₦airaland Forum

www.thepathfinderinternational.com





WHEREAS:
1. Federalism, a union of two or more entities, reflects a relationship between the “national” (center) and the “sub-national” (Regional) entities. Ignoring Geo-political Restructuring as the primary factor in Federalism in a multi-National, multi-Lingual and multi-Cultural society like Nigeria is to deny prospects of combined and even development, the absence of which is the root cause of her underdevelopment.

2. Assuming the singularity of the Geo-Political space called Nigeria as an inviolable fact of her existence, all the solutions to its problems are relegated to maintaining that singularity while turning issues of Federalism into an administrative convenience even when it is obvious that the problem is exactly in that singularity.

3. “States”, as we have them in Nigeria, with or without their own Police Forces, are administrative entities, which were not even created by the residents but by military fiat: the Aguiyi-Ironsi regime forcibly replaced the previously agreed Regions with “Groups of Provinces”; Yakubu Gowon’s 12-State Geo-Political Structure aimed at the then impending war; Murtala Muhammed’s 19 States to Ibrahim Babangida’s 21 States and now Sanni Abacha’s 36-State Structure are mere Administrative categories but which were summarily deemed to be the Federating Units, making them an aberration upon which the Nigerian problematic rest.

4. Compounding the aberration is the introduction of a “third tier”, the Local Government, ostensibly aimed at “reforming” Local Governance but ending up as the anchor towards further centralization and sealed with a military Constitution which made the “sub-national” completely dependent on “allocations” from this center for its existence, the cumulative, negative effect of which fertilized the ground for calls for Restructuring, hence all the Amendments to the Constitution can only sustain this aberration of Federalism.

5. Contiguity of Administrative Units, regardless of the nomenclature, cannot be an issue, more so when there is no territorial limitation as to the extent of the contiguity thereby making all the current 36 States contiguous thus introducing another form of homogeneity through the backdoor. To have a territorial limitation must involve other criteria, principal of which is the Peoples and therefore cultural thus rendering the concept of these “states” as Federating Units null.

6. Good governance cannot therefore be exhibited in the sense that the consciousness of itself as an entity is determined by its relationship with the center and not by the existential realities of its inhabitants; its sustenance is determined by the “national”, hence its emoluments and remunerations are not conditioned by its political, cultural and economic reality; its political economy is bereft of any economic philosophy derived from its existential prerogatives; its lingual-cultural development, a sine-qua-non for the Peoples’ emergence from colonialism, is stunted or completely ignored; the Peoples in these “states” thus became onlookers in their own history, having suffered foreign colonial subjugation and now represented by its “local” version.

7. Any Administration can point to its “achievements” under any circumstances, hence comparative analysis of different administrations within the same political-economic matrix cannot be turned into the benchmark for an overall economic philosophy addressing the uneven development of a post-colonial society; unless such comparison aims at instituting its own social, political and economic paradigm as the standard.

8. References to the economic and cultural development of the Regions in the First Republic is an indication of Nigeria’s potentials, where, specifically for the Western Region, her developmental paradigm was not simply a question of a series of policy formulations by benevolent leaders but an ideological (and philosophical) orientation aimed at negating colonial economy where “freedom for all, life more abundant” became manifested through the combined and even development of the Western Region via education, industrialization and human capital development; the pursuit of Political Autonomy for other Peoples of Nigeria through advocacy for more Regions and a vision of foreign policy anchored on less dependence on colonial military imperatives, as in the rejection of the Anglo-Nigeria Defense Pact, unlike the present circumstances where further ingratiation into global liberal political economy is the only route being pursued, despite warnings to the contrary, even from the custodians of that economic order.

9. The problematic is therefore not in the comparison, but in the realities of the political economy as to whether it can address social, economic, political and cultural underdevelopment based on its own stated parameters, bringing forth the question of the possibility of “economic development” within a dysfunctional political system, despite spirited efforts in that direction.

10. The Western Region developmental model, the product of the Political Autonomy resulting from the pursuit of Federalism as the true form of Geo-Political Architecture of the emerging post-colonial State, went through a period of systematic destruction of all its economic and human capital indices thereby rendering null the proposition of a viable, sustainable, social and economic development without Geo-Political Autonomy. Its component, Fiscal Federalism, by definition, reflects this Geo-Political necessity, otherwise, there would be no need to equate fiscal relations between the “national” and “sub-national” with Federalism.

11. All of these cannot be resolved through a series of Amendments to the Constitution as this will render the Constitution irrelevant since issues will always crop up demanding one amendment or the other. And if a decision is made creating a time-frame for any future amendment, it becomes a victim of political somersaults, especially when the “sub-national” has become completely dependent on the “national” thereby making it susceptible to whatever interests the “national” is pursuing. The Constitution would therefore have failed in its primary role and function as the Grundnorm, the Fundamental Law of the society.

12. Restructuring, therefore, is about the Peoples in their cultural and existential self-conception(s)and expressions. Expecting the same central leviathan to dismantle itself from above without the self-activity of the Peoples of the Constituent units is an exercise in futility. The discourse on and advocacy for the Federalist reconstitution of Nigeria must therefore be put in the context of political revolution by which the Peoples of the Nationalities push for and assert their right to Self-determination. The peaceful and most practical way towards attaining this goal is for each of the Nationalities in Nigeria to organize and hold a Referendum within the Nationality/Constituent Unit as the first step.
Therefore, for the Yoruba Nation, the following Bill for a Referendum Law is to be submitted to the Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti Houses of Assembly, through their Speakers, for appropriate action with copies to the Governors in these States as well as the Yoruba Obas, representing the Yoruba People in Kwara and Kogi States.

DRAFT BILL FOR A REFERENDUM LAW

A Law of Ekiti State House of Assembly, Ogun State House of Assembly, Osun State House of Assembly, Oyo State House of Assembly, Ondo State House of Assembly and Lagos State House of Assembly for the holding of a Referendum on the proposal to Federate Ekiti State with Ogun State, Osun State, Oyo State, Ondo State and Lagos State and constitute same into Oduduwa Region of Western Nigeria, within the Federation of Nigeria.
A: REFERENDUM ON FEDERATION OF EKITI STATE WITH OGUN STATE, OSUN STATE, OYO STATE, ONDO STATE AND LAGOS STATE AND CONSTITUTION OF SAME INTO ODUDUWA REGION IN A FEDERATION OF NIGERIA.
1. On this 15th Day of December, 2018, a Referendum shall be held in Ekiti State, Ogun State, Osun State, Oyo State, Ondo State and Lagos State of Nigeria on:
(i) Whether the Governments of Ekiti, Ogun, Osun, Oyo, Ondo and Lagos States should negotiate with each other with a view to forming a FEDERATION of STATES to be known as the ODUDUWA REGION OF WESTERN NIGERIA and (ii) whether the said REGION should negotiate with the Government of Nigeria and the remaining 30 states or any group of states that have also agreed to Federate and the administration of the Federal Capital Territory to achieve AUTONOMY/SELF-DETERMINATION for the said REGION within a Federation of Nigerian Constituent Units.(ANNEXURE)
2. The questions or propositions to be voted on in the Referendum and form of the ballot paper to be used for that purpose are to be in the form set out in the schedule herein contained.
3. Those entitled to vote in the Referendum are the persons who, on the date of the Referendum, would be entitled to vote as electors at a local government election in the electoral area/ward of the State in which they reside and/or carry out business.
4. The Governor of Each State shall appoint a Chief Electoral Officer who shall appoint an electoral officer for each Local Government Area.
5. Each Local Government Electoral Officer shall (a) Conduct the counting of votes cast in the area under his/her authority in accordance with any directions given by the Chief Electoral Officer and (b) Certify the number of ballot papers counted by him/her and the number of votes cast for each question/proposition.
6. The Chief Electoral Officer must certify:
(a) The total number of ballot papers counted for the whole of Each State and (b) the total number of votes cast for each proposition/question for the whole of the State.
7. The result of the Referendum shall constitute the entire position of the people of Ogun State, Oyo State, Osun State, Ekiti State, Ondo State and Lagos State (WESTERN/ODUDUWA REGION OF NIGERIA).
8. In the event of a YES vote on the Referendum, the Governors of each State shall appoint members into a Constitutional Council of Western/Oduduwa Region.
9. The Constitutional Council of Western/Oduduwa Region shall include not more than twelve (12) other members chosen at random throughout the Region and four (4) members from Kwara and Kogi States.
10. The Constitutional Council of Western/Oduduwa Region shall be vested with powers to present and represent the views of Western/Oduduwa Region and negotiate on behalf of the Western/Oduduwa Region with all the agencies of the Nigerian Government and non-Governmental organizations involved in the process.
B: The short title of this Law is “Referendum Law of Ekiti State, Ondo State, Osun State, Oyo State, Ogun State and Lagos State”.

SCHEDULE
FORM OF BALLOT PAPER: Ekiti State House of Assembly, Ondo State House of Assembly, Osun State House of Assembly, Oyo State House of Assembly, Ogun State House of Assembly and Lagos State House of Assembly, have decided to consult the People of Each State on this 15th Day of December, 2018 on the proposal to Federate the Government of Ogun State, the Government of Osun State, the Government of Oyo State, the Government of Ekiti State, the Government of Ondo State and the Government of Lagos State with a view to constituting a REGION of Western Nigeria within a Federation of Nigeria.
THUMBPRINT in the box containing:
(YES)
1. I AGREE that the Governments of Ekiti State, Ondo State, Oyo State, Osun State, Ogun State and Lagos State should negotiate with each other with a view to forming a FEDERATION of STATES to be known as the ODUDUWA REGION OF WESTERN NIGERIA which shall negotiate with the Yoruba persons in Kwara and Kogi States, whether they want to be part of the ODUDUWA REGION or not; shall further negotiate with the Government of Nigeria and the remaining 30 states and the administration of the Federal Capital Territory to achieve AUTONOMY/SELF-DETERMINATION for the said REGION within a Federation of Nigeria.
OR
(NO)
2. I DO NOT AGREE that the Governments of Ekiti State, Ondo State, Oyo State, Osun State, Ogun State and Lagos State should negotiate with each other with a view to forming a FEDERATION of STATES to be known as the ODUDUWA REGION OF WESTERN NIGERIA which shall negotiate with the Yoruba in Kwara and Kogi States as to whether they want to be part of the ODUDUWA REGION or not, and further negotiate with the Government of Nigeria and the remaining 30 states and the administration of the Federal Capital Territory to achieve AUTONOMY/SELF-DETERMINATION for the said REGION within a Federation of Nigeria.
ANNEXURE
• A Federal Nigeria, through a Federal Constitution, to be known as The Union of Nigerian Constituent Nationalities, with a Federal Presidential Council, whose members will be selected or elected from each of the Nationalities as Federating Units and from whom a Head of State will be selected or elected as the primus-inter-pares with an agreed term.
• Western/Oduduwa Region shall be a Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Union.
• Western/Oduduwa Region shall adopt a Parliamentary System of government.
• The Central Government of the Union shall have no power to interfere nor intervene in the affairs of the ODUDUWA REGION, save as shall be agreed to by three quarters of the members of the Region’s Parliament.
• There shall be a Division of the Federal Armed Forces in the Region, 90% of which personnel shall be indigenes of the Region. The Divisional commander shall be an indigene of Oduduwa Region.
• The Judicial power of the Region shall be vested in the Supreme Court of the Region, Court of Appeal, High Court, Customary Court and Other lower courts as the Parliament may establish. There shall be a Court of Appeal in each of the provinces. There shall be, in each province, a High Court from which appeals shall lie to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
• Western/Oduduwa Region shall have its own internal security system.
• Each Constituent Unit of the Nigerian Federation shall control primary interest in its own resources with an agreed Tax Model for the Federation.
Shenge Rahman, Femi Odedeyi; for and on behalf of Egbe Omo Oduduwa
e-mail: egbeomooduduwa1945@gmail.com

www.thepathfinderinternational.com



Without prejudice to other contestants, the advent of both Muhammadu Buhari and Abubakar Atiku as the two leading contenders for Nigeria’s presidency has opened the road for a strategic move by the West/SW/Yoruba Nation towards achieving her Autonomy in the quest for True Federalism in Nigeria. Both candidates have been infatuated with Restructuring despite the whittling down of Abubakar Atiku’s proposition to “provision of jobs for youths” etc and Muhammadu Buhari dilly-dallying on its prospects, preferring “economic” pursuits instead. That this is happening only means the Peoples must take charge of the issue by taking the initiative away from the empty promises of various Administrations since 1999.

There is therefore the need to remember all the previous attempts at “Restructuring” scuttled by these aspirants while they were in power, despite the reality of the impossibility of the Nigerian post-colonial State not being more than what it currently is, unless its foundational architecture is Restructured.

Muhammadu Buhari was the ADC to Dr. Koyejo Majekodunmi, the Administrator appointed by the NPC/NCNC Coalition to oversee the suppression of Federalist forces in the West; he was actively involved in subsequent Military Administrations which formalized Unitarizing the country— the foundational and fundamental objective of not only the Nigerian Military but also Northern Hegemony, translating into continuous Unitarization of Nigeria as their singular purpose.

On his part, Abubakar Atiku was the Vice President between 1999 and 2007 when Olusegun Obasanjo was the President, whose 2005 Political Reform Conference was an attempt at elongating his Presidential term but hidden behind “Restructuring” with Abubakar Atiku already assigned to “taking over” the West for the PDP; a function performed with such “efficiency” that Lagos State was left off the hook only because of his benevolence. Since leaving power, he has never promoted “Restructuring” to any appreciable level except now that he is running for office.

Turning the notion of unity, as experienced at Independence, on its head, is one of the legacies of the Nigerian military, in and out of uniform and in association with their civilian counterparts, both acting out the hegemonic script by divesting unity of its diversity, having substituted uniformity for unity.

Both candidates failed to address the responses to foundational crisis of the Nigerian National State, at critical junctures of Nigeria’s history, proposed by both Chiefs Obafemi Awolowo and Anthony Enahoro; proposals which ordinarily should inform on the current agitation for Restructuring as the starting point.

While Muhammadu Buhari was attending to suppression of the West, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, on behalf of the same West, stated the following as the road towards Unity: 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.

While Abubakar Atiku was superintending taking over of the West on behalf of the PDP as mandated by the Olusegun Obasanjo Administration, the Chief Anthony Enahoro-led Movement for National Re-Formation proposed, as Nigeria’s Federating Units,[b] 17 Lingual-Territorial/Nationality entities, of which 11 will be mono-Lingual/Nationality/Region while 6 will multi-Nationality Regions: (1)Ibibio (2).Ijaw (3). Igbo (4). Urhobo (5).Edo (6). Yoruba (7). ( Tiv (9). Gbagyi;(10). Husa-Fulani (11). Kanuri. Nationalities in Cross River and Akwa Ibom states (i.e. Eket, Annang, Oron, Ibeno, Efik, Ejagbam, Korop, Boki, Bakwara, Yakurr, Yala). (ii) Nationalities in Rivers and Bayelsa states (i.e. Ikwerre, Etchei, Ekpeeye, Engeni, Ogba, Eleme, Ndoni, Ogoni, and Andoni). (iii) Nationalities in Delta State (i.e. Ika, Ndokwa, Warri, Isoko). (iv) Nationalities in West Middle Belt, i.e. Zuru, Kambari, Bariba, Bussa, Karekare, Ngizim, Angamo, Bola, Funne, etc. (v) 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) 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.[/b]

In 2018, if all there is to Muhammadu Buhari’s Administration is “fighting corruption”, the “fight” will be half-won( and other things will follow) if the political architecture of State is transformed from the Presidential to the Parliamentary; for, among others, this will greatly reduce the “monetization of politics” as no candidate will need to campaign beyond his/her Constituency; the community/constituency will become a political force in itself; political and economic autonomy of the Peoples through the principle of derivation will address the question of the dichotomy between “infrastructural” and human development thereby making human capacity development a primary responsibility of the community/constituency.

The World Bank president, for the second time in a year, hammered on the need for human development; the first time at the Board meeting of the African Development Bank and now at the World Bank Board Meeting. Even if the World Bank president is to be ignored, considering the Bank’s role in Africa’s underdevelopment, the point is, human development will be impossible in Africa without Autonomy of the various cultural political economies, especially when the establishment of the colonial State was predicated on negating this Autonomy such that when African rulers run to China for “favorable loans” for “infrastructural development” little did they care to observe that this would not have been possible for China if it had continued the alienation of her Peoples by denying them their Cultural Political Economy; for, its Constitution provides Cultural autonomy and political representation for her minorities, all operating under the one-party State, the ideological motor for her emancipation.

In the period leading up to the 2015 Elections, The SW/Yoruba APC entered a necessary alliance which enabled the Muhammadu Buhari presidency, and which has turned out to be a negation of Restructuring. The SW APC must now choose to either continue with self-immolation or redraw the terms of the alliance. If Singapore, as a country, can be withdrawn from a Malaysian merger so it can pursue its development unfettered, nothing stops a section of a political party from withdrawing from a merger; and this is not about substituting a Fulani with another; for a Constitutional Alternative exists.

For the Yoruba Nation/SW, that the Presidential election is the first in the series of elections provides the framework for this Alternative; anchored on the Yoruba Manifesto as its driving force as well as the electoral mandate, it provides Legitimacy for the Yoruba National definition of Restructuring; unless, of course, the SW APC has a different notion and it will have no choice but to let the Yoruba People know what it is.

The ball is now in the SW/Yoruba APC court, regardless of any affirmation as to the party being a country-wide proposition.

Current and contemporary history ought to guide the SW/Yoruba APC. Scotland provided many of Nigeria’s colonial operatives, including colonial Governors, as part of her contribution to the building of the Empire. Scottish political associations began demanding Scottish self-determination within the United Kingdom, up till the present when the demand for Independence has become the main issue on Scotland’s political agenda and further fueled by the fact that what is good for the rest of UK is not good for Scotland (Brexit).

If, after over 300 years of “union”, those who brought the Peoples of the Niger Area together to create a country called Nigeria can be engaged in a civilized process of disengagement; and these “Nigerians” are being held hostage by a false “union” anchored on a false Constitutional foundation, the judgement of history will be on those who will wittingly corroborate the racist notion as to emotions, not reason, being the motive force of the African.

www.thepathfinderinternational.com

Preamble:

(1) The history of Africa since the Independence era of the 60s is a history of attempts at consolidating the Colonial Nation State which sought to homogenize the Cultures and Nationalities into its own paradigm by forcing the different Nationalities and Cultures into its version of the Nation-State without the influence of these different Cultures on the architecture of State and which has only succeeded in causing wars and violence between and among the different Nationalities and Cultures. This raises the fundamental question as to whether an abundance of dysfunctional post-colonial states as conceived by the colonial powers and anchored on the Balkanization of the various Peoples of Africa into these post-colonial countries, can develop an enduring political and economic philosophy for development of the global African Peoples.
(2) Nigeria, and other African post-colonial Nation-States exist in contradiction to the right and consequently the ability of the Nationalities to maintain their God-assigned Identity rendering them completely dependent on international political and economic forces responsible for our colonization without any philosophy of engagement that will address disparities between the Nation-State and its international sponsors and within the Nation-State itself thus living out the reality expected by colonialism while negating the existential expectations of the Nationality. The post-colonial Nation-State is parasitic on the God-given natural resources of the geo-political space leading to the non-utilization of these resources to develop any meaningful human resource or capacity thus becoming the backdrop for corruption and causing massive exodus of human capital glamorized as remitters of foreign exchange back into the country with no impact on human and material productivity.
(3) Reversing this trend is therefore a necessity for Africa; Nigeria, in the present circumstances provide the best example of how this is to be achieved, more so when “Restructuring” has assumed a primary place in Nigeria’s political firmament. For the Yoruba Nation and People who also extend beyond Nigeria’s shores, it is imperative that our existential paradigms become embedded in our geo-political existence within the Nigerian Nation State.
(4) Yoruba Historical and Cultural Identity played a major part in the developmental efforts of the then Western Region which allowed us to refer to the period as our “Golden Era” and from which all references to our development derive. This is despite the subversion of the Western Region by the NPC/NCNC Alliance in the First Republic via the attempted 1961 neutralization of the economic and financial center of Western Regional Development, the National Bank; the illegal and Unconstitutional Declaration of the 1962 State of Emergency; the bypassing of the Regional Parliament in creating the Mid-West Region in 1963, even as the West was the only advocate of creating more Regions in the country; the subterranean creation of 12 States, based on a supposed war imperative but which ended up neutralizing the combined development of the Region; the taking over of the University of Ife in 1975; the Land Use Decree/Act in 1978/79; the introduction of a Presidential System of Government in 1978; the eradication of the Marketing Boards in favor of a centralized Structural Adjustment Program in 1988; all the way to the present, where our rivers and waterways are being centralized; attempts being made to establish centrally-funded cattle ranches all over the country in aid of Fulani cattle business; placing the State Legislatures under the control of the National Assembly along with so many other examples, all point in the direction of alienating the Yoruba from our God-given Identity as a Nation-in-itself.
(5) It is recognized that the above are specific to the Yoruba Nation. Other Nationalities have experienced similar alienation in different forms, all of which make it imperative for the all the Nationalities to have as much Autonomy in their Geo-Political territories as a Truly Federal arrangement would demand.

What We Want:

(a) A Federal Nigeria, through a 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) YORUBALAND, geo-politically known as the ODUDUWA REGION and consisting of the present states of Ekiti, Eko, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, Oyo and all Oodua lands in Kwara, Kogi, Edo and Delta States to become an AUTONOMOUS Nation in a UNION OF NIGERIAN CONSTITUENT NATIONALITIES and recognizing all persons in the Diaspora, of African descent who claim Oduduwa/Yoruba ancestry, either through cultural affiliation or genealogical connection .
(c) 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.
(d) There shall be a Division of the Federal Armed Forces in the Region, 90% of which personnel shall be indigenes of the Region. The Divisional commander shall be an indigene of Oduduwa Region.
(e) ODUDUWA Region shall adopt a Parliamentary System of government. This Parliament shall have the power to make laws governing taxes, duties, excise, payment of debt, etc It shall have the power to make laws governing the sourcing of funds on behalf of the Region and to regulate commerce with the co-prosperity spheres within the Union of Nigeria. This Parliament shall have the power to establish Regional Police Service with responsibility to investigate Regional crimes. This Police Service shall have no superintending control over the Provincial and Council Police service, but shall coordinate activities at the Regional, Provincial and Local council levels.
(f) The Judicial power of the Region shall be vested in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court, Customary Court and Other lower courts as the Parliament may establish. There shall be a Court of Appeal in each of the provinces. There shall be, in each province, a High Court from which appeals shall lie to the Court of Appeal and Supreme Court.
(g) Oodua Customary forms of land ownership shall be respected. Exploitation of mineral resources shall be the prerogative of the host community without prejudice to the right of the Local, Provincial and Regional Governments to levy appropriate taxes for the welfare of the people of Oodua land and without prejudice to the right of the Federal Government to levy taxes.

What We Believe:

(6) We recognize the dispersal of the African Peoples from their God-given territories on the continent of Africa through early Arab Invasions, the Trans-Atlantic Slave Trade, alongside voluntary and involuntary migrations out of the continent because of the failure of the various post-colonial African States to address existential problematics of the various African Peoples; we also recognize the immense contributions, in various fields and in the various Diasporas, of pioneers of African emancipation.
(7) Our God-given Identity is our Nationality and any form of political, economic and social formulation that will mediate the interrelationships within the Nationality and between Nationalities expressed as a Nation-State must involve the direct participation of the Nationalities making up such a Nation State, more-so when there are different existential realities between the Nationalities which the apparatus of the Nation-State seeks to mediate.
( In Nigeria, and the West (Yorubaland), the post-Independence Nation-State exist in contradiction to the right and consequently the ability of the Nationalities to maintain their God-assigned Identity thus denying the Nations the ability to pursue micro and macro-Economic policies that will result in the development of social and economic relationship between the various Nationalities within Nigeria and their Diaspora; for the Yoruba Nation, that will be Brazil, Cuba, the U.S, the West Indies and South America without the overriding legislative power of the Nigerian Union.

CONCLUSION: This Manifesto is presented to all candidates for the offices of the President, Governors, National Assembly and State Houses of Assembly as the minimum Yoruba National condition for “Constitutional Restructuring” of Nigeria and these candidates MUST PUBLICLY accede to the provisions. Rejection or deviation will be a negation of our Right to exist as an Autonomous Geo-political entity and signal the necessity for a Yoruba Referendum on our place in Nigeria.
CC: Chief Bisi Akande; Gen Alani Akinrinade; Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu; Prof Yemi Osinbajo; former and current Governors of Oyo, Ogun, Osun, Ondo, Ekiti and Lagos states; National and State Assembly members from the SW; C.O Adebayo; Ayo Opadokun; SW APC; Afenifere; YCE; ARG; COSEG; Prof Adebanji Akintoye; Prof Sola Adeyeye; Babafemi Ojudu; Prof Bunmi Ayoade; Dr. Amos Akingba; Dr. Bayonile Ademodi; Babajide Omoworare; Prof Adebayo Williams; Chief Adisa; Aare Gani Adams; Kunle Famoriyo; Razaq Olokooba.

