Analysis: Secession, Natural or Constitutional right? -By Samuel Olomu

Threats and aspirations to secede from Nigeria has been a feature of the country’s politics for decades now. The unceasing cries of disunionists in Nigeria has been a national issue threatening the union of the country. Today we hear of ” Biafra exit”, which is Championed by the Independent People of Biafra (IPOB) of Eastern Nigeria with the establishment of the Eastern Security Network (ESN) which serve as an armed wing of the secessionist movement. In the same vein, we have the “Oodua Nation”, which is a conglomeration of the South-West Yoruba people of Nigeria. The agitations of this two secessionists are simple but are they constitutional or natural rights? The reasons for their actions are as a result of Nigeria’s failed system in failing to provide and protecting her citizens from vicious attacks by bandits.

Secession has been argued by many as a natural right though it is defective in most state constitutions. The 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is silent on state secession, just as international law does not recognize secession as an identified right. But it has been around that, though it is not a constitutional right but a natural right of revolution. In Texas V. White(1869), the Supreme Court ruled unilateral secession unconstitutional while commenting that revolution or the consent of the parents-State could lead to a successful secession.
“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed ,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”.

One word [disunion] contained, and stimulated, Nigerians fear of extreme political factionalism, tyranny, regionalism, economic decline, foreign intervention, class conflict, gender disorder, racial strife, widespread violence and anarchy, and civil war, all of which could be interpreted as God’s retribution for Nigeria’s moral failings. Disunion connoted the dissolution of the republic—the failure of the Founders’ efforts to establish a stable and lasting representative government. For many Nigerians in the North and the South, disunion was a nightmare, a tragic cataclysm that would reduce them to the kind of fear and misery that seemed to pervade the rest of the world. And yet, for many other Nigerians, disunion served as the main instrument by which they could achieve their political goals.

This piece investigates whether the UN stance on self-determination and secession, makes it a friend or foe to self-determination in the context of failed states. There should be a balance of legitimacy between the secessionist and the parents-State. The concept of state failure is introduced to know whether the UN stance on self-determination might be considered or not. Recently, Legal Activist and Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), Femi Falana, declared Nigeria as a failed state; regretting that the government has lost the monopoly of violence to the armed gangs. He said: “it is crystal clear that the neocolonial state has lost the monopoly of violence to the armed gangs. That is a sign of a failed state”. This article will give us the insight to know whether the UN stance on secession makes it a friend or foe to self-determination in the context of secessionist movement in Nigeria.

The main conceptual framework comes from a situation when a group of people could no longer have their security protected by their parent states, as evidenced in Nigeria today and which then fits into what is known as the Remedial Right to Secede (RRS)(Buchanal 1997). Essentially, it means if the government is not upholding its side of social contract, i.e providing security to its citizens, then it looses its legitimacy. And if the secessionist state is able to provide the said security, then they have the legitimacy to statehood.

This article is a synthesis of principle to understand why the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria is still silent on state secession and how the obscurity as a result of this silence could be resolved in the context of the current agitations for the Biafra and Yoruba nations secession moves. Let make reference to the Nigeria Civil War (1967-1970) a war which lasted for 2 years, 6 months, 1 week and 2 days. The Biafran nation was headed by Lt. Colone Odumegwu Ojukwu who sees the Northern dominated Federal government as injustice and that they could no longer coexist with such a system. The Biafran war was as a result of political, economic, ethnic, cultural and religious tensions which proceeded Britain’s formal decolonization of Nigeria from 1960-1963. The reasons for the agitations of the then Biafran State was not even as a result of the Nigeria’s failed system compared to their agitations today. Much price have been paid for unity, including the civil war which took an estimated two million lives throughout the country.

Unlike the IPOB, the agitation for Oodua Nation has generated mixed feelings from various stakeholders across the country. The clamour for secession of the Oodua Nation has met controversial sides by some stakeholders in the region who holds divergent view on it unlike the Independent People of Biafra, IPOB and its leader, Nnamdi Kanu, as well as the Niger-Delta ex-militant leader, Asari Dokunbo who are unified and driven by the same cause of making their Biafran dream a reality.

The clamour and agitations of these disunionists has meet stiff resistance from the Nigerian government. The Nigerian president, Muhammad Buhari said “Nigerians are better and stronger together in the entity called Nigeria” noting that he defended the unity of the country as a military leader in 1967 and 1970. His comments therefore left no hope for any secession plans.
Secessionist movement like the Oodua Nation and the Biafrans prefer not to call their actions secession rather they prefer calling it self-determination. Reacting to the issue of Yoruba nation secession, the senior elders of the Yoruba council of elders, through Col. Samuel Agbede (retd) said “the word secession is too heavy and very consequential”. He believes self-determination is more acceptable and also the best way to solve this racatia.

The two disunionist groups in Nigeria are only strategizing. The question of whether their intones will be granted in a peaceful way or by means of revolution is a question which is pending answer. In the most wider sense, secession is not constitutional in any federal state but it can be achieved through the natural right of revolution or by the consent of the parent-state.