. Hence the victors in 1999 were sworn in without their having a clue as to the contents of the Constitution which they swore by.
Among the “obidient” Church leaders are those with places of worship in Abuja, Nigeria’s capital city.
The “Original Inhabitants Development Association” of the Federal Capital Territory (Abuja), is an association of displaced Indigenous owners of the land, who are mainly Christians and who are demanding political recognition and self-government as Indigenes, even within the context of a “balanced ticket-driven” Nigerian State. The 1999 Constitution rejected their claims.
They have been displaced from their lands with no compensation paid. Their lands are vested in the central government who appoints administrators and ministers for the FCT, without any consideration given to the original Inhabitants.
Their demand does not feature with the “obidients”, the Church and its candidate are now reinforcing it.
The United Nations held its annual International World’s Indigenous Peoples Day on August 9, 2022. The Church, gung-ho on a “balanced ticket” did nothing.
Being “obidient” is therefore not only the political preferences of those on the Pulpit, clothed in Scriptural robes but also the road to nailing the coffin of the Nationalities in Nigeria, specifically Minorities in the North, who are mainly Christians.
It is written:
Now it came to pass at the end of seven days that the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me: When I say to the wicked, ‘You shall surely die,’ and you give him no warning, nor speak to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life, that same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood I will require at your hand. Yet, if you warn the wicked, and he does not turn from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but you have delivered your soul. “Again, when a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits iniquity, and I lay a stumbling block before him, he shall die; because you did not give him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he has done shall not be remembered; but his blood I will require at your hand. Nevertheless, if you warn the righteous man that the righteous should not sin, and he does not sin, he shall surely live because he took warning; also, you will have delivered your soul.”
(Ezekiel 3:17-21)

To be OBEDIENT to God is to carry the flag of the Standard lifted up by the Spirit of the Lord.

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.
Wale Odeku

Balanced Ticket or Balanced Federation? (5)


Deviating from addressing the false premise of the Constitution and by extension the foundation upon which the “balanced ticket” is being advanced, Pastors and church leaders have begun to validate Scriptural truths with political slogans. Political slogans, by definition, are shifty and can be portrayed in any manner by any political operative.
Scriptural truths are validated by the Scripture itself.

Therefore, when preachers and church leaders, in this political season, “warn” their congregations that those who “disobey God will reap the rewards of disobedience”, they are directly turning their political preference, Peter Obi, into a god.
Peter Obi’s political supporters self-identify as “obidients”, which his opponents counter with “obituary”. Other formulations may yet be on the horizon.

When pastors and church leaders predicate their sermons on Obedience as a Scriptural Truth with a direct and indirect endorsement of a political slogan and therefore the candidate, they have subjected Scriptural Truth to carnal authority and influences, confirming what the Scripture says about such pastors and preachers.

It is written:
“Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. Her prophets plastered them with untempered mortar, seeing false visions, and divining lies for them, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,’ when the LORD had not spoken. (Ezekiel 22: 26, 28)

They justify their admonition to their congregations by citing Prophet Samuel’s pronouncement on King Saul, who had tried to hide his disobedience under the canopy of “obeying God’s instructions” when he was only following the dictates of his “flesh” anchored on his role and authority as king, performing this role to dispense “justice”, thereby conflating his carnality with the Spirit.
In these perilous times, we must be able to differentiate between the works of the flesh, which elections are, and the Spirit, which emanates from the inerrant Word of God, but now being corrupted by using the Pulpit to cover the works of the flesh in Spiritual garb.

Church leaders exercise authority because of, and behind the Pulpit just as the king exercises authority by virtue of his position in the administration of the State.

This is where the separation, and collaboration, of Church and State occurs simultaneously. The State is administered by human laws aimed at the good of the society, applying human wisdom and which may or may not be reinforced with Godly wisdom.

Hence, the Scripture reminds us of kings like Jehoash, Azariah et al, guided by Godly wisdom and who “did what was right in the sight of the Lord”; Jehoahaz, Pekahiah, et al, who rejected Godly wisdom and who “did evil in the sight of the Lord”.

These pastors’ promotion of a “balanced ticket” hinges on the rhetorical, thereby turning the entire mission of Jesus Christ on its head.
Jesus Christ neither began nor conducted His ministry based on any rhetoric of the moment, or any assumptions on what Satan or even the Pharisees or tax collectors did or could do.
His anointing was enough.

It is written:
“And He was handed the book of the prophet Isaiah. And when He had opened the book, He found the place where it was written: The Spirit of the LORD is upon Me, Because He has anointed Me, To preach the gospel to the poor;
He has sent Me to heal the brokenhearted, To proclaim liberty to the captives, And recovery of sight to the blind, To set at liberty those who are oppressed; To proclaim the acceptable year of the LORD.” Then He closed the book and gave it back to the attendant and sat down. And the eyes of all who were in the synagogue were fixed on Him. And He began to say to them, “Today this Scripture is fulfilled in your hearing.” (Luke 4:17-21)

Therefore, followers of Christ cannot proceed on the rhetoric of the moment, to wit: would Muslims vote for a Christian-Christian ticket? This can further be replicated to ask: what if Obi is not a Presidential contestant? Would “obidients” exist? Would this absence negate the need for Obedience to God, even in this political season? Other rhetorical questions can be devised, showing the limitations of rhetoric.
The Scripture is not rhetorical but absolute truth.

Christians must therefore act on the Scriptural truth stated clearly by our Lord Jesus Christ, to ensure justice, progress, and peace for the society.
The question, therefore, is not about “Balanced Ticket” but “Balanced Federation” upon which Independence was attained and whose period signified the only reference point for socio-economic development in Nigeria and which would be beneficial to Christians, especially in the North.

This is because Nigeria has had Christian Presidents; had, and currently has a "balanced ticket", all of which made no impact on what the Pulpit is promoting as Christian anxieties today.

Merely replicating more of the same things that have not addressed the problem is not Godly wisdom.

Human wisdom acknowledges this truism with the aphorism, to wit: insanity is doing the same over and over and expecting a different result.
Human wisdom says history repeats itself, first time as tragedy, second time as farce.

Obasanjo, the Christian President, solidified the negation of the “Balanced Federation” in his first coming as the military Head of State.
History repeated itself, as a tragedy, in his second coming as the civilian president when he simply looked the other way when Islamic fundamentalism was taking root in the North, dismissing it as mere “politics”. He even condemned the Christian Association of Nigeria.
Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian was President. He made a foray into reestablishing Nigeria as a “balanced Federation”, hoping to piggyback on earlier attempts by previous administrations but failed to ensure that the Peoples take control of the process. A major participant from Yorubaland, a Christian, glibly dismissed the exercise by saying “we went there to play”. That is, the entire conference was a playground.
It was a farce.

Godly wisdom is the prevention and transcendence of both the tragedy and the farce.

Yet, Christians must vote, as they had been voting all along. The question this time around is to channel the votes in such a manner as will change the course of earlier attempts at addressing the fundamental question facing the Peoples of Nigeria.

This starts from acknowledging the word of the Lord in the resolution.

It is written:
“For thus has the Lord said to me: “Go, set a watchman, Let him declare what he sees.” ….. And look, here comes a chariot of men with a pair of horsemen!” Then he answered and said, “Babylon is fallen, is fallen! And all the carved images of her gods He has broken to the ground.”
(Isaiah 21:6-9)

For Nigeria, “Babylon” is the oppressive Post-Colonial Nation-State where, contrived or not, “the enemy has come in like a flood” enveloping the entire country.
A Nation-State is what it says it is, that is, a State Apparatus anchored on the Nationality making up the country. The break-up of the Holy Roman Empire led to the formation of various European Nation States, largely culturally and linguistically homogenous, formalized by the 1648 Treaty of Westphalia, and which subsequently became what is now known as the “modern Nation-State”.
This was the form of State forced on the various multi-Cultural and multi-Lingual Peoples of Africa by the colonial power, and in Nigeria’s case, the basis for the 1914 Amalgamation. Therefore, the oft-repeated mantra of the indivisibility of Nigeria as a Nation-State has become the god with carved images.
These carved images are the Apparatus of State, legitimized and validated by a Constitution aimed at homogenizing the various Peoples into a Nation-State and upon which other images of administration are carved out.
Hence the Nigerian Post-Colonial State and its carved images have broken to the ground when it has become inundated with and overwhelmed by insecurity, economic hemorrhage, political instability in an increasing manner since 1999.
Which human wisdom defines as a “failed” or “failing” State.

Wale Odeku
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.

Balanced Ticket or balanced Federation (4)
It is written:
“Now the Philistines gathered their armies together to battle, and were gathered at Sochoh, which belongs to Judah; they encamped between Sochoh and Azekah, in Ephes Dammim. And Saul and the men of Israel were gathered together, and they encamped in the Valley of Elah, and drew up in battle array against the Philistines. The Philistines stood on a mountain on one side, and Israel stood on a mountain on the other side, with a valley between them. And a champion went out from the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, from Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span. He had a bronze helmet on his head, and he was armed with a coat of mail, and the weight of the coat was five thousand shekels of bronze. And he had bronze armor on his legs and a bronze javelin between his shoulders. Now the staff of his spear was like a weaver’s beam, and his iron spearhead weighed six hundred shekels; and a shield-bearer went before him. Then he stood and cried out to the armies of Israel, and said to them, “Why have you come out to line up for battle? Am I not a Philistine, and you the servants of Saul? Choose a man for yourselves and let him come down to me. If he is able to fight with me and kill me, then we will be your servants. But if I prevail against him and kill him, then you shall be our servants and serve us.” And the Philistine said, “I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together.” When Saul and all Israel heard these words of the Philistine, they were dismayed and greatly afraid. (1 Samuel 17: 1-11).

Goliath, decked in his armor, spreading fear, and terrorizing the children of Israel. In a comparable manner the Hausa-Fulani Hegemony, using fear(insecurity) and terrorism, especially on the Northern Minorities, who are mainly Christians.
In 1962, terrorism was reinforced by the establishment of the Nigerian Mobile Police Force, also known as “kill and go”, specifically aimed at destroying the Tiv People of the Middle Belt, in a process known as “pacification”.
This was one of the consequences of NPC’s rejection of the Willink Commission Report.
In 2022, David Babachir Lawal, a Christian and a Minority from the North, whose territory was to be a beneficiary of a Plebiscite is now the champion of a Christian “push” for a “balanced Ticket”, oblivious to the history of his own people.
His initial angst was not on religious grounds but Ethno-National, signifying the submission to the fear and terrorism imposed on Northern Minorities, mainly Christians, by the Hausa-Fulani Hegemony.

For context and understanding, it is necessary to quote Babachir Lawal extensively.
In response to Bola Tinubu, the APC presidential candidate’s speech in Yoruba Language, David Babachir Lawal stated thus:
“Now all these comments about Bola’s Yoruba presidency and his support of Buhari without which Buhari would not have been president is totally out of place.” “Sometimes it is very difficult to support a Yoruba person in national politics if you are not one. They have a way of making you regret your support because they eventually make you seem like a trap to your own people. Now all these comments about Bola’s Yoruba presidency and his support of Buhari without which Buhari would not have been president is bu****it.” He said, “You would think Yorubas will resist the temptation of joining in the northerners-bashing game at this very critical time – the primary election is only three days away, but it unfortunately that Bola himself chose to join in this bashing game – choosing to speak in the Yoruba language and in Yoruba land in a manner that seems to denigrate Buhari. I could vividly imagine the discomfort of all the northerners sitting beside him on that podium.” “Just survey all the people that are doing more meaningful practical things to enthroned Bola as president and you will find that almost all are northerners while his kinsmen engage themselves in social media activism and Northern bashing. “When Yorubas vilify the North like this, our sense of fear and insecurity under a Yoruba presidency gets heightened and, in the end, pushes us to rethink our support for not only Bola but any Yoruba as president for that matter.”