Shenge Rahman, Femi Odedeyi; for and on behalf of Egbe Omo Oduduwa.
Pastor Goke Afolayan, Convener, Christians for Yoruba Nation.

www.thepathfinderinternational.com


It is now crystal clear that the Buhari Administration is following on the footsteps of the Olusegun Obasanjo-led 1976-79 Military Administration, capped with its 1978 Land Use Decree, vesting control of the country’s mineral resources in the central government and Legitimized by the subsequent civilian administration. Knowing that all military administrations since 1966 act on behalf of Northern, Fulani hegemony, of which Muhammadu Buhari was a major participant, it can be surmised that Olusegun Obasanjo, the then Head of State, pandered to their wishes with the understanding that he will be its ultimate beneficiary, with his leadership profile enhanced within the context of maintaining this hegemony.

Now at the helm, Muhammadu Buhari is cementing what was started in 1976-78, using political means to entrench centralization of all things critical to the existence of the Peoples making up Nigeria and making them subservient to the hegemony. These are exemplified by the recent Act granting “autonomy” for State Houses of Assembly, whose funding(and control) will now rest with the center; the impending “Waterways Bill” vesting control of river banks on the central authorities; establishing cattle ranches across the country by the center; and now with the rush to create a so-called State Police with provisions for a central police service commission  ostensibly aimed at protecting the state police from their governors.

On its part, the National Assembly, especially the current Assembly, has become a direct participant in this centralization process. Its major preoccupation is in amending the 1999 Constitution as often as possible to ensure the continuity of the centralization process while protecting its own privileges achieved by a trade-off with the executive, since further centralization ensures continuity with its Legislative privileges.

The conclusion from all of these is that a deliberate methodology is being perfected to foist the military vision of Nigeria as a centralized State formation on the rest of us despite the country being in a constant state of rebirth and reinvention since the intervention of the military in January and July 1966; which interventions, through the neutralization of the Regions, were aimed at securing Nigeria in the military’s image, the military itself being a function of colonial preference for the colonized, and all of which were hidden under a “patriotic” or “nationalistic” motif and continuously legitimized by the National Assembly.

Despite these, different administrations had always provided political opportunities for the re-Formation of Nigeria, which were not usually taken advantage of, for all sorts of reasons, primary of which is political pragmatism leading to being overwhelmed by tactical considerations by which time the opportunities will disappear once such tactical considerations had run its course. The responses to these interventions are anchored on making use of what is available without considerations for deepening the contradictions embedded in the continuous attempt at sustaining colonial and centralized expectations.

It was thus not obvious that our quest for political power ought to combine economic development with the necessity to recreate the necessary political space for such development as a matter of course; and that being, at the minimum, Regional/Ethno-National Autonomy. There is nothing wrong in having a party in power pursuing a development agenda. The point is, such an agenda must go parri passu with the aim of making Regional/Ethno-National Autonomy its main goal.

What then is to be done?

It is obvious that the APC “Change” Mantra has become a change from the lackadaisical approach to centralization since 1999, where its force of Legitimacy was not consistently pursued, to a more determined effort to ensure its entrenchment such that, regardless of any party in power at the center, it will have no choice but to flow with it and any challenges to this centralization will be resisted, either with force as being experienced in the Middle Belt, was experienced with the Niger Delta agitation on Resource Control or even IPOB preference for Biafra, or politically with substituting Regional centers of power with preferences of the center, more so when centralization is now continuously legitimized by the National Assembly.

The first task therefore, is to de-Legitimize the centralization process by making the 1999 Constitution redundant. This will be done when all the Constituent Units in Nigeria, organized and mobilized as Regions or “Zones” or Nationalities, present their own candidates for the 2019 Presidential Election and ensuring that their candidates overwhelmingly win their Regions as well as preventing any other candidate from any other Region from securing 25% of the votes in any other Region. This will create a deadlock which will form the basis for a Re-Negotiation of the Constitution.

To prevent any possibility of negotiating away the demands and aspirations of any Region/Zone, each must have as its election Manifesto, its own Constitution. A victory in the Zone/Region thus becomes its own “referendum” on Nigeria under which basis a new and Federal Nigeria will emerge.

In case any reason is found for the impossibility of the above, the existence of each Regional Constitution provides a moral and political ground to challenge the fraud of the 1999 Constitution with its “We, The People” premise, as well as making the Regional/Zonal leaders accountable for surrendering to continuous centralization.

For Yorubaland, “ooduapathfinder” and Egbe Omo Oduduwa had made the call before; and it is repeating it now. Asiwaju Tinubu and the SW APC, being the dominant political tendency at this time, must take the lead in this process. He can either be the Yoruba/SW Presidential candidate or promote another, if necessary. The Middle Belt already shortlisted her own candidates; any strategizing between the leaders and Peoples of the Middle Belt, South-East, South-South and South-West must flow with this recommendation and not fall for the attempt to make the North a referee in any political fight in the south as being promoted by Boss Mustapha, the Secretary to the current central administration, through making the political future of the South East dependent on voting for Buhari in 2019.

http://emotanafricana.com/2018/06/16/towards-a-re-negotiation-of-nigeria-a%e1%b9%a3iwaju-tinubu-yoruba-igbo-and-niger-delta-candidates-should-run-for-the-presidency-alongside-buhari-egbe-omo-oduduwa/



[b]With the failure of the Buhari Administration to fulfill many of the promises he made as a candidate, including restructuring, a major item in his manifesto for the 2015 elections, the idea of each area/zone/region fielding a candidate would definitely result in a deadlock which would require the “re-negotiation” called for by Ẹgbẹ Ọmọ Oduduwa to arrive at the result that President Buhari and the party he leads have been running away from these past three years.--- [/b]TOLA


(1) The Nigerian military declared May 29 as Nigeria’s “Democracy Day” in furtherance of the attempt to scuttle True Federalism in Nigeria; a process earlier embarked upon by the post-independence Central Government through emasculating the Government of Western Region by illegally and Unconstitutionally Declaring a State of Emergency on the Region on May 29, 1962; the beginnings of the pogrom against the Igbo in the North on May 29,1966; both of which flowed from a recognition of the North by the British as the superintendent of colonial Nigeria.
(2) Federalism in Nigeria was originally championed by the Yoruba Leader, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, and manifested through the Action Group, the political party anchored on cultural and lingual determinants, promoting Federalism as the only form of State that will guarantee the foundation for a political economy of engagement with political and economic underdevelopment. Historical and factual evidence abound as to how this existential necessity became advantageously established practically and philosophically in the Western Region under the direction of the Party.
(3) In defiance of historical antecedents of May 29, the Yoruba Nation, who had borne the brunt of military repression consequent upon the annulment of June 12, 1993 election and won by the Yoruba, M.K.O Abiola, became the major force of resistance against the annulment. Yoruba post-military political leaders championed and celebrated “June 12” as Democracy Day as the alternative
(4) The President recently praised Sanni Abacha to high heavens, declaring that he agreed to work with Sanni Abacha notwithstanding any opinion we have about him. Yet, the issue is not about our opinions but about the reality of Abacha’s dictatorship and its implications for the Yoruba. Sanni Abacha not only put M.K. O Abiola in prison where he died, he also superintended the various acts of attempts at suppressing the movement challenging the annulment of the June 12 election, an act which caused many Yoruba to make the supreme sacrifice. The present Administration would be gravely mistaken if it thinks this declaration and the post-humous awards are sufficient to address Nigeria’s structural geo-political imbalance, which was root cause of the June 12 imbroglio in the first instance.
(5) The declaration of June 12 as the New Democracy Day by the Federal Government must therefore be seen by us for what it truly represents -a vindication of the insistence of our people and her progressive leadership on Democracy and the right to Self-Determination. Rather than allow the declaration to lull us into complacency, we must leverage upon it to further and deepen the struggle for the right of our people to Self -Government in a new and equitable Union.
(6) The aftermath of “June 12” saw the emergence of the pan-Nigerian National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) whose aims, and aspirations also centered on achieving True Federalism through active engagement of the military and whose successes, despite operating under a hateful military dictatorship, led to a withdrawal by the military from direct governance of Nigeria.
(7) Unfortunately, the Yoruba engaged this withdrawal with a strategy based on participating in Abubakar’s 1998-1999 transition program without pre-conditions, even though we held the oppressive Nigerian State by the jugular at that point in time. Indeed, a school of thought will claim that what was being called a strategy was nothing short of a disorganized retreat from a position of strength.
( As understood by most people, however, (particularly the proponents of unconditional participation) the overall strategy had an underlying basis in the need to deny political space to avowed “domestic” and “external” enemies of the Yoruba Nation, naturally with the hope that those who joined the Afenifere/AD at the time will defend the major platforms of the party and advance the quest for True Federalism as a political necessity.
(9) These expectations ended in great disappointment and, for many, outright disillusionment; indicating an overall strategy that was not well thought out. And, quite clearly, if a strategy is not well thought out, it implies that its intellectual back-up is weak! To ascribe the attitude of our politicians to the “badness” of the human element is to wave a flag at the problem. The intellectual base of Afenifere/AD – S.W. was weak going into the 1999 transition program and this weakness led to its failure to properly contextualize the Yoruba struggle for Self-Determination.
(10) Having thus failed at a proper contextualization, the intellectual base was unable to create the political and programmatic space for itself, and sufficient enough to meaningfully influence the political choices that were being made at the time. Hence the ease with which political opportunists smuggled themselves into, and hijacked, the entire electoral process; which would have ended in a total disaster for the Yoruba Nation but for the direct intervention of a few political leaders in not only making necessary tactical choices but also ensuring that the land retained its historical momentum.
(11) The enormity of the obstacles attendant to the quest for Restructuring of Nigeria and Yoruba Self-Determination revolve around the robust determination of our opponents to at best panel beat the Nigerian State into what is being called “True Federation” and, at worst (in terms of Yoruba interest), a maintenance of the status quo.
(12) The achievement 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, based on a vision of Nigeria crafted by the colonially-inspired military and fixated on administrative and bureaucratic prescriptions, as opposed to political, social and cultural contexts as the antidote to post-colonial underdevelopment; their expectation being that the quest and zeal for True Federalism will be vitiated by an attempt at providing an economic trajectory for Nigeria.
(13) Its political economy is driven by continuous centralization of political power through dependence on the center, as evidenced by making the State Houses of Assembly dependent on the center for their funding, just as the State governments are, as well as the attempts at centralizing control of water resources; pitting the Yoruba and the Igbo against each other in their attempts at obtaining power in the Center, with the North acting as the umpire and simultaneously making its own allies the superintending political power in the land and the utilization of its near-absolute control of the security apparatus to overrun the Middle Belt in order to ensure its political hegemony in the Region.
(14) Despite APC Manifesto on True Federalism, the party is following the footsteps of its predecessors by making Restructuring conditional upon completion of electoral cycle. Nigeria had been going this route since 1999, where an incumbent government or any aspirant will promise to Restructure as a route to electoral victory. Need we remind ourselves what such promises via “public debates” or “Conferences” have done to our body politic in legitimizing 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 now 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.
(15) The APC Committee on Restructuring promoted certain forms of devolution of powers to the “Federating Units”. 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.
(16) True Federalism, on the other hand, implies re-imagining of the Center, the re-creation of a Center which will ensure the redevelopment of the human capabilities of the various Nationalities suspended by colonial intrusion and addressing the combined and uneven social and economic development of the country.
(17) The APC Committee’s report is silent on this important difference. The Committee chose to make this a matter for the future by saying that there will be a consequential (Constitutional) amendment if the recommendation as to states (Federating Units) exercising control over their natural resources within their respective territories and paying royalties to the Central government is accepted.
(18) This is the crux of the matter. If States (meaning Constituent Nationalities) exercise such control, 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, that is, planning and execution of social, cultural, micro and macro-economic issues will be vested in the Federating Nationality. Since the current Constitution is the problem that must be resolved, the question of its “consequential amendment” does not arise.
(19) The future is now here. Self-Determination cannot be left to appealing to the reasoning and goodwill of anyone in power. Doing so assumes that proponents of anti-Federalist continuity will be able to see the logic in the demand and act accordingly, hence the expectation that “reasoning” will prevail. Reasoning has not prevailed, and it will not. Self-Determination, as a consequence of True Federalism, will begin to have practical meaning and impact when it is taken from the realm of “reasoning” and placed within the context of practical politics and the Yoruba Nation and People must take the lead in this effort. The 2019 Presidential Election provides the platform.
(20) In January 2018, Egbe Omo Oduduwa called on Asiwaju Tinubu to run for the office of the President of Nigeria, just as the Niger Delta and the Igbo were also admonished to present their own candidates for the office to ensure a Constitutional Re-Negotiation of Nigeria, based on the expectation that their victories in their Regions will not only permanently neutralize the so-called rotation or zoning of the office but will also ensure Constitutional Re-Negotiation of Nigeria.
(21) The Yoruba Nation had already produced a Draft Yoruba Constitution, developed by different sectors of Yoruba society under the Chairmanship of retired Anglican Bishop of Akure, Rt Rev. Emmanuel Bolanle. Gbonigi. The SW APC and the Yoruba Leaders of the Party must therefore be committed to formally adopting it as the 2019 election Manifesto to secure political Legitimacy for our quest for True Federalism via Constitutional Re-Formation of Nigeria.
(22) Regardless of the outcome of the 2019 Election, we must gear up for the next phase of the battle for the Constitutional reconfiguration of Nigeria by mobilizing Yoruba opinion in support of our quest. The immediate task in this regard is to make our people the owner of the project. The Draft Yoruba Constitution must be massively circulated among our people and be discussed and subjected to popular approbation; for it will be the basis for the Yoruba Referendum which will make it difficult for political opportunists to dodge or swindle us on the issue of Autonomy/Self-Determination for the Yoruba Nation.
(23) Individuals and organizations of the Global Yoruba Nation, willing to collaborate in working towards ensuring the adoption of the Draft Yoruba Constitution as the 2019 Election Manifesto as well as planning for the Yoruba Referendum not later than September 23, 2019, are welcome. We also demand that the Governors and State Houses of Assembly in all the States of Yorubaland openly commit themselves towards this Referendum.

Femi Odedeyi; Shenge Rahman; for and on behalf of Egbe Omo Oduduwa.
Contact: egbeomooduduwa1945@gmail.com



ACHIEVING AUTONOMY FOR YORUBA NATION is the Communique issued by Ẹgbẹ Ọmọ Oduduwa, Yoruba’s premier socio-cultural association, on the 2019 elections.

www.thepathfinderinternational.com





(1) The Nigerian military declared May 29 as Nigeria’s “Democracy Day” in furtherance of the attempt to scuttle True Federalism in Nigeria; a process earlier embarked upon by the post-independence Central Government through emasculating the Government of Western Region by illegally and Unconstitutionally Declaring a State of Emergency on the Region on May 29, 1962; the beginnings of the pogrom against the Igbo in the North on May 29,1966; both of which flowed from a recognition of the North by the British as the superintendent of colonial Nigeria.
(2) Federalism in Nigeria was originally championed by the Yoruba Leader, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, and manifested through the Action Group, the political party anchored on cultural and lingual determinants, promoting Federalism as the only form of State that will guarantee the foundation for a political economy of engagement with political and economic underdevelopment. Historical and factual evidence abound as to how this existential necessity became advantageously established practically and philosophically in the Western Region under the direction of the Party.
(3) In defiance of historical antecedents of May 29, the Yoruba Nation, who had borne the brunt of military repression consequent upon the annulment of June 12, 1993 election and won by the Yoruba, M.K.O Abiola, became the major force of resistance against the annulment. Yoruba post-military political leaders championed and celebrated “June 12” as Democracy Day as the alternative
(4) The President recently praised Sanni Abacha to high heavens, declaring that he agreed to work with Sanni Abacha notwithstanding any opinion we have about him. Yet, the issue is not about our opinions but about the reality of Abacha’s dictatorship and its implications for the Yoruba. Sanni Abacha not only put M.K. O Abiola in prison where he died, he also superintended the various acts of attempts at suppressing the movement challenging the annulment of the June 12 election, an act which caused many Yoruba to make the supreme sacrifice. The present Administration would be gravely mistaken if it thinks this declaration and the post-humous awards are sufficient to address Nigeria’s structural geo-political imbalance, which was root cause of the June 12 imbroglio in the first instance.
(5) The declaration of June 12 as the New Democracy Day by the Federal Government must therefore be seen by us for what it truly represents -a vindication of the insistence of our people and her progressive leadership on Democracy and the right to Self-Determination. Rather than allow the declaration to lull us into complacency, we must leverage upon it to further and deepen the struggle for the right of our people to Self -Government in a new and equitable Union.
(6) The aftermath of “June 12” saw the emergence of the pan-Nigerian National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) whose aims, and aspirations also centered on achieving True Federalism through active engagement of the military and whose successes, despite operating under a hateful military dictatorship, led to a withdrawal by the military from direct governance of Nigeria.
(7) Unfortunately, the Yoruba engaged this withdrawal with a strategy based on participating in Abubakar's 1998-1999 transition program without pre-conditions, even though we held the oppressive Nigerian State by the jugular at that point in time. Indeed, a school of thought will claim that what was being called a strategy was nothing short of a disorganized retreat from a position of strength.
( As understood by most people, however, (particularly the proponents of unconditional participation) the overall strategy had an underlying basis in the need to deny political space to avowed "domestic" and "external" enemies of the Yoruba Nation, naturally with the hope that those who joined the Afenifere/AD at the time will defend the major platforms of the party and advance the quest for True Federalism as a political necessity.
(9) These expectations ended in great disappointment and, for many, outright disillusionment; indicating an overall strategy that was not well thought out. And, quite clearly, if a strategy is not well thought out, it implies that its intellectual back-up is weak! To ascribe the attitude of our politicians to the "badness" of the human element is to wave a flag at the problem. The intellectual base of Afenifere/AD - S.W. was weak going into the 1999 transition program and this weakness led to its failure to properly contextualize the Yoruba struggle for Self-Determination.
(10) Having thus failed at a proper contextualization, the intellectual base was unable to create the political and programmatic space for itself, and sufficient enough to meaningfully influence the political choices that were being made at the time. Hence the ease with which political opportunists smuggled themselves into, and hijacked, the entire electoral process; which would have ended in a total disaster for the Yoruba Nation but for the direct intervention of a few political leaders in not only making necessary tactical choices but also ensuring that the land retained its historical momentum.
(11) The enormity of the obstacles attendant to the quest for Restructuring of Nigeria and Yoruba Self-Determination revolve around the robust determination of our opponents to at best panel beat the Nigerian State into what is being called "True Federation" and, at worst (in terms of Yoruba interest), a maintenance of the status quo.
(12) The achievement 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, based on a vision of Nigeria crafted by the colonially-inspired military and fixated on administrative and bureaucratic prescriptions, as opposed to political, social and cultural contexts as the antidote to post-colonial underdevelopment; their expectation being that the quest and zeal for True Federalism will be vitiated by an attempt at providing an economic trajectory for Nigeria.
(13) Its political economy is driven by continuous centralization of political power through dependence on the center, as evidenced by making the State Houses of Assembly dependent on the center for their funding, just as the State governments are, as well as the attempts at centralizing control of water resources; pitting the Yoruba and the Igbo against each other in their attempts at obtaining power in the Center, with the North acting as the umpire and simultaneously making its own allies the superintending political power in the land and the utilization of its near-absolute control of the security apparatus to overrun the Middle Belt in order to ensure its political hegemony in the Region.
(14) Despite APC Manifesto on True Federalism, the party is following the footsteps of its predecessors by making Restructuring conditional upon completion of electoral cycle. Nigeria had been going this route since 1999, where an incumbent government or any aspirant will promise to Restructure as a route to electoral victory. Need we remind ourselves what such promises via "public debates" or “Conferences” have done to our body politic in legitimizing 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 now 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.
(15) The APC Committee on Restructuring promoted certain forms of devolution of powers to the “Federating Units”. 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.
(16) True Federalism, on the other hand, implies re-imagining of the Center, the re-creation of a Center which will ensure the redevelopment of the human capabilities of the various Nationalities suspended by colonial intrusion and addressing the combined and uneven social and economic development of the country.
(17) The APC Committee’s report is silent on this important difference. The Committee chose to make this a matter for the future by saying that there will be a consequential (Constitutional) amendment if the recommendation as to states (Federating Units) exercising control over their natural resources within their respective territories and paying royalties to the Central government is accepted.
(18) This is the crux of the matter. If States (meaning Constituent Nationalities) exercise such control, 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, that is, planning and execution of social, cultural, micro and macro-economic issues will be vested in the Federating Nationality. Since the current Constitution is the problem that must be resolved, the question of its “consequential amendment” does not arise.
(19) The future is now here. Self-Determination cannot be left to appealing to the reason and goodwill of anyone in power. Doing so assumes that proponents of anti-Federalist continuity will be able to see the logic in the demand and act accordingly, hence the expectation that "reason" will prevail. Reason has not prevailed, and it will not. Self-Determination, as a consequence of True Federalism, will begin to have practical meaning and impact when it is taken from the realm of "reason" and placed within the context of practical politics and the Yoruba Nation and People must take the lead in this effort. The 2019 Presidential Election provides the platform.
(20) In January 2018, Egbe Omo Oduduwa called on Asiwaju Tinubu to run for the office of the President of Nigeria, just as the Niger Delta and the Igbo were also admonished to present their own candidates for the office to ensure a Constitutional Re-Negotiation of Nigeria, based on the expectation that their victories in their Regions will not only permanently neutralize the so-called rotation or zoning of the office but will also ensure Constitutional Re-Negotiation of Nigeria.
(21) The Yoruba Nation had already produced a Draft Yoruba Constitution, developed by different sectors of Yoruba society under the Chairmanship of retired Anglican Bishop of Akure, Rt Rev. Emmanuel Bolanle. Gbonigi. The SW APC and the Yoruba Leaders of the Party must therefore be committed to formally adopting it as the 2019 election Manifesto to secure political Legitimacy for our quest for True Federalism via Constitutional Re-Formation of Nigeria.
(22) Regardless of the outcome of the 2019 Election, we must gear up for the next phase of the battle for the Constitutional reconfiguration of Nigeria by mobilizing Yoruba opinion in support of our quest. The immediate task in this regard is to make our people the owner of the project. The Draft Yoruba Constitution must be massively circulated among our people and be discussed and subjected to popular approbation; for it will be the basis for the Yoruba Referendum which will make it difficult for political opportunists to dodge or swindle us on the issue of Autonomy/Self-Determination for the Yoruba Nation.
(23) Individuals and organizations of the Global Yoruba Nation, willing to collaborate in working towards ensuring the adoption of the Draft Yoruba Constitution as the 2019 Election Manifesto as well as planning for the Yoruba Referendum not later than September 23, 2019, are welcome. We also demand that the Governors and State Houses of Assembly in all the States of Yorubaland openly commit themselves towards this Referendum.

Femi Odedeyi; Shenge Rahman; for and on behalf of Egbe Omo Oduduwa.
Contact: egbeomooduduwa1945@gmail.com
Copied:
Chief Bisi Akande; Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu; Chief Segun Osoba; Governor Abiola Ajimobi; Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola; Governor Akinwunmi Ambode.

www.thepathfinderinternational.com



The Buhari Administration’s announcement of June 12 as “Democracy Day” and a post-humous recognition of M.K.O Abiola and others raise the specter of neutralizing True Federalism despite the Administration’s vindication of the Peoples’ struggles to actualize “June 12” via this recognition; therefore, rather than praise Muhammadu Buhari or his Administration for it, we should thank ourselves for maintaining the momentum to such an extent that this Administration has no choice but to vindicate it. And that is where it should end, while the quest for True Federalism gathers a stronger momentum.

To Muhammadu Buhari’s credit, he made an appearance, even if briefly, on the closing day of the PRONACO Conference on the Re-Formation of Nigeria; did not utter a word and left. The best that can be read into this symbolism was an attempt a scouting the mood of the day in the hope that it can be incorporated into whatever political agenda he was nurturing at the time.

One of APC’s “legacy parties”, the ACN, was established by prominent NADECO activists, especially in Yorubaland, some of whom are now playing major roles in the Buhari Administration, not to effect True Federalism, which was the foundation of ACN from its roots in the AD, but to champion not only the person of Muhammadu Buhari but also the so-called achievements of his Administration.

His anti-corruption mantra failed from the beginning by not accurately defining what corruption is. We are thus left with a political grandstanding in terms of arrests and prosecutions that are neither here nor there, whilst leaving the source of corruption intact, this source being the Architecture of the Nigerian State with a corrupt foundation bringing forth a “Federalism” which is so only in name.

When he declared that he is “for everybody and for nobody”, he was telling us that the political party that brought him to power is irrelevant; and this was clearly shown in his early appointments dominated by his “inner circle” mainly from the Fulani Nation. Other appointments pointed to an attempt at creating alternative centers of power in the “zones”, with the aim of neutralizing established centers, particularly in Yorubaland, such that the demands for Federalism as our political niche would be neutralized.

He went on to pooh-pooh the entire notion of Restructuring anchored on what he says is our “impatience”; and, “having rejected the Parliamentary System…. give a long period of trial and improvement before the system we have adopted is anywhere near fit for purpose”. It must be noted that Muhammadu Buhari did not address the question of “we”, that is, who rejected and adopted what, just as the question as to what constitutes a “long period” was left unanswered more so when there was a previous experience which was not given “a long period of trial and improvement” before the military of which he was a major part truncated it. This previous experience, the First Republic, was adjudged to have offered the best template for socio-economic development ever experienced.

