₦airaland Forum

By Nnamdi Azikiwe

When the 1954 constitution conference started, my good friend, Chief Obafemi Awolowo tabled a motion to the effect that in the new constitution, provision should be made that any state which feels like seceding should do so. I was opposed to it and said ‘no’ and said that once we have a federation, we are indivisible and perpetual.

That was when we began to use that expression – ‘The Indivisibility and perpetuity of the federation’ – and that to secede would amount to treason. And so, a debate ensued.



The Secretary of State then was Oliver Littleton, later Lord Chandos and he was very much interested and that was his first time in saying that the people of African descent were people actually debating at a high level.

So a full day was given to Chief Awolowo to make his points. He spoke brilliantly as a lawyer. He made his points why secession should be incorporated in the constitution. He cited the case of the Soviet Union which is a federation, and that secession is written there so that any state in the Soviet Union can secede at will. He also cited the case of Western Australia and eventually he finished his case and was applauded.

Lord Chandos said that on the face of the arguments before him it would be suicidal to incorporate secession in our constitution and that is why we have section 86 in our constitution that if any region or state should secede, then it will be an act of treason

We adjourned. The next day, I had to reply. I availed myself of the opportunity to, well, demolish the arguments of my friend and I cited the case of United States which based its constitution on that of the Swiss Confederation. That is Switzerland. I pointed out a case, I think, that of Texas versus White, where Mr. Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice laid down the principle – he was really an arbiter – that the union was intended to be perpetual and indivisible and that any attempt to divide the union by secession was treasonable.

Also read Why Awolowo did not make West secede

The North (NPC) supported Action Group. The question was then: Should we have secession? The Colonial Office came to our rescue. You know, the usual principle of Britain – ‘divide and rule’ (laughs) but this time, it was in our favour. So, the colonial office backed us.



Lord Chandos said that on the face of the arguments before him it would be suicidal to incorporate secession in our constitution and that is why we have section 86 in our constitution that if any region or state should secede, then it will be an act of treason and that was what led to this war, because Col. Ojukwu seceded and so violated the constitution.

— Excerpt: Nnamdi Azikiwe’s interview with New Nigeria in 1975

https://www.thenewsnigeria.com.ng/2017/06/25/my-opposition-to-secession-zik/

This man no try at all......well maybe he was trying to replicate what was obtainable iin America here in Nigeria

Igbos have been cursed with bad leaders

Osaze007:
Igbos have been cursed with bad leaders

The same bad leadership that Av affected all of us in the south
An Igbo president would spell doom for Nigeria
Their tyranny will be worse than Fulanis....

There you have it friends. . When I'm favoured and gaining the upper hand: NO SECESSION. When things aren't favouring me due to my shortsightedness and poor politics: BIAFRA OR DEATH.

Tomiwa69:
The same bad leadership that Av affected all of us in the south
An Igbo president would spell doom for Nigeria
Their tyranny will be worse than Fulanis....

Very correct

So effectively, an igbo man made separation difficult

Not Hausa. Not Yoruba

Yankee101:
So effectively, an igbo man made separation difficult

Not Hausa. Not Yoruba

That is if you believe that one man called Zik, who was still under colonial rule, singlehandedly decided what will be or not be in the constitution of millions of Nigerians

Zik may have been against the secession clause being
In Nigerian constitution, but it is not possible for one man to decide what will be or not be in a constitution.

Unless that man is already a dictator

gidgiddy:
That is if you believe that one man called Zik, who was still under colonial rule, singlehandedly decided what will be or not be in the constitution of millions of Nigerians

Zik may have been against the secession clause being
In Nigerian constitution, but it is not possible for one man to decide what will be or not be in a constitution.

Unless that man is already a dictator

Read the article.

The British used divide and rule. Which he was aware of. As at 1954 Nigeria was ready for independence (the North said not yet).

All they needed to have secession in the constitution was one voice. Zik siding with Awo. He didn't. And just so you know, Ojukuwu's Biafra was part self ego. He was passed on for military head of state as one of the most senior local officers.

That was one of the greatest mistake we are suffering from, the North and West accept but the greed of Azikiwe who led the East disagree because he has his eyes in ruling the entire entity, particularly the West.

The idiot kick against secession clause in constitution ,still went ahead to convince north to reject the motion.
Formed govt with north for just ceremonial president while Tafa balewa was the prime minister.