His statement shows that he was not so much concerned with Christians in general or those in the North in particular, but on what he called “Northern Interest” which has now been transformed into a “balanced ticket” and easily lapped up by the Christian Association of Nigeria, the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria and many Pastors, Preachers, using their Pulpits to mislead their congregations.
Yet, David did not allow himself to be paralyzed with fear. The freedom of his people, anchored on his knowledge of his God and the God of Israel, enabled him to confront Goliath, despite attempts by his brothers to talk him out of it.
David’s response to his brothers’ questioning is apt in David Babachir Lawal’s context.
It is written:
And David said, “What have I done now? Is there not a cause?” (1 Samuel 17:29)

For David, the “cause” was in defeating Goliath so his People can be free.
“Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword, with a spear, and with a javelin. But I come to you in the name of the LORD of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have defied. This day the LORD will deliver you into my hand, and I will strike you and take your head from you. And this day I will give the carcasses of the camp of the Philistines to the birds of the air and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel”
(1 Samuel 17:45-47)

For David Babachir Lawal, his “cause” was in strengthening the oppression of his People by reinforcing and reiterating the necessity for the Yoruba to submit to “northerners”, even in Yorubaland. When this failed, he resorted to espousing the “marginalization of Christians” mantra, when this was not even a part of his response to Bola Tinubu.

David struck Goliath with precision, at the opening in his armor.


It is written:
“So it was, when the Philistine arose and came and drew near to meet David, that David hurried and ran toward the army to meet the Philistine. Then David put his hand in his bag and took out a stone; and he slung it and struck the Philistine in his forehead, so that the stone sank into his forehead, and he fell on his face to the earth. So, David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone and struck the Philistine and killed him. But there was no sword in the hand of David”.
(1 Samuel 17:48-50)

David Babachir Lawal did not and does not care about the opening in the Hausa-Fulani armor.
God is in none of his thoughts.
For, there is an opening in the Hausa-Fulani Hegemony’s armor, wider than the opening on Goliath’s.
The huge opening is in Nigeria’s faulty foundation anchored on the 1999 Constitution upon which the continuous oppression of Northern Minorities rests and which is also the reaffirmation of the rejection of the Willink Commission Report which would have ensured a “Balanced Federation”.
This is more glaring when the Preamble to the 1999 Constitution is taken into consideration.
The Preamble to the 1999 Constitution states: “We the People of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, having firmly and solemnly resolve, to live in unity and harmony as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation under God, dedicated to the promotion of inter-African solidarity, world peace, international co-operation and understanding and to provide for a Constitution for the purpose of promoting the good government and welfare of all persons in our country, on the principles of freedom, equality and justice, and for the purpose of consolidating the unity of our people, do hereby make, enact and give to ourselves the following Constitution….”

Even though a Preamble does not by itself validate the Constitution, it embodies what the Constitution is all about.

If, in legal terms, this Preamble does not, by itself, grant any powers and rights not specified in the Constitution, it cannot, itself being a statement of the principles in this Constitution, be based on a false premise.
That such a premise as “We The People” is false implies that the entire principles, powers and rights it purports to embody are also false since “We, The People” had no hand in its making, directly or indirectly, as it was a product of military fiat which was not acting and did not act on behalf of “We, The People”, even as, by so doing, the producers of this Constitution unwittingly affirmed the Peoples’ sovereignty.
This is what should be of concern to Christians all over Nigeria, and particularly in the North.
The Christian Association of Nigeria, the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, Church Leaders, and Overseers are to educate their congregations on the centrality of the Willink Commission Report as the pathway towards a “Balanced Federation” as the solution to questions about discrimination, marginalization, insecurity, terrorism, banditry etc. They must not stampede their Congregations into taking unproductive actions in the name of God.
(To be continued)

He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches

“Balanced Ticket” or “Balanced Federation” (3)

It is written:
The word of the Lord came to me again, saying, “What do you mean when you use this proverb concerning the land of Israel, saying: ‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes, And the children’s teeth are set on edge’? (Ezekiel 18: 1-2)

“Therefore, I will judge you, O house of Israel, everyone according to his ways,” says the Lord God. “Repent, and turn from all your transgressions, so that iniquity will not be your ruin. Cast away from you all the transgressions which you have committed and get yourselves a new heart and a new spirit. For why should you die, O house of Israel? For I have no pleasure in the death of one who dies,” says the Lord God. “Therefore, turn and live!” (Ezekiel 18:30-32)

After Independence, the Northern representatives who had denied Minorities in 1958 entered an alliance with the East, including areas now known as the South-South Zone, who are largely Christians and ignored the creation of more Regions demanded by the West, to allay the fears of the Minorities. But the Alliance conducted a Referendum in the West, simply to “cut the West to size”, despite her large Christian presence.

This was the geo-political foundation of the creation of States, largely in favor of the North. Nigeria’s fundamental problems can be traced to this gang up between the East and the North, comprising both Christians and Muslims.

This Alliance was repeated in 1979. The Middle Belt, largely Christians, joined the East in entering another Alliance with the North, even though they were to be major beneficiaries of the Action Group’s demand for more Regions and whom the Action Group had supported materially and politically, before and after Independence.

Several military and civilian administrations followed on the footsteps of the Willink Commission, ostensibly to address the same issues, by establishing committees and commissions, ranging from 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” and APC’s Committee on Restructuring, with various “zonal consultations”.

Their reports were never subjected to any Plebiscite or Referendums by the various Peoples in the various Zones, for affirmation or rejection, thereby reaffirming the decision made in 1958 at the time of the Willink Commission to deny the various Peoples the opportunity and right to a Plebiscite or Referendum to validate, legalize and legitimize their aspirations.
The deliberate denial of the peoples’ right to take a stand on their aspirations and expectations as a People was replaced with palliatives like “Federal Character”, “Zoning”, “power rotation”, “religious balance” etc.
Christians in the North, East and Middle Belt must therefore reverse the “sins of their fathers”.
It may be said that the current generation of Christians in the North, East and Middle Belt are facing the consequences of the actions of their “fathers”. Not necessarily so.

For, the current generation can “turn and live”.

With 2023 as the chance to turn around the permanent subjugation of the Peoples whose foundation was laid by the rejection of the Willink Commission Report in 1958 with the acquiescence of Christians in the North, Middle Belt, and the East.
Christians must begin to work towards the necessity for the transformation of Nigeria into a True Federation with the PEOPLES as the recognized Federating entities through Referendums among their Peoples as Federating Units as the route towards recreating Nigeria as a Multi-National State.

Beginning with advocating for Nationality Referendums, akin to what the Willink Commission recommended and now, in conjunction with other Reports from the various Conferences referenced earlier.
The Christian Association of Nigeria and the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria are plastering the walls of Labor Party with untempered mortar.
Pastor Ayo Oritsejeafor was President of Christian Association of Nigeria when Goodluck Jonathan, a Christian, was Nigeria’s president. At the time, Pastor Oritsejeafor promoted the notion that only religious leaders and not President Jonathan can end insecurity in the Northern Region of Nigeria.

First, this is an indirect way of absolving the President of any responsibility; second, the church or religious leaders have also failed in this responsibility because terrorism continues to fester, till date.
Therefore, the solution cannot be in pursuing more of the same, it must lie somewhere else; after all, President Jonathan’s administration was a “balanced ticket”.
Focusing on “balanced ticket” rather than “Balanced Federation” shows that plastering the walls of Nigeria with untempered mortar is a continuous exercise by the church leaders.
Currently, the Church pastors and leaders are directly or indirectly instructing their congregations to “collect their PVC” and of course, vote for Labor Party simply because its candidate is a Christian.
But what does the candidate and the party represent as far as the question of Minorities, and therefore, the Peoples are concerned? What have they represented such that it has now become the beacon to Christians?

Labor Party is standing firmly within the ambit of reinforcing Nigeria’s faulty Constitutional foundation, supporting the current amendment to the 1999 Constitution, with provisions strengthening the status quo; attempting to neutralize God-given natural boundaries; entrenching further centralization of power in the center.

The Nigeria Labor Congress, which is its political base, has become a bureaucratic machine of Unitarization, on the same page with the Constitutional Amendment on “Local Government Autonomy” which effectively removes local Governance from the purview of the states, contrary to the basic tenets of Federalism. It has thrown its weight behind homogeneity by depriving Indigenes the sole right to determine their Indigeneity. This is more so for Christians in the North, whose communities are already victims of Fulani Lebensraum, with Emirs as their traditional rulers. The Emirate System is a specific Fulani mode of local governance.

It is therefore incumbent on Christians to utilize the current situation as their platform for engagement to Restructure Nigeria into a Multi-National State 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 advantages of this form of State include but not limited to: (i) permanently resolve the North/South, Christian/Muslim divides, “Federal Character”, “Zoning” etc. by representation of the “Zones” or Nationality in the Federal Council. (ii) It will significantly reduce monetization of politics as no one will need to campaign all over the country to be elected or selected into the Federal Council. (iii) It will ensure the redefinition of “security” to be anchored on the needs and capacities of the Peoples in their own environments. (iv) It will reverse the atomization of “Minorities” in the North by the political reconfiguration that will emerge, akin to the expectations of the Willink Commission on “boundary adjustment”.

A side note: 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 one of the pillars of Democracy in the United States.

In comparable manner, the Federating Unit will become the “electors” to select or elect its representatives to the Federal Council and whose decisions cannot be overturned except by the Federating Unit itself.

Wale Odeku
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.

“Balanced Ticket” or “Balanced Federation”

It is written:

“And the word of the LORD came to me, saying, “Son of man, say to her: ‘You are a land that is not cleansed or rained on in the day of indignation.’ The conspiracy of her prophets in her midst is like a roaring lion tearing the prey; they have devoured people; they have taken treasure and precious things; they have made many widows in her midst. Her priests have violated My law and profaned My holy things; they have not distinguished between the holy and unholy, nor have they made known the difference between the unclean and the clean; and they have hidden their eyes from My Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. Her princes in her midst are like wolves tearing the prey, to shed blood, to destroy people, and to get dishonest gain. Her prophets plastered them with untempered mortar, seeing false visions, and divining lies for them, saying, ‘Thus says the Lord GOD,’ when the LORD had not spoken. The people of the land have used oppressions, committed robbery, and mistreated the poor and needy; and they wrongfully oppress the stranger. So, I sought for a man among them who would make a wall and stand in the gap before Me on behalf of the land, that I should not destroy it; but I found no one”.
(Ezekiel 22: 23-30).

The word of the Lord reflects the happenings in the land, to which we are all witnesses.
The “princes”, those in and with authority, condoning or endorsing or indifferent or helpless against the “wolves” tearing the prey. The “wolves”, State and non-State actors, tearing the Peoples, the “prey”.
The Prophets, plastering the “princes” and their rule with untempered mortar, by way of acquiescing to their narrative by which the “wolves” continue to prey on the Peoples because of its faulty foundation, the 1999 Constitution, which effectively deprived the Peoples the ability to challenge the “wolves” as an existential necessity.
Rather, they are gung-ho about “prophecies”, “divinations”, “predictions” about who will win or lose an election of and by the “princes”, without throwing any light on how such a win or loss will neutralize the “wolves”.
Their “collective authority”, Christian Association of Nigeria, and the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, not lacking in lamentations but unable to find a man within, to stand in the gap.
These organizations did not stand in the gap throughout the tenure of previous “princes”, with Chief Obasanjo and Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, professed Christians, as presidents. On the contrary, they wholeheartedly embraced these “princes”, reinforcing their rule while the “wolves” prey on the Peoples.
Today, one of them is the Vice President, a Pastor, and member of the Executive of one of the largest congregations in Nigeria. Another, a Pastor is the Governor of Benue State, with another Christian as his Deputy. Benue State can easily be described as the epicenter of terrorist activity against Christian and “minority” communities in Nigeria.
Yet, the Pastor-Governor is a member of the PDP, under whose Christian Presidents terrorism advanced. His only discernible action is to merely lament.
God seeking for a man among this “collective authority” who would make a wall and stand in the gap on behalf of the Peoples.
He found no one.
The Prophets had the opportunity to stand in the gap; they failed to use it.
To stand in the gap, all the Prophets need to do is to ask the Vice President to resign his office with the justifiable reason, to wit: the inability of the administration he is serving to contain atrocities conducted against the Peoples by the “wolves”, the State and non-state actors.
To stand in the gap, all the Christian Vice President needs to do is to volunteer to resign, using the same justification.
To stand in the gap, all the pastor-Governor needs to do is to develop and promote an alternative architecture of State that will accommodate a new security architecture, not only for his state but also the entire country. And supported by the Christian Vice President, the Christian Association of Nigeria, and the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria. None was forthcoming. He was embedded within the “princes” of the PDP which ended up snubbing the entire south in choosing its presidential candidate.
If any of the roads had been taken, the Buhari Administration would have been left with no choice but to appoint another Christian who will have to make a public pledge to tackle the “wolves” and be seen to be doing it or simply acquiesce.
If no such Christian is forthcoming, the administration will have to appoint another Muslim.
If any of the roads had been taken, the on-going “Muslim-Muslim problematic”, officially and continuously fueled by the Christian Association of Nigeria and the Pentecostal Fellowship of Nigeria, would have been directly confronted, not as an electoral project, but as fundamental to the Architecture of the Nigerian State.
None of the roads was taken because the Prophets were busy plastering the walls with untempered mortar.
They do this by subjecting themselves to the narratives imposed by the “princes” woven around “ticket balancing”, “rotation”, “zoning” etc. without providing alternative approaches to the question in its totality, which is the purpose of the Gospel itself. This, despite the utilization and inadequacy of these schemes since the return of power to the civilian “princes” in 1999.
They are supposed to be the light but have become performers within the darkness, unable to be the light by whose appearance the darkness disappears. They therefore could not stand in the gap despite the glaring necessity for it.
God looked outside them and found those who will.
And this comes with a warning from God: “you, son of man, do not be afraid of them, nor be afraid of their words….” After which God declared: “Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; therefore, hear a word from My mouth, and give them warning from Me.” (Ezekiel 3: 17)
The word of the Lord comes with the history of God’s intervention and interactions, reminding the Peoples of what He has done and what He will do, as a measure of His consistency.
Consequently, to follow His footsteps, we must also look at the history of the “princes” and the “wolves”.
Without going too far into historical beginnings, we can all relate with the colonial experience with the “princes”.
Colonialism attempted to forge the various Peoples of Nigeria into “one”, turning them into exiles in their own land by alienating them from directly exhibiting their God-given abilities to manifest as part of humanity.
In doing this, colonialism disregarded the history of Europe itself, largely influenced by Christianity, when the various Nation-States in Europe arose after the collapse of the Holy Roman Empire.
These Nation-States were and still are largely monolingual and monocultural which they forced on the multilingual and multi-cultural Peoples of their colonies.
This was what led to the advocacy of Federalism by the Action Group, primarily influential in the then Western Region, because of the party’s belief that the best form of State for a multi-Lingual, multi-cultural entity is Federal.
An integral part of the Independence struggle was the question of those described as Minorities, which eventually led the British colonial authorities to set up a Commission of Enquiry under the Chairmanship of Sir Henry Willink in September 1957, as a prelude to the Constitutional Conference.
This Commission was to ascertain ill or well-founded fears of Minorities in any part of Nigeria and propose means of allaying those fears as part of the overall Independence package.
Its report was published in August 1958.
A major part of the contentions was on “boundary adjustments” concerning the Minorities, concluding that any changes that would be made should result from Plebiscites or Referendums, where at least 60% of the votes cast should be in favor of such adjustments.
This was also predicated on the condition that the political Parties represented at the Constitutional Conference must agree to the result.
Delegates from the North refused to agree to a Plebiscite or Referendum hence none was conducted in any of the Minority areas in Nigeria before Independence.
This was the foundation of what has now snowballed into the current frenzy; the root from which sprang the tree of Ethno-National contestations for power and anchored on the architecture of State as the trunk with “religious balancing”, “zoning”, “rotation” etc. as its branches.
(To be continued)
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.
Wale Odeku

To the Body of Christ across Nigeria, immersing themselves in the political narrative of rejecting a Muslim-Muslim ticket, without addressing the architecture of the Nigerian State anchored on a faulty Constitutional foundation that has now led to this conundrum.

It is written:
“And when the servant of the man of God arose early and went out, there was an army, surrounding the city with horses and chariots. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” So, he answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” And Elisha prayed, and said, “LORD, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” Then the LORD opened the eyes of the young man, and he saw. And behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha……. So it was, when they had come to Samaria, that Elisha said, “LORD, open the eyes of these men, that they may see.” And the LORD opened their eyes, and they saw; and there they were, inside Samaria!
(2 Kings 6:15-17, 20).

If the issue confronting Christians is the ticket of any political party, the obvious solution is to advocate for any existing alternative and not berate one for going in a different direction from our expectations. The question therefore is not about the ticket combination but one of understanding in the body of Christ.

This is more so when it is realized that elections are not ordained by God. It is a human construct specific to a period in the course of human history, hence our approach to elections must be anchored and guided by our knowledge, wisdom and understanding, which is only possible when our eyes of understanding are opened by revelational knowledge.

The first port of call therefore must be why Christians vilify a Muslim-Muslim ticket instead of simply promoting the “balanced” ticket of other parties with direct assurance of the capacity and capability of such a “balanced ticket” to address the issues before us.

God intervenes by providing a pathway towards resolving a problem. In this instance, such a pathway is not conditional on electoral choices but specifically directed at opportunities that will present themselves for resolution.

On the day Jesus Christ was betrayed, He left the disciples to pray. On His return He found them sleeping and said to Peter: “What! Could you not watch with Me one hour? Watch and pray, lest you enter into temptation. The spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.” Mathew 26: 40-41.

To avoid entering into temptation means vigilance of the mind against elements portending such temptation, hence the admonition to “watch”. We watch against the temptation to reduce the elections to a “religious issue”, which has not resolved any issue in Nigeria but rather compounds it.
There is a sitting Vice President, who is a Christian, and under whose watch the atrocities against Christians, along with other atrocities continue. Nigeria has had Christian presidents who didn’t or couldn’t provide answers to the atrocities.
Therefore, the answer cannot be in more of the same. To pray means expectation of a revelational knowledge about the solution which will also point out the practical means of achieving it.

It is written:
“So shall they fear The name of the LORD from the west, And His glory from the rising of the sun; When the enemy comes in like a flood, The Spirit of the LORD will lift up a standard against him”.
(Isaiah 59:19)

We all know that the enemy has come in like a flood, in the West, East, South and North.
What then is the standard lifted up?
It cannot be the current electoral contest with any combination because it will be a repetition of what currently exists, and which enables continuity with the atrocities bedeviling us.
This is the architecture of the Nigerian State and the faulty Constitution it is based upon.
The standard must therefore be about the necessity to free the various Peoples from this architecture by its transformation into a vehicle for their freedom. This is one reason there is a “longing” for the regional architecture of the immediate pre and post-Independence period and which the Yoruba dub her “Golden Era”.
This implies a re-examination of that regional architecture, to proceed from revisiting the Willinks Commission on the question of minorities and the need to create more regions etc. which will also address the minorities question, and by implication, the “Christian question” in the North.
Rather than pursue this, Christians are plastering the walls of Nigeria with umtempered mortar.
It is written:
“Because, indeed, because they have seduced My people, saying, ‘Peace!’ when there is no peace—and one builds a wall, and they plaster it with untempered mortar— say to those who plaster it with untempered mortar, that it will fall. There will be flooding rain, and you, O great hailstones, shall fall; and a stormy wind shall tear it down. Surely, when the wall has fallen, will it not be said to you, ‘Where is the mortar with which you plastered it?’” (Ezekiel 13: 10-12)

The “peace” is in the expectation that canvassing the vote against a Muslim-Muslim ticket will address the atrocities; the wall is the architecture of the Nigerian State which is being plastered with untampered mortar on the assumption that it will address the atrocities. The Christian Vice President even stated his main motive for contesting is to “build on the legacy of the current administration” which condoned or is helpless against the atrocities.

Unless Christians are saying that Bola Tinubu will be a worse religious bigot than Buhari, or he will be a hapless Yoruba in power, Christians must begin to rethink their strategy lest they be swayed to and fro by all sorts of excuses to continue plastering the walls of Nigeria with untampered mortar.

What then does this change in strategy entail?
We must begin by identifying the current electoral situation, to wit:
(A) The PDP with a Christian Vice Presidential candidate, which Christians, especially in the North, must reject, simply because its coming to power will simply cement the finality of Fulani control over Central Levers of power. If the PDP can flatly snub the south when the demands were high, it is a no brainer that it will never concede power to the south in future. Moreover, by this act, it has permanently relegated Christians to the VP position. Both reinforcing the architecture of State, the cause of the problems.
(B) Labor Party, with a Christian Presidential candidate. Christians, especially in Yorubaland must clearly reject this in that despite attempts by Peter Obi to hide his Igbo Nationality, it is apparent that the Igbo, mostly Christians will line up behind him. It must be noted that the Igbo were and still are in the forefront of turning Lagos into a “no man’s Land”. And the Igbo, who, under the cover of #ENDSARS, targeted and destroyed mainly Yoruba economic enterprises in Lagos were mostly Christians.
(C) The APC. It already provides a premise for an engagement, despite its Muslim-Muslim ticket. If, as it is generally agreed that Nigeria needs to be Restructured and transformed into a Truly Federal State, the APC must be taken up on its Report on Restructuring which is gathering dust somewhere. All that needs to be done is to dig it up and use it in combination with the Willinks Report as the basis for engaging the party at both Regional and National levels, starting from now. This will allow and ensure the various Nationalities to become involved in matters of their own existence and which will translate into a different architecture for the Nigerian State. The Church can play a key role in this regard.
That is the standard lifted up by the Spirit of the Lord.

Wale Odeku
He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the Churches.

This Letter is aimed at preventing the various Nationalities from being continuously submerged under an overarching narrative that shunts aside the recognition of the Nationalities as Federating Units through whom the Re-Federalization of Nigeria should proceed as the first and most important step in Nigeria’s rebirth.
Therefore, this Letter to the Church and Christians in Yorubaland and by extension, Nigeria is on the necessity for their direct involvement in their Nationality issues. The Letter to Muslims will follow shortly.
We proceed as follows:


(A) The importance of the National Question as fundamental to Nigeria was reinforced by the reaction of a Northern Christian, Babachir Lawal, to Asiwaju Tinubu’s remarks, in Yoruba Language, during his visit to Abeokuta. For Babachir Lawal, the issue was not so much the content of the remarks, but simply on the fact that it was made in Yoruba Language in the presence of Northerners which, according to him, is one reason it will be difficult to support the Yoruba. When Asiwaju Tinubu became the APC Presidential candidate, Babachir Lawal was also the first Northern Christian to decry marginalization of Christians in the North.

(B) Both instances were indicative of the Ethno-National and religious reality in the North where the “minorities” draw back from their self-identities in the presence of the Hausa-Fulani political overlords. It also intensified the narrative on religious pairing as the panacea to Nigerian political power contestation.

(C) Yet, since 1999, (and without disregarding the pre-1999 military and civilian era) Nigeria has been governed by such pairings, including the present administration, with no discernible impact on resolving the contradictions between the Nigerian State and the Nationalities. Rather than abate, it grew worse with each succeeding administration.

(D) A solution therefore demands going beyond the pairings. We are concentrating only on the APC Candidate because it is the only Party that has made official efforts at Restructuring/Re-Federalization. Without going into previous experiences, the current situation has shown that the PDP Candidate spoke plainly about his Fulani Nationality, and we have no issues with it. The fundamental issue is that the party itself went against the clamor by its southern members for a necessary power shift. A victory for the PDP therefore will be an affirmation of continuity with Fulani Hegemonic rule and a denial of Nigeria as Multi-Lingual, Multi-Cultural and therefore multi-social, all subsumed under a political structure. On its part, the Labor Party has shown its preference for continuous Unitarism, while its candidate is only pursuing power for its own sake, the reason he abandoned the PDP and got the Labor Party ticket.