While all of these were going on, the rise in herdsmen killings saw him “appealing” to the victims to see these criminals as “neighbors” and live peacefully with them, even as he later claimed that the perpetrators are from Libya. Meanwhile, his Defense Minister was going all over the place seeking the abrogation of the anti-Open Grazing Laws in some States, which the Fulani herdsmen association, MACBAN, had claimed to be the reasons for the violence perpetrated by the herdsmen. Muhammadu Buhari was once president of MACBAN under whose umbrella he came to confront Lam Adesina in Oyo State, to protest about the resistance to the violence of “his people”. He is also named as one of MACBAN’s patrons.

To give credence to herdsmen intentions, his Administration relied on what it called an ECOWAS Trans Human Protocol which Nigeria signed in 1998, without reference to the various Peoples concerned and which obliged the Federal Government not to restrict the movement of pastoralists and their cattle coming from other ECOWAS countries. This was under Sanni Abacha’s Administration, of which Muhammadu Buhari is proud.

He recently eulogized Sanni Abacha whose tenure we all know about and need not be repeated here. Muhammadu Buhari made a subtle attempt at equating his Administration with that of Abacha by lauding Abacha’s “development of infrastructure” just as his Administration showcases same as one of its major achievements.

Dictators, authoritarians, fascists and racists like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini provided the needed infrastructural and industrial base for the Nazi Republic and Italy; just as the Stalinist regime did in the former Soviet Union. Yet, these did not prevent the Nationalities in the Soviet Union from advancing their cause for freedom; neither did it prevent the development of different forms of opposition to the Third Reich both inside and outside of Hitler’s Germany.

Recognition of “June 12” within this context is therefore telling us that his Administration, just like Abacha’s, is developing infrastructure, hence Abacha need not be held accountable for his atrocities more so when he can undo the political damage created by Abacha, which he has now done. Yet, the principal demand of “June 12” activists is True Federalism; therefore, recognizing June 12 without it is a Trojan Horse.

Muhammadu Buhari’s Administration is proceeding apace with more centralization, to wit, the impending Waterways Bill which gives control of rivers and its banks to the Central Government; the “State Houses of Assembly” Bill which he hurriedly signed even while inviting a large segment of June 12 activists to a ceremony supposedly honoring MKO and others but which, in reality, will be celebrating True Federalism’s death-knell.

Federalism, by definition, is a co-equal relationship between the national and subnational; a component must therefore have absolute control over its internal affairs, save those which it willingly gave up to the center. The Federating Units create the center and exercise the prerogative of what to give up. Now that the Central Government wants to retain funding for the State Judiciaries and Houses of Assembly, the Central Government will now have absolute leeway in, at best, influencing decisions of the Houses of Assembly, and at worst, intimidating them to do its will thereby reinforcing Nigeria’s “feeding bottle” Federalism.

The excuse that Governors are corrupt is not tenable because a True Federation relies on the power of the people of the Federating Unit, who can then devise their own means of addressing corruption in their environments more so when such a Federating Unit has no central godfather to rely on. And assuming Muhammadu Buhari is all that he is claimed to be, what happens after he leaves office?

Barack Obama once came to Africa to lecture us on the importance of “strong institutions instead of strong personalities” as the solution to Africa’s leadership crisis. The Yoruba, in their ancient wisdom say “ile to ba toro, omo ale k’o tii y’oju ni”. (an orderly environment indicates the hibernation of its vagabond). Barack Obama himself is wondering, today, whether American institutions can withstand the onslaught to which they are being subjected to, now, despite its supposed strength.

Meaning, True Federalism will allow for cultural impulses of the people to address whatever challenges they might face.

The above rendering on Muhammadu Buhari is an open book, yet most of it were ignored in 2013 to 2015, where political reality dictated the necessity to make hard choices, the major one being the formation of the APC and Muhammadu Buhari’s subsequent election. The time for hard choices are here again.

This time around, the Yoruba Nation must re-energize the pursuit of True Federalism as a sine qua non for Nigeria. Otherwise, the recognition may become the burial ground for Federalism.

He who has an ear, let him hear.

Speaking with journalists in Enugu, Mr. Okechukwu thanked the SGF, “for the good advice he gave Ndigbo, through the Ebonyi State APC, who he urged to preach it to the other South East states that the shortest way to Igbo presidency is to support Buhari in 2019.”

He said, “I am glad that my boss, the Secretary to Government of the Federation (SGF), Barrister Boss Mustapha has added his voice with his candid advice to Ndigbo.

“We have serially shouted on top of our voices, reminding Ndigbo of the imperative of voting for Buhari, so as to harvest the golden opportunity provided by the presidential zoning convention between Northern and Southern geopolitical zones in 2023.”

“Buhari is the only president in the last 19 years who deemed it fit to construct the 2nd Niger Bridge, to revamp dilapidated South East road infrastructure and is the only Northerner bound by the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to exit in 2023. This is the shortest route, as any other Northerner is 2027.”

Okechukwu asked Ndigbo: “shall we continue sulking marginalization, and lamentation; instead of grabbing the opportunity providence has provided us with both hands?

“ I am pretty sure that our South-West and South-South brothers and sisters in APC will in the spirit of equity and natural justice support us if we support Buhari.”

www.thepathfinderinternational.com

President Buhari’s meeting with the Archbishop of Canterbury spoke volumes about his intentions for Nigeria. Not only is the Archbishop the head of Britain’s Anglican Church, he’s also the clerical voice of the British Empire, which, though formally ceased to exist as such in the famous “winds of change” era but now being reinvented as Empire 2. It is therefore fitting that Nigeria’s President will use his audience with the Archbishop to make a serious and fundamental pronouncement on existential issues affecting the Peoples of Nigeria, more so when the President, being a Fulani hegemon, represents a Nationality mandated by the Empire to make Nigeria subservient to its dictates.

When the President says “The problem is even older than us. It has always been there but now made worse by the influx of armed gunmen from the Sahel region into different parts of the West African sub-region. These gunmen were trained and armed by Muammar Gadaffi of Libya. When he was killed, the gunmen escaped with their arms. We encountered some of them fighting with Boko Haram. Herdsmen that we used to know carried only sticks and maybe a cutlass to clear the way, but these ones now carry sophisticated weapons. The problem is not religious, but sociological and economic. But we are working on solutions”, it only shows an attempt at befuddling the issues.

By admitting the problem is “older than us”, the President is merely stating the obvious, since both Boko Haram and herdsmen terrorism predate his assumption of office. The issue is therefore not about the beginnings of these issues but what his Administration is doing about it, which is nothing more than lying to the Peoples of Nigeria. If his Administration had been lying to Nigerians, could he also be lying to the Archbishop?
The overthrow and killing of Gadhafi enabled a preponderance of arms and armed gangs all over the Sahel, upon which a symbiotic relationship was established between these gangs and “local” terrorist groups, to further the political agendas in each of the countries they encounter. A militia trained by the Gadhafi regime cannot, by itself, develop a political program for Nigeria, more-so when the Gadhafi regime had been disbanded thus removing the necessity for the existence of these gangs inside Libya and therefore their political deployment beyond Libya. They are therefore left to their own devices, which meant they must integrate with any local political paradigm to which they would lend their expertise while being funded by the local paradigm. Furthermore, when the President stated that “herdsmen we used to know carried only sticks and maybe cutlass…” he was merely trying to make excuses for herdsmen terrorism. The herdsmen carried daggers and guns and had been violently attacking farms and villages along their paths over a long period of time, with the police criminalizing the victims while absolving the herdsmen of any crime. The State had always conspired with the herdsmen to terrorize non-Fulani territories and Peoples. It can therefore be stated that, with the Archbishop, the President was economical with the truth.
In Nigeria, the President had previously stated that the herdsmen terrorists are our neighbors and so we should be able to accommodate them; his Vice President said the herdsmen grazing was a consequence of an ECOWAS protocol which allowed free movement across borders; the police said herdsmen terrorism were communal clashes; the Minister of Agriculture proposed setting up cattle colonies for the herdsmen; northern intellectuals stated that the herdsmen pastoralism was a fall-out of climate change as well as a cultural economic system; the patrons of Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association, with prominent Emirs as members, said the herdsmen were opposed to anti-Grazing Laws in some states hence the terrorism they visited upon the hapless victims—all of which show that either the President is lying or the generality of his Administration are liars or both of them are lying. More importantly, all of these speak to a narrative justifying a violent change to geo-political realities in favor of Fulani hegemony.
When the President presents himself as a person of integrity and his attitude to the Peoples of Nigeria tends towards presenting himself as a moral opposite of the years of the locusts, the aim is to confront all of us with a fait accompli, to wit, there will be no option than to flow with him as the next President of Nigeria in 2019 since there is no credible opposition to his APC.
The South-West/Yorubaland has been rightly deemed the 2019 “battleground”. This will not be the first time Yorubaland/Yoruba Nation will be the “battleground”; from the motion for Independence by the Action Group, championed by the Yoruba, to the 1951 Western Regional Elections which established Federalism as the pathway towards Nigeria’s future, to the resistance to the massive rigging of the 1964/1965 Federal and Regional elections by the NPC/NCNC Alliance, to “June 12”, to Obasanjo’s “do or die” elections to Jonathan’s assumption of office as Acting President and to his defeat in 2015; all of which combined to create an ideological battle within Yorubaland, as to whether the Yoruba should be part of the mainstream, that is, the center which had always been controlled by proponents of a homogenized Nigeria.
President Buhari and therefore APC’s victory in 2015 changed the paradigm since the Yoruba are now part of the center which supposedly is in tune with her aspirations. But his actions since coming to power had negated all that the Yoruba had championed and he had used his Presidential powers to ensure that political forces within Yorubaland ready to collaborate with his homogenizing mission holds sway, as had been witnessed in Ondo and now being touted by a Governorship aspirant in Ekiti State, former governor Kayode Fayemi while being endorsed by the Ogun State Governor, Ibikunle Amosun. A second term for Muhammadu Buhari will therefore be the death-knell for the Yoruba Nation.
The “battleground” must now shift its focus. This is not about shopping around for a “better” candidate no matter what promises are offered. There has been no shortage of promises since 1999, even before then, especially when the military held sway with none of the promises able to lift the country from the morass of underdevelopment. If any of the promises had worked, Nigeria will not now be in a situation looking for a Mr. Integrity as President when such integrity has also been discovered to be a smokescreen.
The narrative must change from pursuing the Presidency as an electoral goal and center on creating a Constitutional Conundrum by ensuring that none of the aspirants meet the Constitutional requirements for the Presidency which will force a Constitutional re-negotiation of Nigeria. Meaning, the South-West APC has its work cut out for it, and should it fail to rise to the challenge, history will fill the vacuum; for there will indeed be a vacuum regardless of any electoral victories ascribed to the Party or any individual in the South-West.
But what if the South-South and South East do not cooperate? The Igbo are propagating the notion that they want to vote Buhari for second term, so they can be assured of Igbo Presidency in 2023. Good luck to them. The Niger Delta is saying 2019 will be a Referendum on Restructuring. They should walk the talk. While others walk in the name of their 2019 expectations, the Yoruba Nation will walk in the name of restoration of our Nationhood.

www.ooduapathfinder.com
FEBRUARY 8TH, 2018



To everything there is a season, a Time for every purpose under heaven—Ecclesiastes 3:1



While noting the substantive leader of the APC, President Buhari’s mandate to you to reconcile the warring factions within the APC preparatory to the coming 2019 elections is a recognition of your political pragmatism, we are of the view that you must be very conscious of your role in history and refuse to be carried away by the admiration of men, be it real, imagined or preemptory.

You are no doubt aware that the major cause of the crisis within the APC, as with other political parties and in the country in general, is the de-Federalized architecture of the Nigerian State. This is characterized by the centralization of nearly everything under the sun thus creating an environment for the escalation of ambitious quest for control of the Center with its trickle-down effects; with state actors, some of whom you are now being asked to reconcile, taking their primary orders from the Center and not from their Peoples, thus making the Center always the puppeteer.

This is evidenced from the First Republic, with the Center’s interference with the Western Region, continuing with your own battles with the Obasanjo Administration, which extended to the Jonathan Administration and continued with the present Administration through Kogi and Ondo State Governorship elections and of course the upcoming Governorship elections; all because, becoming an ally of the Center is a sure road to becoming the overseer for the Center in the state, even if this would be against the general interests of the Peoples.

The Center has always directly negated the aspirations of the various Peoples of Nigeria in their quest for freedom and hence must be re-adjusted to ensure the return to these aspirations. The Center, by its Unitarization, is the anchor for the entrenchment of a vision of Nigeria crafted by the colonially-inspired military, as a negation of the coming into being of the Nationalities through their complete evisceration. A readjustment of this vision and therefore its architecture, will allow for the interjection of critical cultural norms and impulses of the Peoples in addressing challenges facing them which will no doubt be better than acting on orders from the center, as it presently is.

Since 1978 when military-backed administrations, either directly as Military heads of state or President or indirectly as the civilian counterparts, controlling this Center became the ultimate in the country’s political firmament, and Nigeria had steadily gone downhill in all facets of human development, the total opposite of the pre and immediate post-Independence expectations; thus, all attempts at making this Unitarization stick had always fallen flat on its face no matter the military or civilian palliatives deployed in its sustenance.

The APC Committee on Restructuring which recently submitted its report, promoted certain forms of devolution of powers from this Center. 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.

Restructuring, on the other hand, implies re-imagining of the Center, the re-creation of a Center which will ensure the redevelopment of the human capabilities of the various Nationalities suspended by colonial intrusion and introducing the combined and uneven social and economic development of the country.

The APC Committee’s report is silent on this important difference; yet this is the crux of the matter facing Nigeria. The Committee chose to make this a matter for the future by saying that there will be a consequential (Constitutional) amendment if the recommendation as to states (Federating Units) exercising control over their natural resources within their respective territories and paying royalties to the Federal government is accepted.

The future is here with the new “mandate” given to you. The problem is not about reconciliation of “warring factions” but the Architecture of the Center which allows it to override the Peoples’ expectations and aspirations at will. Reconciliation in this context must thus begin from decoupling the Center as an agency of manipulation and control and this can only happen when the country is Restructured.

IF you accept it, for whatever reasons, the work is cut out for you. We expect that it becomes an opportunity to give effect to the cries of Restructuring Nigeria before the 2019 elections. Since the president favored “process” in his New Year’s Message, your “mandate” MUST set up the process for Restructuring which will dovetail into resolving whatever problems you are expected to resolve.

This process will be anchored on Referendums within all the Nationalities in Nigeria and within a specific time frame. These Referendums will be based on the demands of the Nationalities which are being variously expressed as can be seen from the following: The recent terrorist activities in Benue, Taraba and other Middle Belt states with the Governors of these States apparently powerless in conducting their own security measures; the recent call on Fulani cattle herders to relocate to Kano state by the Kano state governor, with the assurance that there is enough land for them to practice their trade; the declaration by the Uk’omu Igala, representing the Igala Nation in Nigeria, as to wanting their own “state” rather than belonging to a “northern” region; the threats to all the Peoples of Nigeria by the patrons of the Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association to the effect that they will violently resist any local laws not to their liking and the Central State Apparatus apparently quietly reinforcing these threats by blaming the victims for the crimes committed against them; the determination of the peoples of the Niger Delta to ensure only candidates in favor of Restructuring will be voted for; the continuous demand of the Yoruba for Restructuring as well as the agitations by the Igbo are among the many pointers to the necessity of readjusting the architecture of the Nigerian State rather than “reconciling warring factions of the APC” for the purposes of future elections, more so when the terror unleashed on the Peoples would have sufficiently guaranteed their intimidation before the elections.

All of these, and more, will generate the parameters for the questions to be posed in the Referendums, as they will almost certainly revolve around RESOURCE CONTROL, which will also answer the geo-political question as to what the Federating Unit is and be resolved by a YES or NO question. The determination of this question will fundamentally affect political representation at the sub-national and national, that is, country-wide levels; meaning, questions about remuneration for public officers, the type of political representation (parliamentary or presidential), taxation in both local and central governments, economic philosophy, cultural imperatives as well as other existential questions, including those you are expected to reconcile, are embedded in the entire Resource Control agitation.

The end-result of these Referendums will result in a country-wide Referendum as to a new Constitution and the composition of the Center, with a central Legislature made up of equal number of representatives from the Federating Units(Nationalities) and superintended by a Presidential College consisting of one representative selected or elected from each Federating Unit and from which a “primus inter pares” will be selected/elected from within the College to hold the office of the President on a rotational basis. This will permanently alter the over-reliance on the Center thus reducing inter-Nationality conflicts and Nigeria can become an expression of African post-colonial aspirations.

If these are not acceptable to President Buhari, or if it is deemed as being outside the orbit of your mandate, it is respectfully suggested that you MUST decline the “mandate” and follow the pathway towards ensuring a “thousand flowers to bloom” in the 2019 Presidential elections as had been previously suggested.

www.ooduapathfinder.com
FEBRUARY 2ND, 2018 ADMINADMIN

Bola Ahmed Tinubu, this is the voice of one crying in the wilderness. Hear it and it shall be well with you and by implication, the Global Yoruba Nation.

You are arguably the most effective political leader of the Yoruba Nation 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 a 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 a Yoruba National Purity. 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, traditionally, the Oba was (and is) the guarantor of the non-Yoruba rights and freedoms in his domain.

Despite these, all attempts to dissolve our particularities into Nigerian generalities have always ended disastrously. The famous and popular Afonja story powerfully illuminates this. Afonja was not a Muslim; yet he provided Ilorin as a haven for Muslims from the northern part of what later became Nigeria, partly because of his own strategic impulse at the then power-play in Yorubaland. These northern Muslims were intent on ramming their own brand of Islam through Yoruba throats although Islam predated their arrival in Yorubaland. The resistance to this brand of Islam led to their being regarded as violent interlopers in the land upon which Afonja formally declared Ilorin a place of respite for them. Despite this, they went ahead and destroyed Afonja and the Yoruba Nation lost Ilorin and environs to northern Muslim political control, which has continued till date.

M.K.O Abiola spent a large part of his financial fortunes in pursuit of Islamic development in the North, again, within a strategic political objective. Northern Muslims voted massively for him but when the time came to take up a stand against the then looming military shenanigans, they balked, largely because another “northern” Muslim would take over power. They famously refused to be part of the pan-Nigerian coalition against the annulment of a fellow Muslim’s election thereby leaving the opposition to only the Yoruba, Muslims and non-Muslims alike.

In both instances, Nationality prerogatives trumped religious solidarity; therefore, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, while you do not play up your religious affiliations, you must recognize the role of Nationality in any quest for political power in Nigeria. While this is true for all the major political organizations in the country, for the South, especially the Yoruba, it has been relegated to the background as a factor in Self-Determination, which is why Yoruba National Imperatives become confused with a pan-Nigerian agenda, all in the name of developing Nigeria into a modern geo-political entity. Yet, for the North, it is its raison d’etre; that is, controlling the center is its own end.

50 years after political Independence in Africa, the 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 will seek to impose its status on the rest and the cycle of violence goes on while the post-colonial state continues its economic parasitism unmolested.

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. However, among the Yoruba, there is the continuous debate as to whether he should have “gone to the center or not” with differing answers. The bottom line is that Yoruba Nation became a victim of Nigeria’s post-colonial State architecture thus posing the problematic differently. It is not about going to the center or not, but the anti-colonial imperative of coming into being of the Yoruba Nation as a Nation for, and in itself. This was the rationale behind the agitation for True Federalism anchored on Ethno-Lingual Categories.

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, regardless of any number of your “private” meetings with the effective leader of APC and its presumed 2019 presidential candidate.

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. Your strength, that is, political savviness, strategic impulses, historical astuteness will not lead to victory, and by implication, victory for the Yoruba Nation. Bola Ahmed Tinubu, you must identify the golden bullet for victory. It is already available, waiting to be picked up.

The victory does not lie in aiming for Nigeria’s presidency, 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.

Self-Determination/Autonomy for all the Peoples of Nigeria is the key. Any form of Southern/Middle Belt solidarity, any handshake across Eastern or Northern Niger, MUST be anchored on Self-Determination/Autonomy for ALL, lest it becomes a route to your political decapitation mentioned above. Perchance others may foot-drag, the Yoruba Nation must not be carried along that route. The Yoruba Nation does not need to wait on them before pushing ahead. And that is the golden bullet.

www.ooduapathfinder.com





Any Nationality inside Nigeria whose existentialism is under threat by Fulani herdsmen terrorism sanctioned by the current leadership of the Nigerian post-colonial State represented by the Muhammadu Buhari Administration is morally and politically bound to resist the escalating threat; more so when the current Administration is bent on blaming the victims for the crimes committed against them as evidenced by the various utterances of the Administration, the latest being that of the Minister of Defense whose defense of herdsmen terrorism was anchored on their assumed opposition to the anti-Open Grazing Laws enacted in some states., even when it is as clear as daylight that these herdsmen did not limit their terrorism to those states. To accept the Minister’s explanation will only confirm the expectation that these herdsmen want to intimidate the entire country into submission.

This being the latest in a series of moves to ensure permanent retention of political power in the North, certain options have been placed on the table. We will now examine these options to enable us to arrive at the only conclusion that will vitiate the existential threat facing us.

The PDP, having spent the better part of the return to civil rule governing Nigeria with nothing to show for it except destruction of Nigeria’s political economy, is bracing itself up as a credible alternative to the Buhari Administration. It will be recalled that the initial promoters of the PDP in Yorubaland, led by Chief Bola Ige, had cause to pull out of the Party during its formation on the valid reason of its being a collage of political opportunists and military apologists who had no vision for a post-colonial, post-military State, especially the necessity for Restructuring of the country which was the foundation for the anti-Abacha movement, led by NADECO and which eventually led to the termination of military rule. The PDP did not disappoint as it went ahead, under the then President Obasanjo, to deepen Nigeria’s Unitarization through various means, notably the creation of a so-called pan-Nigerian economic team through the instrumentality of the State ensuring the dominance of the economy by a few and tying Nigeria’s fortunes to IMF dictates. Within all of these, all manner of corruption festered in such a manner that it became the party’s second nature. The party, being the immediate cause of the country’s political economy crisis, cannot therefore be relied upon as a solution.

Arising from this, and coming from General Obasanjo’s stable, is what he recently offered as “Coalition for Nigeria” whose central aim, according to the general is, “to salvage and redeem, develop and modernize Nigeria anchored on dynamic Nigerian culture, enduring values and an enchanting Nigerian dream.” This will be achieved when members of the Coalition are able to contest and win political power.

The core problematic of this Coalition is what exactly constitutes the “Nigerian Dream”. That such a dream is a non-starter is borne out of the fact that it is a derivative of what is known as the “American Dream”. And this is not fortuitous. It was the same General Obasanjo, who, in 1978 copied the US Constitution almost word for word and imposed it on Nigeria through subterfuge. That was the Constitution which was used to formally Unitarize Nigeria thus creating the fraudulent Federalism that has sent Nigeria down the slopes of human underdevelopment.

The “American Dream”, with its various transformations within American history, was the result of the White, Anglo-Saxon Protestants enforcing their superiority and dominance on American territory, mainly through the expulsion of British colonialists, expropriation of Native American lands and incorporation of African slave labor as conditions precedent to the development of Capitalism in America, which became its defining moments of freedom offering opportunities for economic and social prosperity circumscribed by segregation, Jim Crow and other laws aimed at curtailing upward mobility of non-white, especially African-American People and which the former Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice described as America’s “birth defect”. Flowing from this, and based on current conditions, a Nigerian Dream can only come about by the homogenization of the various cultures and peoples in Nigeria under a dominant culture, which will then be considered the “Nigerian Culture”. Its validity would depend on denying other cultures in favor of one and going by the rate of Fulani hegemony in Nigeria, the only possible “Nigerian Culture” would be Fulani Culture.

But while the Sultan of Sokoto sees no contradiction identifying himself as the leader of the Fulani in Nigeria and West Africa, therefore representing Fulani Culture beyond Nigeria’s borders, and the Yoruba, for example, also extend beyond Nigeria’s borders, a “Nigerian Culture” from these can be arrived at only through a commonality agreed upon by those concerned and which only a Geo- Politically Restructured Nigeria can bring about. This was and still is, the post-Independence message about the artificiality of Africa’s colonial borders and Awo’s insistence on Ethno-National Federalism as the only way out for a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural society. The artificiality, already adjudged as the foundational problematic of Africa’s underdevelopment is now the backbone of general Obasanjo’s “Nigerian Culture”.

On the part of the current administration, pandering to herdsmen is its hallmark. Yet, President Buhari and his team are busy reeling out what they regard as their economic “achievements” mainly in terms of infrastructural development. But any determined regime can develop a society’s infrastructure! As part of these infrastructural initiatives, the Administration approved a railway network all the way to Niger Republic, a country dominated by the Hausa-Fulani Ethno-Nationality, while no such provision was made for any other part of non-Fulani West Africa, which goes to show that what is being offered is some form of economic or infrastructural carrot to the stick of Fulani hegemony.

Dictators, authoritarians, fascists and racists like Adolf Hitler and Mussolini provided the needed infrastructural and industrial base for Italy and the Nazi Republic; just as the Stalinist regime did in the former Soviet Union. Yet, these did not prevent the Nationalities in the Soviet Union from advancing their cause for freedom; neither did it prevent the development of different forms of opposition to the Third Reich both inside and outside of Hitler’s Germany.

