By Kayode Emola
I am sure many of us would have heard the phrase, “Let my people go” time and again, in a variety of different circumstances. When people aspire to free themselves from a stronghold, they often appeal to conscience and consciousness for them to be free.
Even Almighty God said the same to the Pharoah of Egypt: “Let My People Go” when the Israelites wanted to leave Egypt and Pharoah would not acquiesce. Since then, this sentence has become an anthem employed across the world and throughout history, by many peoples struggling to free themselves from oppression by a supposedly superior power.
In Nigeria, this cry takes on a different perspective, as the indigenous people are not seeking to leave the land in which they are dwelling. They already reside in the land that has belonged to their ancestors for generations and millennia. Rather, they seek a different direction in governance from the one currently being witnessed in Nigeria.
Election of a new president brings its various challenges, as the president will always belong to one specific region or ethnic nationality and in Nigeria how do you determine that region, especially when it is not enshrined in the constitution.
Take for instance the European Union (EU): it practices a rotational presidency among its member states, yet this does not mean that the president has the right to dictate the governance of each member state. Every country still maintains their own autonomy in their individual way.
Similarly, in Switzerland, the president is not the head of state. Its seven members council serve as the collective head of state and government of Switzerland composed of the major political parties, and language regions. The president of the Swiss Confederation chairs the Federal council, but exercises no particular authority. Furthermore, the position of president rotates among the seven councillors annually.
The above examples, the EU and Switzerland, demonstrate a method of governance that has worked for their citizens for decades, and even now, continues to do so. Nigeria, too, used to operate as a confederation, until 1966 when the military took over power and forcibly overturned the negotiated agreement. The hostile nature of this imposition should now form the basis for allowing the people to decide whether to continue using the enforced unification of peoples that begets Nigeria, or whether an alternative mode of governance is desired.
It is undeniable that the numerous attempts to bind together the socio-cultural entities comprising Nigeria have not succeeded. This has often led to suspicion on the part of the people for their government and how they are being governed. The government, likewise, does little to conceal the fact that it cares less about how the citizens are being maltreated.
The rising cry for independence by the Biafrans, Yorubas and other ethnic nationalities within Nigeria has reached a peak so loud that if attention is not paid now, an all-out civil war is likely to break out.
Even just this week, the group known as the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) has called for a seven day sit-at-home from third to tenth of July, protesting the ongoing incarceration of their leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu.
Consequently, a prominent Ijaw political figure, Asari Dokubo, has added his voice to the cry of the Biafran people, asking president Tinubu and the national assembly to make provision for them to withdraw from Nigeria peacefully.
Whilst Dokubo may not be wrong, it would be erroneous to assume that the Biafran people are the only nationality disgruntled about the country’s direction. I believe the time is well past due for a genuine heart-to-heart conversation regarding the direction in which Nigeria is headed.
None of the individual ethnic nationality or groups in Nigeria sat down and agreed to merge together. The amalgamation was instigated at the behest of the British government, forcibly fusing like and unlike people together, paying no regard to their culture or traditions.
Undoubtedly, these socio-cultural differences could have been overcome if there was a genuine sense of brotherhood among the people and the willingness to work together for the greater good of the citizens. However, over the last 100 years this dream of a united Nigeria has consistently eluded the people of the country; so it is safe to say that this experiment has failed, and that it is time to decommission the country.
It would be far better to have an open dialogue on how the country can be dissolved peacefully than to be facing an all-out civil war, with its tally of thousands, if not millions, of innocent lives lost.
It is for this reason that I urge the decision makers in Nigeria to thoroughly assess the ongoing situation, seeking a means of peaceful resolution rather than acting as if the problem will just disappear. The struggle for freedom and emancipation will never just disappear merely because the people have found temporary relief. As long as Nigeria remains as one entity, there can never be trust; and where there is no trust, the people cannot prosper.
Therefore, it is imperative that we all come together, advocating unanimously for a change in direction. This change is not composed of one ethnic nationality dictating the terms whilst every other nationality must do their bidding. It is a change where everyone will desire to live as a respectable citizen of their nation. As Nigeria cannot offer this to its citizens, it is time to dissolve this failed state, and to create a country or countries that can.
