DANGER SIGNS FROM THE NORTH
That is why it states: “By virtue of that right, they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.”
Under these legal instruments, the pursuit of self-determination is right pure and simple. Likewise, legal pundits argued that the sit-athome protest, which the Igbo people observed on May 30 to mark the 50th anniversary of the Biafra struggle, was lawful under the 1999 Constitution. So, they said, such an action should not stoke anger from any part of the federation.
Mr. Ebun-Olu Adegboruwa, a human rights lawyer, cited section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of expression for every citizen irrespective of his ethnic nationality, political affiliation or religious background. Adegboruwa, thus, argued that sit-at-home protest “is a form of civil disobedience, recognised worldwide and employed as a weapon of peaceful protest. It is meant to express dissatisfaction in a peaceful manner.”
He, also, cited section 41 of the 1999 Constitution, which guarantees the right to freedom of movement. Under the section, he argued every citizen “has the freedom of movement. This includes freedom not to move. As government cannot restrain movement, it cannot compel movement as well. So, every citizen has absolute right to decide to move or not to move. This cannot amount to a crime under law, to warrant threat from any quarter.”
Condoning Illegalities
Undoubtedly, the northern leaders are not oblivious of where the laws stand on the issue of hate speech and what international legal instruments say about the right to selfdetermination. Yet, the response of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) and Northern Elders Forum (NEF) to the ultimatum the northern youth groups gave the Igbo people was disappointing.
In the statement issued by its spokesperson, Mallam Muhammad Biu about 48 hours after the October 1 ultimatum, the ACF disowned the coalition of northern youth groups on paper. But the coalition issued the quit notice at Arewa House, a clearing house for all northern agenda. The forum warned the coalition against any act that could threaten the corporate existence of Nigeria.
But the Forum observed that it appreciated the frustration of the northern youth groups with the activities of MASSOB, BIM and IPOB. It never pinpointed how the activities of the secessionist movements are frustrating the northern youths; neither did it explain how the sit-at-home protest affected the northern youths, even though the Igbo people in the north complied almost 100 percent.
Similarly, the NEF threw its weight behind the northern youth groups, even when the declaration violated, not just the constitution, but extant international legal instruments. In an interview its spokesperson, Prof. Ango Abdullahi granted about 24 hours after the police directed that the arrowheads of the coalition be arrested, the NEF never admitted that the northern youth groups constituted graver threat to Nigeria than secessionist movements themselves.
Rather than recognising the threat the coalition posed to Nigeria’s fragile peace, Abdullahi condemned the position of the Northern Governors Forum (NGF), which had requested the security agencies to arrest the promoters of the coalition and probe the motive behind their action. He, also, expressed disappointment at the position of the NGF for failing to support the youth groups and condemn the Igbo people for merely exercising their rights, which the UN Charter guarantees.
Abdullahi, therefore, said the northern elders “are disappointed outright at the decision the NGF took on the declaration of the youth groups. It is also disappointing that the NGF disowns and condemns the agitation by the young, agile and progressive youth groups. Let me ask the governors. Who are they representing? Are they representing the spirits, ghosts or people of the north?”
Aside, the NEF spokesperson argued that it was hypocritical for the Igbo people “to continue to live in other parts of Nigeria and still agitate for Nigeria’s disintegration. The Igbo people are busy calling for the Sovereign State of Biafra; yet they live in other states of the federation. From all indications, their leaders, including governors, are behind them.” However, Abdullahi never explained how the Igbo action became an offence under the law.
Emboldened Coalition
Different interventions have been made to assure the Igbo people of their safety in any part of Nigeria. The federal government has, for instance, asked the Igbo people “to ignore the ultimatum to quit the north on or before October 1. In a statement by the Minister of the Interior, Gen. Abdulrahman Dambazau, the federal government urged the Igbo people and other Nigerians “to go about their businesses without fear of molestation.”