Meanwhile, combined social, cultural, economic and infrastructural development was a reality in the Western Region. This was possible only because of the level of Autonomy obtained by the region in the run-up to Independence. This was why the Region lived a reality and not simply a dream; the reality being that the Region knew its existential imperatives, which entails the negation of the colonial construct of the African through the development of the culture (language, history, philosophy, performing and visual arts as well as excelling in Western forms of education) all of which combined to make for the total person which we are now proud of as our Golden Era.

This was the context through which the report of the APC Committee on Restructuring must be viewed. After stating what the Committee thinks we want to hear; State Police, State court of Appeal etc it went on to state that it noted the agitation by “states to exercise control over their natural resources within their respective territories and pay royalties to the federal government; and concluded by saying “if this recommendation is taken, then there will be consequential amendment”.

This is the crux of the matter. If States (meaning Federating Units) exercise such control, the wastage in NASS will be curtailed as its composition will be different. There will be a Nigerian bicameral legislature only if the Federating Units agree to it; the emoluments will be determined by their respective Federating Units; Nigeria’s President or head of State will be Collective with a representative from each of the Federating Units, meaning all the fundamental social and economic development will be the prerogative of the Unit and by which the colonial state architecture will be replaced thus creating room for the fullest cultural development of the society and moral values will be restored as Nigeria will no longer be a Feeding Bottle Federalism. Yet, some Units may prefer Parliamentary System while others may go for the emirate and cattle production and reproduction will be left to the prerogatives of the Units.

Since the current National Assembly cannot legislate itself out of existence,(although nothing stops it from doing so) a “consequential amendment” does not arise. As noted in the Introduction to the Draft Yoruba Constitution, “When different Nationalities and Ethnic Groups live in the same country, it is imperative that they each let the others know what their special interests are, to make living with each other worthwhile. If all of them are to live in peace, they must each know what is of paramount concern to each Nationality. Given the fact that the Yoruba Nation also extend beyond Nigeria, she has the obligation to preserve her cultural heritage and way of life within Nigeria and elsewhere where she has a sizeable community. In a situation where the Yoruba Nation share a common country with some other Nationalities either with feudal tendencies or conformity by coercion, this can be stifling to the fullest development of the Yoruba. It is therefore in the interest of the Yoruba Nation to have as much Autonomy in their Region as a Truly Federal arrangement would demand. This means that more power will be with the Nationality, where, with a True Federal set-up, planning and execution of social, economic and other services that meets the aspiration of Yoruba Nationhood will be possible. As we all now know, there is a serious question mark on Nigeria as a Federal State. This has led to current agitations and permutations as to correcting this fundamental defect. In considering current developments, certain areas that need to be thoroughly examined have been identified. Specifically, a Truly Federal Nigeria in which the Constituent Nationalities will possess a reasonable degree of Autonomy will require clear understanding of the impact of the following on the Nigerian Union1) The development of social and economic relationship between the various Nationalities within Nigeria and their Diaspora; for the Yoruba Nation, that will be Brazil, Cuba, the U.S, the West Indies and South America without the overriding legislative power of the Nigerian Union.(2) The ability of the Nations to pursue micro and macro-Economic policies (3) Regional Command of the Armed Forces, taking cognizance of the fact that a country’s defense is linked to its foreign policy and vice versa.”

There is therefore no need for any “consequential amendment”. What is needed is a completely new Constitution for the benefit of all the Nationalities in Nigeria. Such Constitution, as also noted in the Introduction, will be endorsed in the following manner: (1) Endorsement of Regional or Nationality Constitutions through Referendums within the various Regions or Nationalities only. (2) Endorsement of the Negotiated Federal Constitution through a country-wide Referendum. This means this must be the only electoral demand for the Yoruba and other Nationalities.

www.ooduapathfinder.com




Nigeria’s Bonapartism, that is, the elevation of the person of the head of State above the contending forces, even when such a person was the main protagonist of the contention, has now started in earnest.
The quest for Security is now indirectly introduced as the only possible electoral mandate, the PDP and APC now being perceived as being populated by opportunists and riddled with corrupt elements. Security becomes more important when it is recognized that all the reasons adduced as the cause of Fulani herdsmen atrocities are not true. These reasons, ranging from desertification/climate change to search for pasture to cultural economy are mere attempts at justifying geo-political relocation of the Fulani in furtherance of Fulani hegemony thereby completing the age-long Fulani attempt at colonizing Nigeria.
This attempt had manifested in various ways, from the cooked and crooked census figures since 1953 to the NPC/NCNC Alliance which led to the illegal and Unconstitutional declaration of the 1962 State of Emergency in the Western Region and sabotaging the creation of Regions for the Middle Belt and the Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers Peoples, to the pre-planned military coups aimed at reiterating Fulani hegemony and the 1999 military-induced civilian administration and now to the open expression of Fulani hegemony through the Buhari Administration.
Carl von Clausewitz summarized his exposition on war as ‘the continuation of politics by other means’. In this case, the aim of the Fulani is to intimidate the rest of us into surrender while dictating the pace and content of the political space knowing full well that their political agenda of permanent control of Nigeria cannot be realized by an over-reliance on supposed democratic methodology.
Fulani atrocities in Nigeria began as a form of low-intensity warfare, usually characterized by raping and pillaging of farms often accompanied by instances of killing of villagers. Accompanying these is biological warfare wherein, either by rape or consensual sex, local women are impregnated, and the resulting child becomes a ‘Fulani’ by induction thus silently increasing the Fulani population. Criminal aspects of these activities are always overlooked by the State, wherein the Nigerian Police Force, ostensibly a force aimed at protecting the lives and properties of all Nigerians, reserve its operational impetus to protecting the Fulani while the hapless victims are instead criminalized and jailed. The gradual increase in intensity of these herdsmen atrocities is now aimed at its original political goal, which is being witnessed today. Therefore, all the solutions being advanced, from anti-grazing laws to ranching to cattle colonies can only provide an excuse and justification for continuous Fulani hegemony.
Muhammadu Buhari as a Patron of MACBAN is very well known. Yet, the Emirs, as Fulani war leaders, have also now proclaimed their MACBAN affiliation as Patrons. This, coupled with Fulani control of Nigeria’s security apparatus, shows that Nigeria has been placed on a war footing.
If it is true, and it is TRUE, that ‘war is a continuation of politics by other means’ we would have already failed if we expect the Nigerian post-colonial State to provide solutions along the various lines being suggested. Doing so means ceding the initiative to the State which has already declared itself the enemy where Muhammadu Buhari or anyone from the North transforms into the ‘Bonaparte’ of today.
It can be argued that this situation would not have arisen had the APC emerged as an alliance instead of the merger of the various parties. It can also be argued that the APC could have supported the emergence of another presidential candidate knowing Buhari’s history as part of Fulani hegemony despite his characterization as incorruptible. Yet, it is now known that corruption cannot be fought if the political structure which gave rise to it is in place. The military coup of January 15, 1966 was predicated upon fighting the ‘ten percenters’, another name for corruption, just as the anti-Gowon military coup, the 1983 and the 1998 anti-Abacha coups were; the military-induced war against corruption cannot be fought by a military-induced geo-political structure; therefore, making anti-corruption a political virtue is neither here nor there as long as its foundation remain and continued to be strengthened.
In any case, anti-corruption is also a cultural war where social and moral values of the society play a significant part, for it is those values that lay the basis for a war against corruption. The Nigerian post-colonial State, since military involvement, has steadily eroded those values by its Unitarizing methodology whereby the Peoples could no longer deepen their cultural values and are therefore left in a cultural vacuum since Nigeria, as a post-colonial construct, has no such value of its own.
And now that both parties are presenting northern candidates for the presidency with PDP being upfront with it while the APC is still trying to hedge a Buhari return with the added possibility of his being replaced by a Northerner, the reality is that a Fulani cultural paradigm will be substituted for those of the various Peoples, hence the advocacy for ‘cattle colonies’ or ranching etc as solutions for herdsmen economy, a cultural paradigm exported and forced unto the Nigerian geo-political space.
There is no economic philosophy or theory limiting production and reproduction of cattle to only the Fulani, even if they claim it as their historical and cultural practice. Any community or economic enterprise can engage in cattle production as witnessed in the Western Region with cattle production in the Farm Settlements. This means, the Fulani may as well limit themselves to their cultural economy but will have to compete with other forms of production engendered by a fundamental Restructuring of the country. Asking for grazing reserves or colonies or suggesting ranching to them is therefore economically superfluous and politically suspect.
“Bonaparte” Buhari touting his administration’s economic initiatives is also in furtherance of the Fulani hegemonic political agenda. British colonialism pursued an economic agenda in pursuit of colonialism hence the development of the railways to transport goods from the north to the south; the educationally system aimed at producing clerks and managers of colonial political and economic enterprises while negating our humanity, for example, the vernacularizing and criminalizing of our Languages etc. These were negated by our Self-Government, at least in the Western Region, where the government’s philosophy of “development of man” was its primary focus hence the economic initiatives saw to progressive industrialization, socio-economic and cultural advances which made it possible to regard the period as our “Golden Era”. We cannot therefore afford the luxury of separating the political from the economic as the economy serves the political and political power further drives economic trajectory towards its own objective.
There are political forces in Yorubaland who argued against a Buhari presidency even though, their alternative, continuation of PDP rule via a Jonathan Presidency was not acceptable. The hard choices that were necessary to be made in 2015/2015 were made. The hard choices for 2018/2019 MUST now be made. For the Yoruba, attempting to generate a pan-Nigerian solution to the National Question in Nigeria has always resulted in unnecessary sacrifices as Awo and MKO experiences prove.
Proliferation of local wars exist in many parts of Africa mainly because the security apparatuses lack the political Legitimacy for a Security-State. The political Legitimacy of the political state is non-existent hence the security actions of, and in the State, becomes a free-for-all with each participant seeking a Legitimacy of its own, usually by force of arms. Going this route for us in Nigeria is a non-starter, not the least because that is exactly what herdsmen terrorism would want us to do, that is, stampede us into taking some precipitate action which will induce their military to clamp down, introduce the Security State and enforce Fulani hegemony by proxy.
This possibility must be denied. Fulani terrorism exists only because the Nigerian post-colonial State allows it to; expecting such a state to embark on ‘modern’ economic measures to address the problematic is therefore akin to substituting ringworm for leprosy.
What then are the hard choices to be made?
Solution to herdsmen atrocities, Fulani or not, must be treated as the political issue it is and not a security or economic issue. That the Nigerian Police Force had never made any attempt to prosecute any herdsman over the years is a pointer to the irrelevance of the force as a pan-Nigerian institution. Any culture making claims to a cultural economy has the sole and exclusive right to address its cultural economy. Nomadism is NOT a Nigerian economy hence there cannot be a Nigerian solution. A solution to nomadism cannot be imposed on the rest of us.
All previous efforts at ‘negotiating’ a new Nigeria always end when such ‘negotiations’ end. Need we remind ourselves what these negotiations through “public debates” or “public sittings” have done to our body politic in legitimizing doubtful socio-political legacies - IMF debates, Political Bureau, Niki Tobi's Constitutional review, Abubakar's consultations, Obasanjo’s All-Parties Technical Review Committee, Jonathan’s Conference, various National Assembly Retreats on the Constitution, etc? In each of these, it was a case of working to the answer; where, at the end, a pre-determined position will emerge which will vitiate the struggle for Ethno-National Autonomy.
This has now been confirmed by APC’s Committee on Restructuring following the footsteps of its Bonapartist leader who had earlier rejected Restructuring in favor of “process” by coming up with the required “process”; proposing draft Bills for Constitution amendment to create state police and courts of appeal, merger of states, more revenue allocation to states etc while ignoring the weightier matters of Restructuring, that is, Resource Control. Even when it noted the agitations for Resource Control and expected “consequential Constitutional amendment” in the event of its being accepted”, it feigned ignorance about its meaning. More so when Resource Control is not only about mineral or economic resources but also more importantly, HUMAN resources, which is socio-cultural. Yet, it is obvious that once this is made right, Constitutional Re-Formation of Nigeria follows.
Achieving this imply denying the political space and Legitimacy for the Bonapartist Security State by the Nationalities in Nigeria. This can be done when all the Nationalities, or as many as would, present their own Presidential candidates for 2019. The 1999 Constitution will, by inference, become void. The Legitimacy of the Nationalities’ electoral votes will create the mandate for re-Formation of Nigeria by the Nationalities and Cultural-Political space for the Nationalities will be restored. In summary, the Peoples of Nigeria must seek first, their political kingdom.

www.ooduapathfinder.com


Now that foremost Emirs have formally made themselves known as Patrons of Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association (MACBAN), and with their concerns having more to do with the fate of the Fulani herders rather than addressing the threats they pose to lives and properties of other Nigerians, the National Question becomes the primary contradiction to be resolved by the 2019 elections.

Citing climatic changes as a cause of herders’ migration is not appropriate since the herders themselves claim it as a cultural practice; trying to change this cultural practice into a ‘modern’ economy must transform the culture itself. This transformation cannot be achieved by policy initiatives of the central government but must proceed from the internal dynamics of the culture itself. Suggestions as to ranching or grazing reserves or cattle colonies and any such policy formulations are therefore missing the point and will not serve its intended ‘modernizing’ mission as the foundational cultural imperative fuelling their migration will find other outlets of expression whose effects will be more devastating than herdsmen terrorism.

What is necessary is the Autonomy of action for the Fulani to address their cultural issues in their own way; and within the Nigerian context, through a Collegiate Presidency. A Collegiate Presidency, among others, transforms central leadership in Nigeria into a representation of the Ethno-National Federating Units as a matter of course, guarantees their presence in federal matters while leaving the units the ability to address their internal matters as they deem fit, reduces the quest for absolute control of the Nigerian State, which, in the Fulani herdsmen case, has aided and abetted their terrorism over a long period of time.

Since 1979, when the military formally redefined the concept of Federalism according to its own internal unitarist dynamics, the Nigerian presidency had become the personalization of the office, whereby the president sees himself as the embodiment of the State and therefore above all of the institutions of State which itself reflects the weakness of the State and its institutions relative to the person of the President.

This was why president Buhari would ‘order’ the relocation of the Inspector-General of Police to Benue State in the wake of Fulani herdsmen terrorist activities in the State, and the question begging for answers is whether such a directive is needed if the Police are alive to their functions in the first instance further questioning the existence of the force since it becomes alive to its supposed statutory responsibility only because the president says so. More so when the President cannot obviously continually order such relocation any time such occurrence comes into play unless the president ‘is the state’.

It is noted that this is not peculiar to the Buhari presidency as it is embedded in the nature of Nigeria’s system of governance anchored on a foundation created by Nigeria’s military and enhanced by the Unitary system which made it possible to have a single policing system for the country.

Ordinarily, any countrywide election ought to signify a deepening and improvement of the developmental paradigms of the State, manifesting in the economic, political and social expectations not only of the State but also of the citizenry. An election is therefore not expected to be a recycling of the same forces carrying out and relishing in the stagnation of the country, which had been the lot of Nigeria since the introduction and enforcement of the Presidential system of government in 1979.

Every election cycle since then presented opportunities for not only challenging that paradigm but also creating an alternative but which opportunities were denied by outright manipulation of the electoral votes, first through the infamous twelve-two-thirds in 1979, (which its chief promoter, Richard Akinjide publicly admitted as being a function of subterfuge on their part), to the ‘1983 moon-slide’ specifically designed to truncate the challenge to the economic depression the country had been thrown into, to the ‘little to the left and a little to the right’ attempt at imposing a two-party system culminating in the annulment of the June 12 1993 elections which had already upended the traditional expectations of the Unitary State all the way to the current dispensation which almost everyone expected to produce a change in every sphere but which had been turned into a ‘last stand’ for Unitarism by the Buhari presidency, thumbing its nose on the Yoruba, and therefore their existential demand for True Federalism.

But 2019 elections, especially its presidential component, creates yet another moment and opportunity to address Unitarism and actually providing its death-knell. This requires a complete change in strategy. The various ways at sustaining the Unitarist structure enunciated above were predicated on making the State secure, be it by the military or the civilian, whose manipulation of electoral votes were often deemed as efforts to maintain a status quo in favour of Unitarism. And now, the resurgence of security-related issues, occurring within the context of electoral aspirations means those of us intent on challenging and changing this status quo must be prepared to readjust our strategies accordingly.

The Niger Delta Avengers have once again threatened to visit their fury on Nigeria’s oil installations, anticipating the government acceding to their demand for Restructuring. The nature of the confrontation will pit a Legitimate administration against a Legitimate demand, whose strategy of blowing up oil installations will not be deemed Legitimate but challenged as a security measure by the administration which will throw the entire demand into a tailspin as security of the State becomes the focus of attention rather than the demand itself.

The Niger Delta Avengers owe it a duty to the Peoples of the Niger Delta to transform the Legitimacy of their demand into a contest for the Legitimacy of the Nigerian State, already assumed as a consequence of the 2015 elections. This will be achieved by denying Muhammadu Buhari a 2019 electoral victory in the Niger Delta in favor of one of their own to be voted for, on the platform of Autonomy for the Niger Delta. The same scenario, that is, transformation of their demands into the 2019 electoral platform through the instrumentality of their representation by one of their own, goes for other sections of the South and the Middle Belt whose demands are not in any way too different from those of the Niger Delta; all of which, combined, will create room for a Collegiate Presidency.

faceURfront:
Who wan read dis long s'hit?

Are you a "Trumpist", using the word "sh*t"?

it's in the first paragraph

In opposing President Buhari’s New Year message, Chief Edwin Clark, leader of the Niger Delta peoples, was quoted as saying that “The people of the South-South are the most affected. 87 per cent of our revenue comes from the South-South. Nigerians believe in restructuring. I was very much disappointed that the President said he does not want restructuring. “Northerners are talking of restructuring; you have heard the Sultan of Sokoto, Balarabe Musa all of them are part of majority of Nigerians talking about restructuring. El-Rufai heads APC committee on restructuring. Even the northerners have not rejected restructuring. “The National Assembly has no choice but must follow the people, what the people are saying if majority of Nigerians say they want restructuring, the National Assembly has no choice”.

Edwin Clark should know, having been in the leadership of the Niger Delta since the First Republic. Niger Delta “militants”, in pursuit of Restructuring, have carried out attacks on Nigeria’s oil installations which Chief Clark says produces 87% of Nigeria’s revenue. It was also Niger Delta’s insistence on “Resource Control” which truncated Obasanjo’s plan to ram through his own version of “Restructuring” which some have claimed was a back-door towards elongating his tenure.

The Niger Delta “militants” attacks against oil installations became reduced to security issues, and the Nigerian State relied on the security apparatus to try to neutralize these efforts ultimately ending up with an amnesty to the “militants”. This can also be likened to current Fulani herdsmen terrorism in Nigeria, where the president has recently decided to take some form of action against them and touting “national security”. The difference between the Niger Delta agitators and Fulani herdsmen is that the run up to 2019 will become clearly linked to issues of internal security upon which the current president will stake his claim even though the Fulani herdsmen issue is clearly political. But these herdsmen have an advantage in that they are ensconced within a political paradigm already anchored on control of the Center while the Niger Delta, during their “militancy” had no such context.

The more reason why Chief Edwin Clark and the Niger Delta, especially with such groups like the Ijaw National Congress, the Ijaw Youth Congress, Lower Niger Congress, Chikoko Movement and others, should also flow with the proposition to Asiwaju Tinubu, of course, within their own context, which implies having someone of their own choosing, from the Niger Delta, to also run for the office of the President, again with Constitutional Re-Formation of Nigeria as the sole electoral Agenda and their quest for Restructuring and Resource Control will be in the hands of the Peoples of the Niger Delta.

Similarly, for the Igbo, they should get off their high horse of describing themselves as the sole “nation builders”, cease their perpetual permutations on the centralized Presidency, and follow the Niger Delta and the West to have their own candidate run for the office of the President also with Constitutional Re-Formation of Nigeria as their sole electoral Agenda thus putting all of their expectations in the hands of Igbo people, more-so when groups like Ohanaeze, T.I.N, Igbo Ekwunie, Nzuka Umunna, with its “handshake across the Niger” and all of the sundry Biafra groups, have expressed disenchantment with Nigeria’s current structure and with the deputy Senate President, an Igbo, Ike Ekweremadu in the forefront of advocating True Federalism, with his description of Nigeria’s federalism as “feeding Bottle federalism”. He even recently advocated the necessity to return “to the original dream of true federalism which was a product of negotiation, compromise and accommodation.” Continuing, Ike Ekweremadu says “Sadly, the rain started beating us from that fateful January coup, especially following the violation of the covenant of our fathers by the promulgation of Unitary Decree, 1966. Although the July 1966 counter-coup was, among other things, predicated on the need to correct General Aguyi Ironsi’s misadventure, subsequent regimes after him have steadily and deliberately corrupted the architectural design and undone all the foundations laid by the founding fathers. For more than half a century, we have done every imaginable violence to the Federal principles and the results have been disastrous…In simple terms, therefore, the quest for restructuring is a quest for a return to the old covenant, the original foundation and master plan agreed on and laid down by our fathers”.

And now especially for the Igbo having been given the runaround and exposing their serious lack of strategic initiative through the Nnamidi Kanu-led gambit, the Igbo should transcend the political limitations imposed on themselves by the Igbo themselves and flow with the proposition, to wit, they should select, from among themselves, someone to run for the office of the President of Nigeria with Constitutional Reformation of Nigeria as the sole Manifesto. There is no better foundation for a handshake across the Niger than when all the hands pursue Restructuring via making it an electoral issue as being canvassed.

While attempts are being made to reduce the definition of Restructuring to nothingness to take the bite off it, every Nationality in Nigeria has a duty to itself and to others to re-establish a legitimate and valid claim to their being makers of their own history. For a while, the British colonial power made all of us objects of British history; and for another while, as the Peoples of Nigeria, we became subjects of our own history through the instrumentality of the First Republic. Yet, the colonial forces aimed for the jugular of the Peoples through military intervention. All the Peoples of Nigeria must never forget that the military and therefore any security situation Nigeria finds itself is a function of the colonizing mission with the military as its local agency. Therefore, Nigeria is being forced to remain as it is. To make matters worse, all known universally acknowledged definitions of Federalism have been thrown overboard and substituted with all sorts of shenanigans passing for ruling elite thinking. It is therefore time the various Peoples to become their own subjects, for themselves and no longer objects of colonialism and its Nigerian State by making the 2019 Presidential Elections the platform for carrying it out and with Constitutional Re-Formation of Nigeria as the sole electoral Agenda albeit in its different Ethno-National contexts.

Along this line, the Chief Anthony Enahoro-led Movement for National Re-Formation’s made the issue clearer by its promotion of Lingual-Territorial entities as Nigeria’s Federating Units. The movement’s suggested number of Lingual-Territorial/Nationality Categories is 17, of which 11 will be mono-Lingual/Nationality Entities/Region:

Ibibio (2).Ijaw (3). Igbo (4). Urhobo (5). Edo (6). Yoruba (7). ( Tiv (9). Gbagyi (10). Hausa-Fulani (11). Kanuri. The other six (6) of the Regions should be multi-Nationality regions, as follows: (i) Nationalities in Cross River and Akwa Ibom states (i.e. Eket, Annang, Oron, Ibeno, Efik, Ejagbam, Korop, Boki, Bakwara, Yakurr, Yala). (ii) Nationalities in Rivers and Bayelsa states (i.e. Ikwerre, Etchei, Ekpeeye, Engeni, Ogba, Eleme, Ndoni, Ogoni, and Andoni). (iii) Nationalities in Delta State (i.e. Ika, Ndokwa, Warri, Isoko). (iv) Nationalities in West Middle Belt, i.e. Zuru, Kambari, Bariba, Bussa, Karekare, Ngizim, Angamo, Bola, Funne, etc. (v) 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) 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.
And what if Asiwaju Tinubu objects to this proposition and refuses to go along, for whatever reasons? Asiwaju would be committing his greatest and possibly politically fatal blunder in his entire political carrier. Having come this far in his political interventions, the least he could do would be to place his massive political machine and goodwill behind any other Yoruba person willing to go the whole hog. Otherwise, 2019 would mark the capitulation of the Yoruba to absolute Fulani hegemony in Nigeria—at least for a time.

Also, if other Nationalities fail to take up the challenge as already canvassed, the least the Yoruba Nation would face would be like Catalonia, with the Legitimacy of our quest already achieved and which will further deepen the Yoruba drive towards Self-Determination.

For the Yoruba Nation, a Draft Constitution for Yorubaland, as part of the Constitutional Re-Formation process and which will serve as the 2019 Election Manifesto is already in existence. From this Draft, all the issues on Restructuring had been taken care of, as far as the Yoruba are concerned. It is the duty of each of the peoples identified by the Movement for National Re-Formation to devise its own issues.

www.ooduapathfinder.com



True Federalism must become the Electoral issue in 2019

Shenge Rahman, Femi Odedeyi

For and on behalf of Egbe Omo Oduduwa





Assessing the state of on-going calls for Restructuring in Nigeria, Egbe Omo Oduduwa, a Platform for Yoruba Self-Determination, has concluded that achieving Restructuring cannot be left to appealing to the reason and goodwill of anyone in power. Doing so assumes that opponents of Restructuring will be able to see the logic in the demand and act accordingly, hence the expectation that “reason” will prevail. Reason has not prevailed, and it will not. Restructuring will begin to have practical meaning and impact when it is taken from the realm of “reason” and placed within the context of practical politics, hence, the necessity for Asiwaju Tinubu to run for the office of the President of Nigeria with Constitutional Re-Formation of Nigeria within the context of Yoruba expectation as the sole electoral Manifesto.