May you rot in hell.ipob this is the man that kept u in perpetual wailings

Yankee101:
Read the article.

The British used divide and rule. Which he was aware of. As at 1954 Nigeria was ready for independence (the North said not yet).

All they needed to have secession in the constitution was one voice. Zik siding with Awo. He didn't. And just so you know, Ojukuwu's Biafra was part self ego. He was passed on for military head of state as one of the most senior local officers.

So you actually think that it was up to Zik and Awo to decide what will be in the constitution of Nigeria? Two men?

In 1958, representatives of the various people that made up Nigeria met in London to decide the independence constitution. Had they wanted, they could have adopted a secession clause in the constitution. My point is that it is not possible for one single individual to to decide what will be in a constitution unless that person is a dictator with absolute powers.

Ojukwus Biafra was self ego?

Over 30,000 of Ojukwus own people were slaughtered in broad daylight all over Nigeria but Ojukwus Biafra was self ego?

Ojukwu signed an agreement with Gowon in Aburi to keep Nigeria one, Gowon broke the agreement, but Ojukwus Biafra was about self ego?

What a shame

These independence leaders wanted their snouts in the trough, and sold Nigerians an independence that has divided and improvised Nigeria till this day. Shame on them all.

The British said that Nigeria was not ready for independence, they knew even then in the 1950s that Nigeria would become a failed state and here we are 60 years later, Nigeria is worse off than it was in 1960.

Ask your grandparents, they will tell you about the glory days in the 50s, 60s and to some extent the 70s. Nigeria has now regressed into the dark, evil dark ages.

cyrilamx:
By Nnamdi Azikiwe

When the 1954 constitution conference started, my good friend, Chief Obafemi Awolowo tabled a motion to the effect that in the new constitution, provision should be made that any state which feels like seceding should do so. I was opposed to it and said ‘no’ and said that once we have a federation, we are indivisible and perpetual.

That was when we began to use that expression – ‘The Indivisibility and perpetuity of the federation’ – and that to secede would amount to treason. And so, a debate ensued.



The Secretary of State then was Oliver Littleton, later Lord Chandos and he was very much interested and that was his first time in saying that the people of African descent were people actually debating at a high level.

So a full day was given to Chief Awolowo to make his points. He spoke brilliantly as a lawyer. He made his points why secession should be incorporated in the constitution. He cited the case of the Soviet Union which is a federation, and that secession is written there so that any state in the Soviet Union can secede at will. He also cited the case of Western Australia and eventually he finished his case and was applauded.

Lord Chandos said that on the face of the arguments before him it would be suicidal to incorporate secession in our constitution and that is why we have section 86 in our constitution that if any region or state should secede, then it will be an act of treason

We adjourned. The next day, I had to reply. I availed myself of the opportunity to, well, demolish the arguments of my friend and I cited the case of United States which based its constitution on that of the Swiss Confederation. That is Switzerland. I pointed out a case, I think, that of Texas versus White, where Mr. Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice laid down the principle – he was really an arbiter – that the union was intended to be perpetual and indivisible and that any attempt to divide the union by secession was treasonable.

Also read Why Awolowo did not make West secede

The North (NPC) supported Action Group. The question was then: Should we have secession? The Colonial Office came to our rescue. You know, the usual principle of Britain – ‘divide and rule’ (laughs) but this time, it was in our favour. So, the colonial office backed us.



Lord Chandos said that on the face of the arguments before him it would be suicidal to incorporate secession in our constitution and that is why we have section 86 in our constitution that if any region or state should secede, then it will be an act of treason and that was what led to this war, because Col. Ojukwu seceded and so violated the constitution.

— Excerpt: Nnamdi Azikiwe’s interview with New Nigeria in 1975

https://www.thenewsnigeria.com.ng/2017/06/25/my-opposition-to-secession-zik/

Great news!

gidgiddy:
So you actually think that it was up to Zik and Awo to decide what will be in the constitution of Nigeria? Two men?

In 1958, representatives of the various people that made up Nigeria met in London to decide the independence constitution. Had they wanted, they could have adopted a secession clause in the constitution. My point is that it is not possible for one single individual to to decide what will be in a constitution unless that person is a dictator with absolute powers.

Ojukwus Biafra was self ego?

Over 30,000 of Ojukwus own people were slaughtered in broad daylight all over Nigeria but Ojukwus Biafra was self ego?