(E) On its part, two major recommendations of the APC Committee’s Report on Restructuring are (i) some degree of devolution of powers to the “Federating Units” and (ii) “consequential amendment of the Constitution” if it is accepted that States, (Federating Units) are to exercise control over their natural resources within their territories and paying royalties to the Central Government.

(F) The Yoruba Referendum Committee makes bold to say that Devolution implies the sanctity of the Center and denies Federalism as a relationship between co-equal partners hence cannot be the solution as it retains the power to take back what it has given away. True Federalism, on the other hand, implies (i) re-imagining of the Center, the re-creation of a Center which will ensure the redevelopment of the human capabilities of the various Nationalities that have been in abeyance since colonial intrusion and (ii) addressing the combined and uneven social and economic development of the country.

(G) Further, since the current Constitution is the pertinent and pervasive problem that must be resolved, the question of its “consequential amendment” does not arise. If States (meaning Constituent Nationalities) exercise control over their natural resources and paying royalties to the center, all elements of a dysfunctional Post-Colonial State will be neutralized as its architecture will become dependent on the prerogative of the “States” where all the fundamental indices of development such as planning, and execution of social, cultural, micro, and macro-economic issues will be vested in the Federating Nationality.

(H) If the party is victorious, the above (and others) provides a context for the engagement of the party at both the Regional and National levels. This engagement will be more effective via an alliance between Christians and Muslims in the South, (especially Yoruba and South-South) AND Northern Christians, regardless of any electoral pairing by any political party.

(I) The starting point for this Alliance was already laid by the Chief Anthony Enahoro-led Movement for National Re-Formation. Christians, Muslims and Traditionalists belong to one or the other of the Nationalities. The MNR suggests that the starting number of regions, each of which should itself be a Federation, should be 18, of which 12 will be mono-Nationality Regions, which should be: (1.) Ibibio Federation (2.) Ijaw Federation (3.) Igbo Federation (4.) Urhobo Federation (5.) Edo Federation (6.) Yoruba Federation (7.) Nupe Federation (8.) Tiv Federation (9.) Gbagyi Federation (10.) Hausa Federation (11). Fulah Federation and (12.) Kanuri Federation.

(J) The other six (6) of the Regions should be multi-nationality regions, as followsi) A federation comprising minority nationalities in Cross River and Akwa Ibom states (i.e., Eket, Annang, Oron, Ibeno, Efik, Ejagbam, Korop, Boki, Bakwara, Yakurr, Yala). (ii) A federation comprising the minority nationalities in Rivers and Bayelsa states (i.e., Ikwerre, Etchei, Ekpeeye, Engeni, Ogba, Eleme, Ndoni, Ogoni, and Andoni). (iii) A federation comprising the minority nationalities in Delta State (i.e., Ika, Ndokwa, Warri, Isoko). (iv) A federation comprising the minority nationalities in West Middle Belt, i.e., Zuru, Kambari, Bariba, Bussa, Karekare, Ngizim, Angamo, Bola, Funne, etc. (v) A federation comprising the minority nationalities in Central Middle Belt, i.e.: (a) Ebira Group: Ebira, Uku, Ebira-Ugu, Ebira-Panda, Etuno-Igarra, Ebira Mozun, Bassa-Nge. (b) Igala Group (c) Upper Benue Group: Alago Eggon, Gwandara, Mada, Kakanda, Mighili, Bassa-Komu, Ninzom, Arum etc. (vi) A federation comprising the minority nationalities in East Middle Belt, i.e. (a) Plateau Group: Ngas, Berom, Afezere Taroh, Goemai, Nmavo – Jukun, Amu, Pyem, Youn etc. (b) Taraba Group: Chamba, Jukun, Kuteb, Mambila, Kona, Kunni, Kaanab, Ndoro, Abakwa, Mumuye, Yububen, etc. (c) Savanna Group: Bura, Tangale – Waja, Bachama, Manghi, Kilba, Yungu, Mwanna, Bwazza Mbula, etc.

(K) Although MNR’s suggestion may or may not be reviewed by any Nationality, it will be a good take-off point. Two immediate examples that may be reviewed are the “Fula” and “Hausa” Federations. Every Nationality exists within an Indigenous territory, but these two have been so interwoven that there is hardly any distinction between them, hence their being referred to as “Hausa-Fulani” which may constitute a single Federation. Alongside is the notion of the “Zone”. A zone comprises residents of and from all Nationalities, which if accepted as the Federating Unit, will vitiate the cultural, social, and political imperatives of the Nationality as the foundation for the new society.

(L) This is the reason for Yoruba Referendum Committee’s suggestion of a new Federal Structure, anchored on the Nationalities, which enables each Nationality or combination of Nationalities, to elect or select a representative to the Federal Council, from which a primus-inter-pares will be chosen as the Head of State. This will undoubtedly remove the heavy monetization of elections into offices and places the entire electoral system within the ambit of each Nationality’s cultural prerogatives.

(M) The Yoruba Referendum Committee has initiated the process in Yorubaland via the Petition for a Yoruba Referendum directed at our Houses of Assembly to pass the Bill for a Referendum into Law and begin the process of conducting the Referendum.

(N) Other Nationalities may or may not embark on their Nationality Referendum Route, but the overall decisions of all the Nationalities will become the foundation for a New Constitution for Nigeria.

(O) Our call is now for leaders of other Nationalities in Nigeria, especially their religious Leaders, to accept the challenge and ensure the fullest representation of their Peoples in the continuous search for their security and development.

Editorial Board,
Yoruba Referendum Committee

1. The Yoruba Referendum Committee welcomes the emergence of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu as the presidential Candidate of the APC. Placed within the context of his previous political journey as a major participant in the pro-democracy movement which eventually brought about the current post-military civilian order as well as his resistance to the Obasanjo anti-Federalist Administration, the onus is now on him to pursue his Party’s Re-Federalization of Nigeria, already acknowledged as a necessity in his Party’s Manifesto, whether the party wins the 2023 General Elections or not.

2. This expectation is reinforced by the process that played out during the primaries of the major parties where the primacy of the National Question in Nigeria, heavily laden with the religious, became obvious, despite allusions to “Federal Character”, “Zoning” or “power rotation” between the North and South. The parties eventually picked their candidates from the Nationalities, and the major contenders did not hide their Nationality identities and representation, without recourse to their religious persuasion thereby ensuring the primacy of the Nationality (“zone”) in their political calculus.

3. The conclusion of these primaries brought into broad and sharp relief the centrality of the National Question and its resolution as categorical imperative and confirms the reality that, regardless of religious identities, political power, representations, and manifestation reflect the Nationality (“zone”) rather than the religious persuasion of the individual candidate which must therefore further strengthen the responsibility of the Peoples of the zones, the Nationalities, on their engagement with the victorious candidate, the political parties and by extension, the Nigerian State, by placing the quest for True Federalism in Nigeria firmly on the table, as formulated in our conclusion.

4. It is also noted that, this is the context through which an expected “third force” comprising the Labor Party, civil society, and Yoruba self-determination groups, is to emerge, supposedly anchored on a “radical/revolutionary leadership which will turn Nigeria around”, disregarding the reality of the National Question alongside colonialism and its successor, the post-Colonial State which sought and still seeks to neutralize the Nations and Peoples of Nigeria as Federating Units. This will be a losing proposition for Self-Determination of any Nationality because the Labor Party has already shown its anti-Federalist nature by rooting for the patently anti-Federalist “Local government autonomy” while its "third force" associates are yet to establish any roadmap towards self-determination for their Nationalities, which, ordinarily, ought to inform on their political choices.

5. The Yoruba civil society and self-determination groups, falling for this schema, are claiming the acquiescence of the “international community”, especially the United Nations, in favor of Yoruba self-determination, including for some, secession, regardless of the fact that the United Nations itself is still undergoing a refinement of its processes towards an understanding of Self-determination for Peoples not under colonial rule, as even shown by the report of the Unrepresented Peoples Organization(UNPO) to the United Nations Expert Mechanism for the Rights of Indigenous Peoples where the UN is being asked to, among others, establish a specific United Nations mechanism to consider the right to self-determination, including, for example, the establishment of a relevant Special Rapporteur or Working Group; urgently revise her participation mechanisms to ensure that indigenous peoples can safely participate free from politics inherent to the ECOSOC process and from reprisals from governments; better integrate self-determination into other existing United Nations processes; pursue a Secretary General opinion on self-determination in United Nations peace building activities to guide not only the United Nations own activities but also those of major State actors in conflict and conflict-impacted areas and create an annual reporting cycle in which United Nations member states can report on progress in the implementation of the various peace-accords or peace-negotiations.

6. The above shows that the while United Nations itself is still undergoing a process of addressing fundamental issues on Self-Determination, it is operating under the foundational premises dictated by the “Major Powers” in its Security Council, with their own interpretations of global order and which demands the Legitimization of our quests in our engagement with them and which, so far, is lacking and cannot be wished into existence.

7. Besides, all military and civilian administrations since 1986, established mechanisms for addressing the above issues, attempting to legitimize doubtful socio-political legacies - 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” and APC’s Committee on Restructuring; none of which yielded the desired degree of Autonomy for Nationalities/Regions making up Nigeria. In each of these, it was a case of working to the answer, with various “zonal consultations” which were never subjected to the imprimatur of the People, especially through Referendums, either among the various Peoples or in the various zones, for affirmation or rejection, thus making those exercises subject to the whims of those in power as we experienced.

8. The summary of all the above is the recognition of True Federalism as the road towards the development of Nigeria’s Political Economy as had been known and projected, especially since the return to civil rule in 1999.

9. All efforts stated above failed mainly because the various Peoples or Nationalities in Nigeria played no part in the exercises. Reversing this trend is therefore a necessity for the Yoruba now that the APC is once again expecting to keep power and more so with a Yoruba as its Presidential Candidate.

10. The Yoruba Referendum Committee recognizes the opportunity that once presented itself during the Olusegun Obasanjo Administration, which was aborted by the inability of the then Yoruba Political establishment to rally Yoruba People around the “Yoruba Agenda”, already agreed upon by the Yoruba in 1994. Rather, they chose to surrender the initiative to the Obasanjo Administration, placing its trust on it to achieve True Federalism. Since then, all processes towards True Federalism have been predicated on continuous reliance on those in power at the center, thereby making it the fulcrum around which every demand revolves and denying the Peoples their participation in their aspirations and hopes.

11. To address which the Yoruba Referendum Committee proposes as follows: (i) Referendums by the various Nationalities as Federating Units aimed at recreating Nigeria as a Multi-National State, defined as a[b] “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.” [/b]This form of State will permanently take care of the North/South and Christian/Muslim divides by representation of the “Zones” or Nationality in the Presidential Council and confine “monetization” and the Nationality/Religious questions within cultural and social boundaries in existence within the zones/Nationalities and from where resolutions can be advanced (ii) For the Yoruba, this will be the Yoruba Referendum to be conducted through the instrumentality of the Houses of Assembly in Yorubaland and aimed at creating a new political and economic paradigm for Yorubaland modeled along the experiences of our “Golden Era” (iii) It is strongly advised that the Yoruba Referendum is conducted before the 2023 Elections, because the result of the Referendum will be further reinforced by the results of the General Elections, which will further provide a legitimate basis for Re-negotiating Nigeria’s Structure.

12. It may be asked why a Yoruba Referendum when there is a National Assembly through whom the Restructuring will go ahead via Constitutional Amendment or any other process. Asking us to look forward to some legislation or Constitutional Amendment from the National Assembly towards Restructuring will be waving a flag at the problem; for, aside from the fact that the current Constitution is the problem that must be resolved, the National Assembly does not represent the Peoples of Nigeria as it does recognize the Peoples as the Federating or Constituent Units, substituting them with the administrations of the States and Local Governments. Therefore, the only way to remedy the situation is for the various peoples of Nigeria, to, in a Referendum within themselves, decide the framework for their aspirations and self-actualization which then becomes the foundation for[b] RESTRUCTURING[/b] of Nigeria.

Editorial Board
The Yoruba Referendum Committee.

