28-12-2024.

Most of us know why Nigeria got into the mess it is now, but do not understand why the country deserves to be in the messy situation it has unfortunately found itself in.

This is a very serious issue that requires a serious interrogation and answer, not a deluge of lamentations and protestations, suggesting that it is beyond our collective brain power to proffer the appropriate solution. Enough of lamentations and protestations have been made, but the country continues to move backwards, since the regime of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu took control of the steering wheel in the country.

Despite the messy condition of the country, some of the people in the corridors of power at the centre are busy with the matter of returning to power in 2027, instead of working for the country to finish their first term, the outlook of which is very poor at the moment.

Nigeria is indeed into the messy quagmire it is now because of the greed of some of the so called Northern leaders, who would rather have their pockets filled with money (regardless of how and why it came their way), than serve the country diligently and sincerely . Some of the likes of such unpatriotic people are still with the president, despite the pervasive poverty and hunger that have plagued the country since he came to power about two years ago. Nigeria has become a poor nation where multitudes of its poor sleep without food in their stomach.

Such Northern leaders were the ones who collected Presidential candidate Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s money and pocketed it, and directed their cronies and drugged and drunken ‘area boys’ to ensure that Tinubu wins the election at all cost. Now it is payback time, and the entire North is paying with disproportionate interest.

Since the extreme man-made hardship appears to have no end in sight, given the fact that the president insists that his way is the only way, the solution may remain what some of the Northern elites do not want; the North going its separate way. Not totally a bad idea, considering that the president is not leading the whole country equally and squarely. He has his preference, which he made very clear to ‘his people’ in his EMILOKAN Speech. He said it was the turn “of my people, especially me, to rule Nigeria”.

The entire North has not known what the benefits of democracy are since the advent of the current regime. If anything, the region has only woes to contend with, more noticeable in the constant ‘collapse’ of the National Grid (15 times in 2024), which conveniently affects most parts of the region. But the minister in charge of the sector is retained in the cabinet, despite this glaring failure.

There is also the surreptitious manner French soldiers were brought to the North, against the backdrop of their open dismissal from her former African colonies. The denial by the Nigerian Minister of Information (propaganda is a more appropriate description of his job briefs), Alhaji Mohammed. 

Still, there was the revocation of the Abuja to Kano road contact awarded by the immediate past civilian administration, against the backdrop of the Lagos to Calabar Coastal Highway contract, which cost a humongous amount of N15.6 trillion, singlehandedly awarded by the president, without resort to the National Assembly (NASS).

Then the tax reform bill, which is presently before the NASS, but which the president insisted that he was not going back on it, despite the opposition from many quarters trailing it because of the lope sidedness of its eventual implementation to the states in the federation. Plus the apostasy of trying to correct Allah, who justly shared the wealth of the deceased to the inheritors, without including the government, which the Tinubu regime is insisting on.

Since the many in the Southern part of Nigeria believes that the Northern Part is a ‘liability’, forced on the country by the White colonisers, then every side should consider going its own way amicably. Perhaps, some of the Northern elites, alleged to own most of the oil wells in the country and some of the businesses in the South, may expectedly oppose any move towards such a path. 

But no  matter how peaceful the separation may be, IF it comes to pass, it would automatically render such Northerners as foreign business people, who must be subjected to all what foreigners experience, PLUS the added hostility or even contempt or outright hatred, that they may occasionally encounter from the ordinary citizens of that country.

Separation would however, surely suit the purpose of the ethnic religious bigot, Kemi Badenorch, the Nigerian 40-something-year-old-first-black leader of the United Kingdom’s(UK) Conservative Party, who, without mincing her words, expressed unambiguously, her total hatred for Northern Nigeria and the Muslim population therein. She claimed to have “nothing in common with the people from the north of the country”.

According to her, “I find it interesting that everybody defines me as being Nigerian. I identify less with the country than with the specific ethnicity [Yoruba]. That’s what I really am. I have nothing in common with the people from the north of the country, the Boko Haram where the Islamism is. Those were our ethnic enemies and yet you end up being lumped in with those people.”

Kemi is surely entitled to her opinion, but some of the equally educated and enlightened people belonging to her ethnic group, do not subscribe or share her bigotry and racism against their fellow country people. Such people known by this uneducated writer, include Olusegun Adeniyi  and Simon Kolawole, both top notch journalists and writers, among others.

That is not saying that all are against partition. Thera are other tribal irredentists, who are supposed to be highly educated as well as exposed, but are made of the same ethnic bigotry colour as Kemi Badenorc. Most prominent today are the trio of three so called human rights activists, whose activism only manifests when it serves their hidden purpose. They are very quiet now, as against the past, when they always took to protest at the slightest move by the then governments to increase the cost of, or decrease, a service.

It is almost certain that Kemi might try to sell her bigotry against Northern Nigeria to the (her) UK Conservative Party, and advice her adopted country not to do any business with the region, in the event that it becomes an independent nation.