The President of Nigeria, Muhammadu Buhari, had, in his New Year message, pooh-poohed the entire notion of Restructuring anchored on what he says is our “impatience”. The President says, “having rejected the Parliamentary System, we must give a long period of trial and improvement before the system we have adopted is anywhere near fit for purpose”. It is noted that the President did not address the question of “we”, that is, who rejected and adopted what, just as the question of what constitutes a “long period” more so when there was a previous experience which was not given “a long period of trial and improvement” before the military of which he was a major part truncated it. This previous experience, the First Republic, was adjudged to have offered the best template for socio-economic development ever experienced in the country

It is therefore certain that President Muhammadu Buhari New Year’s message was an election Manifesto on the platform of the APC as it dwelt mainly on his administration’s economic initiatives which he considered to be on course with the “Change Agenda” that propelled his party into power. However, on the most pressing issue of Restructuring, he dismissed it in favor of what he called prioritizing “process” rather than Restructuring. In so doing, he doubled down on the issue of “we” when he stated that, “We tried Parliamentary System: we jettisoned it”

The president simply befuddled the issue; for nowhere did “we” jettison anything and the question becomes who are the “we” the president referred to?

It has become fashionable for usurpers of our Sovereignty, in this case, the military, to ascribe their actions and inactions to the generality of the Peoples of Nigeria. The story of how the parliamentary System was destroyed is very well known, being an act predicated upon military intervention in January 1966 upon which General Aguiyi Ironsi took over power and proceeded to abrogate the Regions just as he decreed the Unitarization of Nigeria. It must be noted that the NCNC under Nnamdi Azikiwe, the major proponent of Unitarization during the anti-colonial struggles was also in favor of the Parliamentary System just as its opponents, the AG and NPC advocating Federalism, were.

It is thus obvious that Muhammadu Buhari must have had the military at the back of his mind when ascribing jettisoning the Parliamentary System to “we”, just as the 1999 Constitution, also a military document, was deemed to be a document created by “We, the People”, which is false in every sense of the word.

It must also be remembered that when President Buhari, in the same message, stated that “no human law or edifice is perfect”, the question as to his (and others’) previous statements as to the “indivisibility of Nigeria” arises since “indivisibility” assumes perfection. Furthermore, if, as the President stated, “Whatever structure we develop must periodically be perfected according to changing circumstances and the country’s socio-economic developments” is to be taken seriously, perfecting a structure cannot proceed from the point of immutability, otherwise, the movement towards perfection becomes the reiteration of “what is” and not a movement into “what is to be”. Where “what is” becomes an end, and not where we want to be, thereby negating the movement towards perfection. A movement towards perfection implies a defect in the existing situation; such defect must be cured if there will be any move towards perfection. As it is in Nigeria, the defect is in its structure, hence the almost permanent calls for Restructuring. More so when the creation of the current structure was against the natural existential realities of those concerned. Meaning, “Nigerians” had no say in the coming into being of the country; the only time they actively participated in their becoming was through the various Constitutional Conferences which ultimately agreed on a Federal System via a Parliamentary System only to be neutralized by the military which was also a creation of the colonial forces who amalgamated the various Peoples and Cultures into what became of Nigeria.

The issue of the Vice President being from Yorubaland and the current APC government being some sort of alliance between the North and West must be addressed. If Asiwaju Tinubu runs, what becomes of the alliance and the office of the Vice President?

The Egbe is of the view that expecting the alliance and the VP office to remain part of Buhari’s calculation is an unnecessary distraction. First, he has been courting the East and may indeed have an Easterner as his VP, jettisoning the current Vice President. If this happens, the North and West alliance is dead, anyway and we will have nothing to fall back on, save relying on Buhari for succor, where he becomes the “arbiter” of a 2019-induced Yoruba-Igbo political rivalry.

In any case, Restructuring is so fundamental to Yoruba existentialism such that the APC was given a pass in 2015 mainly because of its promise, in its Manifesto, to initiate moves towards True Federalism which has now been repudiated by the presumed 2019 flag bearer and the beneficiary of the 2015 “accord”. The only choice, therefore, is for the Vice President to withdraw from the race in the event of Asiwaju running for the office and let President Buhari choose whomever he wants from anywhere.

For President Buhari, replacing “True Federalism” with “processes” and using existing institutions of the Nigerian state necessarily implies the creation of a supra-national state. Supra-national in the sense that ethno-national centers of power, especially the non-Fulani centers, 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 or force of arms. There is one point (an all-important point for that matter) with which we should all agree. It is to the effect that the Hausa-Fulani block will never agree to a meaningful/significant Restructuring of Nigeria without fighting back.

While it is correct to say that a few of their elite, having grasped the true meaning of the concept of enlightened self-interest, may be trying to convince others of the need to accept change, such elements are in the minority. On the one hand, their strategic goal remains the same (i.e. a maintenance of, or reversion to a favorable status). Their tactical approach, on the other hand, has many nuances and the force of expression of each is, therefore, different; the aim is to slow down/prevent efforts at Restructuring and, failing which, there might as well be a general breakdown of law and order.

What then are some of the elements of this tactical approach?

The “sudden” resurgence of Fulani herdsmen terrorism, especially in the Middle Belt as a forerunner of neutralizing its centers of ethno-National power, initially via the “Federal Grazing Bill” and now the “Cattle Colonies” which are attempts at ensuring unfettered Fulani migrations into the “cattle colonies”, where, in short order, every state will have a sizable Fulani population that will be able to upend any attempt at True Federalism/Self-determination/Autonomy, especially when this colonization is a direct result of Fulani herdsmen terrorism and not the usual historical, ordinary migration, and capped with the “sudden awakening” of the president and police to “address” herdsmen atrocities as a cover for the colonization.

This tactical approach is enabled by all sorts of intellectual somersaults coming from “Northern intellectuals” who introduce such concepts as “Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of movement” (as if herdsmen terrorism left unpunished by the state apparatus qualifies as such), and the “politicization of legal regimes”, whatever that means. Herdsmen violence is being excused by these “intellectuals” even when the entire security apparatus of the country is controlled by the Center which is itself controlled by the “North”.

Despite these, Asiwaju Tinubu running for the Office of the President will not be tantamount to cutting the nose to spite the face. So far, and despite President Buhari’s chest-beating on his administration’s economic initiatives, the bottom line is that such initiatives were and are not based on any economic philosophy but mere electioneering antics. In other words, these initiatives were embarked upon both to ensure acceptance by Nigerians as well as position the administration for a second term. The fundamental question remains, as to whether a dysfunctional post-colonial state as conceived by the colonial power, can develop an economic philosophy for development, regardless of any electioneering gambits. Therefore, the conclusion can easily be reached that factors like those mentioned earlier other than economic development is far more important for the stability of the post-colonial state, now under Fulani hegemony. So, the Yoruba not having a Vice President will only ruffle a few political egos in the land, but we would have regained our political initiative.

This initiative for Restructuring was lost during the Babangida years, with his “new breed” assumptions which in effect was also aimed at neutralizing Ethno-National Centers of power. It was regained because of Yoruba resistance to the Abacha dictatorship and had since been going through a lot of challenges with another opportunity now on the horizon for a meaningful engagement.

A cursory look at the trend in the Restructuring exercise and its importance to the 2019 elections shows the PDP already “zoned” the Presidency to the “North” with Atiku Abubakar being touted as interested in running. And for a while, Atiku Abubakar was in the forefront of calling for True Federalism and Restructuring and indeed placed all his political bets on the subject, insisting that Nigeria can neither make any headway, politically, nor enjoy economic advancement without it only to backtrack by now promoting the notion that provision of jobs for the youth must be the primary focus of any incoming administration, as if True Federalism and Restructuring are antithetical to provision of jobs for the youths. At one point, Governor Ayo Fayose of Ekiti State, also of the PDP, expressed interest in contesting but is now exploring possibilities of becoming a clergyman after his term as Governor. So, we wait and see what happens with the PDP.

On his part, Pastor Tunde Bakare, of the Latter Rain Assembly, a Yoruba, we assume, who had variously proclaimed his unalloyed personal and political loyalty to the person of Muhammadu Buhari, has now said God asked him to contest for the Presidency. The pastor and president Buhari are on the same page on Restructuring so it is doubtful if he will want to contest against him, unless, of course, God asks him to. According to him, God has not told him when he should contest; and of course, there is no idea under which party platform this will take place and what his political Manifesto will be. There are over 100 political parties from which he can choose from.

Pastor Bakare had, in his Independence Day message, glorified and eulogized colonialism via his pulpit. He praised the European “civilizing mission” wrapped around colonial conquest as the source of conflict resolution among what he referred to as the “warring communities” in the Niger Area. He further stated that “before the creation of the Nigerian State, there was no Yoruba Nation, there was no Igbo Nation, there was no Hausa nation, neither was there an Ijaw Nation. We must not be misled by nostalgia for a spurious harmonious past or the myth of homogenous ethnic groups that is far removed from reality. The area around the Niger was marked with unrest, continuous intergroup conflict, subjugation, enslavement and oppression of the weaker by the stronger until Nigeria provided the possibility for peaceful co-existence. For this, we must appreciate the Nigerian State, we must celebrate our Nigerianness and we must gravitate towards strengthening our nationhood rather than cursing our blessing.”

Aside from the fact that such a statement is antithetical to the concept of independence from colonialism, which, by the way, was embarked upon by the Peoples of Africa utilizing various means, of which outcome, for Nigeria, Pastor Bakare benefited from, as his Assembly will probably not exist since the emergence of African denominations were direct consequences of anti-colonial sentiments. Also, he was following the thought processes laid down by the Fulani hegemonist historian Yussuf Bala Usman and his fellow travelers like Nuhu Ribadu and ended up comparing apples with oranges. Otherwise, why would there be any need for Independence if Nigeria “provided the possibility for peaceful co-existence”? When he says there was no Yoruba Nation and from there leaped to the Nigerian State, it shows some confusion on the question of Nation, the Nation-State and State. A state is a governing/ruling apparatus that does not exist outside of the Nation. If the Pastor is to be believed, and if there was no Yoruba Nation, there would obviously not be a Yoruba State apparatus. The pastor, by denying the existence of pre-colonial Nations is in effect saying there was no Oyo Empire, for example. An Empire of whatever size has a governing apparatus, a “State”, otherwise it is not an empire. Moreover, what separates a Nation from just a group, is the commonality of expectations expressed through cultural, political and economic prisms for which Yorubaland is very much in tandem with: from the Obaship, to the Cosmogony (despite introduction of Christianity and Islam) and more importantly, the major cause of the Yoruba Civil Wars, which was the attempt to wage a “war to end all wars” in Yorubaland and which ultimately pitted Yoruba Unitarists against the Yoruba Federalists. There would not have been such an internal conflict if there was no sense of Yoruba Nationhood, which was again demonstrated at the Peace Treaty to end the wars. The Pastor must be reminded that the Nigerian State, of which he was so enamored of, is itself the result of British subjugation, enslavement and oppression of the weaker by the stronger. To agree to the finality of “oppression of the weaker by the stronger” as the Pastor does, is to deny the essence of any form of resistance, including anti-colonialism.

With all these, Asiwaju Tinubu contesting will place the entire quest for Restructuring in the hands of Yoruba People who will become its driving force especially when Asiwaju is able to win Yoruba/SW votes entirely on the strength of a Manifesto anchored on True Federalism.

Leaving aside the Yoruba angle for the moment, attention to other Nationalities in Nigeria, mainly the Niger Delta and the Igbo must be drawn into the equation.

www.thepathfinderinternational.com




The Sultan of Sokoto, Army Colonel Saad Abubakar(retd) raised the banner of the National Question as against the “Religious Question” when he stated, at the recent retreat of Northern Senators and leaders, that he is the Leader of the Fulani in Nigeria and West Africa. In the aftermath of resistance to Fulani herdsmen terrorism in Adamawa State, the Sultan reportedly warned against misconstruing what he referred to as “Fulani patience and silence” for weakness while reiterating Fulani remembrance of what he claimed, “happened to Fulanis” in other parts of Nigeria. He is also the President of Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs in Nigeria (NSCIA), which makes him the leader of Muslims in Nigeria

From this short introduction, it is obvious the Sultan is not so much concerned about the fate of Muslims in general and particularly those in Yorubaland for the simple reason that he did not deem it fit to condemn Fulani herdsmen atrocities in Yorubaland, with recorded cases of such terrorism visited on hapless villagers and farmers who also end up being prosecuted and persecuted by the police acting on behalf of the Nigerian State. There are Yoruba Muslims among these victims. For the Sultan, however, their being Muslim is of no consequence as they are not Fulani.

The Sultan has now deemed it fit to speak out in support of the “Hijab” controversy as a religious issue; while the President resorted to the usual demand on the security forces to fish out terrorists and criminals anchored on what we had always been treated to as excuses on these atrocities; ranging from cultural economy of cattle rearing to cross-border criminal gangs to ECOWAS treaty on freedom of movement for herdsmen without challenging the Nigerian State to live up to its responsibilities as to the security of her citizens.

What these represent is the fact that the problems of Nigeria, Hijab or no Hijab, is not of a religious nature but political, an aspect of the consolidation of the post-colonial State with the aim of homogenizing the various Peoples into a uniform identity, aided by the colonial military also heavily dominated by the Fulani. This is more-so when Fulani leadership line up behind their own people to the detriment of other Peoples, Muslim or not. This is reminiscent of the Solagberu saga at the time of the Alaafin versus Afonja conflict in the Oyo Empire where the battle for the soul of the land transcended religious affiliation as Solagberu, a Yoruba Muslim had come to his non-Muslim friend Afonja’s aid when the latter was faced with an internal rebellion of his erstwhile Fulani Muslim allies.

For Yoruba People, religious tolerance is a major aspect of Yoruba National culture and as an example of societal harmony with members of the same family practicing different faiths without disruptions in family relations. This reflects a material reality, to wit, the Yoruba, of whatever religious persuasion, had, and has the Yoruba Cosmogony as the unifier, defining our existence and therefore identity, as the first line of engagement, which allowed the Yoruba to “overcome” the barriers that would necessarily have accompanied their being pulled in antagonistic directions of religious doctrines.

This was the experience during the pre and post-Independence periods where Yoruba Muslims were not found wanting in the defense, development and promotion of the Yoruba Nation as exemplified by the likes of Saburi Biobaku who headed the Yoruba Historical Society which later became the Ibadan School of History, Aliyu Fafunwa with his Ife Model School where students were taught in their mother tongue(Yoruba), Dauda Adegebenro who stood up to the antics of the Fulani/Igbo Alliance in their attempt to neutralize the AG leadership, Alhaji W Elias, a close friend of Awo who stood solidly by him throughout his travails and of course, S.O Gbadamosi, one of the intellectual and ideological pillars of economic development of the Western Region, Lateef Jakande the “Action Governor” of Lagos who had also proved his mettle and fidelity to the Yoruba throughout the treasonable felony period, Ganiyu Dawodu who was able to maintain Lagos for the Action Group when the Party was under severe threat and stress, Adegoke Adelabu who provided credible opposition in the Western Region not to mention Layi Balogun and Suliat Adedeji, of the NADECO fame, both of whom lost their lives in defense of the Yoruba against the Abacha military regime not to forget Bisi Akande and Bola Ahmed Tinubu whose anti-thesis to the military’s attempt at atomizing Yorubaland is Yoruba political solidification which has become the Yoruba ace in the on-going quest to remake Nigeria. These are just a few among those Yoruba Muslims not found wanting in promoting the good of Yorubaland.

Recognizing the above proves that the pursuit of the good of the society or its negation may be propelled by the individual’s fidelity to his or her faith or the utmost lack of it; but the faith itself is not the issue.

What then constitutes this “good” for the Yoruba? This is more so when the State is assumed as being saddled with the task of providing the greatest good to the greatest number of its citizens where, historically, Yoruba society, existentially, had tended towards the “good”, sometimes resulting in internal convulsions as manifestations of this process. This was also the Yoruba experience in the anti-colonial struggles where the pursuit of the “good” resulted in what is now regarded as the Golden Era of Yoruba development, in which, as noted above, Yoruba Muslims played a prominent part.

This “good” was pursued despite the “Balkanization” of the Peoples of Africa; the reversal of this “Balkanization” is at the core of the Restructuring wave blowing in Nigeria and which, by the way, enabled the Sultan to declare himself rightfully as the Fulani leader in Nigeria and West Africa. Yet other Nationalities in Nigeria are not expected to consider themselves as part of a larger Nation across West Africa.

But having done so, and with Yoruba Muslims under his authority, it is incumbent on Yoruba Muslims to pause and decide whether they are for the “good” of Yorubaland as their predecessors were or remain nonchalant about their Yoruba Nationality while promoting their religious affiliation as the ultimate. Making this choice will allow them to contextualize any and or all their demands. If this choice can be made for them, as it appears is being done, it will pit them against their Nationality, becoming part of the largely “foreign” forces aimed at subjugating the Yoruba Nation while consolidating their own inside and outside Nigeria, merely utilizing their faith/religion as part of a larger political methodology and with the active connivance of the Nigerian post-colonial State, already weighted heavily in their favor.

Shenge Rahman, Femi Odedeyi

For and on behalf of Egbe Omo Oduduwa

e-mail: egbeomooduduwa1945@gmail.com

www.ooduapathfinder.com


(Part One of the Interview by OoduaPathfinder/Pathfinder International with the Secretary of Egbe Omo Oduduwa, Shenge Rahman, on issues affecting the quest for Federalism in Nigeria)





OP/PI: Now that every Region in Nigeria is consolidating its position on Restructuring, the latest being the retreat of the Northern senators and governors following on the heels of the “southern retreat”, and the Governors in the Yoruba States of Oyo, Osun, Lagos, Ondo and Ekiti States declaring their intention to promote a single position on Restructuring, OP/PI wants to know what the EOO position is and whether any formal presentation was made by your organization to the myriad of committees working on Restructuring.

EOO: We stated our position clearly in our memorandum to the APC Southwest panel that sat in Akure. The kernel of the position of the Egbe is that Restructuring cannot be reduced to Devolution of powers by or from an Almighty Centre to either the States or the so-called Zones which owe their existence to the administrative impulse of the Centre for self-preservation and enhancement under the military. In other words, Restructuring or Re-Federalization of Nigeria can only proceed on the basis of the acceptance of the principle of Lingual-Territorial factor as the determinant of the constituent units or entities, the subjects as opposed to the objects of a new Federal Union

OP/PI: Since all current efforts are anchored on elected representatives of the People–Legislators, Governors etc, what role do you suppose organizations like yours can play in the emerging political scenario? What influence can your organization exert? More so when yours is not a political party which is the only officially recognized form of representation in Nigeria?

EOO: Our understanding of the historical significance of the restructuring imperative is that it is a “political revolution” project that must come to terms in a bold, determined and creative manner with the existing political reality: the political structures operating in the political environment both as impediments as well as potential tactical or even strategic allies depending on the shape and character of reality as it unfolds. But one thing is key to our organization and that is the People. For us the raison de’tre of Federalism everywhere and in our particular and peculiar situation is the existence of multi-ethnic /lingual entities otherwise known as Nationalities which dictates the necessity for a power sharing agreement between them on the one hand and a central or union authority to whom they have agreed in conditional terms to cede a part of their individual sovereignty.

OP/PI: One of the critical issues on Restructuring is what is now known as “Local Government Autonomy” largely championed by the Nigerian Union of Local Government Employees (NULGE), among others, on the basis of its being closest to the people. How consistent is this with your understanding of the theory and practice of federalism?

EOO: NULGE is being ridiculous with its association of what it called “local government autonomy” with Federalism. The Union’s president even went so far as to suggest that local governments become federating units!!! In the first instance, autonomy presupposes pursuit of independent action and/or existence by an entity in and of itself. A Local Government is not an independent or autonomous entity as it is derived from an existing structure, the community without which there will be no local governance. Administratively, a local government is merely a mechanism for direct participation of the people in their own society. How then can such a government be “autonomous”? Autonomous of what? This reflects the bastardization of political thought that developed under the various military administrations whose so-called Local Government reforms were predicated upon a determination of the size of a Local Government territory as not expected to be made up of more than 180,000 people. This was the core of all the Local government reform activities of the military. We also know that the military, as an institution, was created as an anti-people entity, enforcers of the colonial order, hence its approach towards local governance was not surprising. A direct fall-out of this is the practice, especially in the Middle Belt areas, whereby Fulani people forcibly took over certain territories so that a local government authority could be created for them. And this is what had been happening with what is now commonly acknowledged as Fulani herdsmen terrorism where local inhabitants are powerless in confronting them.

OP/PI: If, as NULGE says, local governments are the nearest government structures closest to the people, don’t you think the golden ends of security and welfare will be better served when you liberate them (the people) from the incubus of state government’s tyranny?

EOO: From Nigeria’s experience, “closeness to the people” is no guarantee of security and welfare; otherwise, there would have been great improvements in the lives of the people since the 1976 Local government reforms. Yet, pre-Independence, in the Western region, the AG government was not yet in place when it developed its policy mechanism for social, economic and cultural development which was translated into reality in the 1952-59 period which is still being adjudged the “golden era” of the Western Region. To liberate the people from the incubus of state government tyranny, as posed by the question therefore creates a false dichotomy between the state government and the people itself. Rather, the ends of security and welfare of the people is an ideological and political question. It is not an administrative or bureaucratic issue—which is what a militarized mindset would connote.

OP/PI: If the NULGE position is representative of the Nigerian labor Movement in general, will this constitute the decline of Labor as a beacon for fundamental changes necessary in Nigeria?

EOO: Absolutely!! Labor formations, historically, were aimed at improvements in the general conditions of the society, be it from the shop floor/workplace or from an existing social or economic contradiction in the society at large. Even during the anti-colonial era, the Nigerian labor movement played its own roles in the firmament, especially after the 1949 Enugu coal miners’ strike and later the struggle against the Anglo-Nigerian Defense Pact in 1961 not to forget their various forays into electoral politics on labor platforms. But this NULGE position also reflects the centralization of the labor movement itself, through the pursuit of “Uniformity” which was one of the reasons adduced by Yar Adua in 1976 at the onset of the Local government reforms under Obasanjo Administration. The uniformity achieved through these various reforms enabled the same Obasanjo military administration to decree a single labor center in Nigeria, hence the establishment of the Nigeria Labor Congress. When there are now voices in response to fundamental and foundational issues in Nigeria, “unity” becomes a substitute, where all of Nigeria’s issues are reduced to “unity”. And this is how NULGE with its idea of Local Government Autonomy becomes an accomplice. Only one example will suffice.

The Sultan of Sokoto recently affirmed his leadership of the Fulani in Nigeria and West Africa—which by the way, is a true statement. But then, what is Nigerian Unity under such circumstances where a Nigerian is a recognized leader of non-Nigerians in West Africa’s geo-political space? At what point is he Nigerian and at what point Fulani, or are we to conclude that Fulani is synonymous with Nigeria. Meanwhile, there are Yoruba across at least 4 West African countries. When the Yoruba affirm their allegiance to their kith and kin outside Nigeria’s boundaries, just as the Sultan has done, can it also be said the Yoruba is synonymous with Nigeria? And this can also be said of several Nationalities in Nigeria. This obviously brings into focus the nature of “Nigerian unity” itself. Unity of Peoples or of territories? By acknowledging his leadership of the Fulani across West Africa, by the Yoruba acknowledging their relationship with their kith and kin across West Africa, unity of the Ethno-Nationalities is already in existence. Unity between different Ethno-Nationalities thus becomes a question of geo-political relations, summed up in the architecture of State aimed at achieving it. Fundamental changes in Nigeria then becomes a function of interrogating the post-colonial State which means its architecture must be reworked anew—and in a sense, the Sultan has shown the way. It will be better for him to refer to himself as a Fulani-African, just as there will be Yoruba/igbo/Ijaw/Igala Africans. We will no longer be “fighting” for Nigeria, as such, but for Africa and this will challenge us in the working out of a suitable architecture for that purpose and place the entire question of Restructuring under a different perspective with a more balanced solution.

Thus, when the north, under Fulani hegemony try to determine the trajectory for Nigeria’s unity, they are only working towards making the rest of us conform to their hegemonic world view. When a labor movement like NULGE to subscribe to this notion, it shows a lack of intellectual discipline within the union which again shows the malaise in the entire labor movement, especially when its leadership had always kowtowed to military politics, an extension of Fulani hegemonic politics. This is one of the reasons why EOO is promoting the notion of the Ethno-Nationality as the federating Unit in Nigeria. It will allow for the fullest expression of the relationships within the Ethno-Nationality within and outside Nigeria.

OP/PI: Perhaps what you are calling an aberration may be justified in the light of the need to fight the corruption in the local government administration and finances which allegedly is made possible by the superintendency of the state governments over the local government structures.

