Odumegwu Ojukwu, a prophet, perhaps?
Today, as we mark Democracy Day, I couldnt help but think, that with the benefit of hindsight, if Ojukwu’s core demands as articulated in the Aburi Accord had been adopted with some CRITICAL modifications, Nigeria would have stood far more advanced today, across virtually .l’;x every indicator of national development and prosperity.
Come with me
Ojukwo advocated for genuine regional autonomy; control over local resources, security arrangements and governance, while preserving a loose national framework for common services like defense, foreign affairs, and currency.
Had these ideas been faithfully implemented, we may not have been witnessing insecurity on the scale we see today. The so-called herder-farmer clashes, banditry, terrorism and kidnappings. Communal invasion and massacres by Fulani militias would likely not have happened not to even witness its metastasization to the level it is now.
Regional control over policing and resource management would have allowed tailored responses to local realities rather than the one-size-fits-all federal approach that often exacerbates tensions (that is why I am an ardent supporter of Tinubu’s relentless push for State policing).
Even arrangements like the ECOWAS Protocol on Free Movement of Goods and Persons (including transhumance of cattle) could have been negotiated and implemented regionally, with each sub national, setting terms suited to its ecology, economy, and security needs; preventing the unchecked cross border and inter regional frictions thereby mitigating the deadly flashpoints that have turned my region, the Middle Belt, into a theater of endless conflict now. But most importantly, the evil civil war may have been averted.
On the other hand, if the Aburi Accord was implemented as it was, it would have inadvertently be catastrophic for my region and my people. That was why I stated that its implementation with CRITICAL structural modifications would have been more ideal for us because our complex diversity required even finer accommodations to protect minority rights. In that pre-crisis era, Nigeria comprised four regions with distinct leadership and character;
1) Northern Region (Sir Ahmadu Bello, succeeded in the military era by figures like Hassan Katsina) the largest, with Hausa-Fulani and Kanuri majorities dominating the core North
2) Western Region (Administrator: Col. Adekunle Fajuyi, later Col. Robert Adebayo); Yoruba majority.
3) Eastern Region (Governor: Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu), Igbo majority.
4) Mid-Western Region (Governor: Col. David Ejoor), carved out of the Western Region in 1963 to accommodate Edo, Bini, Delta, and other groups.
As seen in the map attached, our region was under the monolithic Northern Region. This lumping inflicted deep structural marginalization on northern minorities; predominantly Middle Belt peoples with Christian, traditional, and distinct cultural identities.
That was why our fathers agitated for a Middle Belt region with distinct identity through different forums because they saw through the “One North” myth. It was primarily a political instrument for maintaining bloc voting power and dominance at the federal level but in practice, the core North often regarded these minorities as useful appendages, mobilized for “northern solidarity” when convenient, but denied equitable access to power, resources, and autonomous development.
The core North only dangle federal “carrots” to few leaders from our region to maintain semblance of inclusiveness. Our southern friends may not fully grasp the depth of this marginalization, the historical denial of equal status, the cultural erasure, and the repeated use of minorities as political cannon fodder.
Recent rhetoric from some northern politicians, warning that a northern christian running mate to President Tinubu would constitute his political suicide, confirms this reality . “One North” was never truly one in spirit or equity.
Ironically, since the advent of military and civilian rule, especially since the 80s, Nigerians across regions have been agitating for a loose federalism. We’ve held many conferences and forums where the core takeaways from participants were RESTRUCTURING. All of a sudden, Nigeria seems to agree with some of the principled stances of Ojukwu, that were rejected.
But I could understand the mind of the young nation then. Many players believed they were patriotic by fighting to keep Nigeria “one” as bequeathed by the colonial masters. While there may be some hidden motives or even conspiracies as to why some wanted “one” Nigeria at all costs, the question some participants may be thinking now is at what costs? Were they more patriotic than Ojukwu? What defined patriotism at that critical juncture of our history? Preservation of lives and continuation of negotiations, or fighting to preserve the notion of federalism? Many questions
The best path forward for Nigeria’s future, and for the prosperity of our children, is the establishment of a very loose federalism. It need not be full confederation, but we must deliberately incorporate its key benefits in critical sectors: resource control, sub national security architecture, primary and secondary education curricula reflecting local realities, and fiscal autonomy that rewards productivity and innovation rather than rewarding dependency and patronage.
Such a structure would foster healthy competition among sub nationals, reduce the winner-takes-all stakes at the center, minimize ethnic suspicions, and unlock the creative and economic energies long suppressed by over centralization.
Perhaps, Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, was a “prophet who saw tomorrow”
D.G. Makai
Dear Readers, Good and credible news reportage is tedious task and requires huge finances.
We are soliciting your Noble support for as low as N1,000 your support would go a long way in assisting us to continue to guarantee our readers quality news.
Bank transfers can be made to:
Account Name: Harvest and Commercial
Bank: Sterling Bank
Account Number: 0078627735