Non-Negotiability And Indissolubility Of Nigeria: CNG And Plebiscite As Panacea To Separatist Agitation
In reaction to the agitations for secession and self-determination, the CNG first filed a suit in June 2021 at the Abuja High Court, asking the National Assembly and the Attorney General to halt the ongoing constitutional review exercise and conduct a plebiscite on the agitations for secession and self-determination. The CNG plaintiffs – Abdul-Azeez Suleiman, Nastura Ashir Shariff, Aminu Adam and Balarabe Rufai – joined the Attorney General of the Federation, Abubakar Malami; the Senate President, Ahmad Lawan; The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila; and the NASS; as defendants. Justice Inyang Ekwo was assigned to hear the case and November 1, 2021, was fixed for the hearing.
The defendants are required to provide a framework allowing for self-determination by the various agitators. The court did not sit because the judge had other pressing official assignments, and the case was adjourned to 20th January 2022. On this day, the Yoruba group and Efik ethnic nationalities asked to be joined to the CNG suit. Unfortunately, again, the judge was indisposed and another date for hearing was fixed for 14th March 2022. With the new joinders in the suit, 20 May 2022 was re-fixed for hearing the case. In the words of the presiding judge, Justice Inyang Ekwo, ‘it would be neater if all the five applications for joinder are taken once and it would give us opportunity to amend and process because after parties have been joined, we need to amend and process to reflect those parties that have been joined.’
Without doubt, the rationale for the CNG going to court is noteworthy. Abdul-Azeez Suleiman, the CNG spokesperson, has it that ‘what we are doing is to save the country, ourselves, and the future of the country, because these people are becoming violent already. Most of the people engaged in this activity are below 50. So, if we allow our leaders to leave us with these people in this situation, there may be another bloodshed or civil war. That is what we want to avoid, which is why we came to court to interpret the situation.’
National Unity: The Militating Obstacles
Many observers of political governance in Nigeria generally look at macro-economic factors to explain why Nigeria cannot develop and why politics is generally fraught with corruption and chicanery. To an extent, the factors do explain in part Nigeria’s development setbacks, because Nigeria is not administered in such a way as to enable her to develop, and the reasons cannot be far-fetched.
The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) scheme was put in place on 22nd May 1973, following the 1967-1970 civil war, as a mechanism for reconciliation, reconstruction and rebuilding the country. The ultimate objective is to promote national togetherness. However, a nonsense has been made of it as at today. Interest of corpers in wanting to serve outside of their own regions of the country has dwindled unlike when it was first established.
There is also the Federal Character principle, which was first provided for in the 1979 Constitution to ensure that all appointments in the various Ministries, Departments, Agencies (MDAs) of Government reflect equity, fairness, and justice in representation.
As constitutionally provided, the Federal Character Principle and the quota system is ‘to ensure equitable distributions of bureaucratic and political roles in the public service at the Federal, State, and Local Government levels. The principle has been much honoured in breaches than in adherence to it. And true enough, it is precisely President Muhammadu Buhari (PMB) who is the guiltiest of this. He appoints his ethnic men everywhere without due regard to the principle. When the public complained about PMB’s nepotism and his don’t care attitude, it is argued that PMB can appoint whoever he desires, but this cannot but be to the detriment of the Federal Character Principle. PMB himself told Nigerians that he appoints only the people he knows.
While the CNG’s suit in the court has the potential to address the problems of secession, resource control, self-determination possibly without the use of force, it should be noted here that the problem of maladministration of federalism is more critical than the agitations for separation in the southern parts of Nigeria. If truth be told, the agitations for secession are prompted by the Federal Government’s decision to always turn deaf ears to the calls for true federalism. This is what is critically militating against national unity and progress. Nigeria is not running a true federal system.
For instance, on the issue of structure of government, the Federal Government is trying to make the Local Government autonomous of the State Government, while the State Governors argue that, under a normal federal system, the Local Government cannot exist independently of the State. In this regard, on Thursday, March 10, 2022, at the 2-day Multi-stakeholders Meeting for Furtherance of Peace and Inclusive Security in Nigeria, held in Abuja, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, Governor of Ekiti State and Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, noted that ‘the principle of federalism is very clear about federating units. Local Government, as a federating unit, is a unique innovation in Nigeria… Local Government autonomy is the business of the State, because the State is the federating unit; in most federating countries that you have, it is a two-tier system, you have the Federal and you have the State.’
Thus, he is opposed to autonomy of Local Governments in Nigeria, but this is not in tandem with the Local Government workers who are asking for autonomy of the Local Governments, especially financial autonomy. Many aspects of political governance that normally should be under the concurrent list, if not within the domestic competence of the constitutive States of Nigeria, are unnecessarily put under the Exclusive List for the Federal Government. Indeed, this makes a nonsense of federalism as a system of government.