Chukwuemeka Ezeife, a former Governor of Anambra State, clearly stated the Igbo categorical imperative for 2023 in the following manner: “it is either the Southeast is allowed to produce the Nigeria’s next president in 2023 or the region will quit the country....... It is either we are allowed to produce the president of this country in 2023 to change the appalling narrative of continued decay, poverty, insecurity, poor governance, corruption and maladministration in Nigeria or out of it."
This statement deserves a response, especially coming on the heels of Governor Akeredolu’s presentation on the necessity for a southern president and supported by various groups and influential individuals in Yorubaland. The Yoruba Referendum Committee has already made its stand known on the issue of a “southern president” and will therefore not belabor the point.
However, we will respond directly to this Igbo diktat by presenting, in full, and unedited, Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s Address to the Western Leaders of Thought on May 1, 1967, at Ibadan, being the Yoruba Response to the National Question manifesting through various diktats at the time.
The Yoruba Referendum Committee believes the Address is relevant to our current realities for the following reasons:
1. The ANNEXURE to the Bill for a Referendum in Yorubaland reflects the fundamental premises of the Address, taking into consideration, the political changes that has taken place, while ensuring its fidelity to it as the Yoruba answer to the current state of the National Question in Nigeria.
2. For a background, this Igbo diktat is a replay of the failed post-Independence attempt at neutralizing Yorubaland, first through an alliance between the North and the East, followed by a unilateral attempt by the East to impose its Hegemony on the rest of the country, culminating in the Nigeria-Biafra war.
3. It must be recalled that the Gowon Military Regime issued Decree 8 on May 27, 1967, whose provisions embraced many of the demands contained in the Address. This was almost at once negated by the declaration of Biafra on May 30, 1967, which eventually led to the Nigeria-Biafra war, whose impact on Yorubaland resulted in disrupting and truncating the essence of the Address.
4. The declaration of Biafra was therefore arguably a deliberate strategy by the military authorities in the East to scuttle any progress towards True Federalism in Nigeria, more so when Ojukwu’s administration avoided consultations with political leaders of the region before the declaration was made.
5. All the political experiments and detours embarked upon since the end of the war has only reinforced the Nigerian problematic, especially given all the various national conferences since 1999, which ended up as definite political baits and which must now be reconsidered by situating our responses on the preferences of the Nationalities upon which a new and truly Federal Structure must emerge, hence, for the Yoruba, the YORUBA REFERENDUM.
6. The APC, the only political party that has formally broached the subject, is now contradicting itself on the issue: on the one hand, setting up a party Committee on True Federalism as its solution to the National Question and on the other, denying that the quest for True Federalism was part of its Manifesto.
7. Despite the SW APC’s public support for True Federalism as stated by its leaders, Gen Akinrinade, Chiefs Bisi Akande and Pius Akinyelure, it is now ignoring True Federalism as fundamental to the current narrative in Yorubaland, especially within the context of the quest for Nigeria’s presidency by Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, now laced with the open rift with Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, with the 2022 Osun Governorship elections as the backdrop.
8. SW APC is now mired in internal party power plays, which are necessary within a political party but useless to the Yoruba Quest if it is not based on the fundamental demands of Yoruba people. It must be recalled that the internal crisis within the Action Group was resolved at the Jos Convention via the Split, which was informed by the Party’s fidelity to its original program, and which became the platform for the internal politics of Yorubaland, till date.
9. The Yoruba Referendum Committee recognizes the different circumstances by which the SW APC must operate because the Leadership of the APC is not concentrated in Yorubaland, as it conforms to the current dictates of the Nigerian State which ensures a controlling center thereby neutralizing any possibility of regional control.
10. Yet, this is one of the fundamental reasons for the quest for True Federalism, to wit: our right and ability to control our political processes. Therefore, Yoruba APC leaders owe it a duty to endorse and ensure a clear PATHWAY for the restoration of True Federalism in Nigeria.
11. Chiefs Obafemi Awolowo and Olusegun Obasanjo are two examples of this necessity. Chief Obafemi Awolowo, despite his massive support among the Yoruba, failed in his attempts at Nigeria’s presidency because the contradictions of the National Question prevented it, beginning with the intervention of the center (the NCNC/NPC Alliance) in Western Regional affairs, with the 1963 Constitution playing a significant role and ending with the 1979 Constitution, now replicated as the 1999 Constitution, which effectively neutralized True Federalism in Nigeria.
12. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo became president, despite his clear rejection by the Yoruba, but enabled by the same forces that truncated the Western Region, followed by the neutralization of the AD that emerged as the champion of True Federalism, and this, despite the spirited efforts of the Lagos State Government in challenging it, yet unable to prevent corralling of the various Peoples of Nigeria into a centralized and unitarized State. This alone, shows the futility of making a State the “poster child” of pursuing True Federalism.
13. It is therefore imperative that Yoruba People seize the initiative and challenge both Asiwaju Bola Tinubu and Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola to take a stand on the YORUBA REFERENDUM, regardless of any contestations on their political alliances or loyalties, more so when both were titans in the “June12” struggle.
14. The issue at hand being political, demands a political intervention, itself dependent on the existence or mobilization of the necessary political force(s) capable of ensuring a resolution, not only of this conflict but also the general context of the Yoruba quest for True Federalism.
15. The APC, either at the pan-Nigerian or SW levels cannot carry out this assignment since it has already failed to provide a context and a pathway towards actualization of the Yoruba Quest which would have become the standard by which every “political fight” is measured, just as it may even aim to deepen the conflict in order to pursue its permutations for power, including corralling some Yoruba/SW APC leaders into its power-seeking orbit.
16. Therefore, the Yoruba People remain the only force capable of ensuring a resolution, and necessarily in its favor, and mobilized around a PATHWAY to achieve True Federalism, and who must now flex their muscles, and drag the Houses of Assembly, kicking and screaming, to pass the Bill for a Referendum into Law, as the surest way to not only address the conflict but also provide the necessary context for the duo’s claim to Yoruba Leadership.
17. The ANNEXURE to the Bill for a Referendum will be legally binding with a “YES” vote thereby preventing anyone from negotiating Yoruba preferences away on the altar of any electoral permutation.

Editorial Board, Yoruba Referendum Committee

CHIEF OBAFEMI AWOLOWO’S ADDRESS TO WESTERN LEADERS OF THOUGHT. (Emphasis ours)

The aim of a leader should be the welfare of the people whom he leads. I have used 'welfare' to denote the physical, mental, and spiritual
well-being of the people. With this aim fixed unflinchingly and unchangeably before my eyes I consider it my duty to Yoruba people in particular and to Nigerians in general, to place four imperatives before you this morning. Two of them are categorical and two are conditional.
Only a peaceful solution must be found to arrest the present worsening stalemate and restore normalcy. The Eastern Region must be encouraged to remain part of the Federation. If the Eastern Region is allowed by acts of omission or commission to secede from or opt out of Nigeria, then the Western Region and Lagos must also stay out of the Federation. The people of Western Nigeria and Lagos should participate in the ad hoc committee or any similar body only on the basis of absolute equality with the other regions of the Federation.
I would like to comment briefly on these four imperatives.
There has, of late, been a good deal of sabre rattling in some parts of the country. Those who advocate the use force for the settlement of our present problems should stop a little and reflect. I can see no vital and abiding principle involved in any war between the North and the East. If the East attacked the North, it would be for purpose of revenge pure and simple. Any claim to the contrary would be untenable. If it is claimed that such a war is being waged for the purpose of recovering the real and personal properties left behind in the North by Easterners two insuperable points are obvious.
Firstly, the personal effects left behind by Easterners have been wholly looted or destroyed and can no longer be physically recovered. Secondly, since the real properties are immovable in case of recovery of them can only be by means of forcible military occupation of those parts of the North in which these properties are situated. On the other hand, if the North attacked the East, it could only be for the purpose of further strengthening and entrenching its position of dominance in the country.
If it is claimed that an attack on the East is going to be launched by the Federal Government and not by the North as such and that it is designed to ensure the unity and integrity of the Federation, two other insuperable points also become obvious. First, if a war against the
East becomes a necessity it must be agreed to unanimously by the remaining units of the Federation. In this connection, the West, Mid- West, and Lagos have declared their implacable opposition to the use of force in solving the present problem. In the face of such declarations by three out of remaining four territories of Nigeria, a war against the East could only be a war favored by the North alone. Second, if the true purpose of such a war is to preserve the unity and integrity of the Federation, then these ends can be achieved by the very simple devices of implementing the recommendation of the committee which met on August 9 1966, as reaffirmed by a decision of the military leaders at Aburi on January 5 1967 as well as by accepting such of the demands of the East, West, Mid-West and Lagos as are manifestly reasonable, and essential for assuring harmonious relationships and peaceful co-existence between them and their brothers and sisters in the North.
Some knowledgeable persons have likened an attack on the East to Lincoln's war against the southern states in America. Two vital factors distinguish Lincoln's campaign from the one now being contemplated in Nigeria. The first is that the American civil war was aimed at the
abolition of slavery - that is the liberation of millions of Negroes who were then still being used as chattels and worse than domestic animals.
The second factor is that Lincoln and others in the northern states were English-speaking people waging a war of good conscience and humanity against their fellow nationals who were also English speaking. A war against the East in which Northern soldiers are predominant, will only unite the Easterners or the Ibos against their attackers, strengthen them in their belief that they are not wanted by the majority of their fellow-Nigerians, and finally push them out of the Federation.

We have been told that an act of secession on the part of the East would be a signal, in the first instance, for the creation of the COR state by decree, which would be backed, if need be, by the use of force. With great respect, I have some dissenting observations to make on this declaration. There are 11 national or linguistic groups in the COR areas with a total population of 5.3 millions. These national groups are as
distinct from one another as the Ibos are distinct from them or from the Yorubas or Hausas. Of the 11, the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group are 3.2 million strong as against the Ijaws who are only about 700,000 strong.
Ostensibly, the remaining nine national group number 1.4 millions. But when you have subtracted the Ibo inhabitants from among them, what is left ranges from the Ngennis who number only 8,000 to the Ogonis who are strong. A decree creating a COR state without a plebiscite to ascertain the wishes of the peoples in the area, would only amount to subordinating the minority national groups in the state to the dominance of the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group. It would be perfectly in order to create a Calabar state or a Rivers state by decree, and without a plebiscite. Each is a homogeneous national unit.
But before you lump distinct and diverse national units together in one state, the consent of each of them is indispensable. Otherwise, the seed of social disequilibrium in the new state would have been sown.
On the other hand, if the COR State is created by decree after the Eastern Region shall have made its severance from Nigeria effective, we
should then be waging an unjust war against a foreign state. It would be an unjust war, because the purpose of it would be to remove 10 minorities in the East from the dominance of the Ibos only to subordinate them to the dominance of the Efik/Ibibio/Annang national group. I think I have said enough to demonstrate that any war against the East, or vice versa, on any count whatsoever, would be an unholy crusade, for which it would be most unjustifiable to shed a drop of Nigerian blood.
Therefore, only a peaceful solution must be found, and quickly too to arrest the present rapidly deteriorating stalemate and restore normalcy.
With regard to the second categorical imperative, it is my considered view that whilst some of the demands of the East are excessive within the context of a Nigerian union, most of such demands are not only well-founded, but are designed for smooth and steady association amongst the various national units of Nigeria.
The dependence of the Federal Government on financial contributions from the regions? These and other such like demands I do not support. Demands such as these, if accepted, will lead surely to the complete disintegration of the Federation which is not in the interest of
our people.
But I wholeheartedly support the following demands among others, which we consider reasonable and most of which are already
embodied in our memoranda to the Ad Hoc Committee....
• That revenue should be allocated strictly on the basis of derivation: that is to say after the Federal Government has deducted its
own share for its own services the rest should be allocated to the regions to which they are attributable.
• That the existing public debt of the Federation should become the responsibility of the regions on the basis of the location of the projects
in respect of each debt whether internal or external.
• That each region should have and control its own militia and police force.
• That, with immediate effect, all military personnel should be posted to their regions of origin.
If we are to live in harmony one with another as Nigerians it is imperative that these demands and others which are not related, should be
met without further delay by those who have hitherto resisted them. To those who may argue that the acceptance of these demands will amount to transforming Nigeria into a federation with a weak central government, my comment is that any link however tenuous, which keeps the East in the Nigerian union, is better in my view than no link at all.