In the same spirit, the Kaduna State Government condemned the declaration of the coalition. It, thus, directed that the promoters of the coalition should be arrested and prosecuted, allegedly for making incendiary statements capable of undermining national security. It, also, directed that its Ministry of Justice “should prepare charges and prosecute the signatories and anyone complicit in arranging this egregious assault on the rights of fellow citizens.”
Likewise, the NGF under the leadership of Borno State Governor, Mr. Kashim Shettima warned against hate speech, though asked the Igbo people “to remain calm and go about their legitimate businesses” without entertaining fear from any quarters. He assured them that nobody “can dare to intimidate, harass or dehumanise them in any of the 19 northern states. We cannot afford to take chances. We cannot afford to toil with the destiny of Nigeria.”
However, apparently, the support the coalition garnered from the ACF and NEF emboldened its promoters. After the Nigeria Police directed that it arrowheads be arrested, the coalition convened another meeting at Arewa House, where its members agreed that the threat of arrest “will not stop them from insisting that the Igbo people should leave the north.”
Abdul-Aziz Suleiman, a leader of the coalition, confirmed that the northern youth groups reconvened after the threat of arrest. He said the coalition decided that there “will be no retreat, no surrender. Contrary to the position by Kaduna State Government, we are not advocating violence. Our declaration did not mention violence at all. The Igbo have consistently insisted that they do not want to be in Nigeria. Let them, therefore, go back to their places.”
Portentous Signs
For Afenifere, a Yoruba socio-political organisation, the conduct of the northern youth coalition is an ominous sign. Consequently, it said the insistence of the coalition that the Igbos should vacate their region “is a source of grave concern and threat to our national unity.” In a statement by its spokesperson, Mr. Yinka Odumakin, Afenifere noted that the disposition of the northern youth coalition “is not good for the country in any way.”
Afenifere likened it “to holding a knife to the tiny rope that still holds the country together.” Unlike 1967 when the northerners had no coalition to fight the Igbo, it said such coalition “will no longer be possible. This time, the north will not get support from any Yoruba leader.” Hence, it warned the northern elders that their conduct might be the beginning of the end of Nigeria.
Afenifere explained that carrying out their threats would be a prelude “to another pogrom. These elements have over the years showed their propensity to attack people, but like the Chinua Achebe said, they are holding a knife to the tiny rope that still holds the country together. We hope if the northern groups still have elders, their elders should call them to order.”
Failing to yield to the voice of wisdom, Afenifere said it “may be the beginning of the end of Nigeria, as we know it. In 1967, the north had a coalition to fight the Igbo. But that coalition is no more there today. We know the people that fought the last war and won it. We can boldly speak for the Yoruba nation. Why should the Igbo people be threatened?
“For northerners to tell them to leave the north is sad. If the north thinks they can declare another war against the Igbo, it will not work. If they see any Yoruba man joining them to fight the Igbo, then that person must be a mercenary. The Igbo did not fight any group; neither did they cause any crisis. They only expressed their grievance in a peaceful manner.”
Beyond what might have transpired in the last fortnight, there are three cogent lessons. First, as Prof. John Ayoade once observed, if what people want from an institution is contrary to what the institution can give, the result is at best a blending of processes that work at cross purposes. He, thus, said this appeared “to be part of the problems of Nigerian federalism.”
Likewise, Ayoade, an Emeritus Professor at the University of Ibadan, observed that no federation “is an outfit for command and control by the federal authorities exercising the power of domination.” So, since every federal union is a product of compromise, constitutionalism, the rule of law and political justice, it thus follows that the current federal structure in Nigeria “is no longer sustainable, hence the need for political restructuring.”
As canvassed in an address he gave to mark the 2017 Democracy Day, the Acting President Yemi Osinbajo said Nigeria “belongs to all of us. No one person or group of persons is more important or more entitled than the other in this space that we all call home. We have a responsibility to live in peace and harmony with one another, to seek peaceful and constitutional means of expressing our wishes and desires…”