Anatomy Of Separatism And Secession In Nigeria -By Henry Chukwuemeka Onyema

If we must be sincere the concept of One Nigeria in this day and age is unattractive to quite a number of Nigerians, both at home and in the Diaspora. The perception is strong that most Nigerians feel, to use that over-punched word, marginalized in Nigeria and that they are better off outside Nigeria. Indeed, the actions and inactions of the Buhari government since 2015 convinces most Southern Nigerians that Nigeria under this retired army general is the estate of the predominantly Muslim Fulani, Hausa and Kanuri ethnic nationalities of Northern Nigeria. Grievances range from lopsided appointments to government policies seemingly designed to emasculate Southern Nigerians economically to diametrically opposed responses to agitations and protests from angry Northern and Southern Nigerians. Eg. IPOB calls for Biafra and they suffer proscription and crack-down; Northern youths demand Igbo people leave the North, and release inflammatory songs, and they get the equivalent of an official slap on the wrist. Throw in the mix of insecurity, and secession begins to look attractive; a panacea to our woes as a country.

But President Muhammadu Buhari, though incompetent as far as I am concerned, did not originate the issues that have made secession so appealing to Nigerians. I also say that if Nigerians look at the world carefully, they will realize that secession is a viable tool of statecraft. It has been adopted in both peaceful and non-pacific ways to ease agitations of peoples, and address irreconcible differences in nation-states. For instance, Belgium seceded from the Netherlands in September 1830 to become an independent state.

Biafra flag

India and Pakistan went their separate ways shortly after India’s independence in 1947, though it was a very bloody affair. Southern Sudan left the Sudan in 2011, following a bloody and long war for independence from the mostly Muslim-dominated Sudanese leadership. Eritrea did the same from Ethiopia in 1993.

All these examples have one thing in common: their secession cost a lot of blood, sweat and tears. Also, minus Belgium, till date, bad blood still exists between the seceding states and their ‘parent’ states, occasionally leading to military engagements. But then there are examples where break-ups of hitherto artificially stitched entities was non-violent and did not leave mutual hostility in its wake, or even if such existed, it was carefully managed. A good example is Czechoslovakia which peacefully dissolved into the Czech and Slovakian republics in November 1992 following a constitutional act by the Federal Assembly of Czechoslovakia to assuage intense separatist agitations in the ex-Communist state.

It must be stated that circumstances vary, and while lessons can be learnt from other examples, no two countries have the same condition. So in the case of Nigeria, is secession the way to go? Nigeria fought a civil war from July 1967-January 1970 to preserve an apparent national unity. I use the word apparent deliberately. Even as the Nigerian military under the head of state, General Gowon, was clobbering the mostly Igbo Biafra back to the national fold, agitations were simmering in the country. Quite a few of the Yoruba in Western Nigeria had found secession rather appealing till Biafra grossly misfired with its August 1967 invasion of the Mid-West. Years before Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s speech formally declaring Biafra, the far-sighted Yoruba nationalist, Obafemi Awolowo, during the 1953 Constitutional talks superintended by the British asked that a separatist clause be put in the constitution. The British were willing to accede if only the three anti-colonial leaders of the then three regions agreed on the demand. While the realistic (some would say primordial) Ahmadu Bello of the North concurred, the idealistic (some would say utopian) Nnamdi Azikiwe of the East refused.

Nigeria flag

Interestingly, the men who fathered Nigeria in 1960 had no faith in Nigeria. So why should their offspring be any different? Their words are on marble for unborn generations:
Ahmadu Bello referred to the amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria in 1914 as ‘the mistake of 1914.’

Tafawa Balewa, the Prime Minister, declared: ‘Nigeria existed as one country only on paper. It is still far from being united. Nigerian unity is only a British intention for the country.’

Obafemi Awolowo: ‘Nigeria is not a nation; it is a mere geographical expression. There are no ‘Nigerians’ in the same sense as there are English or Welsh or French. The word ‘Nigeria’ is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from those who do not.’

The popular historical narrative is that Nigeria’s woes commenced from the lashing together of mutually exclusive nationalities by the British imperialists for their self-interests in 1914. As circumstances compelled them to contemplate independence from the British designed structures and systems that would leave their choice estate in the hands of the least advanced nationalities , namely the far Northern Muslim Fulani and Hausa who, historically speaking, were more amendable to the white man’s rule than the disruptive and Westernized Southerners, especially the Yoruba and Igbo. The chickens came home to roost after independence when the diametrically opposed leaders of these nationalities took charge.

But this narrative is not the whole truth. First, I dare any one, scholar or layman, to show me any modern nation on the face of this earth whose creation and evolution lacks some element of artificiality. Not even Israel is a naturally-born entity, despite its Biblical history. So Nigeria’s artificial origin is not out of place.

Second, the trouble with the anatomy of secession in Nigeria is the generation of leaders to which President Muhammadu Buhari belongs. Maybe because an overwhelming number of them fought against Biafra as young Nigerian military officers they have imbibed the ‘gospel’ that Nigeria’s unity is sacrosanct and non-negotiable. And I ask myself: what lasting union, be it individual, corporate or national has lasted without its terms subjected to negotiation? Looking at the antecedents of these gentlemen, I wonder if Nigerians realize they are the worst enemies of Nigeria’s unity; their actions spawned the virus that attacked the immune system of Nigeria’s unity and bred the opportunistic infections that threaten it through secessionist agitations. For instance, the bloody coup of July 1966 was led by the likes of then Majors Murtala Muhammed and Yakubu Danjuma whose clarion call was secession of the North from Nigeria. Our own Buhari, a faithful follower of Murtala, actively participated in the coup. All fought to keep Nigeria one; an ephemeral unity that only became acceptable to the coup plotters and killers of the first military head of state after the British and Americans promised not to support their break-away state. The next best option, which the imperialists accepted, was that the junta takes over. Please, do you think those who fathered this type of contraption can ensure a truly united Nigeria?

Agreed, even stable, multi-ethnic democracies like Canada and Britain have pockets of secessionist/separatist agitation. Eg. the Scots in Britain and the Quebec movement in Canada. But Nigeria’s case is fundamentally premised on blatant injustice and gross misrulership. These are now coated in religion, tribal chauvinisms, cultural differences, etc. It pays for the purveyors of these anomalies to retain the current crazy structure of Nigeria. But then, like Usman Dan Fodio said, ‘a kingdom can endure with unbelief, but it cannot endure with injustice.’

Henry Chukwuemeka Onyema is a writer, historian and teacher. His first novel is ‘In Love and In War.’ Email: henrykd2009@yahoo.com.