Another important issue is State Police. The 1999 Constitution as amended provides for Federal Police. The State governors are said to be the Chief Security Officers of their States. However, all the Commissioners of Police in the various States report directly to the Inspector General of Police in Abuja. This does not exist under a normal federal system. Opponents of State police argued that politicians would abuse it, but Dr. Fayemi has explained that he would not make ‘an excuse that such powers in the hands of some local actors may not be abused. The Federal Police that we all know abuse the rights of citizens, including the rights of governors, even with immunity.’ More interestingly, he said he was ‘abused by (a) federal police in 2014 during (his) election, and (he) had immunity. It could happen even if you devolve security even to the local level.’
It is within the context of lack of true federalism that there have been agitations for self-determination, resource control, secession, and political restructuring. It is also within the agitations that PMB has vehemently argued that Nigeria’s national unity is not negotiable, and that Nigeria is indissoluble. And most importantly, it is within this context that the Coalition of Northern Groups (CNG) is quite right in referring the matter to the court to seek a plebiscite to determine the fate of secessionists and proponents of self-determination, and by so doing paving the way for further negotiations.
The Yoruba Southwest appreciate this. Timilehin Odunwo, counsel to the Yoruba group, said ‘any call for a referendum should cut across the board of all tribes. Let every tribe have the right to determine whether to live in the country or to move out. As you know, self-determination is a very sacrosanct right of every citizen and tribe as it is recognized by the international community. Therefore, it is incumbent on the NASS, if our application is granted, to let everybody decide whether to stay or leave. You cannot force an unwilling tribe on a wiling nation. It will not work.’
And perhaps more interestingly, the Agreement amalgamating Nigeria was done in 1914 for 99 years. The agreement expired in 2014. If leaders of Nigeria were and are not myopically selfish, efforts should have been made, at least five years before the expiration of the agreement to sensitize everyone on the need for sustainability of the agreement if it was organised. And very likely, a referendum might have doused the increasing tension in the land
In this regard, while some Nigerians are seeking peaceful approaches to the national dispute, PMB is talking in rigid, absolute terms of indissolubility and non-negotiability of national unity, and by so doing, further complicating the problem. But good enough, the idea of holding a plebiscite is increasingly gaining ground. For instance, the apex Yoruba self-determination organization, the Ilana Omo Oodua, led by Professor Banji Akintoye, filed two suits against the holding of governorship polls in Ekiti and Osun States later in June and July 2022. One suit was filed in Ado Ekiti while the other suit was filed in Oshogbo simultaneously.
The Ilana Omo Oodua posits that without having a referendum, ‘which absolutely is an essential part in the process of making a constitution, the 1999 Constitution is illegal, invalid and no effect whatsoever.’ The organization is therefore seeking a court declaration that the 1999 Constitution as amended is illegal and invalid (Daily Sun March 17, p.6; The Punch, March 17, p.8). If truly the PMB administration does not want another civil war and bloodshed, a court declaration as sought by the CNG is a welcome development. PMB should simply encourage the organization of a plebiscite without having to wait for any court judgment on it or waiting for the agitators to make a case based on the court judgment.
What is unbelievable but true is that the principle of self-determination in international law and relations has become a fait accompli that is generally adhered to. If there is a court pronouncement, favourable or otherwise, it will be a good step forward in building a stronger Nigeria. A plebiscite cannot but be the major determinant of national unity and the extent to which national unity is non-negotiable and indissoluble.
National Unity: Plebiscite as Panacea
Two major reasons that appear to explain why the Federal Government is not much interested in enabling a true federal system to be put in place are well known. First is the fear of loosing hegemonic control of the polity. In this regard, until 1999, leadership of the country was provided by Northern Nigerians. When there was a change in situation with the election of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, a southerner, several privileges that normally go with political power could not be readily enjoyed by vested northern stakeholders, hence the struggle for power to return to the North.
Secondly, Government, PMB in particular, does not appreciate the factor of inseparability of democracy and sovereignty. If democracy is government of the people, by the people, and for the people, sovereignty cannot be different. It is the authority exercised by the people, delegated to Government to be exercised on its behalf. CNG’s suit in the court is essentially about democracy and sovereignty, a very complex concept.
As clearly explained by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the people are always the bearer of sovereign power. Put differently, sovereignty can neither be inherited nor separable from the people. In fact, sovereignty is variously addressed in constitutional law, philosophy, law history and political system. The implication is that an elected president who is acting based on delegated sovereignty cannot substitute the people with himself or its government.