Ojukwu signed an agreement with Gowon in Aburi to keep Nigeria one, Gowon broke the agreement, but Ojukwus Biafra was about self ego?

What a shame

You forgot the fourth representative. Most people think those that decide that secession clause are only the East, West, and North.

The British are actually the fourth and the most important decision maker. When Azikwe opposed secession clause it gave them a better argument to oppose it because that was their plan all along.

The British have always pursued a policy on non-secession among their colony. They most time always restrict it and that also played out in the Biafran war. See what they over Africa too, they just group people without nothing common together and call them a country.

If Azikwe supported secession clause, the British would have no choice than to support it too because all the people within Nigeria will keep clamoring for it and the pressure will be too much on the British.

Sometimes an oppressor only need one supporting force among his captives to deploy his evil strategy. That explain why world powers need a mole in a country to infiltrate. USA for example always use that strategy when invading any country.

Hope you understand my line of argument!

gidgiddy:
So you actually think that it was up to Zik and Awo to decide what will be in the constitution of Nigeria? Two men?

In 1958, representatives of the various people that made up Nigeria met in London to decide the independence constitution. Had they wanted, they could have adopted a secession clause in the constitution. My point is that it is not possible for one single individual to to decide what will be in a constitution unless that person is a dictator with absolute powers.

Ojukwus Biafra was self ego?

Over 30,000 of Ojukwus own people were slaughtered in broad daylight all over Nigeria but Ojukwus Biafra was self ego?

Ojukwu signed an agreement with Gowon in Aburi to keep Nigeria one, Gowon broke the agreement, but Ojukwus Biafra was about self ego?

What a shame

Yes. I said partly self ego. Didn't say 100% self ego. Read responses properly


And the 30k (upper limit estimate) killed in the Kano riots where simply a retaliation for the Igbo coup that wiped out the Hausa elite (Ahmadu Bello was killed inside his house, in front of his wife, in the middle of a Hausa community, Ungwan Sarki, by Igbo officer, Major Nzeogu Kaduna boasted about it immediately in an international interview!), and Hausas were immediately killed also in the South (ss/se) in retaliation.

Just so you know it was 'do me I do you'. Still happens today. Kill hausas in droves today in the south and Igbo shops are burned in kano and innocent lives lost.


That they went to Britain to decide on a constitutional format did not negate American pressure was in full blast, African Nationalism was on 2.0 and Britain was ready to grant independence. The first local constitution was in Ibadan in 1950. The 1954 constitution was preparatory to independence. Hence the coopting of local politicians in national decision making for an independence constitution. By 1957 Igbo land and yoruba land were fully autonomous and self governing. They could have ran a different country if they wanted. But everyone wanted to be with the revenue generator of the day, the North with its ground nut pyramids and cotton gins.

gidgiddy:
So you actually think that it was up to Zik and Awo to decide what will be in the constitution of Nigeria? Two men?

In 1958, representatives of the various people that made up Nigeria met in London to decide the independence constitution. Had they wanted, they could have adopted a secession clause in the constitution. My point is that it is not possible for one single individual to to decide what will be in a constitution unless that person is a dictator with absolute powers.

Ojukwus Biafra was self ego?

Over 30,000 of Ojukwus own people were slaughtered in broad daylight all over Nigeria but Ojukwus Biafra was self ego?

Ojukwu signed an agreement with Gowon in Aburi to keep Nigeria one, Gowon broke the agreement, but Ojukwus Biafra was about self ego?

What a shame

u are economical with the truth

what led to d killing?are u trying to tell us northerners just woke up someday without provocation n they started killing d Igbos?

if u can tell us what the Igbos did to warrant the killing then we can start from there cos we know fully well that to every action there's an equal n opposite reaction.

LegendHero:
You forgot the fourth representative. Most people think those that decide that secession clause are only the East, West, and North.

The British are actually the fourth and the most important decision maker. When Azikwe opposed secession clause it gave them a better argument to oppose it because that was their plan all along.

The British have always pursued a policy on non-secession among their colony. They most time always restrict it and that also played out in the Biafran war. See what they over Africa too, they just group people without nothing common together and call them a country.

If Azikwe supported secession clause, the British would have no choice than to support it too because all the people within Nigeria will keep clamoring for it and the pressure will be too much on the British.