EOO: The corruption in the local government administration is not a function of the superintendence of its finances by the state government but a direct result of the corruption of its own foundation. Recall that in the first republic, where the regional governments superintended local governments, corruption was one of the causes adduced by the Nzeogwu-led military coup; Gowon was overthrown under the auspices of his government being corrupt; the NPN government was overthrown based on accusations of corruption; Babangida was supposed to be the master of corruption in Nigeria and the PDP government had corruption written all over it, which the Buhari administration vowed to change but whose change agenda is itself mired in corruption. So, you can see that corruption is a common, recurring decimal in all governmental changes. That being so, “fighting” it can no longer be a justifiable reason for any political or even structural change. There must be something else fueling corruption which is not being addressed. That something is the reduction of corruption to embezzlement of public funds, so much so that a corrupted environment which cannot but breed a corrupt society is neglected and everyone focusses on embezzlement as the entire definition of corruption. Denial of a peoples’ inalienable right to govern themselves can only be accomplished by corrupt methodologies, ranging from illegalities perpetrated by the governing authority, to imposition of an alien culture to forcible forms of governance to denial of a peoples’ natural existentialism to a gradual decline and or neutralization of their languages etc. Moreover, if NULGE based its advocacy on the alleged embezzlement of local government funds by Governors, it must follow that those Governors are already embezzling their state funds which only show the corrupt architecture of state. By not addressing any of the above, NULGE is reflecting the lack of political and ideological depth in the labor movement in general, where the tendency is to flow with an extant reality regardless of its validity when, by definition, the labor movement is expected to provide an alternative, simply by its being the anchor for social and economic development in terms of the application of their labor-power in that direction. The opposite is the case in that Nigeria’s labor-power is not a function of productivity but of governmental allocations, itself a function of the corrupted nature of Nigeria’s socio-economic organization and indeed its definition of Federalism which would allow NULGE to call for making the local governments federating units. Moreover, the theoretical hollowness of NULGE and other labor unions and their fellow travelers in the NGOs on this misconceived autonomy campaign becomes very clear when you appreciate the strategic role of theory in every human endeavor and enterprise. As a change agent, labor ought not surrender to the logic of the immediate or NOW but must always envision the FUTURE and work towards it even in its present struggles. Now the whole AUTONOMY agenda is premised on the presupposition and calculation of the authors and minders of the Unitary Formula to the effect that the Central authority is entitled to the role of the SUPER POWER that allocates resources to the governing authorities of the constituent units whereas it is supposed to be the other way around. But more importantly, the whole racket around Local government autonomy is founded on the untenable expectation that petrodollar will always be available to fund this strange brand of federalism. What happens when as it is certain oil loses its value in the world makes in the very near future under our nose?

OP/PI: In popular parlance in the country, you often hear pundits describing Nigeria as running a three-tier system with the local government constituting the third tier. How valid is this claim?

EOO: As noted in my earlier response, a so-called three tier system is not and cannot be referred to as a federation for the simple reason that a Federation is not defined by the number of tiers within the Federating Unit but by its being a union between two or more entities—how each of the entities organizes itself internally has no bearing on the nature of the federation as these would have been taken into consideration when the federation is being negotiated. For example, it was the British who created warrant chiefs in the east while the West had their Obas and the north their Emirs. This was the basis for the first republic federation. How then would the East come to demand that the West with its Obas must have warrant chiefs for the federation to work? Or vice-versa? But as you know, the east now has its own “obas”, known as Ezes with all its implications for Igbo society. So, as far as Federalism is concerned, there is no validity in the claim for a three-tier system.

OP/PI: If you see the idea of Local government autonomy as one borne out of intellectual decline in Nigeria, can you attempt an analysis of this malaise.?

EOO: Any society that wishes to be on the march must involve her intellectuals, for that is where ideas are generated, and policies debated. It is not for nothing that a university is deemed to be a combination of “town and gown”. Again, in the Western region, this approach was very much at play. Intellectual giants of the day were very much involved in such policy debates and formulations, not only as a theoretical necessity but also in their own practical lives. Many of the ministers and bureaucrats of the time were teachers who started life as teachers, and when the military took over, quite a lot of them ended up establishing their own schools, all of which showed a great appreciation of scholarship. But what do we see now? Since the introduction of SAP, there had been a marked decline in scholarship, the education system is in shambles hence there could be no serious engagement between town and gown. Yet most of those forced to flee to Europe and America excel in their academic and intellectual pursuits to the benefit of their host countries. Thus, that such an obnoxious idea as local government autonomy would even find expression among the educated elite is a pointer to the decline of intellectual pursuits in our society. The ability to “dig deeper”, having been destroyed by the “immediate effect” of military governance, itself borne out of the need to dominate the society, can only feed such mediocrity being witnessed today.(to be continued)

www.ooduapathfinder.com




Egbe Omo Oduduwa Memo To APC Committee on True Federalism.
The questions posed by the Committee are underlined.


PREAMBLE:
When different Nationalities and Ethnic Groups live in the same country, it is imperative that they each let the others know what their special interests are, in order to make living with each other worthwhile. If all of them are to live in peace, they must each know what is of paramount concern to each and every Nationality. Given the fact that the Yoruba Nation also extend beyond Nigeria, she has the obligation to preserve her cultural heritage and way of life within Nigeria and elsewhere where she has a sizeable community.
In a situation where the Yoruba Nation share a common country with some other Nationalities either with feudal tendencies or conformity by coercion, this can be stifling to the fullest development of the Yoruba. It is therefore in the interest of the Yoruba Nation to have as much Autonomy in their Region as a Truly Federal arrangement would demand. This means that more power will be with the Nationality, where, with a True Federal set-up, planning and execution of social, economic and other services that meets the aspiration of Yoruba Nationhood will be possible.
As this current exercise shows, there is a serious question mark on Nigeria as a Federal State. This has led to current agitations and permutations as to correcting this fundamental defect. In considering current developments, certain areas that need to be thoroughly examined have been identified. Specifically, a Truly Federal Nigeria in which the Constituent Nationalities will possess a reasonable degree of Autonomy will require clear understanding of the impact of the following on the Nigerian Union: (1) The development of social and economic relationship between the various Nationalities within Nigeria and their Diaspora; for the Yoruba Nation, that will be Brazil, Cuba, the U.S, the West Indies and South America without the overriding legislative power of the Nigerian Union. (2) The ability of the Nations to pursue micro and macro- economic policies (3) Regional Command of the Armed Forces, taking cognizance of the fact that a country’s defense is linked to its foreign policy and vice versa.
ENDORSEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONS: (1) Endorsement of Regional or Nationality Constitutions through Referendums within the various Regions or Nationalities only. (2) Endorsement of the Negotiated Federal Constitution through a country-wide Referendum.
It is within the above context that this submission to your Committee is made, more-so when conflicting or different ideas from a Nationality or Federating Unit can only be resolved by a Referendum within the Unit itself.





(1) Creation/Merger of States: (a) Should Nigeria create more states or not;
(a) NO. For Nigeria to create more states is to assume that Nigeria is already a FEDERATION; which it is not. States, in the current configuration, serve administrative purposes. On the other hand, States as Federating Units in a federation implies that such a State will be wholly responsible for its own internal organization, meaning it could decide to further divide itself into smaller states or local administrative centers. This will define Federalism in its fundamental nature, that is, a co-operation between two centers, sub-national(state) and national(country). Therefore, an existing country cannot simply be dividing itself up and calling such division a federation. That is the problem Nigeria is currently facing. The military started this program of state creation only because it(military) was in power and controlled the purse strings such that the states became almost permanently dependent on the Center for its existence. Creating more states under this circumstance would be reinforcing the centralization that this Committee is trying to address. And when the case is made that the current states are now a reality which we cannot run away from, the short answer to that is, Yes, we can run away from it, in the sense that the political and economic circumstances that make for their creation is the root cause of Nigeria’s problems today, such that their retention or changing can only be by the Peoples affected themselves and not by fiat from the Center. Thus, for example, the Yoruba Nation may decide to make every Yoruba town or city an administrative center—that will be our choice based on our economic and political imperatives.
(b) Should states be merged, if so, what should be the framework and guidelines?
NO. There is no need to “merge” current States. In the first instance, True Federalism for Nigeria is about the PEOPLES of Nigeria and NOT a question of administrative entities, such as States. To deny this is to deny the peoples themselves thus negating the essence of Federalism. Any question as to how the Peoples are to be governed must be decided by the Peoples themselves. In the First Republic, whose experiences are still relevant today, especially when the Regions provided the reference point to today’s issues, the Regions were not equivalent to today’s states; they were an aggregation of the peoples in the regions and there was a provision to have more Regions but for the fall-out of political brinkmanship that was introduced mid-way into the exercise. Furthermore, who will decide which states to be merged? The Federal Government? This cannot be so, since one of the issues being addressed is the NATURE of the Federal Government itself, otherwise we would not now be pursuing True Federalism. In short, a deficient federal Government cannot be expected to produce a fruitful merger of States. The peoples living in the current States? Yes-but with a caveat; they cannot be asked to decide on a merger IF they cannot be asked what form of government they want for themselves; this cannot be possible if they are not able to decide whether they want to be part of Nigeria or not and this will not be possible if they are not recognized as a PEOPLE. Therefore, the first principle is in this recognition as a PEOPLE who can now be expected to determine their preferred forms of political administration.

(2) Derivation Principle: What percentage of federal collectable resources should be given back to their sources, e.g. crude oil, solid minerals, VAT? Fiscal Federalism & Revenue Allocation: What are the proposed changes in the current revenue allocation formula? What should be the new sharing formula between the federal, state and local governments that will reflect their share of constitutional responsibilities?
Derivation implies a Federating Unit giving away some of its “collectable resources” and NOT the center “giving back” from what it collected. The question should be posed as to what percentage of a Federating Unit’s “collectable resources” should go to the Center? Our response is: not more than 30%. The reason for this is that since there will be more than 2 Federating Units, the combined totality of the “collectable resources” will be enough to maintain all of the activities of the Center; more so when such a Center need not be saddled with much of today’s spending.
(3) Devolution of Powers: What items on the exclusive legislative list should be transferred to the recurrent list to enable states have direct responsibility e.g. state & community police, prisons, etc?
Devolution of Powers DOES NOT equate to True Federalism. Devolution implies an already existing center that will “give up” certain powers just as posed in the question. But the question did not say that the center also retains the power to take back what is devolved; since this is already implied. Furthermore, where did an “exclusive legislative list” come from? Meanwhile, a DEFICIENT CENTER as Nigeria is, CANNOT devolve anything meaningful. Otherwise we will not even be asking for Memos on achieving True Federalism. True Federalism is an admission that what we have is not true; hence all efforts must be geared toward achieving the True Form which cannot be done via a deficient form. The starting point therefore is in having a NEW CONSTITUTION for a FEDERAL NIGERIA. This has absolutely nothing to do with “devolution of powers” but the definition of the POWER itself. Whatever items would be on recurrent or exclusive lists should be left for the FEDERATING UNITS to decide when they make their own Constitutions. Any items for negotiation would become the basis for a NEW CONSTITUTION for Nigeria.
(4) Federating Units: Should the Nigerian federation be based on regions or zones as units or maintain the current 36 state structure?
The Nigerian Federation cannot be based on current “states” since they were created out of some political expediency as a form of administrative convenience. Likewise, it cannot be based on the “Zones” since they also exist mainly as referrals for convenience purposes aimed at ameliorating the conditions that gave rise to cries of marginalization or inclusion that has characterized the operation of Nigeria since at least 1966. It has been shown that Language plays a foundational and crucial part in social and economic development where those countries deemed developed utilize their natural Languages in their production and reproduction of Knowledge thereby enabling a combined utilization of their social, economic and therefore cultural attributes serving as the basis for any relationship between one people and the other as well as within one people. Language should therefore be the basis for a Truly Federal Nigeria.
It is noted that Nigeria has over 300 Languages, the good news is that these Languages come with their natural territories thus making it easier to generate alignments without one necessarily negating the other. These Languages via their territories provides a good ground for a Union or Federation.
Therefore, as the late Anthony Enahoro-led PRONACO advised, the suggested number of Lingual-Territorial/Nationality Categories is 17, of which 11 will be mono-Lingual/Nationality Entities/Region (1) Ibibio ( 2). Ijaw ( 3). Igbo (4). Urhobo ( 5). Edo (6). Yoruba ( 7). Nupe.( Tiv (9). Gbagyi (10). Hausa-Fulani ( 11). Kanuri. The other six (6) of the Regions should be multi-Nationality regions, as follows: (i) Nationalities in Cross River and Akwa Ibom states (i.e. Eket, Annang, Oron, Ibeno, Efik, Ejagbam, Korop, Boki, Bakwara, Yakurr, Yala). (ii) Nationalities in Rivers and Bayelsa states (i.e. Ikwerre, Etchei, Ekpeeye, Engeni, Ogba, Eleme, Ndoni, Ogoni, and Andoni). (iii) Nationalities in Delta State (i.e. Ika, Ndokwa, Warri, Isoko). (iv) Nationalities in West Middle Belt, i.e. Zuru, Kambari, Bariba, Bussa, Karekare, Ngizim, Angamo, Bola, Funne, etc. (v) 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) 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.
It will be the responsibility of each of these Lingual-Territories to, within a time frame, devise their own Constitutions for ratification by a Referendum within their Territories. Any negotiations inside and outside the structures of these Lingual Territories(Nationality) can be accommodated within such a time frame especially given the fact that “Restructuring” or “True Federalism” is not a new occurrence in Nigeria’s political experience. A Federal Constitution for Nigeria will be derived from these Constitutions and ratified similarly in the Lingual-Territories(Nationalities). This is not just a technical matter, as a Constitution, being the Grundnorm, the foundational essence of a society, reflects that society’s coming into being for itself, a precondition for social and economic development. It becomes, for the society, the expression of its freedom and a summation of its existential realities. We are aware of the way African countries’ Constitutions are treated with impunity by the rulers of these countries, all because the Constitutions neither reflected nor expressed the existential necessities of the Peoples. This is an opportunity for Nigeria to address this issue.



(5) (a) Form of Government: Should Nigeria continue with the current Presidential system of government or return to the Parliamentary system as practiced in the first republic or develop a hybrid of the two systems? (b) Power Sharing & Rotation: Should Nigeria have a policy of rotation of the key elected political positions on regional or zonal basis for national offices and by senatorial districts for state offices?
(a) Parliamentary System with a Federal Collegiate Presidency where each of the Federating Units will be represented by one Person elected or selected by the Federating Unit itself. The President, as the primus inter pares, will have a term of not more than 2 years. This will revert most developmental options to the Federating Units and the center will be the representation of the collective will of the Federating Units as befitting an independent people.
(b) The Central government of a Nigerian Union shall have no power to interfere nor intervene in the affairs of the Federating Unit save as shall be agreed to by three quarters of the members of the Region’s Parliament. Therefore, “rotation of key elected positions on regional or zonal basis for national offices and by senatorial districts for state offices” will not be necessary.

(6) Independent Candidacy: Should there be a constitutional provision for eligible citizens to contest elections without being members of registered political parties?
Persons shall be elected on the platform of the political party they represent or as independent candidates. There shall be no restriction on the number of political parties.

(7) (a)Land Tenure System: Should the Land Use Act be part of the constitution or not and what should be the right of states in the ownership and control of mineral and natural resources on and under the ground? (b) Resource Control: Should states, regions or zones be allowed to exclusively or partially own, exploit and tap the financial benefits of natural resources in their domain and just pay taxes to the Federal Government?
(a) Land Use Act should be removed from the Constitution. In its place, Customary forms of land ownership should be respected.
(b) Exploitation and ownership of mineral resources shall be the prerogative of the host community without prejudice to the right of the government of the Federating Unit to levy appropriate taxes for the welfare of her people and without prejudice to the right of the Federal Government to levy taxes.

( Local Government Autonomy: Should LGAs be independent of states and have direct revenue sourcing from the FG as the third-tier of the federation or should they be administrative units of states?
A Federation comprises ONLY TWO PARTS: the center(which is the outcome of the Federalising) and the Federating Unit which has given up some of its powers to the Center. Therefore, there is NO QUESTION of “Local Government autonomy” as the Federating Unit is the only competent authority to decide how it will govern itself, locally. As noted earlier, the Yoruba Nation could decide to make its localities its area of administration, which obviously will make a “third tier” immaterial.

(9) Type of Legislature: Does Nigeria need a bi-cameral or uni-cameral, part-time or full-time parliament?
As noted in item #5, the Central legislature would be unicameral and the parliament full time with the proviso that the members of Parliament shall be remunerated for their services, as shall be determined by law.

www.ooduapathfinder.com

General Yakubu Gowon was a Nigerian military officer who, as a Lieutenant-Colonel, became the country’s Head of State as a result of the July 1966 northern counter-coup to the January 1966 coup whose lopsidedness in the senseless murders of northern and western political leaders provided the immediate cause for the July counter-coup and eventually the Nigerian civil war, a war fought under the organizing slogan created out of GOWON as acronym: “Go On With One Nigeria”. Although he had a Christian background, his coming to power was a reflection of Nigeria’s power politics at the time, where he represented the geo-political North. His first pronouncement, after being announced as the new head of State, was “the basis for Nigeria’s Unity no longer exist” hence the declaration of Independence by the North before the decision was overturned a few days later by the same North in favor of its continued domination of Nigeria, with him still at the helm and retaining the position throughout the war.
After the war, he became a victim of another coup in July 1975 after which he proceeded on a voluntary exile to the UK and collaborated with other Christians to establish “Nigeria Prays” upon his return. “Nigeria Prays” started life under various military administrations in Nigeria, whose military governors often encourage and patronize its activities. It is anchored on “One Nigeria” where that oneness is defined by homogeneity and uniformity, in spite of the fact that the country is multi-lingual and multi-cultural and all efforts at ensuring the homogeneity and uniformity became the main causes for the crisis that led up to military intervention and subsequently General Gowon’s ascension to power. His own political (and military) history therefore cannot be divorced from this new passion of praying for Nigeria’s oneness.
The most recent activity of “Nigeria Prays” was held in Maryland, USA in early September 2017, wherein the anchor Scripture was 2 Chronicles 7:14, which says “If My people who are called by My name will humble themselves, and pray and seek My face, and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin and heal their land”.
The word “wicked” defines exactly what Nigeria is, today. And the wickedness is being flaunted in high places of governance legitimized by a Constitution brought about by the northern-dominated military aimed at homogenizing Nigeria.
General Olusegun Obasanjo was Nigeria’s military Head of State between 1976 and 1979; the civilian President between 1999 and 2007. He declared himself to be a born again Christian, having also embarked on an academic study of Theology. As a consequence of agitations for restructuring of Nigeria from nearly all of the Peoples of Nigeria, General Obasanjo threw in his ideas anchored on what he called “restructuring of the mind”.
General Obasanjo led the military regime which validated the unitarization of Nigeria begun by General Gowon. His regime reinforced the centralization of Nigeria’s financial resources, leading to the states having to go cap in hand for monthly allocations to sustain their administrations; placed all of Nigeria’s mineral resources under the control of the central government, itself under Northern military and political control, the end result of which is the despoliation of the Niger Delta area, placed all academic institutions of higher learning established by the various post-Independence Regional Administrations under centralized control, determined one centralized agricultural development paradigm for Nigeria and more importantly, legitimized Nigeria’s unitarization though subterfuge by interfering in the production and ratification of the 1979 Constitution by military fiat and collaborated in the imposition of the fraudulent military-created Constitution of 1999, which in reality was no different from that of 1979 which he superintended.
Yet, For a Born Again Christian, to argue for a restructuring of the mind must mean the person himself has restructured his own mind to such an extent that he would boldly proclaim, as Apostle Paul did, that “ Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new”(2 Corinthians 5:17); for, as the Apostle’s life and times showed, his Damascus experience defined not only the “restructuring “ of his mind, but also of his defining characteristics and what he was able to go through and overcome in the process of putting all of these into practice. It was a “turn around” from persecution of the Way to its promotion.
Africa’s militaries were and still are the premier agency for continued colonial domination, having been created by colonial enterprises for the decimation of the various peoples of Africa, often pitting one People against the other in the recruitment and organization of such military, where, for Nigeria, the military was dominated by northerners with a mandate to secure Nigeria for the north. This was the context under which Yakubu Gowon, a minority and Christian from northern Nigeria, became the military head of State; and for Olusegun Obasanjo, he retained his leadership on account of accepting this Northern diktat as recounted by General Oluleye, the then Finance Minister, who was unceremoniously dismissed by General Obasanjo through a radio announcement upon General Oluleye’s complaint about “northern domination” of Obasanjo’s paraphernalia of office.
These two Generals therefore contributed, in a significant and direct manner, to the wickedness the Nigeria State has become.
If a “Damascus” experience proposition were to come into play, that must inform on their position and advocacy as to how Nigeria became what it is and what remedies are available for a transformation to occur. In which case, the entire edifice on which “Nigeria Prays” rest would be different from what it presently is; and General Obasanjo’s “restructuring” of the mind would accept the reality that Nigeria’s “Golden Era” was in the pre-military Regional federation that existed which was neutralized mainly by their own actions or acquiescence.
There was a mindset that produced the developments of that era just as there was a mindset that produced its negation such that asking for a “restructuring of the mind” or “praying for Nigeria” at this point without addressing this aspect is denying the Scripture both Generals now claim to promote and believe in. So far, this has not been done; hence the need to question their allusions to Biblical imperatives.
When both Generals introduce these false paradigms anchored on what they have contributed to making out of Nigeria, discerning Christians must re-examine their own understanding of the Spirit in these matters and begin to determine their allegiance, whether it is to “men” like these Generals or God. The first platform for the search would be what really constitute their own Nations: the Nigerian Post-Colonial state as already determined by these two Christian Generals(among others) or their natural God-created Nations which may or may not have to work out a Re-Formation of a new architecture of State that will encourage their mutual co-existence.
Christians in Nigeria therefore have a responsibility as to their continued relevance in the world, especially now that Nigeria is faced with an existential disorder whose outcome will determine the continued existence or obliteration of many Peoples, that is Languages/Cultures inhabiting that geo-political space.
Christians in Nigeria can either allow this crisis to be resolved one way or the other without their direct input or become active participants in the coming into being of what God intended each of the Nations to be thus fulfilling Revelation 7:9, where ALL NATIONS gather to worship God.

www.ooduapathfinder.com


“The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of the Lord, make straight in the desert a highway for our God….. And the glory of the Lord shall be revealed, and all flesh shall see it together: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it.”—Isaiah 40: 3-5



(1) Formal intervention by Christians during periods of crises of the Nigerian Post-Colonial State usually revolve around setting up “prayer sessions”; formal and informal consultations with rulers of Nigeria by Christian Leaders of several denominations, details of which were not always made public even when the Christian leaders embark on these exercises ostensibly in the interest of the public, which is tantamount to attempting to shave one’s head in his/her absence. They also promote appointment or election into offices of the Nigerian State as a “change of status” sanctioned by God.

(2) None of these resulted in resolving any of the crises of the Nigerian Post-Colonial State; these crises forever manifesting either as outright secession or clamor for a renegotiation of the country and not excluding the violent interrogation of the Post-Colonial State by armed gangs often described as “Fulani herdsmen”, kidnappers, Boko Haram and all types of anti-State characters.

(3) These crises became more intense during President Buhari’s medical vacation. He has now returned to the country and as a way of emphasizing his authority, he affirmed what he called the non-negotiability of Nigeria’s Unity, specifically saying that Nigeria’s National Assembly and Council of State remain the only Legitimate avenues for any discussion on or about Nigeria.

(4) These two bodies were created and sustained by the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria.

(5) The Preamble to the 1999 Constitution starts with “We, The People”. This is false. At no time did “We, The People” of any political, religious or cultural inclination make any input, directly or indirectly into the Constitution. The will of the Peoples of Nigeria had been expressed, even if partially, through the 1963 Constitution, which itself was the culmination of a series of Peoples’ expression from the anti-colonial agitations. The military truncated this Constitution and substituted itself for the Peoples of Nigeria in order to sustain the colonial destiny imposed on us. At the promulgation of the Constitution in 1999, those who swore to uphold its provisions had no idea what those provisions were since no one, except its military preparers saw or knew what it contained. This is the foundation of President Buhari’s stand on Legitimacy.

(6) Yet, “If the foundations are destroyed, what can the righteous do”? “The Lord is in His holy temple… and the Lord tests the righteous”. The 1999 Constitution, following on the footsteps of military intervention since 1966, destroyed Nigeria’s foundations. President Buhari is a retired military General; his affirmation is in line with the rationalization of the colonial status quo through saying God has a hand in human affairs, even though in as much as God allowed, indeed, ensured the Jewish Dispersal, He also raised up prophets and leaders to ensure their return and/or freedom, as evidenced by the periods of the Judges, Mordecai, Esther, Daniel, Nehemiah et al.

(7) Pilgrimage to the State of Israel has become embedded in Nigerian Christian praxis; but, without the establishment of the State of Israel, such pilgrimages would not be possible. The question then becomes what the enabling parameters for the establishment of the State of Israel are and their applicability or otherwise to Nigeria. Those Jews were sufficiently concerned about their condition in exile, in spite of their prosperity in terms of material acquisitions, power and privilege to such an extent that they became immersed in pursuing the purpose of God in their condition and their place in humanity.

