The break-up of Nigeria: Myths, realities and implications
The British Colonial establishment initiated this skepticism by perceiving the new country as a 100-year experiment. Sir Hugh Clifford, Governor-General of Nigeria between 1920 and 1931 described Nigeria as: “A collection of independent native states, separated from one another by great distances, by differences of history, and traditions, and by ethnological, racial, tribal, political, social […]
The British Colonial establishment initiated this skepticism by perceiving the new country as a 100-year experiment. Sir Hugh Clifford, Governor-General of Nigeria between 1920 and 1931 described Nigeria as: “A collection of independent native states, separated from one another by great distances, by differences of history, and traditions, and by ethnological, racial, tribal, political, social and religious barriers.”
Our founding fathers – that is, those who led our struggle for Independence from the British – inherited this skepticism and articulated it along as they made efforts to build a nation. In his “Path to Nigerian Freedom” (1947), Chief Obafemi Awolowo stated:
“Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression.”
The following year,(1948), his counterpart from the North, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa stated in the Legislative Council that: “Since 1914 the British government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious beliefs and customs, and do not show themselves any sign of willingness to unite… Nigerian Unity is only a British intention for the country.”
Years later, Balewa would rethink this position in arguing that: “We must recognize our diversity and the peculiar conditions under which the different tribal communities live in this country.”
He would also go on to serve as the Country’s first independent leader.
In his autobiography, Sir Ahmadu Bello described the amalgamation of Northern and Southern provinces as “THE MISTAKE OF 1914”. However, the same Ahmadu Bello urged us to “understand our differences”, and that by understanding our differences we can “build unity in our country”. In other words, none of these three great leaders gave up on building the Nigerian nation.
It is true that subsequent developments have presented us with serious challenges. Among these are a mistrust of each other, recurring violence, marred elections, followed by endless litigations; coups and counter-coups, massive corruption, and a thirty-month civil war that cost us over one million lives. The list is endless. “Always at the brink, but never tipping over”, we have survived these 100 years post-1914 with reasonable accomplishments and great expectations. However, rather than keep the faith and continue on the positive path of progress, there are still those who would rather we fulfill the doubts cast over us on the day of our birth.
This shadow of doubt was momentarily removed with General Gowon’s great patriotic and reconciliatory pronouncements. At the end of the civil war in 1970, Gowon told Nigeria and the world that there was “no victor, no vanquished”, and followed this up with an amnesty programme of “Reconciliation, Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation”. Whatever the limitations of these programmes, the spirit of reconciliation seized Nigerians on both sides of the war. Nigerians embraced each other to rebuild their devastated country. Since then, three key things have happened.
The first is the continuation of military regimes in the post civil war era. This has weakened Federalism and the democratic forces that would have paved the way for cementing unity, building trust, and generating a faster pace of development.
The second is the rise of petroleum as a dominant economic resource. The dependence on oil revenue has built resentment between two Nigerian societies: the oil producing and the non-oil producing people of Nigeria. Crosscutting this is the phenomenon of military leadership, extracted predominantly from the Northern part of the country. They come from the part of the amalgamated nation that has no oil yet controls political power. The other side – where the cash cow is milked – cry out, screaming “domination” and arguing for control of this vital resource, hence the term “Resource Control”. It suddenly became a war between “resource control” and “control of political power”.
The third and principal subject of this write up, are the “misrepresentations” of related issues – by prominent intellectuals, activists, politicians, and media organizations – which are setting the agenda for the breakup of our country. Rather than help us understand our differences and encourage dialogue that will strengthen our democracy, raise hope, and promote constitutional and democratic reforms towards resolving our conflicts, these groups and individuals have persistently sharpened these differences. Ideas tend to take root and grow. Were we to accept their version of events, we will be going over the precipice.
A few examples of these alarming media headlines are: “Nation in Chaos”, “Breakup imminent?”, “Let’s Get Set for War”, “Now Nigeria is Finished”, “Make Up or Break Up: The Choice Facing Nigeria”, “Nigeria on the Brink” and so on. Side by side with the media, powerful ethno-cultural associations – Afenifere, Arewa, Consultative Forum, Ohaneze, Ijaw National Congress, supported by a cast of fringe militant groups – continue to inveigh on the inevitable dissolution of the Nigerian nation. Since no counter-arguments are being offered, the impression created is that this definition of reality becomes the unassailable truth, and takes root in the thoughts and actions of our people.
A few examples will do. A Yoruba group – Apapo Oodua Koya [AOKOYA] urges the South-West to prepare for their own sovereignty since the battle ahead looks like a contest for an inevitable breakup of the country. A statement signed by its media director, Dr. Saliu Akinkumi, states: “We are working to see a sovereign Ouduwa Republic from Lagos to Jeba, and Lokoja, plus the Itsekiri part of Delta and as soon as possible. It is now certain that the practical solution to the unending crisis since Nigeria’s forceful amalgamation in 1914, is the peaceful breakup of the country.”