Before the Western delegates went to Lagos to attend the meetings of the ad hoc committee, they were given a clear mandate that if any
region should opt out of the Federation of Nigeria, then the Federation should be considered to be at an end, and that the Western Region and Lagos should also opt out of it. It would then be up to Western Nigeria and Lagos as an independent sovereign state to enter into association with any of the Nigerian units of its own choosing, and on terms mutually acceptable to them. I see no reason for departing from this mandate. If any region in Nigeria considers itself strong enough to compel us to enter into association with it on its own terms, I would only wish such a region luck. But such luck, I must warn, will, in the long run be no better than that which has attended the doings of all colonial powers down the ages.
This much I must say in addition, on this point. We have neither military might nor the overwhelming advantage of numbers here in Western Nigeria and Lagos. But we have justice of a noble and imperishable cause on our side, namely: the right of a people to unfettered self-determination. If this is so, then God is on our side, and if God is with us then we have nothing whatsoever in this world to fear.
The fourth imperative, and the second conditional one has been fully dealt with in my recent letter to the Military Governor of Western
Nigeria, Col. Robert Adebayo, and in the representation which your deputation made last year to the head of the Federal Military Government, Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon. As a matter of fact, as far back as November last year a smaller meeting of leaders of thought in this Region decided that unless certain things were done, we would no longer participate in the meeting of the ad hoc committee. But since then, not even one of our legitimate requests has been granted. I will, therefore, take no more of your time in making further comments on a point with which you are well familiar. As soon as our humble and earnest requests are met, I shall be ready to take my place on the ad hoc committee. But certainly, not before.

In closing, I have this piece of advice to give. In order to resolve amiably and in the best interests of all Nigerians certain attributes are
required on the part of Nigerian leaders, military as well as non-military leaders alike, namely: vision, realism and unselfishness. But above all,
what will keep Nigerian leaders in the North and East unwaveringly in the path of wisdom, realism and moderation is courage and steadfastness on the part of Yoruba people in the course of what they sincerely believe to be right, equitable and just. In the past five years we in the West and Lagos have shown that we possess these qualities in a large measure. If we demonstrate them again as we did in the past, calmly and heroically, we will save Nigeria from further bloodshed and imminent wreck and, at the same time, preserve our freedom and self-respect into the bargain.

May God rule and guide our deliberations here, and endow all the Nigerian leaders with the vision, realism, and unselfishness as well as
courage and steadfastness in the course of truth, which the present circumstances demand.

The Yoruba Referendum Committee is using this medium to address matters arising from your declaration to Bitrus Pogu, the leader of the Middle Belt Forum and Chairman of “Power Rotation Movement” during their courtesy visit to your office, wherein you reiterated the resolve of southern governors in ensuring the emergence of a southern president in 2023 as a form of advancing the quest for True Federalism in Nigeria.

We firmly believe that the potential pitfalls in this pursuit must be addressed in such a manner that will prepare us for any eventuality, while simultaneously strengthening our capacity to resolve the National Question in Nigeria through the Restructuring of Nigeria into a True Federal State which will address calls for power rotation/zoning of political offices, and now, a southern president.

Pursuant to this, the Yoruba Referendum Committee states as follows:

(1) For the record, the Yoruba Referendum Committee wants to make it clear that we do not subscribe to the “no elections” mantra being promoted by some tendencies in Yorubaland. Therefore, we are not opposed to either the 2022 Governorship elections in Osun and Ekiti States or all the elections slated for 2023. This is because there are no contradictions between the Yoruba Referendum and any elections that may be on ground as it is not possible to advocate “no elections” while simultaneously seeking a Referendum, for, a Referendum is an election, an electoral process that must be conducted by a valid and legitimate authority; the notion of “no elections” already removes such legitimacy and the basis for having a Referendum.

(2) In our case in Yorubaland, the valid and legitimate authority to conduct a Referendum resides in the Houses of Assembly, with the concurrence of the Governors. If there are no elections, such an authority cannot be exercised, for its members must be elected. Since Yorubaland has no other electoral methodology except what exists, the Yoruba Referendum Committee is demanding that the State Houses of Assembly as presently constituted, pass the Referendum Bill into Law, the current Governors to give their assent and begin the process of conducting the Referendum.

(3) Having set the records straight, we will now address the issue at hand, to wit: your assertion on the necessity for a southern president. We are sure that you know that the Presidential election itself requires all sorts of horse-trading, various forms of alliances and compromises within the country and this will be doubly so, with the quest for a southern president, which will call into being similar alliances and compromises within the south, which will vitiate the quest for True Federalism, and which may end up with a Middle Belt/South-South combination, thereby satisfying your declaration. The visit by the Middle Belt Forum and the “Power Rotation Movement” must therefore be seen within this context.

(4) Within this southern matrix, certain Yoruba leaders have also begun a campaign for a President from the East, rationalizing it as a quest for “justice and equity” but which is not only a capitulation but also a negation of the pursuit of True Federalism, the constant political pursuit of the Yoruba.

(5) This is because the demand for True Federalism itself is a quest for justice and equity, without which the anti-colonial struggle could not have been waged, even in its purely economist or social demands, as witnessed in the various demands of the peoples of Nigeria at the time; yet, the defeats suffered by the Federalist forces, post-Independence, did not neutralize its spirit, more so when it has sustained the various attempts by the Peoples of Nigeria to free themselves from the injustice embedded in the architecture of the Nigerian State.

(6) Their reduction of the quest for justice and equity into a geo-political preference for Nigeria’s Presidency is a recurring decimal since 1999 which had always been geared toward some expectation from whoever becomes the President, making the pursuit and realization of True Federalism dependent on the whims of such a person, thereby denying the self-directed efforts of, and by the Yoruba People, belying their claim of representing the same People, ultimately culminating in what they are propagating, today. Furthermore, it prevents the utilization of the contradictions within the Nigerian State to strengthen the resolve for True Federalism through the amplification of its inherent contradiction, and which includes the electoral question facing us today.

(7) Hence, while the demand for a president from the south may, on the surface, be attractive, it will be detrimental to the Yoruba.

( The proposition of the Yoruba Referendum Committee is not dependent on the outcome of the elections but centered around a pathway, beneficial to Yoruba People, regardless of the outcome of the contest for the presidency. Other Nationalities in the south and Middle Belt can be encouraged to take a cue from such a pathway.

(9) One of the requirements of this proposition is that Yoruba Governors use their influence to encourage the various Houses of Assembly in Yorubaland to pass the Bill for a Referendum into Law, more so when there is a Petition calling on them to do so. The Bill has already been submitted to the Speakers of the Houses of Assembly as well as to all of you as Governors.

(10) The outcome of this Nationality-based Referendum will create the framework for re-Negotiating of Nigeria into a Federal State, defined 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”.

(11) This will render the constant and unending demands for a southern or northern presidency superfluous.

(12) This existential context of engagement through the Nationality-Referendums provides the platform for direct participation of the Peoples in the process of their self-realization, a precondition for justice and equity. It is also the best Valid, Legal, Peaceable and Legitimate answer to the question you once posed as to where and when the Yoruba met and reached a consensus on any pathway forward.

Thank you, sir.

Yoruba Referendum Flyers

The on-going political drama in Yorubaland, tending to pit Asiwaju Tinubu against Professor Yemi Osinbajo mandates the intervention of Yoruba People on whose behalf the contest is taking place, especially given the historical antecedents and outcome of such contests.
Without prejudice to others who may later enter the contest and recognizing that Professor Yemi Osinbajo is yet to formally declare his interest, his supporters and admirers have embarked on a series of activities pointing in that direction, hence the Yoruba Referendum Committee’s assumption as to his contesting.
We therefore proceed as follows:
(1) Drawing parallels from our historical experience, the outcome of this contest between the two is often couched within the context of a repeat of the 1962 crisis and its aftermath, lending credence to the saying to the effect that “those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it”. This will not and cannot be the case simply because the contexts for the resolution are vastly different, where, in the current circumstances, it will not lead to a repeat but a DEFEAT for the Yoruba, UNLESS the Yoruba People intervene, directly, by ensuring an alternative political paradigm, which is to be found in the Yoruba Referendum.

(2) Without going into details of the historical experience, it is enough to note that political decisions, including party formations, at the time were made from within the Region; the external incursion via the 1966 military coups and the resulting Biafra war, enabled Yoruba leadership to reassert itself, albeit in a modified manner, as the entire country was subjected to Unitarist control. This has been further expanded, to such a point that we do not even have the prerogative to establish, control and determine our political direction by the simple fact that all political activities are now centralized such that any resolution dependent on the center will become a defeat, regardless of who emerges victorious between the two.

(3) For Asiwaju Tinubu and professor Osinbajo, the above is borne by the fact that the main thrust of their supporters rest on establishing their bona fides, in a major push to force the Yoruba into making a choice, woven around the following: (a) their administration in Lagos State, as Governor and Attorney general, and their impact and influence on the quest for True Federalism and democracy in Nigeria via their engagement of the then Central Government and its Unitarist tendencies,(b) their critical and active participation in bringing about the defeat of the PDP in 2015 (c) the relevance of faith or religion in the current dispensation which will appear to favor the vice president, (d) their records within the “June 12” democracy movement, playing critical roles in the entire quest (d) the recent resuscitation of their erstwhile struggles on VAT, Southern Governors’ solidarity, resistance to centralized control and ownership of land, etc.

(4) The above is neutralized by the fact that the Yoruba, as a People, have no control over the APC, which will ultimately be the decider; we will be bound by the party’s choice, which we all know will be based on factors incongruent with our imperative, thereby mandating us to turn the tables and force both to make a choice in favor of, or against the Yoruba Imperative, couched either as Self-Determination, Restructuring, True Federalism, Autonomy or Regionalism.

(5) This becomes paramount when it is recognized that political power does not reside in the individual but in the application of the collective aspirations and expectations of the People anchored around their existential reality with a roadmap towards actualization and sustenance, embedded within the people and their consciousness and often at the instance of a vanguard, which, in this instance, is the SW APC, within which the entire quest must be sorted out and provide the platform for the counter-choice.

(6) It is also said that men make history, but not in circumstances of their own choosing. So far, both are aiming at contradicting this maxim, making it appear as if they are attempting to make history in the circumstances they have chosen when it is certain that such is not the case as they are merely operating within the circumstances chosen for them, evidenced by the reality of their dependence on the choices to be made at their party’s convention, and which will be based on other interests either in opposition to, or in defiance of our Imperative, all reinforced with the establishment of an “electoral bank” in the North, which is always flaunted in our faces, thereby making them susceptible to the “a o m’erin j’oba” syndrome and its consequences.

(7) Political brinksmanship is often the result of the path they have chosen, comfortable with the assumption that the Yoruba will have to choose either of them upon which either would be able to negotiate his options while in power and which brings forth the question as to the necessity or otherwise of sustaining brinksmanship as the political foundation or an opportunity to reassert our ability to create a new reality.

( This brinksmanship is possible only because of our inability to break its cycle, and this, flowing from our inability to establish the political paradigm and sustain it, which allows political parties to fill the vacuum. These political parties are often special purpose vehicles for certain interests, which may sometimes become bargaining chips, resulting in an endless cycle of power contestations for its own sake, more so when the political and economic conditions necessitating their existence continue to be tilted against the development of Yorubaland.

(9) The story of the APC is so well known that it needs no rehashing. Yet, it has not even tilted in the direction of addressing the Democracy Question, where the aspirations of the various Peoples are subjected to only an electoral norm, disguised as democracy while disregarding the fact that electoral choices are manifestations of the expectations and aspirations in each society, the parameters of which are to be defined by that society.