( The major difference between the Jewish Dispersal and the African condition is the fact that the Jews, being exiled, virtually lost their territorial space and this had to be fought for and reclaimed, with the establishment of the State of Israel as its practical manifestation. African peoples had no such constraint, in spite of the slave trade. All of the African peoples still retain their natural, territorial spaces hence issues of territory are not problematic unless they allow it to be taken over by forces contrary to their God-purposed Destiny.

(9) The Jews, at various times, just as the Sons of Issachar, were able to discern the “moment”, “captured” it, “ran” with it and established their State. These Jews were from different Jewish Diaspora, having been born and bred with these differences but the unifying factor was and still is their Language, which took on a deeper character from mere means of communication to issues of survival hence became all-encompassing having coalesced all of their history and expectations around it. Otherwise, the State of Israel would, at best, be a cacophony of Languages from the Dispersal or at worst, one of the Languages would attempt to become the “official” Language of State thus rendering null the purpose for the quest, ab initio.

(10) Now that President Buhari has thrown up the question of Legitimacy, Christians of every Nationality in Nigeria should take the lead in making “We, The People” a reality through pursuing the preparation of National Constitutions by each Nationality in Nigeria to be approved or rejected by the Nationality itself. This is the only way to settle the question of Legitimacy.

(11) For Yoruba Christians, we, Christians for Yoruba Nation ,will begin a process of active engagement within Yorubaland for a Referendum by Yoruba People on the Draft Yoruba Constitution [/b]already in existence and we encourage Christians of other Nationalities in Nigeria to do similarly just as we invite any Yoruba Christian to be part of this platform of engagement.

(12) We must emphasize that we are not pursuing a “Christian Yoruba Nation” or Region as we recognize the multi-Faith Nature of the Yoruba Society, whose peaceful interrelationships and co-existence has always been a source of interest to scholars(and watchers) of faith and religion all over the world. This is simply our own contribution to the Legitimacy of Yoruba Existentialism.

[b]Pastor Goke Afolayan,
Convener, Christians for Yoruba Nation

www.ooduapathfinder.com



Sirs,
[b]“ooduapathfinder” [/b]recognizes the “Ogbeni” and “Arakunrin” appellations as manifestations of the Yoruba in both of you. Therefore, your membership of your Party’s committee on Restructuring demands your engagement with the Global Yoruba Nation as this exercise is not only about particularities of governance, you being Governors of specific Yoruba geo-political spaces, but mainly existential for Yoruba people; for the Yoruba must have a say, as a Nation, if they are going to be Nigerians or not.
Fortunately, we have been making this advocacy as True Federalism for Nigeria, since the days of Egbe Omo Oduduwa and the Action Group. Thus when your Party came up with this committee to address or achieve it, such engagement is mandatory. Hence, the following points to consider:
(1) We do not subscribe to the notion that there is nothing like True or False Federalism. There is, since a Federation is clearly a voluntary union of more than one entity. Anything outside of this is False Federalism. The question for Nigeria comes to what these entities are ?
(2) These entities cannot be the current “states” since they were created out of some political expediency as a form of administrative convenience and powers cannot be “devolved” to them as a form of Federalism since whatever entity “devolves” such powers already assumes an existence outside the competence of the state hence can also withdraw such devolved powers if and when necessary for its own sustenance thereby nullifying the essence of Federalism in the first instance. Likewise, the entities cannot be the “Zones” since they also exist mainly as referals for convenience purposes aimed at ameliorating the conditions that gave rise to cries of marginalization or inclusion that has characterized the operation of Nigeria since at least 1966. Moreover, the Yoruba Nation may decide to govern itself as Municipalities with a Regional Government thus rendering the paraphernalia of states or zones useless.
(3) We cannot use the United States as our model of Federalism in the sense that the United States came into being as the result of colonization of America by mainly the English people whose internal crisis as to the relationship between their King and the colonies led to the American revolution and subsequently the Union of the Colonies. Thus, the American Revolution was an intra-ethnic War, largely pitting different sections of the English against each other fought on a territory outside of England and created the need for a Territorial Union among the English in America which eventually laid the foundation for a Territorial Federalism of the United States.
(4) Aside from the weaknesses and sundry issues of the Nigerian post-colonial State, certain cross-border protocols suppossedly enable the Fulani herdsmen to override national boundaries. Various Nationalities are thus subjected to unnecessary problematics simply because of cross-border promotion of a particular Ethno-Nationality . This is an opportunity to address the issue, at least as far as the Yoruba Nation is concerned. We cannot ignore our presence beyond Nigeria’s present borders, with all of its social, economic, political and cultural potentials. If protocols can be established on behalf of one Nation for whatever reasons, certainly, other Nations with cross-border existence must be able to harness this reality for their own benefit.
(5) It has been shown that Language plays a foundational and crucial part in social and economic development where those countries deemed developed utilize their natural Languages in their production and reproduction of Knowledge thereby enabling a combined utilization of their social, economic and therefore cultural attributes serving as the basis for any relationship between one people and the other as well as within one people.
(6) Yes, Nigeria has over 300 Languages, the good news is that these Languages come with their natural territories thus making it easier to generate alignments without one necessarily negating the other. These Languages via their territories provides a good ground for a Union or Federation.
(7) Part of the advantages of a Lingual-Territorial(or Nationality) Union include matters of security and economic development, where the existence of such territories will aid in the prevention of country-wide military coups as well as containment of terrorism through a direct involvement of the Peoples either as a purely security issue or a cultural imperative as impediments to the development of terrorism in their Lingual territories. This will also ensure the transformation of military doctrine from one of enforced dominance to one of service mediated by socio-cultural exigencies.
( The pre-Independence Conferences anchored by the political parties reflected the importance of the Lingual Territory as the then Political parties were more or less reflective of their Lingual and therefore political origins and influences.
(9) It is within the above context that, as the basis for a True Federal Union for Nigeria, “ooduapathfinder” is recommending for adoption, a slightly abridged version of the Lingual-Territorial Categories(Nationality) developed by the Movement for National Re-Formation, then led by Chief Anthony Enahoro, a personality whose contributions to Nigeria’s Independence cannot be faulted.
(10) The suggested number of Lingual-Territorial/Nationality Categories is 17, of which 11 will be mono-Lingual/Nationality Entities/Region (1) Ibibio ( 2). Ijaw ( 3). Igbo (4). Urhobo ( 5). Edo(6). Yoruba( 7). Nupe (. Tiv (9). Gbagyi (10). Hausa-Fulani ( 11). Kanuri. The other six (6) of the Regions should be multi-Nationality regions, as follows:[b] (i) Nationalities in Cross River and Akwa Ibom states (i.e. Eket, Annang, Oron, Ibeno, Efik, Ejagbam, Korop, Boki, Bakwara, Yakurr, Yala). (ii) Nationalities in Rivers and Bayelsa states (i.e. Ikwerre, Etchei, Ekpeeye, Engeni, Ogba, Eleme, Ndoni, Ogoni, and Andoni). (iii) Nationalities in Delta State (i.e. Ika, Ndokwa, Warri, Isoko). (iv) Nationalities in West Middle Belt, i.e. Zuru, Kambari, Bariba, Bussa, Karekare, Ngizim, Angamo, Bola, Funne, etc. (v) 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) 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.[/b]
(11) It will be the responsibility of each of these Lingual-Territories to, within a time frame, devise their own Constitutions for ratification by a Referendum within their Territories. Any negotiations inside and outside the structures of these Lingual Territories(Nationality) can be accommodated within such a time frame especially given the fact that “Restructuring” or “True Federalism” is not a new occurrence in Nigeria’s political experience. A Federal Constitution for Nigeria will be derived from these Constitutions and ratified similarly in the Lingual-Territories(Nationalities). This is not just a technical matter, as a Constitution, being the Grundnorm, the foundational essence of a society, reflects that society’s coming into being for itself, a precondition for social and economic development. It becomes, for the society, the expression of its freedom and a summation of its existential realities which the colonial State had attempted to neutralize. You are aware of the way African countries’ Constitutions are treated with impunity by the rulers of these countries, all because the Constitutions neither reflected nor expressed the existential necessities of the Peoples. This is an opportunity for Nigeria to address this issue.
(12) “ooduapathfinder” recognizes your roles as members of a particular political Party. However, this exercise goes beyond the necessities of a political Party even if such a Party will become the vehicle for the needed Transformation. Your Party’s Manifesto and its 2015 electoral victory provided the necessary Legitimacy for any position you may take or canvass as members of your party’s committee on Restructuring. The Yoruba National expectation is that you become enablers of Legitimizing our aspirations.
Thank you sirs.

Addendum:

Edo as in Akoko Edo; Delta as in Itsekiri

Editor

Thank you all for your contributions. Of couse, this will have to be sold and NOT enforced. And this particular debate is very encouraging. As to Edo/Delta, some of them participated in the making of this Draft and actually insisted on being included. Having said that, it is a question they will have to address and answer, even as we are cognizant of their geo-political location. Any interested organization or individual can make their formal submissions to "editor@ooduapathfinder.com". These will form part of the preparations towards further steps.
So, sirs/mas, in the meantime, let the debate continue.
Editor.

www.ooduapathfinder.com



INTRODUCTION:

When different Nationalities and Ethnic Groups live in the same country, it is imperative that they each let the others know what their special interests are, in order to make living with each other worthwhile. If all of them are to live in peace, they must each know what is of paramount concern to each and every Nationality. Given the fact that the Yoruba Nation also extend beyond Nigeria, she has the obligation to preserve her cultural heritage and way of life within Nigeria and elsewhere where she has a sizeable community.
In a situation where the Yoruba Nation share a common country with some other Nationalities either with feudal tendencies or conformity by coercion, this can be stifling to the fullest development of the Yoruba. It is therefore in the interest of the Yoruba Nation to have as much Autonomy in their Region as a Truly Federal arrangement would demand. This means that more power will be with the Nationality, where, with a True Federal set-up, planning and execution of social, economic and other services that meets the aspiration of Yoruba Nationhood will be possible.
As we all now know, there is a serious question mark on Nigeria as a Federal State. This has led to current agitations and permutations as to correcting this fundamental defect.
In considering current developments, certain areas that need to be thoroughly examined have been identified. Specifically, a Truly Federal Nigeria in which the Constituent Nationalities will posses a reasonable degree of Autonomy will require clear understanding of the impact of the following on the Nigerian Union:
(1) The development of social and economic relationship between the various Nationalities within Nigeria and their Diaspora; for the Yoruba Nation, that will be Brazil, Cuba, the U.S, the West Indies and South America without the overriding legislative power of the Nigerian Union.
(2) The ability of the Nations to pursue micro and macro Economic policies
(3) Regional Command of the Armed Forces, taking cognizance of the fact that a country’s defense is linked to its foreign policy and vice versa.
ENDORSEMENT OF CONSTITUTIONS:
(1) Endorsement of Regional or Nationality Constitutions through Referendums within the various Regions or Nationalities only.
(2) Endorsement of the Negotiated Federal Constitution through a country-wide Referendum.



DRAFT OF THE OODUA REGION YORUBA CONSTITUTION

In order to secure the dual ends of good government for, as well as peaceable living among ourselves and between us and other Nationalities in Nigeria, we, the OODUA Yoruba people do commission and give consent to the following as the Constitution of the Yoruba Nation:

THE OODUA NATION
ARTICLE 1
SECTIONS:
1. YORUBALAND, existing as an AUTONOMOUS Nation in a UNION OF NIGERIAN CONSTITUENT NATIONALITIES, shall be known and styled as “ODUDUWA REGION”.
2. 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.
3. The land description of the Oodua Yoruba Nation corresponds to the present states of Ekiti, Eko, Ogun, Ondo, Osun, Oyo and all Oodua lands in Kwara, Kogi, Edo and Delta States.
4. There shall be a Division of the Federal Armed Forces in the Region, 90% of which personnel shall be
indigenes of the Region. The Divisional commander shall be an indigene of Oduduwa Region.

THE GOVERNMENT
ARTICLE ll
SECTIONS:
1. Oduduwa Region shall be a Federation consisting of a Regional government, provinces (Ipinle) and
Localities (Ibile). The Region as well as each Province and Local Council shall have a capital city which shall be the seat of Government.
2. ODUDUWA Region shall adopt a parliamentary system of government.
3. All legislative powers shall be vested in PARLIAMENT of the Region, without prejudice to the rights of provinces and local Councils to enact laws and ordinances, relating to their provinces and local councils.
4. Any elected Member of Parliament, Provincial and Local Assembly who wishes to join another party must first resign his/her parliamentary seat and re-contest election if he/she so wishes on the platform of his/her new party.

THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT

ARTICLE lll
SECTIONS:
1. The Parliament shall be composed of members elected every 4 years by the people of the region.
2. Such persons shall be elected on the platform of the political party they represent or as independent
candidates. There shall be no restriction on the number of political parties.
3. The Proceedings of Parliament shall be directed by the Speaker who shall be elected from among the members.
4. Elections into Parliament shall be held on June 12 of the election year, while the swearing in of elected representatives shall be the 8th day of August and annual opening session of Parliament shall be 23rd day of September (to commemorate the peace treaty that ended Kiriji war on September 23, 1886) of the same year.
5. The members of Parliament shall be remunerated for their services, as shall be determined by law.
6. Parliament shall enact all laws for raising revenue. No money shall be drawn from the treasury
except through an Appropriation Act.
7. Parliament shall have the power to make laws governing taxes, duties, excise, payment of debt, etc
It shall have the power to make laws governing the sourcing of funds on behalf of the Region and to
regulate commerce with the co-prosperity spheres within the Union of Nigeria.
8. Taxes are to be collected at Regional, Provincial and Local levels for promotion of the general welfare
of the people.
9. Parliament shall have the power to make provisions for the general welfare security and prosperity of the Region. It shall set the standards for economic, educational, social and cultural advancement of Oodua people.
10. Parliament shall have the power to establish Regional Police Service with responsibility to
investigate Regional crimes. This Police Service shall have no superintending control over the Provincial and Council Police service, but shall coordinate activities at the Regional, Provincial and Local council levels.
11. There shall be a Regional Prosecutors’ office responsible for the prosecution of cases as investigated by the Regional police. The Regional Prosecutor shall be elected by popular vote and shall
not be a registered member of any political party.
12. Recognizing that the Oduduwa Nation is multi-religious society, the citizens shall have the
right to freedom of worship.
13. Parliament shall make no retroactive law. Nor shall it abridge the freedom of speech or the right of
peaceful assembly. It shall not abridge the right of citizens to petition government for redress. The
privilege of the writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended. Parliament shall not make any law abridging the fundamental rights, freedoms and liberty of the citizens. All Oodua persons resident in any of the provinces of the Region shall be entitled to the same privileges and immunities.
14. The powers not delegated to the Parliament or the Provincial/Local Assemblies by this Constitution are reserved in the people, which may be invoked by a simple majority of voters through a Referendum in the Region, Province or Locality as the case may be.
EXECUTIVE OF THE REGIONAL GOVERNMENT
ARTICLE IV
SECTIONS:
1. A Head of State/Aare shall be elected for a period of 5 years of not more than 2 terms. The Aare shall not belong to any political party, and must not be less than 60 years. The Aare must be a person whose parents belong to a community indigenous to Oodua Nation. The Aare shall declare open the parliamentary Session, represent the Region on ceremonial matters, announce the dissolution of Parliament and all such matters.
2. The Aare shall be elected from an electoral college composed of selected leaders from the provinces. The provincial representative could be traditional rulers or statesmen and women.

3. Executive power at the Regional level shall reside in the Premier-in-Council (PM) elected for a period of 4 years. The leader of the majority party in parliament shall be PM and shall be vested with the
power to appoint Cabinet Ministers. The PM must be a person whose parents belong to a community indigenous to Oodua Nation.
4. The Parliament shall stand dissolved at the expiration of its 4-year term. In the event of a motion of no confidence passed on the government by not less than three-quarters of members of Parliament, the PM and the government shall resign forthwith. Thereafter, the Aare shall call on the leader of the
party which appears able to form a government that will enjoy majority support in Parliament to fulfil
the term of the current Parliament or new election held within 30 days of dissolution of Parliament.
5. The Council of Chiefs and Obas. There shall be a Regional House of Chiefs and a Traditional Council of Obas and Chiefs at the Provincial and Local Council levels.

JUDICIARY

ARTICLE V
SECTIONS:
1. The Judicial power of the Region shall be vested in the Supreme Court, Court of Appeal, High Court,
Customary Court and Other lower courts as the Parliament may establish.
2. There shall be a Court of Appeal in each of the provinces.
3. There shall be, in each province, a High Court from which appeals shall lie to the Court of Appeal and
Supreme Court.
4. There shall be a CONSTITUTIONAL COURT of not more than 7 persons. Members of this court shall not be less than 60 years old. The court shall determines cases of serious Constitutional issues among Local, Province and Regional Governments, and between individuals and government. Members shall be nominated by the Body of Benchers in each provinces; subject to ratification by Parliament. Membership of this court is for life, subject to soundness of body and mind.

5. FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS:
All Oodua persons shall be protected by the various international treaties passed in the Bill of Rights of the UN and various regional Bills of Rights such as the African Human and People’s Rights.
LAND AND MINERAL RESOURCES
ARTICLE Vl
SECTION:
1. Oodua Customary forms of land ownership shall be respected. Exploitation of mineral resources shall be the prerogative of the host community without prejudice to the right of the Local, Provincial and
Regional Governments to levy appropriate taxes for the welfare of the people of Oodua land and without prejudice to the right of the Federal Government to levy taxes.

THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT
ARTICLE Vll
SECTIONS:
1. There shall be established a PROVICIAL ASSEMBLY in each of the provinces of the Region.
2. Provisions of ARTICLES ONE and TWO in this Constitution as applied to the Parliament of the
Region, shall apply to the PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY except that the tenure of the Assembly shall be 3 years.

3. The Executive Power of the Province shall reside in the PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR-IN-COUNCIL, who must be an elected member of the Assembly and vested with the power to appoint members of the Provincial Government. The size of the provincial cabinet shall be determined
by consideration for the financial resources of the province.
4. The Assembly shall make provision for the establishment of a Provincial Police Service, which shall be empowered to maintain law and order in the Province and investigate crimes within its jurisdiction. The Provincial Police shall be responsible to the Provincial Governor.
5. There shall be a Provincial Prosecutor’s Office responsible for the prosecution of cases as investigated by the Provincial Police. The Provincial Prosecuting Officer shall be elected by popular vote, and shall not be a registered member of any political party.

THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT
ARTICLE Vlll
SECTIONS:
1. There shall be established a LOCAL ASSEMBLY in each of the Local Councils of the Region.
2. Provision of ARTICLE ONE and TWO in this Constitution as applied to the Parliament of the
Region, shall apply to the LOCAL ASSEMBLY except that the tenure of the Assembly shall be 3 years.

3. The Executive Power of the Local Council shall reside in the LOCAL ASSEMBLY CHAIRMAN-IN-COUNCIL, who must be an elected member of the Assembly and vested with the power to appoint members of the local government. The size of the Local Government cabinet shall be determined by consideration of the financial resources of the local council. The electorate shall have a say in the remuneration of elected members of the Councils.
4. The Assembly shall make provision for the establishment of a Local Council Police Service, which
shall be empowered to maintain law and order in the Local Council, investigate crimes within its jurisdiction. The Council Police Service shall be responsible to the Local Assembly. There shall be Council Prosecutor’s Office responsible for the prosecution of cases as investigated by the Local Police Service. The Council Prosecutor shall be elected by popular vote in the Local Council and shall not be a registered member of any political party.
THE OODUA PERSON
ARTICLE lX
SECTION:
1. All persons either of whose parents or grandparents belong or belonged to a community indigenous
to Oodua land. All persons in the Diaspora, of African decent who claim Oduduwa/Yoruba ancestry, either through cultural affiliation or genealogical connection.

www.ooduapathfinder.com



In pursuit of what it called “Nation First”, APC Governors stated as follows: [b]“It is with this in mind that the Forum condemns in the strongest terms the present secessionist and separatist agitations promoting ethno-regional identity in the country. These sundry factional groups, claiming to represent different ethnic nationalities, sow seeds of disunity and promote secessionist agenda in the nation. We decry and reject their activities in all intents and purpose. Acknowledging the rich diverse heritage of Nigeria as a country, the PGF particularly notes that the resurgence of desperate youth groups promoting ethno-regional identities and extremist positions from the different geo-political z[/b]ones across the nation as currently experienced is a reflection of prevalent weak governance, economy and law enforcement system in Nigeria.”
“Rich, diverse heritage of Nigeria as a country” is a direct expression of Ethno-Regional Identity; that is, without Ethno-Regional Identity, there would be no “rich, diverse heritage”. The Governors cannot give with one hand and take away with another.
The Language of the Governors reflects an authoritarian tendency, for by ascribing Ethno-Regional Identity to “weak governance, economy and law enforcement system”, the Governors are indirectly asking for its opposite, that is, “strong governance(whatever that means), leading to a strong economy and law enforcement” which has absolutely nothing to do with Ethno-Regional Identity; one is not a consequence of the other.

This mindset was responsible for the rise of authoritarian regimes founded on a platform neutralizing Ethno-Regional Identities, the most prominent being Ethiopia.
The Ethiopian Dergue, the military formation which overthrew Emperor Haile Selassie embarked upon “Ethiopia Tikdem”(Ethiopia First) anchored on the denial of Ethiopia’s Ethno-National Identity and led to its descent into authoritarianism via the “terror” wars which pitted the military regime’s “Red Terror” against the opposition’s “White Terror”.
It must be noted that these designations were literally lifted out of its historical context with no bearing on Ethiopia’s reality at the time. The military Dergue was a complete opposite of the Bolshevik revolution both in terms of class, and therefore social and economic representation as well as cultural attributes, where the Ethiopian Dergue was a purely military formation that was able to conscript the Ethiopian underclass into its program by brute force.
For Russia, in spite of Bolshevik “Red Terror” victories, it also denied Ethno-National and Regional realities of the then Russian Empire which prompted Lenin, the Bolshevik leader, to raise the alarm on “Great Russian Chauvinism” which ultimately led, initially to the formation and later, demise of the USSR. “Ethiopia Tikdem” was a caricature of an original, created outside its existential contexts hence doomed to stupendous catastrophe; for the only way this expectation can be arrived at is through massive decimation of the People as proved by the Ethiopian experience.

This is the pathway which the APC Governors appear to be treading. The denial of Ethno-Regional Identity was a rejection of historical reality hence their attempt at trying to impose a solution not commensurate with its context which automatically leads to a dysfunction of ideas and methodologies and ultimately an unnecessary waste of lives which has now appeared to be a permanent condition of the African problematic.
The Governors, especially those from the SW(Yoruba) failed to be true to history by going along with this statement : “Alongside the imperative of political and fiscal decentralization, contiguous states can pool resources to address common development challenges and embark on projects that can have maximum effect and efficiency through endeavors. “Where possible, and agreed upon, a regional approach to development issues that take cognizance of existing comparative advantages within the existing regions as the initiatives in the Southwest has demonstrated.”
Contiguity is a natural phenomenon, hence a reflection of Ethno-Regional Identity; further, the “Golden Era” of SW (Yoruba) development was because of this Ethno-Regional Identity whereby the Western Region embarked on its developmental paradigms which the Governors now want us to ignore. This road towards development was anchored on the promotion of Ethno-Regional Identity, not only for the Western Region but also as the foundation for the creation of more Regions in Nigeria in order to arrive at even development of the country.
The Action Group government created the Western Nigeria Development Corporation, which, among other things, was responsible for the industrial and economic and human development of the Region. When the Region was turned into Western State, as the successor entity to the Western Region, the WNDC continued its historical mission and when the State was further carved up into the three States of Oyo, Ogun and Ondo, as successor entities, the then Secretary to the Government of Western State, the late Mr.C.S.O. Akande led others to set up a holding company known as “Oodua Holdings” in order to prevent the outright collapse of the institution, as that was what the then military administration in Nigeria favored. That holding company is what we now know as Oodua Investments Ltd, with all of the Yoruba successor States as shareholders.
The WNDC concept was midwifed by the Action Group Government flowing from Egbe Omo Oduduwa’s Ethno-Regional Identity as part of a political paradigm that saw to the combined and even development of a Region just emerging from colonial underdevelopment.
When the Governors now ask us to forget our Ethno-Regional Identity in pursuit of a “Nation First” agenda, coupled with a militarism embedded in “indivisibility” and “non-negotiability” of Nigeria’s unity, it is a signal to the Nations that they do not matter in the question of Nigeria; that their existence is a negation of Nigeria and by and large, the APC Governors, especially the SW(Yoruba) Governors are comfortable with this negation, regardless of the sop thrown in about seeking “True Federalism”.
Reducing the Nigerian Problematic to “Nation First” imply the denial of the existence of Nations, with or without Nigeria, by the Governors; the implication of which is their acquiescence in the neutralization of their own Nations. Yet, anti-colonial struggles were attempts at readdressing this issue, hence, for Nigeria, it had to flow from the recognition of the Nations which translated into the Federal Constitution which ushered in the country’ independence.
The Governors also played the ostrich, by not recognizing that only the Yoruba Governors memorialized “June 12”, thereby reinforcing the view held by anti-June 12 forces that it was a “Yoruba Affair” which, ordinarily is not, but which again was a stark manifestation of Ethno-Regional Identity in Nigeria.