Sometimes an oppressor only need one supporting force among his captives to deploy his evil strategy. That explain why world powers need a mole in a country to infiltrate. USA for example always use that strategy when invading any country.

Hope you understand my line of argument!

The British allowed Nigerians to conduct their constitutional conference London. The British themselves did not attend the conference, they only hosted it. Zik only had one vote, same as all of those who attended the conference. If majority of those who came for the conference had wanted a secession clause, they would have voted for it.

If the British did not want secession clause, they still could not determine for the delegates what will be in the constitution of Nigeria they were about to grant independence.

The point here is that Zik, who only had one vote in the 1958 constitutional conference, could not have decided what will be or not be in the constitution of Nigeria


But even if a secession clause had been added to the Nigerian constitution, it would not have done anyone any good as the independence constitution was overthrown in January 1966 and was never used again.

Unik3030:
u are economical with the truth

what led to d killing?are u trying to tell us northerners just woke up someday without provocation n they started killing d Igbos?

if u can tell us what the Igbos did to warrant the killing then we can start from there cos we know fully well that to every action there's an equal n opposite reaction.

Northerners just getting up to slaughter Igbos has been an ongoing thing, its been happening even before independence. It happend in Jos in 1945 and in Kano in 1953. But Igbos did not go about killing Northerners living in the East in 1945 and 1953 because Igbos felt it was strange to go after someone for what his brother did elsewhere. In fact, Igbos elected a Fulani man called Umaru Altine as Mayor of Enugu during that time.

Only a fool will justify the killing of men, women and children for what some other people of the same ethnic stock did elsewhere. So whether it was an Igbo coup or not, to rise up and kill innocent people who had nothing to do with the coup is plain genocide

Coup or no coup, the Northerners have never really needed reason to routinely massacre Igbos they have been doing it since the 40's to the early 2000's

Igbos will surely avoid this thread. They are their own worst enemy and that's why they won't secede from this country or allowed near the presidency. They thought it was being smart omitting secession from the constitution solely to lord it over other tribes, thinking they would always have their way near the government.

Ndi Igbo amaka

gidgiddy:
That is if you believe that one man called Zik, who was still under colonial rule, singlehandedly decided what will be or not be in the constitution of millions of Nigerians

Zik may have been against the secession clause being
In Nigerian constitution, but it is not possible for one man to decide what will be or not be in a constitution.

Unless that man is already a dictator

then why are you guys fun of blaming others for your misfortune due to greed.

But Now it will stop and it must stop. The fact that IGBOs are slow to anarchy doesn't mean we can't be spontaneous also. The North has done enough and sincerely I don't see the reason why you want to be civil with people who think based on what the Sultan dictates.

The guys you are bantering with would love to go to Dubai,Europe,America,Canada etc to be citizens...but would be attaching antiquated and myopic reasoning when it comes to getting it right in their own Domain!!

Please desist from educating these chaps...remember their schooling is based on 'Free Education' that is why they don't think and they bandy about statements written by beloved bigots as facts!!!

Common sense ain't common...Stop stressing yourself. Cheers!

gidgiddy:
Northerners just getting up to slaughter Igbos has been an ongoing thing, its been happening even before independence. It happend in Jos in 1945 and in Kano in 1953. But Igbos did not go about killing Northerners living in the East in 1945 and 1953 because Igbos felt it was strange to go after someone for what his brother did elsewhere. In fact, Igbos elected a Fulani man called Umaru Altine as Mayor of Enugu during that time.

Only a fool will justify the killing of men, women and children for what some other people of the same ethnic stock did elsewhere. So whether it was an Igbo coup or not, to rise up and kill innocent people who had nothing to do with the coup is plain genocide

Coup or no coup, the Northerners have never really needed reason to routinely massacre Igbos they have been doing it since the 40's to the early 2000's

I Swear down....IGBO people dey try!!

IGBO Amaka Jor!!!

imhotep:
Ndi Igbo amaka

Yoruba media and lies,same Igbo's that went to war to leave Nigeria,this guys are just stupi*d always lying and brainwashing theirself and the gullible,no wonder nobody takes them serious,clowns....

Deebwebb:
Yoruba media and lies,same Igbo's that went to war to leave Nigeria,this guys are just stupi*d always lying and brainwashing theirself and the gullible,no wonder nobody takes them serious,clowns....

Loool be living in denial