What does the North want?

This piece is not a response to the North’s position on the National Conference. I believe every individual or group has the right to respond to the conference as they deem necessary. Rather, it seeks to address the crisis of identity which is at the root of the Nigerian tragedy.

Who are we? What is Nigeria? The answer to these questions can help us understand the various issues confronting us as a country and what our responses have been, whether it is the politics of oil, religion or geo-political space.

There is nothing new about the comments of those who claim to represent the North. If we look at developments in pre-independence Nigeria, the North’s response to the Unification Decree No. 34 of May 24, 1966, by the military junta led by Maj.-Gen. Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi, or the introduction of Sharia law in some states in the North, historically, the North has always been in favour of political autonomy and fiscal federalism. It is strange, therefore, that there is so much angst in the North when it comes to the issue of autonomy and fiscal federalism.

When we listen to people talk about the “North” in Nigeria, what exactly are they talking about? Is it a people bound by a common religion, culture, history or geography? Are there really “Northerners” in the sense that there are Fulani, Hausas, Jukun, Tiv, Igbo, Egon Yoruba, Ijaw, Efik, etc? I assume that just as the Afenifere Renewal Group and Odu’a People’s Congress can’t claim to represent the West, Ohaneze Ndigbo and the Biafra Zionist Federation can’t claim to represent the East, the NEF and the ACF can’t claim to represent the North.

Which people or what interest do our northern hegemonists represent? That of the major ethnicities in the North or that of a particular religion?  Will the proponents of the theory of the North accept, for example, a President David Mark or Bukola Saraki – not that I wish for either man to come anywhere near the Presidency – as truly representative of the North?

I don’t know what goes on in the minds of the likes of Usman Bugaje, Junaid Mohammed and their fellow travellers in the NEF and ACF when they have to refer to themselves as Nigerians or when they see Nigerians who are not from the North. They approbate and reprobate at the same time. Bugaje, for example, appropriates 72 per cent of Nigeria for his North; the NEF talks about the “exploitation and management of ITS OWN (emphasis mine) human and other resources,” yet, they deny other people the right to lay claim to “their land” and its resources!

The political and intellectual class in northern Nigeria talks and acts as if the North is a separate country from the rest of Nigeria. But the North, just as the concept of the West and the East, is a myth; a convenient alibi for those who seek to perpetually keep Nigeria disunited in the promotion of their personal agenda.

Of course, northern Nigeria may have peculiar problems which are the result of the activities of the criminal band called rulers (many of them from the North) Nigeria has had since independence, but if we see the North as part and parcel of Nigeria, then these problems become the problems of Nigeria rather than the problems of the North.

Perhaps, the belief in the theory of a monolithic North explains the warped view of some commentators who, rather than hold military dictators like Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha responsible for ruining the country, make reference to the North as being responsible for the country’s woes. As if the majority of the downtrodden in the North gathered and agreed to give power to these iniquitous generals and join them in the ruination of Nigeria.

We can find many Bugajes and Mohammeds around the country; people who still live with the pre-1914 and civil war mentality. When we talk of the North, East or West the way Bugaje and others describe it, we set ourselves in perpetual conflict with Nigeria. The political and military class from the North has ruled Nigeria for the better part of its independence. What have northerners, let alone the rest of the country, to show for it?

It is scandalous that after more than 50 years of independence, we are still embroiled in the debate of “who owns the oil”. While other countries are working hard to wean themselves off oil and develop alternative sources of energy, we are busy wasting scarce human and financial resources searching for more oil. Rather than planning for a life after oil and developing other resources in the country, our indolent military and political rulers luxuriated in the easy and quick wealth that crude oil provided.

They became drunk on crude oil and nourished a generation of Nigerians for whom nothing else matters apart from oil. Perhaps, if that vermin, Abacha, and the “Evil Genius”, Babangida, both military dictators from the North knew that the oil belonged to the North, they would have used the proceeds judiciously in the interest of the working and toiling people of the North whose names are invoked at every opportunity.

Nigeria will not be great simply because our rulers say so. Nigeria will not be united just because our politicians say at every opportunity that, “The unity of Nigeria is non-negotiable” or that “Nigeria will not disintegrate”. Nation-building is not a whimsical business. Our rulers have done absolutely nothing to advance the unity of Nigeria. What our rulers have succeeded in doing is that where we should see Nigerians we see Christians or Muslims, Igbo, Yoruba, Fulani, Ijaw, Jukun, Efik, Tiv, northerners, etc.

We argue that there are more Muslims in the North and more Christians in the South, so we talk about “Muslim North” and “Christian South” and give ammunition to those whose interest is to keep us perpetually divided as if it matters to the Muslims and Christians in Sokoto, Owerri or Lagos who earn N18,000 a month what label they wear.

Let’s take four major cities (Lagos, Port Harcourt, Enugu and Kano) as examples. Have we asked ourselves why more than five decades after independence, an “Igbo man” born and bred in Lagos, a “Fulani man” born and bred in Port Harcourt, an “Ijaw man” born and bred in Kano or a “Yoruba man” born and bred in Enugu can’t aspire to be a local government chairman let alone a parliamentarian. There are politicians across Nigeria who can make this happen but won’t because of their provincialism and greed. Yet, we go to foreign countries and aspire to run for political offices in places where we have no roots.

The fact that the North, according to Bugaje, has 72 per cent of the land mass does not make northerners more Nigerian than the rest of the country or give them more right to anything that Nigeria has to offer. The delusional theory of the North simply explains why the so-called representatives of the North are paranoid about the Presidency of Nigeria. If you have 72 per cent of the country and 60 per cent of the population, it is only natural to assume that the Presidency of the country is your birthright; after all, democracy is a question of numbers.

Back to the structure of Nigeria. There is nothing like the North. It only exists in the imagination of those who are benefiting or seek to benefit from what that agenda offers. The so-called North came to an end on May 27, 1967, when Gowon divided the country into 12 states. The North is a fairy tale. We shouldn’t buy it! The Constitution of Nigeria recognises only states and local government areas, not regions. Perhaps, we can talk about geopolitical zones for planning and administrative convenience.

We gloss over these issues at our own peril. We can’t talk about building a united Nigeria, a new nation that will be a global contender, while still clinging to the old ethnic, religious and regional stereotypes and fault lines that do us no good.

Beyond the sleeping delegates and the squabbles over allowances for personal aides, pimps and prostitutes, the National Conference is bringing into sharper focus the many prejudices in the country. How do we overcome these prejudices?

This is the discussion we must have – of course, in a civil manner