MASSOB – An acronym for Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra has been campaigning and mis-educating young Nigerians of Igbo descent that the “Breakup of Nigeria is a Divine Destination”. Their most recent submission is that “Nigeria will break up if Jonathan is not re-elected in 2015”. In tandem with MASSOB is former Governor of Anambra, Dr, Chukwuemeka Ezeife, Asari Dukubo, and numerous other groups from the South South.
From the North comes the response from the Chairman, Northern States Governors Forum, Dr. Babangida Aliyu of Niger State. According to him:
“If Nigeria splits, the North can still survive on its own. Contrary to the belief of some people in other regions that the North cannot survive if the nation disintegrates.”
There are, in addition, other “experts” outside Nigeria. Of these, the best known is Karl Maier, who wrote the book “This House Has Fallen.” The other is the 17 page report prepared for the US War College by former American Service men Gerald McLaughlin and Clarence J. Bouchat titled “Nigerian Unity in the Balance”. This highly publicized report presents both the upside and the downside scenarios. The authors foresee a decline in Africa, the most important being “the outright collapse of Nigeria” (their emphasis). However, many who cite this “downside” fail to add the “upside” caveat of the authors that “… a variety of issues might cause our analysis to be incoherent in certain areas and more generally, not optimistic enough (my emphasis). Certainly, if hydrocarbon management were improved across the continent, Africa’s future in 2020 would look distinctly more positive. If Angola, Nigeria, and Sudan – three of Africa’s largest and most important countries – actually began to use their revenues from oil in productive ways, these economies would become stronger, tens of millions of Africans would benefit from reduced poverty, and the impact on the region will be significant.”
“All nations are geographical expressions” brought together, usually “by force of arms or self-interest”, constantly struggling to resolve complex political, social and economic issues. Nigeria is not an exception. This has not stopped many countries from molding into powerful nation-states. The United States has shown that well managed and led “Unity in diversity” can be a source of strength rather than weakness and failure. Rather than look to emulate such best practice and build our country, we continue to promote division and conflict, most of it through complete misrepresentations of our reality.
In the rest of this lecture, we will take a look at a few of these realities and how they are misrepresented.
COMPULSORY AMALGAMATION: It is important to educate ourselves, but most especially the younger generation, that there was not just one amalgamation. Many amalgamations of different communities took place before 1893, and between 1893 and 1914. Never did the British arrive and find two coherent and distinct political entities known as Northern and Southern Protectorates.
What they found were numerous political entities. Even within single ethnic groups, e.g. the Yorubas and the Igbos, there were several polities and entities antagonistic to each other, which the British pulled together. It is these disparate groups that were reconstituted into Northern and Southern protectorates. Tabulated below is what happened between 1893 and 1914:
1893 Oil Rivers Protectorate amalgamated with other conquered coastal territories to form Niger Coastal Protectorate.
1897 Kingdom of Benin conquered and merged into Niger Coastal Protectorate.
1900 More territories near Lagos conquered and amalgamated with Niger Coastal Protectorate to become Protectorate of Southern Nigeria.
1906 Colony of Lagos amalgamated with the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria.
1900 Protectorate of Northern Nigeria proclaimed as a sphere of influence to keep out other European powers. Of this we had entities as the Sokoto Caliphate, Kanem Borno Empire, and other independent entities as Tiv, Igala, Jukun etc.
1914 Amalgamation of the protectorate of Northern Nigeria with the Colony of Lagos and the Protectorate of Southern Nigerian.
1961 Amalgamation or Integration of Northern Cameroon as the thirteenth province of Northern Nigeria.
If we consider what the British did as a mistake, it is not just one mistake of 1914. It is a series of mistakes: 1893, 1897, 1900, 1906, and 1914. The implication is this: were we to correct these British mistakes by way of de-amalgamation, it will be series of breakups, the end of which no one can foretell. The upheavals it will create all over Nigeria and the whole of West Africa will be monumental. The US War College document correctly concludes that: “if Nigeria were to become a failed state, it could drag down a large part of the West African region… If millions were to flee a collapsed Nigeria, the surrounding countries, up to and including Ghana, would be destabilized.”
RECURRENT VIOLENCE: NATIONAL IDENTITY, CITIZENSHIP, AND BOKO HARAM.: Over the years, Nigeria has witnessed a series of recurrent violence. Few countries have spilled as much of the blood of its citizens in civil times as Nigeria has. This violence is of different origins. Some of it is economic in origin stemming from land disputes and clashes between herdsmen. Some are political, stemming from electoral contests. However, the ones that most threaten our nation are those attributable to ethnic and religious differences and intolerance.