We are not unaware of the fact that the 1999 Constitution provides for non-negotiability of national unity and indissolubility of Nigeria. The framers of the Constitution, even though they were most unpatriotic and dishonest by purporting that the 1999 Constitution was nationally agreed to, considered national unity and indissolubility of Nigeria as a desideratum by the time of the making of the Constitution. The environmental dynamics of the time might have lent credence to the insertion of the clause. The Constitution can be accepted as having been made on behalf of the people if the people had been carried along through a referendum after constitutional drafting. Most unfortunately, however, it was a constitution made and imposed by fiat. There was no referendum to back it up.
Unfortunately, too, fraud, dishonesty and corruption constitute the triangular pillars on which Nigeria’s political governance is predicated. Politicians freely operate like motor vehicle panel beaters. Instead of frontally confronting the well-known problems militating against national development and unity, they prefer to panel beat the problems. If the Constitution provides for non-negotiable national unity in 1999, it does not mean that such provision cannot be taken back to the people for reconsideration. The Constitution, like many others, are always subject to periodic reviews, amendments, and modifications.
Nigerians believe that the 1999 Constitution is militarily made and militarily imposed, and therefore, very undemocratic, and very fraudulent. Rather than have a people-driven constitution, Government prefers to make modifications on a controversial Constitution, which has largely underlined the agitation for separation in Nigeria. This is why the CNG’s suit is appropriate, patriotic and can go a long way in preventing the deterioration of the national misunderstanding.
Without any iota of doubt, referendum, also referred to as plebiscite in international law and relations, is a process of consultation of people to be annexed following the cession of territories, to pronounce on whether to be annexed. The early applications of the principle dated back to the time of French Revolution when France wanted to annex Comtat-Venaissin and Avignon in 1791, as well as Savoie, Mulhouse, Hainaut and Rhénanie in 1792. In the mid-19th Century, the Principle of Nationality also came into being. It was adopted to promote national unity in many parts of Europe and the promotion took the form of plebiscite: total unity of Italy, 1860-1870; In France, every territorial acquisition is confirmed by plebiscite: annexation of Comté de Nice. By that time, Anglo-Saxon and Germanic countries were very hostile to the application of plebiscite. For example, Prussia never executed the plebiscite clause provided in Article 5 of the Treaty of Prague of 23 August 1866, which stipulated plebiscite for Slesvig which was detached from Denmark two years earlier.
In contemporary times, even though the Versailles Peace Treaty of 1919 largely provided for the institution of plebiscite, the principle has not been systematically applied. The 1919 Treaty avoided the application of plebiscite regarding the restitution of Alsace Lorraine to France. The treaty also prohibited the annexation of Austria to Germany, the annexation of Tyrol meridional by Italy, etc.
Many points are noteworthy about plebiscites. First, in general practice, no cession of territory is legally valid without the express consent of the occupants of the territory to be ceded. For instance, Article 53(3) of the 1958 French Constitution so provides. This explains the importance of holding plebiscites. Second is that plebiscites are of three categories: plebiscites aimed at ratification following cession of territory; evolution from open to secret voting (Avignon in 1790, Nice and Savoie in 1860, Eupen and Malmédy in 1920); and evolution from free plebiscite to a controlled plebiscite which can be done collectively by an international Commission or by a neutral State. In all the cases, the people of the territory to be ceded are always given the option to retain the citizenship of the ceding State or that of the acquiring State. Third, plebiscite is simply about asking the people to respond yes or no to a given question: to be or not to be annexed and this brings us to the United Nations referendum in Nigeria.
“On 11 February 1961, the United Nations held a referendum in the then British Cameroons whether the territory should join Cameroun or Nigeria. Southern British Cameroun voted to join Cameroun while the Northern British Cameroun opted for Nigeria. Plebiscite is therefore not new to Nigeria. The CNG is asking for it again in its suit. Interrogatively put, how many south westerners want an Oduduwa Republic? Are the Yoruba leaders truly representing the popular interest of their people? Do the Ohanaeze leaders want a State of Biafra? Do they enjoy the support of the MASSOB, IPOB, MEND, etc? If a plebiscite is conducted and majority of the people are not favourably disposed to secession, what then happens? If the outcome is in favour of secession, what then also happens? Will there be a fresh national referendum to accept or reject the votes for secession by the affected people? What will be the place of self-determination? Without any scintilla of doubt, the tenability of the arguments of indissolubility and non-negotiability of national unity cannot but be largely determined by the answers to the foregoing questions. Our position here is that Nigeria is quite dissoluble, and her unity is very negotiable. Everything depends on the wishes of the people. National unity should not be enforced by manu militari or by hot war which has never succeeded in suppressing self-determination. Let therefore be better governance, fairness, justice, that is completely devoid of political chicanery and nepotism. Let there be persuasion about the goodness in a strongly united and vibrant Nigeria before holding referenda. Plebiscites are panacea and can open the doors of solutions to Nigeria’s problems.” Attachments area
