So then, when and how do we ‘divide’ Nigeria? (I)

This goes to the tribe of we-must-divide Nigerians and their variants who hold firmly to the belief that Nigeria was a ‘’Lugardian mistake and contraption’’ and a mere ‘’geographical expression’’ which can be remedied only by its division into the nation-states that presently constitute it.

Over the decades the purveyors have been making this call repeatedly quite often with a magisterial disposition that the idea has begin to gain ground without a robust counter argument.

When we are done with the rhetoric, we will do well to examine the issue critically, in order to separate the merits if any and the fallacies for clearer understanding.

First, it is a historical fact when the British came to these shores what existing entities they met were weak and not in a state to offer any resistance to their diplomacy and firepower. From the coastal Niger Delta states to the Yoruba through the entities of central Nigeria and up to the Sokoto Caliphate, all succumbed one by one to the conquering might of British maxim guns. By 1903 following the defeat of the forces of the caliphate the land we now call Nigeria was well and truly a conquered colony and its inhabitants subject to the British crown. What remained after this was the administrative arrangements to govern the territory under British terms and convenience which was not subject to negotiation.

One of the many administrative arrangements the British enacted was the 1914 amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates. Contrary to what has been peddled about, the terms of the amalgamation was not witnessed and signed by any Nigerian potentate. There was also no time frame given for its expiry as is being bandied about. The fact is the British left Nigeria in 1960 and ipso facto whatever terms attached to the 1914 amalgamation had lapsed and replaced by the terms and conditions of the independence constitution which was negotiated and agreed by the representatives of the various Nigerian regions in the UK.

So where did the idea that the year 2014 which was exactly 100 years since the amalgamation Nigeria’s, was the terminal year of the existence of Nigeria per the amalgamation?

Another argument is that Nigeria is a ‘’mere geographical expression’’ which is taken to mean that within the geographical boundaries of Nigeria as presently constituted are entities existing at a mutually exclusive relationship with one another and can hardly wait to opt out of the ‘’contraption’’ called Nigeria that continues to fuse them together against their will.

It is true that Nigeria like all countries of the world are geographical expressions to the extent that they have defined geographical boundaries. It is also true that the entities that make up present day Nigeria are always in one form of conflict with one another owing to differences and contradictions in culture, history, development, resource endowments etc.

But then Nigeria is not the only country in the world with such complexities. We can cite countless countries in the world that have even more complex conditions than Nigeria’s. Let us begin with Britain. It was invaded and conquered in 1066 by Scandinavian-French Norsemen from Normandy. Before then, Britain came under the rule of the Romans and waves of invaders from northern Europe namely Denmark, Germany etc. Of course, all these invaders met the indigenous Celts who are the Irish, Scots and Welsh peoples of the United Kingdom. Same can be said of France which is the name of the Germanic tribe the Franks that conquered and ruled over the indigenous Gauls, another Celtic tribe. France also came under Roman rule and was invaded by waves of Scandinavian tribes.  Germany also is composed of hundreds of tribes, like the Bavarians, Swabians, Franks, Badeners, Hessians, Rhinelanders, Westphalians, Saxons, Holsteners, Prussians etc.

Russia was also conquered and established by Scandinavians and its first ruler Rurik was from Sweden and the name Russia is an adaptation.

What about Indonesia with its thousands of Islands and ethnic groups and India too? China, Malaysia, Pakistan and Philippines?

A common theme that runs through most of these countries is that they were founded or established by outsiders. It is also a fact that these countries took up the challenges of geography, cultural imposition and contradictions and established the conditions for national development.

So where did the argument that Nigeria’s complexities are unique to it only and that because of that Nigeria must be broken and divided into manageable ethnic bits and pieces, emanate? Is it realistic? Is it even feasible?

The next phase of the conversation is that granted without conceding that Nigeria is indeed a ‘’mere geographical expression’’ and that having proven impossible to manage over the years, the best thing left is for the country to be divided, how then can this be done realistically and conveniently without anyone getting hurt or creating yet more problems than we seek to resolve? This is the critical question that the we-must-divide Nigeria tribe have found difficult to provide a convincing answer to. And yet this is the kernel of the matter to which we must square the circle. How we approach the answer to this question will determine whether we are indeed serious about the issue or whether as it is with similar issues of national import we are just engaging in our well-known proclivity for grandstanding without substance.

In this regard, we should go back to our history to find out when the issue first reared its head and the lessons gleaned from our experiences. (To be continued)

Gadu can be reached via [email protected]  and 08035355706 (texts only).