Many of the citizens of the ‘new’ nation would have no problem with that, since past relationship would have been severed between the two nations. Just the way the Tory leader wants it, probably.

Anyway, peaceful break up in Nigeria would not be a pioneer event in the world. Nations have broken up amicably, with each sides going separate ways with identities suitable to them. Pakistan broke away from India, and the two countries have today developed into two separate atomic and economic powerhouses that must be reckoned with in the world. India is considered a powerhouse in population, mathematics and high tech, while Pakistan is also renown for Information Technology (IT) drastic poverty reduction and production of cotton.

A trending Tik Tok video clip gives more insight into several breakups that were hitch free, but turned out to be of immense benefit to both of the countries that embarked on the new journey of statehood. According to the the video documentary (apparently sponsored), “The USA 

split from the UK in 1776, and the has since developed into one of the leading economies in the world. Belgium too, separated from the Netherlands in 1830 and has strived since then. And who can forget Singapore who have split from Malaysia in 1965 allowed it to transform into a global financial hub.

“One might argue that separation is a healthy competition for development. Cases in point are Singapore and Malaysia, India and Pakistan and the triad of Norway, Denmark and Switzerland. Each of these separations has led into a surge of development, with each nation striving to outdo the others.

“In the course of history, several nations have chosen the path of peaceful separation. East Timor, for instance, split off from Indonesia in 2002, marking a new chapter in its history. Similarly, Ireland severed ties with the United Kingdom in 1921, leading to the establishment of Irish Free State. In 1944, Iceland chose to peacefully separate from Denmark, demonstrating that nations could part ways without resorting to violence.

“This tradition of peaceful separation is also evident in 1905, when Norway and Sweden decided to go their separate ways. One of the most notable examples however, is the partition of the British India Dominion, into India and Pakistan in 1947. Although plagued by communal violence, the actual process of partition was carried out through peaceful means, highlighting that even in the most challenging circumstances, peaceful separation is possible, fostering an environment of respect and mutual understanding for each other.

“But let us not that separation is not about war, it is the recognition that when a union no longer serves its purpose and making the decision to oft out, just like Ireland did with United Kingdom in 1921, and as Iceland did in 1944 with Denmark with remarkable ease. It is about giving peace a chance in separating honourably.

“Countries have also found out power by rejecting the names given to them by colonisers. Burma became Myanmar, Upper Volta transformed into Burkina Faso and Gold Coast emerged as Ghana. Each of these nations took control of their identities, and in doing so, set the stage for their own development.

“So what does it mean for Nigeria? It could mean that a peaceful separation is the key to resolving the ethnicity crisis and spurring economic development. It could mean that a friendly competition between the North, West and East, could lead to significant progress for all.

“In summary, history shows us that peaceful separation can lead to economic growth and resolution of ethnic crisis. It shows us that there is nothing wrong with opting out of a union that no longer serves its purpose, and doing so can in fact lead to a surge in growth and development. It shows us that taking control of one’s identity as many countries have done by rejecting their colonial names, can be a powerful catalyst for change.

“This then could be the roadmap for solving the Nigerian ethnicity crisis and spurring economic development. It is a path that requires courage and conviction, but one that could lead to a brighter future for all Nigerians.

“As we continue our exploration we must understand that this proposition is not just a call for separation, but a comprehensive plan. A clarion call for Nigeria to embark on a transformative journey. The potential benefits of restructuring and restructuring are vast, and they include lasting peace, regional autonomy and collective prosperity.

“This transformative journey is about acknowledging the past, understanding the present and shaping a better future. It is recognising the fact that unity does not necessarily mean uniformity, but can also mean diversity in unity. It is about understanding that separation does not necessarily mean disintegration, but could also mean restructuring for better functionality.

“As we move forward, it is better for Nigeria to  consider this possibility, to weigh the potential benefits against the potential drawbacks and to make decision that serves the best interest of its people. It is not just a journey for Nigeria, but also a journey for every Nigerian, a journey towards a brighter future and a journey towards a new down”.

Meanwhile, the sanity of presidents who by their slight play of hand, want to supervise the break up of their countries, need to be looked at. Sane politicians do not act that way, least of all in their first term in office, and still expect to sail through for another term. More so a first term that was characterised by misrule, mismanagement, corruption, and ineptitude in the country.  But the president of Nigeria keeps doing just that, and enjoying it, from all indications.

The documentary on  the ‘merits’ of Nigeria’s break up, may have been sponsored by a Northerner, a Western or an Easterner. Whoever may be behind it, the case may be a better option for the North, because the ‘demerits’ involved, cannot be any worse for the region than things are at the moment. After all, Poverty and hunger do not respect political affiliation, nor do they respect any of the traditional fault lines that threaten the existence of a monolithic North.

May God help his Nigerian servants, by removing their tormentors from the position that gives them the opportunity to be wickedly most of the times. May He give the leadership to those who fear him, but not the weak ones among them, like the writer of this article.

Malumfashi wrote from Katsina.