The APC governors proclamation of Nigeria as no longer being a geographical expression flies in the face of this reality of which their meeting was a direct consequence; and the APC Governors, especially those from the SW (Yoruba) did a disservice to history and to the person of Chief Obafemi Awolowo who made the famous statement as to Nigeria being a mere geographical expression. Otherwise, they would have known that Chief Awolowo made the statement in the context of agitating for a Federal System for Nigeria, which the APC Governors also purport to advocate; the least they could have done was to be true to the original statement and be able to defend it or, at the minimum, refrain from abusing the notion.
This was what Chief Awolowo stated in his “Path to Nigerian Freedom”:
[b]“The division into three Regions was arbitrary, and made only for administrative convenience. The proposed Constitution maintains the present division. It goes further, to devolve autonomous legislative and administrative functions on each region, and thus to strengthen the existing decentralization. There are a few sentences in the White Paper which indicate rather vaguely that the British Government now recognizes the federal character of Nigeria. But nothing is done beyond this paper recognition.
If rapid political progress is to be made in Nigeria it is high time we were realistic in tackling its Constitutional problems. Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no “Nigerians” in the same sense as there are “English”, “Welsh”, or “French”. The word “Nigerian” is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from those who do not.
There are various national or ethnical groups in the country. Ten such main groups were recorded during the 1931 Census as follows: (1) Hausa, (2) Ibo,(3) Yoruba, (4) Fulani, (5) Kanuri, (6) Ibibio, (7)Munshi or Tiv, ( Edo, (9) Nupe, and (10) Ijaw. According to (Nigeria Handbook), eleventh edition, “there are also a great number of other small tribes too numerous to enumerate separately, whose combined total population amounts to 4,683,044”
It is a mistake to designate them “tribes”. Each of them is a nation by itself with many tribes and clans. There is much difference between them as there is between Germans, English, Russians and Turks, for instance. The fact that they have a common overlord does not destroy this fundamental difference. The languages differ. The readiest means of communication between them now is English. Their cultural backgrounds and social outlooks differ widely; and their indigenous political institutions have little in common. Their present stages of development vary.[/b]”
It must be noted that Awo published the book in 1947 and what he stated as the reasons for Nigerian not being a Nation were exactly the reason why these governors met, almost 70 years later, and still concluded their meeting with a denial of this reality!
The APC Manifesto started by recognizing the necessity for returning Nigeria to a “True Federal System”; yet its governors, while acknowledging this necessity, failed to consider the statement made seventy years ago, to the effect that "If rapid political progress is to be made in Nigeria it is high time we were realistic in tackling its Constitutional problems” which boils down to wheth“er the APC Governors recognize that a “Nation First” is arrived at in only two ways: assumed existence hence its “non-negotiability and indivisibility” or creating such a Nation by arriving at a Constitutional Order established by its Building Blocs, the Ethno-Regional Identities.

www.ooduapathfinder.com

The Yoruba say truth catches up with a lie in a jiffy, no matter the lie’s shelf-life. A false premise creates a lie. The 1999 Constitution was and still is based on a false, “We, The People” premise thus making the Constitution a lie. Which was and is why “unity” is enforced in Nigeria, thereby negating its intended purpose. A forced unity is only valuable to the enforcer and not to those being “united”; a false premise for unity nullifies the union.

Unity, by itself, is not the problem; for it can be induced by several factors among which are self-preservation, material and mutual cooperation, common interests or shared values which determine the permanence or otherwise of such unity. It becomes problematic only when there is a divergence, for, by definition, one cannot unite with oneself but with “another”.

We do know that various cultures were forced into a “union” by a colonial State Structure, which also created a value for the enforcer, the end result being an attempt at reconstructing our humanity in the image of others, hence, for example, the vernacularization and criminalization of our Languages; mandating us to be “citizens” of an alien culture calibrated in a State Structure which is nothing more than a negation of our existentialism; even when it is known that no country in the world came close any form of development outside the ambience of its Language.

It was not for nothing that the anti-colonial movements all over the world were first and foremost cultural engagements, for, colonialism simply aimed at replacing the culture of the colonized with its own, under the ambit of a State Structure created not only for that purpose but also for the continuation of the social, political and economic paradigm of the colonizer. The problem thus becomes the architecture of such a State and not the ability or willingness of the Peoples or cultures to live together in unity, permanently or temporarily.

Otherwise, we would be saying that being a Yoruba, for example, is a worthless exercise, since a new criteria is now substituted for it by its permanent unity with others. But being Yoruba is a natural phenomenon which does not limit a Yoruba to a particular geo-political construct hence cannot be abridged by such a State Structure unless the Yoruba actively participates in the process, as a Yoruba, which will be the only means by which an abridgement could become possible.

The Preamble to the 1999 Constitution starts by saying: “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….”

Why is this false premise now being regarded as the basis for Nigeria’s unity-in-permanence? It is a known fact, and a truism, that “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.

Hence, 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. This false preamble only means, on the one hand, not binding on “We, The People” on whose behalf such an assumption was made, and on the other, “We, The People” need to exercise our right to correct this anomaly by ensuring that the Constitution is indeed a product of “We, The People”, the only guarantee of its Legitimacy and therefore its effectiveness.

At this point, the question of whether our elected officials can, with all conscience, turn round and overturn what they have sworn to uphold and govern with, becomes relevant. Constitutional existence of citizens is derived from the delegated authority of “We, The People” via any direct or indirect method, be it a plebiscite, referendum or simple votes on its provisions. Whichever way it is done, the “We, The People” imprimatur must be obvious. Thus, for those sworn on the basis of its provisions, it must follow that the restoration of the power of “We, The People” and its true reflection becomes their only conscionable activity.

Democracy is not being done a favor when its practitioners are determined to maintain a false premise as its foundation, which is the case with Nigeria, thus the issue goes to the root of the definition of what makes Nigeria: the Nationalities or window-dressing of democracy through mere legal niceties? Democracy is not an end in itself, but a means toward “common good”. Such that even if the question of a Referendum/Plebiscite would arise in the quest for this common good, it will be a result of the relative strengths and weaknesses of the protagonists and antagonists.

In other words, democracy is not “power-struggle” neutral. “Common good” has ideological/philosophical conditions attached to it; for example, a “common good” is the reduction in the cost of governance which will ensure that the type of persons seeking elective office will be more qualitative once the prospect of free money is no longer available; the subsisting economic philosophy of “spending” via “selling”—oil and foreign currencies, which are killers of local economic initiative, will be reduced; the innate thinking capabilities of people will be developed with its attendant impact on development of the community; alienation of the people from the state will be reduced. “Common Good” reflected in good governance is directly related to the level of alienation between the State and the people–the more the alienation, the less good governance. And the index of alienation is the level of control of the State by prebendals—what we mistake for “corruption”–which is also a direct result of complete control by the “Federal” government.

So, what next for the Nations? There is no need for “quit notice declarations” be it Lekki or Kaduna, even if the tactic is part of a game of political brinkmanship; just as the “notice” to quit is not acceptable, so also is a “forced” residence, hence the bottom line is the manifestation of the Peoples’ Will.

The only viable and peaceable option is for the Nations to convert the 2019 Elections into a Referendum on their expectations, in such a way that a Political Party manifesto must be anchored on this expectation such that “We, the People” can finally be said to matter. It can be argued that Nigeria’s political parties are not recognized along such Nationality lines. The reality is that most of the Political Parties exercise dominance by one Nationality or the other hence cannot find it impossible to express the wish of such a dominant Nationality. Once this process is set in motion, there will be no need for any “quit” notices, unless the central Government is determined to force through its own version of unity, with all of the consequences, not only for the Central Government but also for the Nations that allow themselves to be forced to exist in “unity” under such a paradigm.

www.ooduapathfinder.com

In the communique signed by some people meeting under a southern umbrella, Chief Ayo Adebanjo of Afenifere reportedly signed on behalf of the South-West. Up till this time, the South West had not chosen anyone to represent it at any forum hence the best Chief Ayo Adebanjo could have done was to sign the communique on behalf of his group, Afenifere, more so when the issue involves the all-important question of the resolution of the National Question in Nigeria.

The South-West, that is, the Yoruba, had never been lackadaisical in her approach to True Federalism; by projecting its representation of the entire Nation, Afenifere is sidestepping the main problematic of the moment, to wit, the demand and agitation for self-determination which can only be actualized through the self-defining activity of the Nations.
The Yoruba Nation had laid out its understanding and demands for self-determination in several documents, among which are the Draft Yoruba Constitution as well as the Yoruba Agenda. These documents contained specific and representative expectations of the Yoruba. Both documents, at different times, emanated from a series of consultations among several Yoruba groups, subethnicities, representatives of the monarchies, professional organizations, including labor as well as student bodies.
It can be argued that these documents, while being products of such consultations, do not constitute the express wish of the Yoruba Nation, not being subjected to any form of formal legitimization, the reality is that their producers and enablers are mindful of this limitation hence are ready and willing to undergo such a legitimization process, preferably through a Yoruba National Referendum.
When Chief Ayo Adebanjo, and by implication, Afenifere, now commits the Yoruba to the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference, without this express condition, questions must be raised as to their intentions. Till date, the report had not been subjected to any pan-Yoruba consultations much less decided upon through a Yoruba National Referendum hence could not be said to be representative of Yoruba expectations.
Furthermore, this southern meeting and its communique fell short of its own demands as the least that would be expected was for it to state clearly what was contained in the report that approximated Yoruba demands for True Federalism just as the Yoruba Agenda and Draft Constitution did; otherwise Afenifere representatives are telling us that they have single-handedly overturned these Yoruba demands.
Just one issue will suffice. Among the recommendation is the merger of states. There is a marked difference between asking for merger of States and an affirmation of Yoruba Nationhood. The Yoruba is a Nation by itself and in itself, with cultural, social, economic and philosophical foundation hence asking Yoruba States to “merge” in order to attain Nationhood is akin to Nicodemus asking whether an old person can enter a second time into the mother’s womb and be born again. And if this is not the purpose for such a merger, it becomes a mere bureaucratic offering which has nothing to do with self-determination; for nothing stops the Yoruba Nation from operating under existing States, if necessary.
This recommendation cannot even pass the smell test when it is recognized that such a merger will operate under the auspices of the fatally defective 1999 Constitution whose negation is the primary condition for self-determination, more so when that Constitution makes no provision for such matters. And the impossibility of amending the Constitution for this purpose is very obvious even if all of the southern states combine for such purposes. In any case, it will be a journey to nowhere amending a Constitution in order for it to be further amended in order to achieve such an objective.
Afenifere’s problem had always been its blind opposition to the dominant APC tendency in Yorubaland, which was why it pitched its tent with the Goodluck Jonathan Administration even when its anti-Yoruba stance was pasted all over the place. Now that the PDP anchor is shattered, it had to fit itself into another paradigm under the self-determination gambit which only shows its political poverty; otherwise, it would have addressed the possibilities of achieving its stated aim in the Communique before issuing it.
The first question would thus be what happens if “concrete steps” are not taken on “the implementation of the 2014 National Conference report before October 1 2017” as it demanded? Especially when the southern summit in general and Afenifere in particular did not state its own version of “concrete steps”?
It is acceptable to assume that it is keeping its cards close to its chest, but then why October 1 2017, knowing full well that was the date given the Igbo by the North? This only shows the fatal sign of failure, for the initiative no longer rest with this southern group(or Afenifere); it is tailgating the North and will have to adjust according to whatever emanates from that North.
Meanwhile, the Yoruba Nation cannot afford to wait on Afenifere’s Communique and/or ultimatum. Many of the Eastern groups are already engaged in “peace talks” with the North, without Afenifere’s participation; the North itself made a formal presentation on self-determination to the Nigerian State, obviously with the backing of its political elite; to all intents and purposes, the responsibility to address this issue rest on the Yoruba Nation via the office of the Acting President; it will thus be a strategic blunder to issue an ultimatum to the Nigerian State, especially by a Yoruba group supposedly in favor of self-determination.
The minimum that would be expected of such a Yoruba group, is to rally the Yoruba behind their settled documents, that is, The Draft Yoruba Constitution as well as the Yoruba Agenda while emphasizing, to their southern allies, the necessity for their doing similarly that is, making their own Constitutions; for self-determination cannot be achieved without a formal expression upon which the Nation will stand while pursuing its demands as well as in the advent of any eventuality. Otherwise, the post-colonial State, from which self-determination is sought, will once again become the arbiter in the quest for self-determination which can only result in self-annihilation.

www.ooduapathfinder.com

A Senator, Adamu Ailero, in a debate on a motion sponsored by 107 out of 109 Senators titled “The Need for National Unity and Peaceful Co-existence in Nigeria,” anchored on the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference, stated that he will “recommend that the Senate should ask for those recommendations to be tabled before the National Assembly because a lot of recommendations on all the agitations in all the geopolitical zones were addressed. I don’t know why we are not asking for those recommendations to be brought to us. They should be implemented where necessary.”

Apparently, this senator did not know that the Conference he was enamored of did not acknowledge the existence of the Peoples and their Nations as the Federating Units since these Nations were not formally represented even as he claimed that their agitations were addressed; after-all, a Yoruba delegate, Chief Olusegun Osoba proudly proclaimed that he was not at the Conference as a Yoruba but as a Nigerian—whatever that meant at the time or means now– without being challenged or corrected by his fellow Yoruba delegates. Under what circumstances, then, could such a Conference be deemed to have addressed Yoruba issues?
By saying that he, Adamu Ailero, doesn’t know why the senate is not asking for the Conference recommendations to be brought to it, he failed to acknowledge that the report itself is available to the public hence, if the senate is serious, all it needs to do is to take this available document and craft out some form of legislative agenda and work on it. It cannot do this because its other name is grandstanding; otherwise, a look at the report would indicate there is nothing in that report that can address the current agitations, the bottom line of which is a fundamental solution to the National Question.
In this publicly available report, the following constitute the core recommendations supposedly to provide solutions to current agitations on the National Question: creation of “self-funding economic agencies”; creation of 18 more states, with special consideration for “equity” between the north and the south; issues about fiscal federalism or resource control was left for some future technical committee to work out; the section of the Land Use Act vesting ownership of mineral resources in the Federal Government, was virtually left intact; states are supposed to have their own police although still under the overall control of Nigeria’s Inspector-general; local governments are to be autonomous of the State Government; states that want to merge may do so; states are allowed to have their own Constitutions; Central control of finances reduced by 10% etc.
A “self-funding economic agency” without its political basis is a non-starter, a priori; and a denial of economic self-actualization, for an economic platform in a center of antagonistic political configuration is a panacea for economic failure. Recommending a self-funding economic agency without fiscal federalism that makes revenue raising and collection regional is nothing more than self-deception. A country in which the states or federating units depend on allocation from the center cannot call itself a Federal system. None of the federations in the world: Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, United Arab Emirate, and U.S.A., operates on the model of state dependency on allocations from the center recommended by the 2014 national conference.
A future “technical committee” supposed to work out modalities for fiscal federalism will also have to operate under existing political conditions which are not yet federal in any sense hence the attempt to avoid addressing this fundamental issue by shunting it to some future date.
The Conference already assumed the singularity of the geo-political space called Nigeria and all of its solutions to its problems are relegated to maintaining that singularity while turning issues of Federalism into an administrative convenience even when it is obvious that the problem is exactly in that singularity which again was confirmed by Adamu Aliero’s “non-negotiability” of Nigeria, when indeed, conditions for negotiations are already on the table via the various demands from the North and East.

Promoting the notion that “states are federating Units” is very ridiculous. States, as we have them in Nigeria, are administrative entities, which were not even created by the residents but by military fiat. A country can have any form of administrative unit, which, by itself does not determine whether it is Unitary or Federal. The Conference asking such states to merge ignored the fact that their creators had only one aim in doing so, that is, to create a very strong center that will presumably sustain the non-negotiability of the Nigerian State. Any merger therefore can only reinforce this notion, which is detrimental to the expected solution.
Inherent in any government is its ability to create and enforce laws for the society usually formalized through the establishment of a governmental force created specifically for that purpose hence the existence of a Police Force, Service or Department.
A Federal System therefore implies, ab initio, this inherent right in each of the components of that Federalism, each component being representative of particular socio-cultural realities such that advocacy for the establishment of a “State Police” as a measure of Nigeria’s Federalism is completely at variance with the nature of Federalism itself since these components, by definition, can establish such forces at any level of governance within their societies. It is the abnormality imported into Nigeria as “Federalism” which drives the calls for the establishment of “State Police” as an expression of its Federalism.

State Police exist because the “State” is a Federating Unit by itself, with an inherent Sovereignty only abridged by its determination to co-exist with other Sovereigns by which fact a limit is placed on their Sovereignty by their own choices. To advocate “state police” without recognizing this inherent right is to deny the Peoples the self-determination that is now the source of these agitations.
In addition, States depend almost entirely on federal allocations to pay their workers’ salaries; and it is this allocation that will be saddled with funding state police. The state police is to be funded from received allocations when the number of states are increased to 54 such that the revenue allocation will have minimal or no change from the existing allocation structure which translates into such state police being underfunded and unable to achieve its maximum potential in terms of training and professional advancement.

Once a state police is under the control of the sole Inspector-General who is responsible only to the President, such arrangement is not stronger than the one that says that the federal government should fund exploitation of mineral resources in states, without any consideration for the centrality of fiscal federalism to a federal system with integrity.

There is no correlation between a state constitution and Federalism. Having a state constitution has nothing to do with Federalism. A state constitution is meaningless outside the definition of the Federating Unit in and of itself. In other words, the issue is not about “state Constitution” but about the Peoples that want to create a Union. Such that if we are talking about federating units being in existence, such federating units are not the states, but the PEOPLES, who are already in existence and can decide to administer themselves as they deem fit, be it as states, regions, cities, etc.
The conference recommendations recognized each state as being able to create its own local government while at the same time ensuring the central Government retaining and disbursing all the funds for the Local Governments created by the states.
That the allocation accruing to the center is to be reduced by 10% ignores the fact that the increase in the number of states would have already made nonsense of the increase as more states will now share in the resources. Reducing or increasing the amount of allocations is not Fiscal Federalism by any stretch of imagination. Such determinations are precisely what is wrong with the unitary system. Fiscal Federalism proceeds from the control of economic and fiscal policies by the communities whereby it is those communities (Federating Units) that will determine what is to go to the Center for its operations–of course all of these will be negotiated.
Derivation, by definition, even as practiced in the First republic, presupposes that the center does not “give”; the “owner” gives and the center “takes”. The issue about Federalism is thus not about reductions or increases in central allocations but ownership of resources.
Self-Determination is self-explanatory; the Nations are the only authority to make a their own existential determination but when senator Adamu Ailero lays emphasis on living together “ and the corporate existence of this country cannot be negotiated. Nigeria must remain one indivisible and indissoluble entity”, he and his colleagues must be told in no uncertain terms that such arrogant finality does not rest with a National Assembly lacking in basic knowledge about itself, but with the Peoples and Nations.

www.ooduapathfinder.com


The 2017 “Kaduna Declaration” was a statement on Arewa Secession just like IPOB and MASSOB’s Biafra advocacy; the difference between the two being that Arewa wants to retain Nigeria while Biafra seeks its own exit. These seemingly contradictory advocacies have once again thrown up issues about violence and war, where nearly all of the responses have so far hammered on memories about the Nigeria-Biafra War between 1967 and 1970. Surprisingly, none of these remembrances actually sought out the cause of the war itself. Yes, references were made to all of the events that occurred between the January 15 1966 coups, the July 1966 counter-coup and the resulting pogroms largely against the Igbo in the north.
These were but manifestations of a deeper reason, to wit, the attempt to take over the Nigerian State. All of the participants, from the January military coupists to the Biafran leadership sought the take over of the Nigerian State, for their different reasons. This attempt was the real cause of the war.
The Nzeogwu January 15 1966 coup was an attempt at taking over the Nigerian State; his group was beaten to it by the Ironsi group just as the July 1966 countercoup was aimed at and succeeded in taking control. On the other hand, Ojukwu and Biafra depended on a military strategy of taking over the same Nigerian State which it supposedly wanted to secede from, hence the invasion of the Mid-West and attempt at overrunning Yorubaland, with a Biafran Army under the façade of a Yoruba Commander with all decisions residing in Biafra. Of course, it was evident, before Biafra’s declaration, that the then Nigerian State could not maintain any peace or security for most Nigerians hence the Aburi Agreement which became codified by a Decree 8, which was rejected by Ojukwu and the descent into war.
But why did Ojukwu reject this Decree that provided autonomy for the regions? From all accounts, Ojukwu would not accept Gowon’s seniority in Nigeria, hence the issue boils down to control of the Nigerian State.
Secession or self-determination, by itself does not imply war, unless the State on which the demand is made becomes a trophy to be acquired by either side.
Before January 15, 1966, political attempts had been made to ensure a proper balance of Nigeria’s Federalism through appropriate creation of States or Regions. Even when the Mid-West Region came into being, creation of other Regions, that is, Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers and Middle Belt, were still on the cards. These Peoples were virtually denied their Regions simply because the then NPC/NCNC Alliance only wanted to neutralize the Action Group of the West as a major political and ideological influence on Nigeria hence were satisfied with “reducing” its political and geo-political influence through the creation of one Region out of three being demanded.
Thus as far as Nigeria goes, when secessionist demands are being made by any Nationality, war or violence can only result when the control of the Nigerian State is in contention.
With the attention now on “peace” meetings between the Igbo and Arewa representatives, questions must be raised as to the relevance of those “peace” meetings which did not address the contradictions embedded in the control of the Nigerian State which was the cause of the demands and which secession becomes the answer; for issues of security of lives and property are directly related to the architecture of the State. Meanwhile, other Nationalities in Nigeria are not participants in any of these “peace” meetings as if they are irrelevant, unless we are being told that “peace” meetings will be embarked upon when conflicts arise between other Nationalities; such that “peace” meetings become the new normal in resolving the National Question in Nigeria.
Yet, this had been the usual manner through which the Nigerian State conducts its business;it laments a recourse to “separation” and hints at an objection to violence when a demand for secession is not only recognized by international laws and conventions, but is a natural right, which can only be abridged by consent. This is the missing link in the Nigerian State architecture.
The Nigerian State has not deemed it fit to address this foundational issue for almost all of its years of existence hence the necessity to call the relevance of such a State into question. The only glue that holds all the different Cultures and Nations in this geo-political space called Nigeria is the Nigerian State. The Peoples had been interacting over the ages, under one form of political, cultural, economic and social engagement or the other and the colonially-inspired Nigerian State neutralized the context of these engagements and imposed its own notion of the “social contract” on the peoples.
Therefore, when such a State is non-responsive to its own weakness, in this case, the non-involvement of the Peoples, its existence must be challenged, otherwsie the Peoples become onlookers in their own existence. And this is what Secession or Self-determination or True Federalism or Restructuring is all about, the ability of the Peoples to determine the context of their co-existence or even self-existence. Any denial on the part of the State is a rejection of this natural right of self-existence, more-so in the age of colonization and decolonization.
The Nigerian State must come to terms with its own aberrant origin and if its operators are mindful of the humanity inherent in self-determination, it will not resort to patching but re-invent itself. It is one thing to advance the notion of strength in unity, it is another to define the basis of that unity, for a false unity cannot engender any strength.
This is why Nigeria is not “strong”; not in economy, where, since the end of the Nigeria-Biafra war,there was no economic philosophy with the resultant effect of creating continuous underdevelopment, compounded by the decimation of the environment, either in the oil-producing areas or in some of the major cities that has become urban jungles in terms of urban planning; not in social development, where, we, in the Western Region, pre-independence, enjoyed pipe-borne water in our homes or communities but now singing halleluiah when bore holes replace piped water; not in education where development of the mind, a precondition for development, is virtually non-existent in spite of prevalence of educational institutions from the primary to the university levels; a good example being the non-existence of the teaching of history when our history abound as specialities in many Western educational institutions which they turn around to use to influence and predict our future existence, and the list could go on. All of these can only happen in situations where the State is not a product of Peoples’ Consciousness.
Thus, even though a secessionist demand may be couched in “hate” just as expressed by Nnamidi Kanu/Arewa Declaration, these do not vitiate the demand itself. An admission of the lapses in the formation of the Nigerian State will allow for this “hate” to be addressed especially when the Peoples are able to determine the conditions of not only their self-existence but also their co-existence with other Peoples in and out of Nigeria through a Referendum among the Peoples.
All of the arguments for or against the Nigerian State and its architecture will be determined within the Peoples, the result of which will be representative of their choices. The current “peace” moves are assumed to be representative of the interests and demands of the affected Nationalities; yet the Nationalities have not been given the chance to examine themselves and present their decisions as of right. A Nationality-based Referendum will resolve this conundrum as it would have laid the foundation for Inter-Nationality relations and no group will, by itself, attempt to assume representation of the Nationality, rather, it will either flow with or against the general interest of the Nationality from which it sprung.
The UN Resident Coordinator in Nigeria, who called for “tolerance and a spirit of togetherness in transparency to address the concerns of all the citizens in a peaceful manner, to be done in such a way that no one was left behind in the quest for sustainable development” can be of great assistance in this matter.
The UN can assist in the process of Referendum among the various Nationalities in Nigeria followed up with a Conference of Nationalities to resolve any contending issues, such that the Nationality will take responsibility for any conclusion, whatever they are. The UN will thus be doing history a favor by consciously addressing this lingering decolonization problematic; the current Administration will be living up to its initial Manifesto and the Peoples will once again become active participants in their own existence.