By Douglas Anele In the last three weeks, I attempted to answer the deceptively simple but pregnant question: Was the amalgamation o...
By Douglas Anele
In the last three weeks, I attempted to answer the
deceptively simple but pregnant question: Was the amalgamation of northern and
southern Nigeria in 1914 a mistake? The nuanced conclusion that emerged at the
end of my inquiry was that although the amalgamation was very beneficial to
Britain and northern Nigeria, it was hugely disadvantageous and stifling for
the Igbo, the Yoruba, and their southern neighbours.
Britain configured the country in a manner that gave
northern region more landmass than the eastern and western regions combined.
More significantly, the colonial master kick-started the entrenchment of Fulani
caliphate colonialist domination of political power at the centre since
independence by handing power over to Sir Tafawa Balewa, a move that retarded
the developmental aspirations of southern peoples.
According to Emefiena Ezeani in his thought-provoking book
entitled In Biafra Africa Died: The Diplomatic Plot, there is abundant evidence
for the conviction especially amongst Ndigbo that had the former eastern region
been allowed to exist as an independent Republic of Biafra to this day, it
would have rivalled or probably surpassed Singapore or South Korea and become
the pride of the black race.
Of course, due to the tremendous support Nigeria received
mostly from Britain, Russia, Egypt and Spain, Biafra was defeated after about
three years of hard fighting that cost over three million Biafran lives.
In this connection, only an emotionally frozen evil person
would read about how Britain and a few countries actively participated in the
genocide against Biafrans without being morally appalled that such wickedness
was condoned by the same countries that fought tenaciously to safeguard Europe
from the madness of Adolph Hitler and Benito Mussolini.
But then, history is replete with such monstrosities, a
testament to the fact that human beings can manifest a level of bestiality
unmatched by any other creature on this planet. As a continuation of my
critical engagement with the present political uncertainties in Nigeria, I will
present arguments to justify the quest for the resurrection of a sovereign
Republic of Biafra which, mutatis mutandis, means that such reasoning can also
be used to support the quest for self-determination by any ethnic group or
collection of interconnected ethnic groups in the country.
Now, it is clear to those who value justice, equity, and
truth that the way Nigeria is structured and governed at the moment is very
unsatisfactory and cannot work because there are serious congenital
abnormalities in her DNA which would require radical genetic engineering to
correct.
The most popular proposals in this regard, namely,
restructuring and Igbo presidency project for 2023, are cosmetic and do not
address the root causes of our problems. Only confederation or peaceful
dismemberment can resolve the perennial National Question on a long term basis
by providing the foundation upon which geographically contiguous and
historically cum culturally related ethnic nationalities can build viable
countries for themselves without being asphyxiated in a highly centralised
administration dominated by members of another ethnic group.
Those still insisting dogmatically on One Nigeria are poor
students of history either benefiting from the current gravely flawed system or
are intellectually dishonest and lacking in creative imagination. Ultimately,
two things will happen: either the Fulani (with the support of Britain and
multinational companies involved in lucrative contracts in Nigeria) would
eventually succeed in their planned conquest of the whole country or “Niger
Area” will break into a few independent countries that might later decide to
form a confederation of nations.
Most Nigerians who genuinely think that it is time to
jettison the British colonial amalgam for either confederation under a new name
like Songhai or complete dismemberment are afraid to state their views publicly
due to the repressive attitude of the Buhari government to serious criticism, no
matter how justified or well-argued such dissenting opinions might be.
Nevertheless, for those that genuinely cherish democracy
despite its shortcomings, any country in which leaders use authoritarian
methods to prevent citizens from freely expressing well-argued opinions,
including views that not only criticise the leaders themselves but also
question the foundations on which the country was built, is unworthy of genuine
patriotism from the people.
The essence of democracy, according to the Viennese-born
British philosopher, Karl Popper, is the opportunity it offers for healthy
critical debate and non-violent periodic replacement of one set of people
running the government with another. Implicit in the Popperian theory,
therefore, is the power of the people to determine their political future,
including the demand for self-determination if existing political arrangements
are not delivering security and well-being to them.
This leads us to consider the so-called hate speech bill
which, according to media reports, stipulates an outrageous fine of N5million
for anyone convicted of the “offence.” It is disgraceful that members of the
National Assembly who ought to protect the basic freedoms of Nigerians and top
government officials like Lai Mohammed whose vituperations against previous
administrations can be classified as hate speech in line with the new bill
would introduce and support such a horrible piece of legislation cloned from
the obnoxious Decree 4 of 1984.
The main danger with that bill is its inherent arbitrariness
and openness to abuse by those in power, given that what they might consider as
hate speech could as well be a bold unadulterated statement of fact by critics.
As I adumbrated a moment ago, Lai Mohammed and many politicians supporting the hate
speech bill would have been in serious trouble if such a law was in place
during Jonathan’s presidency.
Besides, they should realise that no government in the world
has ever succeeded in stifling completely people’s right to freedom of speech.
It follows that the legislation is unnecessary and out of tune with democracy
properly so called. Given the ephemeral nature of power, sometime in the future
they might be victims of the rubbish they are championing now.
Freedom of speech without fear of reprisals by government is
a basic right of civilised human beings. To be clear, the bill in question
cannot stop responsible Nigerians from speaking out against bad government
policies and actions. How is responsible democracy possible without freedom of
speech?
Sentiments aside, and ignoring the tiny percentage of agbata
ekee politicians together with their cronies across the top social strata
reaping handsomely from the colonial contraption and clamouring for the
continuation of One Nigeria, it is obvious that the country is a depressing
example of contemporary black man’s failure in nation-building.
TO BE CONTINUED
Source
No comments