New Telegraph

Restructuring, poverty of articulation, propagation and strategy (3)

In parts 1 and 2 of this essay, it was pointed out that it was the structural distortions, the consequent skewed constitutional framework and political infrastructure, hoisted on that distorted state structure of Nigeria right from its creation by Britain and later by its seizure by military autocrats that have resulted in its socio-economic and political malaise since 1914 to date.

This malaise, since in the late 1980s/ early 1990s has been identified and defined or understood by Nigerians, especially the victims, that is the southerners and later the Northern minorities massed under the geopolitical entity called the Middle-belt as the ‘National Question’ and currently it is best expressed as ‘question of restructurings’.

The question of restructuring has been defined by diverse persons and each person or group goes with the peculiar effect(s) experienced. So Nigerians’ perception of this question of restructuring is akin to the perception by the seven Hindustan blind men of an elephant – each giving expression to his feeling of touch of that part of the elephant he felt. As with the seven Hindustan blind men’s perception of the elephant, so it has been with Nigerian victims of the Nigerian structural and constitutional framework problems.

Each victim of the flawed system in expressing their understanding of restructuring question gives a graphic description of the effects on him or his group. And like the seven blind Hindustans, each victim was right. Only few of the persons concerned with the problem of Nigeria such as Pa Ayo Adebanjo has been able to define holistically what the restructuring question is.

This variegated response to the question of restructuring has elicited a kind of cynical response or reaction by the beneficiaries of the skewed system. The response of the beneficiaries of the flawed system has ranged from a pretended standpoint of being ignorant or lacking understanding of what restructuring is all about or that the Nigeria’s state structure and constitutional framework are good and just and there is nothing wrong with the system. The beneficiaries’ usual mantra is that Nigeria’s problem is the problem of leadership.

Probed further, they would tell you that Nigeria has been unlucky to be saddled with ‘bad leaders’ and that once a good leader emerges that Nigeria’s problem will vanish. These proponents of good or failed leadership will later impose the leaders recycled from amongst them but the problem will persist and nobody will challenge them to justify their earlier claim but they would have ready-made answers and excuses to offer in explanation of the vicious circle.

If these beneficiaries think that an explanation such as poor or failed leadership was time-wasting exercise they would shut the restructurists down with the accusation that their proposition of restructuring is tantamount to plan to break up Nigeria.

The antagonists of restructuring to show the powerlessness of the restructurists deftly deploy intimidation to shut them up with the retort of “Nigeria’s unity is sacrosanct”, “Non-negotiable”, or that the issues being canvassed by the restructurists have been “settled.” This mantra of ‘settled’ issues or non-negotiable or sacrosanct unity is promoted by under the ruling class led by former military rulers and their acolytes across Nigeria.

They have as their bulwark the Far Northern socio-cultural and political establishment that has benefitted from the flawed system and its confusion which somehow enabled it to provide greater number of rulers and managers of the system. Until recently when General Olusegun Obasanjo made formal declaration in support of restructuring, he was an apostle of ‘settled issues’ and ‘non-negotiability’ of Nigeria’s unity but his hard experiences under the flawed system that nearly consumed him under General Abacha perhaps made him to rethink his earlier stance as he gleefully wrote in his book, This Animal Called Man, that the Nigeria’s unity he fought for was a unity based on “justice, equity and equability” and so that he can only be a believer and supporter of “Nigeria unity and consequently Nigerian nation but it is not unity at any price.”

In the same book, this Animal called Man, General Obasanjo had counseled dialogue to resolve all issues of contention between the constituent nations constituting Nigeria as he rightly declared that denying the peoples of Nigeria the facility of dialogue leads to violence and he warned that “running away from dialogue to resolve an issue is an indication of the weakness of one’s argument and one’s position.” General Obasanjo wrote this book during his travails under General Sani Abacha whose government jailed him and his former deputy, General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua on charges of planned coup d’état.

It was under that life transforming period of forced isolation and solicitude that he wrote the book, This Animal Called Man and one can see the subdued tone of the book as it captured the reasonable part of man, which Obasanjo didn’t quite allow to guide him during his presidency between 1999 and 2003. Another life-transforming event that helped to convert many of Nigeria’s members of the party of ‘settled’ issues or ‘non-negotiable’ unity is the emergence of General Muhammadu Buhari presidency which many of them helped to install in 2015.

Whether it is as a result of the governance measures of Buhari government or mere coincidence that the stark realities of Nigeria’s problem started manifesting to the discomfort of these denizens and stalwarts of non-negotiable, sacrosanct unity of Nigeria and the custodians of Nigeria founded on settled issues, these great Nigerians from the South as represented by General Olusegun Obasanjo and the MiddleBelt as represented by Generals TY Danjuma, Zamani Lekwot, the late Joshua Dogoyaro, Y. Nom and other civilian leaders operating under the platform of Northern States Christians Elders Forum have stunned Nigerians since 2018 when they started recanting their earlier stance of having Nigeria as formed and structured by Britain and later seized by them as military rulers between 1966 and 1999 and turned into its present monstrous, flawed and dysfunctional construct.

Curiously, these makers and operators of Nigeria have even raised alarms that Nigeria by the logic of prevailing insecurities is being stealthily subjected to ‘Islamisation’ and ‘Fulanisation’ scheme and that Nigerians are doomed unless they utilize their inalienable right to self defence. A reinforcing concert of these incidents and the restructurists’ feeling of domination by the Far Northern power bloc over the rest of Nigeria convinced them that there can be no peace unless Nigeria is restructured on basis of justice and equity.

But the restructurists have been less than able to clearly articulate their position and express it unequivocally. And being bereft of a convincing message they lacked the structure, organisation and strategy to fructify their proposition. Is there any hope for restructuring? The answer seems to ‘yes’ because it seems to an idea whose time has come.

In articulating the central point of restructuring, its proponents should point to the danger inherent in the British fraudulent structuring of Nigeria and its constitutional framework and political infrastructure with its deliberate creation of Hausa/Fulani hegemony that ended up inducing crises in Nigeria after independence as the beneficiaries naturally wanted to maintain its existence and position by subduing the competitors/threats posed by the Yoruba and the Igbo which led to Western region crises that culminated in the 1966 coups and the Biafra War.

Now, the Hausa/Fulani hegemony was saved by the intervention of Britain, and its ally, the United States that backed the preservation of Nigeria against its balkanization which allowing Biafra Republic would have signified. The Northern Nigeria military leaders upon whose slender shoulders Britain foisted the preservation of Nigeria on 2nd August,1966 was a compromise worked out by Britain and USA whose High Commissioner (Cummings-Bruce) and Ambassador (Elbert Matthews) with the assistance and support of Northern minority military officers led by Major Martins Adamu and others as opposed to the then Major Murtala Mohammed led hardliners whose original agenda was to revenge the January 16,1966 coup and take the Northern Region out of Nigeria by declaring to Republic of Northern Nigeria.

With the successful diplomatic outcome by Britain and USA to preserve Nigeria, the new challenge was to guide and support the Northern led military government to overcome the threat of Biafra against which Britain and USA had advised/warned Col. Ojukwu.

In declaring Republic of Biafra, Ojukwu was clearly swimming against the tide of British neo-colonial interest in Nigeria which it unabashedly protected by utilizing its vantage diplomatic position in world fora, especially the United Nations and the British Commonwealth to galvanized world opinion against Biafra, and also supported Nigeria with military and technical expertise to prevail.

Read Previous

Taking stern measures against erring judges

Read Next

#EndSARS Panel and the LASG White Paper

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *