A Reason To Separate The Igbo From Nigeria 3.5

Mr. Kassim,

You wrote the excerpt below (among other points):

While I find the renegotiation of the Nigerian union as a plausible idea with a
promise of better co-habitation among all of her citizens, I consider the idea
of negotiating the dissolution of Nigeria a more daunting and almost impossible task to achieve.

For starters–we need to consider who is empowered enough in the Nigerian
government to negotiate the surrender of a fraction of or her sovereignty
over her land borders and all that lies within her domain.

The Nigerian Constitution (rev 1997) leaves no room for the consideration of the disssolution of Nigeria.

If you start with the assumption that the goal is to negotiate the dissolution of Nigeria, the fear you express could come true. But if the assumption is to create a more perfect union, then you may succeed beyond your wildest expectations. Many of the opinions expressed every day is a restructured Nigeria, not a dissolved Nigeria. Dissolution of Nigeria is the myth that President Buhari and his supporters are peddling.

Your doubt about who is empowered to negotiate the surrender of a fraction of Nigeria’s sovereignty is again based on the assumption that disintegration is the only possible outcome of negotiation. It reminds me of Mr. Churchill’s answer when after the war many colonial powers demanded independence. Mr. Churchill said that he was “not appointed her majesty’s chief minister to preside over the liquidation of her majesty’s empire.” He resisted, but he did not know that he was swimming against a tide. The tide swept him out and the colonies got their independence. Some peacefully and some after a war.

By the way I think you mean 1999 Constitution not 1997 which is no longer in effect.

Further down on you comment you wrote

The last time the issue of Nigeria’s borders came up was during the proceedings at the Hague over the true ownership of the Bakassi Peninsula during which the words that mattered to the judges were those of the British government, the French and the Belgians–the only signatories on the document that formalized the proceedings at the infamous Balkanization of Africa meetings in 1884.

I am positive that you know about the Berlin Conference of 1884 held to decide how Africa would be partitioned among the European powers. Using imaginary lines of longitudes and latitudes they divided Africa to suit their interests without a single African in the room. It is a shame that after decades of independence that Africans still pay heed to this robbery. Africans should throw this document of shame into the depths of the Atlantic and negotiate for themselves who to co-habituate with and how. If they cannot work outside of the 1884 document the question arises: Is Africa free? Does Africa have the much proclaimed independence? If the document determines what to do, Africa is still a colony of Europe.

I hope that the Brits do not have any say-so in Internal Nigeria affairs. If they still do may be we shall forget about ZIK, Awo, Bello and Balewa. They fooled us.

The British who a few years ago singed on to European Community just yesterday opted out; if they can, so can parts of Nigeria take that option. Boundaries are made by man and for man and not the other way round.

To summarize: Sovereign Nigeria ought to sit down around a negotiating table to determine for themselves how to create a more perfect union. This would be the basis of negotiation not the dissolution of Nigeria. We should all pay attention to this fact and abhor the concept that restructuring Nigeria is an attempt to dissolve the country which is what the enemies of Nigeria are using to blackmail some leaders so that they can keep their feet on the heads of other Nigerians

We must change this mentality of we shall perish. Adapt or perish.

Benjamin Obiajulu Aduba writes from Boston, Massachusetts, United States.