In the course of our development, we have not put enough effort into resolving the contradiction between ethnic identity and citizenship. Rather than a territorial definition of our citizenship that allows us to migrate, live and fully participate in economic, social and political life wherever we choose to reside, we have continued with the colonial categories of “natives” – now called “indigenes”, and “non-natives – now called “settlers”.
Since we live in a changing world ruled by finance capital, both owners of capital – financiers, industrialists, traders, and the working people, peasants and unemployed youth must migrate to places outside their ancestral homes. But rather than settle with full citizen rights as constitutionally provided, they become dual citizens in their own country. On the one hand, they are citizens of the country, on the other hand, they are categorized as “non-indigenes” in their new state. As settlers limitations are placed on their social and political rights. This consequently generates and perpetuates a serious crisis of identity not only for the “settler”, but also for the “indigene”.
All over the country, though in varying degrees, this has periodically resulted into violent conflicts that threaten the very existence of our country. An Igbo man born and bred in Kano returns to claim Imo or Abia as his “state of origin”. He is not fully accepted by the Kano people, nor does he identify with or accept Kano as his state. So it is with an Urhobo person in Kaduna and so on.
Closely tied to this are differences in religion. It is true that for believers, religion is very important, if not the most important thing in their lives. No one can wish this away. What has become a worrisome phenomenon is the extent to which it is used as an instrument for destabilization. In pre-colonial Nigeria, Kanem Borno and the Sokoto Caliphate were empires built using Islam as a binding ideology. Since then, colonialism and the spread of the Christian religion introduced a new configuration between the two religions. Instead of peaceful co-existence, they both seek to spread and dominate, setting the stage for recurrent violent conflicts and instability.
In a world of scarce economic resources with massive concentrations of wealth, religion becomes a powerful force for mobilizing one group against the other. This is particularly so in urban areas where in relative terms, the poor compare their conditions to the rich. Given that the vast majority of the poor are the “indigenous” and of a different faith to their better off “non-native settlers”, disagreements quickly degenerate into violent clashes along ethno-religious lines. Quite often, fanatical believers and political actors see and have used religion as a tool for mobilizing support either for dissent, change, or for strengthening their control of economic and political power.
In our recent history, major conflicts based on a combination of ethnic and religious differences have set our people against each other. This has been the case in places such as Kaduna, Kano, Zaria, Kafanchan, Bauchi, Katsina, Zangon-Kataf, Plateau, and most recently Borno, Yobe, and Adamawa, where Boko Haram has fought and even proclaimed an Islamic state. Add other past events as the Maitatsine revolts in 1980, the Sharia Law debates during the 1978 Constitutional Conference; the proclamation of Sharia Law in several Northern States during the Fourth Republic; and the Orkar coup in 1990 that excised five states – Kano, Bauchi, Borno, Katsina and Sokoto – from Nigeria, and you will be inclined to conclude that the easiest way out is the Orkar solution. Major Orkar and his fellow coup members naively saw Nigeria as two constituents of Hausa-Fulani Islamic North, versus a Christian Middle Belt and South. Incidentally, this is a misleading interpretation and sentiment shared by many of our compatriots.
Let us examine the ethno-religious composition of two of the states excised by Orkar – Bauchi and Borno – and Adamawa state currently under siege from Boko Haram insurgents. Not only are they not entirely Hause-Fulani and Islamic, their ethnic and religious configuration is a complex mix of different ethnic groups belonging to equally different religions. It is even impossible to territorially define boundaries along ethno-religious lines. To give a few examples, Bauchi state has fifty-five ethnic nationalities, among which are Hausa, Fulani, Sagawa, Bulewa, Warjawa, Badawa, and Gerawa. Yet many in Nigeria see Bauchi as populated entirely by Hausa and Fulanis. Also, many of its inhabitants are not Muslims.
Similarly, Borno state has twenty-eight ethnic nationalities. Among which are: Kanuri, Shuwa-Arab, Hausa, Fulani, Babur, Bura, Chibok, Ngoshe, Guduf, Mandara,Gawergu, and Tera. Again while most are Muslims, there is a significant Christian population among them. The same goes for Adamawa – a state which has the highest number of ethnic groups in Nigeria (80).
The territory and people most affected by the Boko Haram insurgency (Southern Borno and Northern Adamawa), are made up of approximately seven (7) local governments – Gwoza, Damboa, and Chibok in Southern Borno; Bama and Konduga in Northern Borno; and Madagali, Michika, and Mubi in Northern Adamawa – are similarly populated by a mixture of Muslims, Christians, and Animists, drawn from a mosaic of ethnic groups. To name a few, there are Kanuri, Marghi, Higgi, Bura, Kapsiki, Gude, Ndandankwa, Gra, Kamwe, Betso, Fali, Kilba, Hausa, Fulani, etc.
In both the urban and rural areas, they live and interact with each other, not on the basis of religion or ethnicity, but common economic and social life. Most of them are farmers and traders. Poverty and a common desire to get out of poverty is the common denominator of their lives. It is difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation between them, since in a local government, local community, village, or even in one family, you have some as Muslims, some as Christians, and others as animists. Despite periodic conflicts, some of which admittedly are due to either ethnicity or religion, we cannot solve their problems by breaking up and disaggregating Nigeria according to language, ethnic composition and religion.
More importantly, is Boko Haram a religious insurgency? No, it is not.
Boko Haram has no clear or coherent message. They indiscriminately attack Christians, “Western Institutions” such as schools, and Muslims alike. It is made up of Nigerians and a large number of Chadians from the Chadian provinces of Lac, and Hadjer Lamis. These two Chadian states share a long border with North-Eastern Nigeria around the Lake Chad region, and provide Boko Haram with trained Chadian fighters.
Two things about this area are central to understanding the Boko Haram phenomenon. First, and most important, is that the Lake Chad Basin is estimated to have a reserve of 2.32 billion barrels of oil, and 14.65 trillion cubic feet of natural gas. The oil and gas flows underground across the countries sharing the Lake Chad Basin – Nigeria, Chad, Niger, and Cameroun. Using 3D drilling, it is believed that Chad is not only tapping oil within its territory, but also from Nigeria to push up its production levels. The Boko Haram insurgency delays exploration and production on the Nigerian side of Lake Chad to the benefit of Chad and a few other stakeholders.
Reportedly, prominent businessmen and politicians in both Nigeria and Chad, in association with French companies, have invested heavily in the Chadian oil industry, and as a result, benefit from Boko Haram’s destabilization of the North-Eastern part of Nigeria. It is widely believed that it is they who are the principal financiers and arm suppliers to Boko Haram.
The second economic factor is the drying up of Lake Chad itself. Once one of the largest water bodies in Africa, Lake Chad has shrunk from 26,000 square kilometers in 1993, to less than 1500 square kilometers in 2001. This has seriously affected the economic and social life of over thirty (30) million people in the four countries around the Lake. The United Nations Food and Agricultural Organization has called it an “ecological catastrophe”. Inevitably, many farmers and herdsmen have migrated, seeking greener pastures. Local conflicts have multiplied between Cameroonian and Nigerian nationals; and between occupational groups – fishermen fighting farmers and herdsmen to stop diverting water from the lake to their farms and livestock.
Related to the insurgency, the disappearance of the lake and related rivers, and the dislocation of the ecology and economic life of the region has created a large population of unemployed and discontented youth. They have become a reserve army easily available for recruitment by the insurgents. Curious enough, the President of Chad, Idris Debby, is said to have close, cordial relations with the insurgents. So far, Boko Haram has not attacked any territory in Chad. Rather, they have a cluster of bases in Chad, which serve as rear for their terrorist activities in Nigeria. To use Al Gore’s captivating phrase, this is “the inconvenient truth”, about Boko Haram and its threat to Nigerian sovereignty.
OIL: DOMINATION AND RESOURCE CONTROL: In all developing nations, the discovery of oil in commercial quantities has proven always to be both a blessing and a curse. The oil economy divides the people into those who have and those who have not both in regional and class terms.
First there are those communities on whose land oil is explored. While their eco-system is destroyed, not many of them benefit directly from the activity. Instead, the destruction of the eco-system reduces their quality of life. In contrast to this is the greed and opulent lifestyles of the local and national elites, who in collaboration with their international counterparts, manage, control and derive massive benefits from the oil economy. The poorly managed relationship between the oil producing communities and the rest of the country naturally became a source of instability. The local elite, who nevertheless benefit alongside their national counterparts, capitalize on the misery and discontent of their kin to fight for control of what they define as their God-given wealth.
In Nigeria, “Resource Control” has become a war song for the “liberation” of the people of the Niger Delta. The capital-intensive and highly skilled nature of the industry does not help matters. Not much of the untrained and unskilled local labour force is employed. Discontent takes over the local population. The unemployed youth organize themselves into local militia headed by warlords who are sometimes antagonistic to each other. For example, in 2003 the Niger Delta Peoples Volunteer Force (NDPVF) commenced by Alhaji Mujahid Asari-Dokubo, went to war against the Niger Delta Vigilante (NDV) led by Ateke Tom. The two major groups were cheered on by another cast of over one hundred militia groups. Financed and armed by local political leaders, their venom is directed against outsiders, in this case Northerners or “Hausa-Fulani” people from the North, who come from afar and “take away their resources.”
To be continued next week
This is an excerpt from a Convocation Lecture Delivered at the Adekunle Ajasin University, Akungba-Akoko, Nigeria on November 5, 2014