(10) This is a direct reflection of the universalism of our humanity and not its negation; for, contrary to some, who wish to “detribalize” and “Nigerianize”, the existential reality is in the existence of the People (tribe) and their universalism denied by the act of “detribalization”, hence calling into question, its democratic assumptions. This is further reflected in the controversy over the inclusion or absence of “True Federalism” in APC’s original Manifesto and which calls into question, the reliability of such a party in resolving that issue, and, by extension, the roles expected to be played by the two aspirants.

(11) The APC’s control of central power enables a deviation from the aspirations of the various peoples making up its membership hence the SW APC’s lackluster response to the constant calls for Restructuring or True Federalism, despite its public declaration of support, but without any practical roadmap for its actualization.

(12) This is possible only because the political parties exist outside the established or projected aspirations and expectations of the People, which compromises our ability to situate our Yoruba quest as an end, yet capable of influencing other Nationalities in their own quest, thereby ensuring the coming into being of all the Peoples of Nigeria, having been freed from the shackles of a colonial State. This implies the existence of a political paradigm anchored on a pursuit for itself and legitimized by its own social, cultural, and economic parameters, thus providing the circumstances for making history.

(13) The ingredients for the above are present in the general demands for Restructuring, True Federalism, Autonomy, etc which must provide the foundation for political engagement for Yoruba people and which the APC, by definition, cannot fulfill; yet the APC is the only vehicle through which either Asiwaju Tinubu or Professor Osinbajo will or can contest for the presidency.

(14) Therefore, to aggregate the Yoruba Quest, and save these two gladiators and other contestants from themselves, it is incumbent for all of us to pressurize the Houses of Assembly to pass the Bill for a Referendum into Law and conduct the Referendum as a matter of urgency and necessity.

(15) This is because the Yoruba Referendum Bill makes provision for the Governors of each State as well as the Yoruba in Kwara and Kogi States, to, in the event of a “Yes” vote, appoint members into a Constitutional Council of Western/Oduduwa Region,[i][/i] which shall be vested with powers to present and represent the views of Western/Oduduwa Region and negotiate on behalf of the Region with all the agencies of the Nigerian Government, non-Governmental organizations, and the international Community.

In response to your quest to contest Nigeria’s Presidency in 2023, the Yoruba Referendum Committee is, by this Letter, asking all of you to take a categorical stand on the Yoruba Referendum as the solution to the National Question in Nigeria.
There is no contradiction between your quest and the Yoruba Referendum; they are not mutually exclusive; indeed, your quest will have meaning only within the context of the Yoruba Referendum, otherwise, it becomes seeking power for its own sake.

Our reasons are as follows:

(1) The fundamental issue confronting the Peoples of Africa is the resolution of the National Question on a continental level as well as within each country. This truth is borne by the reality on the Continent where Rwanda is often cited as the exemplar of African renaissance based on her human and material development.

(2) What is not debatable about Rwanda is that whatever it has become today, or in the process of becoming, cannot be divorced from the extremely violent resolution of her National Question, otherwise known as the “Rwanda Genocide”, a repetition of which we believe no one would wish on any of the Peoples of Africa.

(3) Furthermore, Rwanda is entrenched on a dictatorship centered around the person of the President such that economic transformation as a necessity, by itself, has been substituted for the person and power of the President, occasioned by the suppression of dissent such that continuity of such transformation is dependent on Presidential Benevolence and which may not necessarily continue once the present benefactor is off the scene, one way or the other, as has happened in other African countries flaunting their development credentials wrapped around the benevolence of the leader exemplified by Kwame Nkrumah, Sekou Toure, Julius Nyerere, Thomas Sankara et al.

(4) The only exception is Obafemi Awolowo of the Western Region of Nigeria, where, despite his travails and the twists and turns of our existential reality, the social, cultural, political, and economic philosophy embedded within the People and pursued within the short time frame of our Regional existence, ensured its continuity, even after his demise, where political relevance is generally measured in terms of fidelity to, derives from, and is driven by the historical and categorical necessity his government and leadership ensured.

(5) What is playing out in Nigeria is the resolution of the National Question within the context of a contest between the forces of Unitarism, anchored by the North, politically as the NPC and the East, politically as the NCNC, both of which represented the Unitarist realities of their societies; already being practiced in the North; but an expectation in the East, fueled by the projection of her political leadership aimed at neutralizing the West, through subversion of Western political leadership since the dawn of anti-colonial agitations. This became the basis for their political alliance in their quest to dominate and control the Nigerian geo-political space until the breakdown in their military relations.

(6) Unlike the Western Region, the bastion of Federalism, taking her cue from her historical trajectory, anchored on a Federalist relationship between the various Kingdoms, which prevented the emergence of an overall kingdom for the entire land; and despite the attempt to neutralize, under the valid reason of waging a war against foreign occupation, resulting in the famous Kiriji War, pitting Yoruba Unitarist forces against the Federalists; an inconclusive war because of colonial intervention, despite which the tendency towards Federalism remained fundamental within the Yoruba political psyche.

(7) The Nigerian State was, and still is, the result of this contest between Unitarism and Federalism, with the 1960 Independence Act only an interregnum: the battle resuming immediately afterwards, where the North and the East, through their alliance, formalized Unitarism with the 1963 Constitution, resulting in its entrenchment as the defining characteristic of the Nigerian State politically, economically, and internationally.

( Politically, manifesting in various ways, among which are: (i) the manipulation of the 1962 Census, riding on the shoulder of the 1952 Census which had already given the North a Parliamentary majority and which the alliance later used against the Western Region, culminating in the 1965 Western Regional crisis and later the January 15, 1966 Military coup which temporarily ended the alliance and subsequent coups thereafter, further cementing Unitarism, this time with the North in almost absolute control (ii) despite this, the East yielded to the North, and remain committed to the alliance, always willing and ready to throw its weight behind the North against the West; (iii) Centralization of power through the atomization of the Peoples into different states dependent on the Center;(iv) the calibration of electoral votes in favor of the North, thereby enabling them to call the shots at any election;(v) centralized control over Party Affairs (vi) determination of party priorities outside the purview of their social and cultural environments (vii) denunciation of the Nationalities, reducing them to “tribes”, just as the colonial power did; (viii) attempting the “detribalization” of the Nationalities which can only end up in a “Rwanda” and (ix) Legitimization of all these(and more) by the current Constitution, reaffirming the Unitarist nature of the Nigerian Post-Colonial State.

(9) Economically, presenting itself, in Yorubaland, among others, through (i) the neutralization of the foundational economic philosophy which defined Yorubaland between 1951 and 1959, established on the foundations of a political economy of social development, with development banking an integral part, exemplified by the Yoruba version of the “too big to fail” economic necessity via the “buy out” of the Agbonmagbe Bank, preceding the famous US experience under President Obama by 50 years. (ii) massive central investment in commercial agriculture and irrigation, controlled especially by Military Officers thereby making the rest of the country dependent on the North (iii) the gradual neutralization of a development paradigm through the negation of human capacity development experienced through the de-education of the people and the subsequent integration of the country’s economy into the vortex of underdevelopment as dictated by the IMF, which eventually culminated in the enforcement of the Structural Adjustment Program, thereby de-industrializing Yorubaland (as well as the entire country).

(10) Internationally, especially within the West African sub-region, and mainly in favor of the North (i) the trans-humance protocol allowing cross-border movement of pastoral Fulani without inhibition; (ii) the gradual entrenchment of Ethno-National Fulani control of several countries in West Africa as can be seen in the Gambia, Senegal, Guinea Bissau Sierra Leone, Mali, Niger;(iii) the anti-Terrorism war in the Sahel, incorporating some of these countries and Nigeria.

(11) Despite all these, efforts of the Lagos state government under Governor Tinubu to engage the Central government, on various issues pertaining to the Federalist cause whilst also trying to address economic underdevelopment, especially through the deployment of “technocrats” as the antidote to underdevelopment, disregarded Nigeria’s experience with technocrats from the IMF, World Bank, and other international agencies, not making a dent on Nigeria’s underdevelopment. Such efforts eventually failed to advance beyond his tenure, when successive central Governments embarked on policies reinforcing the Unitarist forces in Nigeria.

(12) The infrastructural development touted by the current administration is anchored on a negation of human capital development, resulting in the superimposition of a colonial economic paradigm characterized by provision of access to raw materials for export and which has now been extended to exportation of human materials evidenced by continuous migrations out of the country.

(13) Yet, the Western Region cured this deficiency, by the introduction of a political economy anchored on an all-round education policy as the precondition for human capital development, and by extension, the overall development of the society and which eventually enabled the growth of aspirations and expectations that was experienced, providing the basis for the hope binding the Yoruba People today.

(14) The current administration’s much-touted infrastructural development lacks this essential component, to wit: human capacity development, more so when technological, scientific, and social education production are severely lacking, and with public and private education at all levels in shambles, with no roadmap for resuscitation, resulting in a steady decline of human capital, engendering a heavy reliance on foreign human capital as the operators of the economy.

(15) All of which begs the question as to what is to be done. The Yoruba Referendum Committee posits that the answer is in resolving the National Question in such a manner that will avoid the Rwanda Experience as well as the on-going war in Ethiopia between Unitarist and Federalist forces and provide a beacon for the rest of Africa.

(16) This starts from the recognition of the Peoples/Nations in themselves, and for themselves, restoring their ability to define their aspirations and expectations, and which is possible only if they are recognized as the Federating Units in a Federal System replacing the current Unitarist experience.

(17) Efforts of the Lagos State government earlier alluded to, testifies to this. It took less than eight years for succeeding central governments to create roadblocks against the successes achieved. This shows that whatever was achieved could be neutralized in short order unless the Unitarist forces are decisively and permanently defeated.

(18) It is recognized that such an expectation, by itself, will not lead to a manifestation, unless it is taken from the realm of “reasoning” and brought into the arena of practical politics.

(19) Hence the resolution proposed by the Yoruba Referendum Committee is as follows: (i) Referendums by the various Nationalities as Federating Units. (ii) For the Yoruba, this will be the Yoruba Referendum to be conducted by the Houses of Assembly in Yorubaland, aimed at recreating Nigeria as a Multi-National State, defined 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.”

(20) A Bill on the Yoruba Referendum, to be passed into Law and pave the way for conducting the Referendum has been submitted, twice, to the Governors and Speakers of the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti State Houses of Assembly.

We humbly ask that you all, individually or collectively, take a Categorical Stand on this Yoruba Categorical Imperative.

Editorial Board, Yoruba Referendum Committee

In furtherance of the Yoruba Referendum Committee’s engagement with Yoruba opinion leaders, we now look at a leader of Afenifere and a Nigerian Elder Stateman, Chief Olu Falae’s comment when asked about his concerns on power shift in 2023.

Chief Olu Falae says: “We should be concerned about where power should go, whether power should be through the election in an unstructured Nigeria. Furthermore, that all the changes and restructuring people have been advocating these many years will not happen until and unless and except there is a crisis when the question will be where do we go from here? A crisis can come in the next 12 to 15 months if two things happen. What are the two things? First, if and when the tenure of the current President comes to an end, we know that it will come to an end, we know the date. It is not a prayer or wish. May 29, 2023, that, by God’s grace, will happen. That is the first condition. The second condition is that if the first situation does not permit the election of a replacement President, then the old President is gone, a new one cannot be elected, a first-class crisis, solution to the Nigerian problem. At that point, every section of Nigeria will be free to say there is no more Federal Government……. if the two happen together, that is when restructuring is automatic. If there is no government in Abuja and there is a government in Ondo State, Kano State and other states, that is the government.”


