Restructure Nigeria or dismantle it By Dr. Remi Adekoya

It is interesting to see Olusegun Obasanjo who in 2017 said the only thing that needs restructuring is the “Nigerian mind” now join those calling for Nigeria to be restructured. “We should not allow restructuring agitation degenerate to self-determination. There is still a window of opportunity for us to nip in the bud a possible and indeed likely agitation for self-determination that will be violent, destructive and all-empowering,” said Obasanjo last weekend. As a soldier who played a prominent role in the civil war, Obasanjo has long been a champion of the “Nigeria’s unity is non-negotiable” mantra that seeks to shut down debate over whether Nigeria makes sense as is. It is worth noting he too now sees the writing on the wall.

Nigeria is now a car in reverse gear. In 1980, 27 percent of Nigerians lived in poverty, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. Forty years later, the figure is 70 percent. If that is not moving backwards, then I don’t know what is. Add growing insecurity plus a long list of seemingly intractable problems and only the truly delusional or the truly rich can believe Nigeria has a future as presently designed. The only thing the continued existence of Nigeria in its current form guarantees is the perpetuation of human suffering. More poverty, more unemployment, more insecurity. No socioeconomic indicator or evidence on the ground suggests otherwise. Even if done in good intention, it is a crime against humanity to continue Nigeria as is.


So, what to do with this colonial experiment 200 million people now find themselves stuck in? The answer cannot be given lightly for while it is easy to tap buttons on a laptop, one must always be conscious that people’s lives and livelihoods are what is at stake here. Everyone from president to plumber knows Nigeria is not working, what people are less sure about is how exactly to get out of this mess alive and with prospects for the future.


Some Nigerians are unimpressed with the calls for restructuring which has also become a mantra of its own. They say any reorganisation, which would almost inevitably involve decentralisation, won’t solve the problem of corruption in Nigerian governance. In fact, all it will do is strengthen the hands of regional godfathers, making Tinubu et al even more powerful and unaccountable in their spheres of influence. Others say many Nigerian states are not economically viable and would likely end up returning, hat in hand, to the federal government, which would be forced to bail them out or risk their total collapse and ensuing chaos.


These are all valid points, and no one can truly predict the results of a restructured and decentralised Nigeria. But what can be predicted with certainty is the result of leaving Nigeria as it is: more of the same. A country cannot exist merely for the purpose of existing. Countries exist as vehicles meant to transport their citizen-passengers from point A to point B. Point A is the widespread poverty, underdevelopment and insecurity all countries in history have started from. Point B is the widespread wealth, economic development and security some countries have arrived at. But the vehicle named Nigeria is further from point B today than it was a generation ago.


When post-colonial Nigeria’s ethnic cracks began to show in the 1960s, Obafemi Awolowo argued that while there was “no such thing as a Nigerian nation”, the economic potential of the country made it worth keeping together in the interests of its inhabitants. This remains a compelling argument. Nigeria could be reorganised into something resembling the European Union; an economic bloc of politically autonomous states organised on a voluntary basis. Membership in this economic bloc would entail limitations on political sovereignty just as it does in the EU. These days, all political units have to sacrifice aspects of their sovereignty for access to markets.


If the southeast of Nigeria were to gain the political autonomy many of its inhabitants seem to desire, would those same inhabitants still want to be able to trade freely in and with Lagos and Kano? Of course, they would. There would be a price to pay for that in terms of adhering to certain rules within the Nigerian Union. But this time it would be a voluntary price, not one imposed by a foreign colonial power. That would bring with it a completely different psychological dynamic. No Igbo or Yoruba would be able to say they are being forced into a union with the Fulanis and vice-versa. Neither would any Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw or Efik leader be able to blame lack of development in their areas on “Abuja” and “Fulani cliques.” In the eyes of their people, the buck would generally stop with them, increasing chances of accountability and them having to work harder to maintain popular support.


Would it be easy? Of course not. But is living in today’s Nigeria any easier? Some will scoff that Nigeria would quickly descend into civil war in such a scenario. But to believe that is to believe the old colonialist argument that Nigerians and Africans in general are somehow instinctively primed for violence once the grip on them is loosened. Truth is that violence in Africa has usually been a reaction to oppression not to the attainment of freedom from it. Nigeria in its current form is built on oppression, freedom from that is more likely to yield widespread relief than widespread violence.


But, as Obasanjo rightly warns, the continued lack of freedom from the oppression of the Nigerian state is likely to lead to violent agitations for self-determination that could easily spiral out of control. In effect, those resisting calls for restructuring on the premise they are doing it to keep Nigeria together are actually dismantling it by driving people apart in anger and frustration at the realities of the country. In this century, one way or the other, this poverty-producing factory will be rethought, reimagined and reconstructed. By God, let it be done peacefully.



REMI ADEKOYA