The Yoruba Referendum Committee responds as follows:

(1) In Nigeria’s political firmament, power is often situated as an abstraction, without any material foundation, as if it is borne out of thin air. But we know power is not so derived, anywhere. It is always a reflection of the balance of forces among contending interests in a society. Hence, in Nigeria, to define power, and by extension, where it comes from and where it goes mandates an examination of its material basis.
(2) Nigeria’s political power was anchored on a pre-Independence demographic paradigm, through the 1952 Census that gave majority Parliamentary seats to the North, thereby ensuring its political dominance. The same methodology was sustained in subsequent Censuses and will most likely be retained in the 2022 Census. This is apart from the electoral bank already assigned to the North by the Electoral Commission. Therefore, where political power will go in 2023 is certain, to wit: the North.
(3) This power may be exercised directly or indirectly, as has happened in the past and is the reality in an “unrestructured Nigeria”, to negate which the terms of Restructuring must be clearly spelt out and operational. Based on the historical foundations of electoral contests stated above, the only viable Restructuring must therefore start with a definition of Nigeria’s Constituents, that is, the Peoples or Nationalities that make up the country, and who, by virtue of their aspirations must be able to choose, among themselves, their representatives to Nigeria. With this, an election becomes the sole responsibility of the Constituents. What this means is that the Peoples, the Constituents must be able to establish their power according to their needs, thereby reflecting the purpose and nature of power itself.
(4) When the Chief therefore says that “if there is no government in Abuja and there is a government in Ondo State, Kano State and other states, that is the government”, it reflects his abstraction of power, hence his assumption on the sanctity of May 29, 2023, which is not realistic, and a denial of power as the consequence of contending forces as well as the potential role that should be played by the Peoples.
(5) A more plausible scenario is that something will be worked out in aid of continuity. We recall a precedent where power was retained and sustained through the activation of a “Doctrine of Necessity” which allowed powerbrokers to ensure continuity of power.
(6) Dovetailing into the second scenario where the Chief says the absence and inability to elect a president will create a power vacuum and "automatically" bring about Restructuring. This assumption also flies in the face of the reality of power politics in Nigeria, where, at every stage of any crisis, “regional” power centers always activate their own scenarios which always end up in some form of accommodation thereby ensuring continuity. We have seen this happen since 1959 till date, where alliances emerged to sustain continuity.
(7) To support this assertion, current agitations for self-determination, especially in the south, lack any specific pathway towards actualization thereby rendering such agitations susceptible to “regional” political realities and calculations and which will come into play if there is no possibility of any elections in 2023.
( Power does not just “arrive” automatically. It only falls into the hands of those prepared for it, as for example, the experience of French Students in May 1968. Their revolution already paralyzed the entire State Structure, but they lost the initiative to those political forces already waiting in the wings and the students lost out. Their loss was predicated on the assumption by its leaders that their “theory of power will be picked up along the way”. Closer to the moment is the uprising in Egypt which saw the loss of initiative by the mass movement with the military picking up power and with Egypt now in its iron grip. Similar experiences occurred during the entire “Arab Springs” period.
(9) In an extreme situation where there is a complete breakdown of order, with the military completely divided along Ethno-National lines, the endgame will simply become a war for Ethno-National Dominance.
(10) This is more so when the international situation is factored in, to wit: the Military in both Sudan and Mali with their continuous “coups and transitions” under the pretext of preventing “civil wars” and the anti-terrorism war in the Sahel at their doorsteps; the quest for order and stability as essential to international order; the contest for supremacy between China and the West, already playing out in Africa; the Ethiopian war against Tigray, where international forces became decidedly involved on the side of Unitarist Ethiopia, especially the deployment of military aid by Turkey, which Muhammadu Buhari recently visited.
(11) The above shows that preparations for continuity are well under way—these preparations could serve as pressure points to blackmail aspirants to power into submission, play “regional” political centers against each other or generally subject the Peoples of Nigeria to circumstances beyond their control.
(12) This is where a sustained mobilization of the People in the entire power equation becomes critical and why the Yoruba Referendum Committee advocates the Yoruba Referendum, because it empowers us to address both local and international contexts for the quest for power in Nigeria. We therefore admonish Chief Olu Falae to throw his full weight behind the demand for the Yoruba Referendum.

The Yoruba Strategic Direction for 2022 and Beyond: Achieving “One Voice” for Yorubaland.

Presented by the Yoruba Referendum Committee at the “Agba Koni Tan Nile Oodua” meeting on December 19, 2021


The Strategic Imperative for Yorubaland in 2022 is the establishment of a mechanism that will bring about the elusive “One Voice” for the Yoruba in her Existential quests.


In furtherance of this, the Yoruba Referendum Committee states as follows:

(1) “One Voice” is principally the manifestation of a dominant political, economic, and social narrative capable of addressing contradictions within a society (Yorubaland), and between the Yoruba and other Peoples of the world, without abjuring the rights of any opposing force. It can therefore not be predicated upon appeals to a “cultural imperative” but must be firmly situated within a political paradigm which will become the foundation for governance.
(2) With this, it is recognized that Self-Government in the Western Region was a consequence of the Action Group’s victory in the 1951 Parliamentary Elections, which also LEGITIMIZED REGIONAL POLITICAL AUTONOMY, which provided the “One Voice” for the Region upon which the foundation of what we now know as our “Golden Era” was laid, despite the existence of opposing forces within and outside the party.
(3) The gradual loss of this Regional Political Autonomy, since 1966, has resulted in a continuous and increasingly serious and devastating existential challenges for Yorubaland, details of which we are confident are obvious to all of us, necessitating the need to pivot into a new Strategic Direction.
(4) In 2022 (and beyond), the main existential threat facing the Yoruba is anchored on the proposed Census, the foundation for any developmental paradigm but which had always been contentious in Nigeria since it has always been aimed at entrenching a demographic reality incongruent with the aspirations of various Nationalities.
(5) In addressing this, certain directions have been proffered and applied, ranging from, but not limited to(i) active participation in all electoral contests with the expectation of using such electoral victories for advancing Yoruba development, the main reason for Yoruba unconditional participation in the 1999 Abubakar Transition program, despite our holding Nigeria by the jugular, at the time and which has resulted in further political and economic balkanization of Yorubaland; (ii)expecting whoever is the president to “Restructure” as had been demanded from 1999 till date, despite the fact no Nigerian president since 1999, with all the national conferences, has deemed it necessary to address the quest for True Federalism in Nigeria but has always entrenched a more Centralized apparatus of State(iii) utilizing developmental strides of the Yoruba Region as a template for the Central Administration as can be established from the examples of the Lagos State Government and her quests for Fiscal Federalism, whose initial successes were overridden by an economic philosophy incongruent with social, cultural and economic imperatives of the Peoples (iv) attempts at creating a “Southern Alliance” against the “North” as the route towards “Restructuring/Self-Determination/Autonomy”.
(6) All the above avoided the Centrality of the Census in development, despite the spirited efforts of the Lagos State Government under Governor Tinubu to address the problem by embarking on its own Census for Lagos State, and which has led to the inability to establish a REGIONAL POLITICAL CENTER since none of the remaining Yoruba States carried out a similar exercise, which would have given meaning to “Restructuring/Self-Determination/Autonomy”.
(7) 2022 provides us with the chance of changing this narrative, being the year that Nigeria’s electoral politics will begin in earnest and further compounded by a Census whose demographic enumeration may severely damage our existential aspirations.
( Alongside this is the entrenchment of majority electoral votes in certain Regional Political centers which are already established to ultimately determine the fate of any electoral contest.
(9) Despite these, the Yoruba must take a STRATEGIC stand, revolving around the following: (i) we CANNOT continue with ANY of the above-mentioned routes for the simple reason that none has provided and cannot provide a SUSTAINABLE and STRATEGIC PATHWAY, since none is dependent on the imprimatur of the people (ii) we CANNOT also proceed with the “No elections” mantra as this will be self-defeating. Such a position can be feasible only when it is replicated all over the country and we know this will not be the case. More importantly, it provides “anti-Yoruba” forces to mobilize for the emergence of their own candidates in our own land and we would not be able to LEGITIMATELY challenge them since we would not have been prevented from any electoral contest(iii) we CANNOT allow the central Government to become the arbiter in any conflict in Yorubaland(iv) and we CANNOT continue to DISALLOW the imprimatur of the People on the political/electoral process itself—and this is where “One Voice” becomes relevant and we shall now address it.
(10) As was experienced during the days of the Action Group, and indeed in other political climes, embedding the hopes and aspirations of the Peoples within any extant political/electoral and non-electoral contest for power is a sine-qua-non, because of its centrality in the Political demands of the day.
(11) In the current political reality of Nigeria, suffocating bureaucratization by the central authorities has resulted in recycling of various personalities in and out of the parties while the Peoples are denied the centrality of their existence and balkanized into administrative entities, thereby denying them their humanity as Peoples capable of exercising their God-given rights and responsibilities.
(12) To cure these, we must be able to infuse our own hopes and aspirations into the political atmosphere, and the only way of doing this is in a campaign for a STRATEGIC BOYCOTT of the Census alongside the demand for the YORUBA REFERENDUM both of which may then become the foundation for RESTRUCTURING of Nigeria.
(13) The following are some of the reasons for the above: (i) provides the “One Voice” for the Yoruba through a “YES” vote in the Referendum which LEGITIMIZES, VALIDATES and LEGALIZES the Yoruba stand on the Census, through the Draft Bill for the Referendum which provides for the establishment of the CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION, which shall be vested with powers to present and represent the views of the Yoruba and negotiate on behalf of the Yoruba with all the agencies of the Nigerian Government, non-Governmental organizations, and the international Community without prejudice to the continuous existence of the 6 state administrations which cannot be wished away but can function effectively within the ambit of the Constitutional Commission(ii) The STRATEGIC importance of the CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION cannot be overemphasized in the sense that it remains the LEGAL, VALID and LEGITIMATE representative of Yoruba Aspirations regardless of the outcome of the 2023 Elections.(iii) This Referendum route can also be emulated by other PEOPLES of Nigeria, that is, the Middle Belt; South-East; South-South/Niger Delta, North East, and North West and it becomes the SUBSTITUTE for any expected “southern” alliance; (iv) it provides a Template for ANY form of relationships between the PEOPLES/NATIONS of Nigeria, if they so wish, and if NOT, ensures complete AUTONOMY for Yoruba People; (v) Ensures and assures that Yoruba Political direction is anchored on a firm political demand as enunciated in the Annexure to the Bill for a Referendum whereby the Yoruba can address her present challenges by creating the necessary political atmosphere and challenge to extant Nigerian political structures and projections. (vi) assures the Yoruba in Kwara and Kogi states that their Yoruba kin in the West are aware of their own demands, since the anti-colonial agitations, for a REFERENDUM to choose where they want to belong.
(14) The ANNEXURE to the Bill for A Referendum provides for the following: (a) 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” (b) Western/Oduduwa Region shall be a Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Union. (c) Western/Oduduwa Region shall adopt a Parliamentary System of government. (d) The Central Government of the Union shall have no power to interfere 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. (e)There shall be a Division of the Federal Armed Forces in the Region, 90% of which personnel shall be indigenes of the Region. The Divisional commander shall be an indigene of Oduduwa Region. (f) The Judicial power of the Region shall be vested in the Supreme Court of the Region, Court of Appeal, High Court, Customary Court and Other lower courts as the Parliament may establish. (g) 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. (h) Western/Oduduwa Region shall have its own internal security system. (i) Each Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Federation shall control primary interest in its own resources with an agreed Tax Model for the Federation.
(15) In furtherance of the above, the Yoruba Referendum Committee started a PETITION to our Governors and Houses of Assembly to pass the Attached Draft Bill for a Referendum into Law and conduct the Referendum. We have also submitted the Draft Bill to the Governors and Speakers of the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti and Ondo State Houses of Assembly, TWICE, knowing full well that as there may be no law empowering them for such an exercise, there is equally no law preventing them from doing so. The missing factor is the POLITICAL WILL to ensure that the Referendum is conducted.
(16) We therefore urge this meeting to join us to begin the process of establishing this Political Will by adopting the YORUBA REFERENDUM as the appropriate STRATEGY for 2022 because it is the route towards the Yoruba “One Voice”, and make it the main Political and electoral issue in the land and no potential candidate(s) will be able to postpone its implementation with the usual excuse of waiting until after assuming office since all the elements for its actualization already exist.
(17) Our activities can start by establishing a Mobilization Mechanism for both the Census and the Referendum and this does not require a “Yoruba Summit” as the Mobilization itself becomes the route towards such a Summit, when necessary.