By Leonard Karshima Shilgba

At the doorsteps of Nigeria’s political independence, Nigerian leaders such as Obafemi Awolowo, Nnamdi Azikiwe, and Ahmadu Bello were viewed by people with less than adequate degree of perception as the “founding fathers of Nigeria”. Fifty-five years after Nigeria’s political independence, President Buhari, in his inaugural speech on May 29th, 2015 at the famous Eagle Square, Abuja, made the same errant claim when he said, “In recent times, Nigerian leaders appear to have misread our mission.

In 1947, the following statement by Tafawa Balewa was recorded in the Hansard: “Since the amalgamation of Southern and Northern provinces in 1914 Nigeria has existed as one country only on paper …. It is still far from being united. Nigeria’s unity is only a British intention for the country.” And so one of the persons considered by President Buhari and some others as a “founding father of Nigeria” disowned this appellation long ago! In Awolowo’s 1947-published book, Path to Nigerian Freedom, he wrote, “Nigeria is not a nation, it is a mere geographical expression. There are no “Nigerians” in the same sense as there are “English” or “Welsh” or “French”. The word Nigeria is merely a distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria from those who do not.” These, definitely, are not the words of a “founding father of Nigeria”. There are documented pieces of evidence to show that the three notable Nigerian pre-independence leaders—Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo, and Ahmadu Bello—were merely regional or ethnic leaders, who only grudgingly united to gain colonial independence from the British, and thereafter settled down to advance and protect their ethnic and regional interests. It is doubtful that they believed in the certainty or viability of Nigeria. Here are some Exhibits:

On June 25, 1949, in his speech at the Igbo State Assembly in Aba, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe said: “The Ibo people have reached a cross-road and it is for us to decide which is the right course to follow. We are confronted with routes leading to diverse goals, but as I see it, there is only one road that I can safely recommend for us to tread, and it is the road to self-determination for the Ibo within the framework of a federated commonwealth of Nigeria and the Cameroons, leading to a United States of Africa. Other roads, in my opinion, are calculated to lead us astray from the path of national self-realization.’’

Chief Awolowo, on October 23, 1953, sent a telegram to the colonial secretary of state which contained what he called “five challenges”, one of which read as follows: “I challenge you to deny that the people of the Western Region have the right of self-determination and are free to decide whether or not they will remain in the proposed Nigerian Federation.” Part of the response by the colonial secretary to Chief Awolowo was this: “The Secretary of State has directed that you should be informed that any attempt to secure alteration of that decision [that is, the decision concerning the status of Lagos] by force will be resisted, and in this context I am to observe that any attempt to secure the secession of the Western Region from the Federation would be regarded as the use of force.”

Sir Ahmadu Bello was afraid of ethnic domination, and this fear drove him to say this in an interview that he granted a British journalist in 1964 (4 years after independence): “Well, the Igbo are more or less the type of people whose desire is mainly to dominate everybody. If you put them in a labor camp as a laborer, they will try to emerge as headman of that camp and so on.”

Just go over the words of those “founding fathers of Nigeria”, which I have cited above, meditate, and then tell yourself if you can confidently refer to them as “founding fathers of Nigeria”. These were regional or ethnic leaders of their respective ethnic groups or regions. Even their political alliances evinced mutual distrust, hatred, or spite. In 1959, Dr. Azikiwe’s NCNC went into an alliance with Sir Ahmadu Bello’s NPC in order to stop Awolowo’s Action Group from taking power at the center, because to do so, according to Azikiwe, the Action Group “would destroy political opposition”.

Let me suggest here that even the British doubted the viability of Nigeria:

One of the British governors of colonial Nigeria, Sir Arthur Richards had this to say in 1948: “It is only the accident of British suzerainty which had made Nigeria one country. It is still far from being one country or one nation socially or even economically… socially and politically there are deep differences between the major tribal groups. They do not speak the same language and they have highly divergent customs and ways of life and they represent different stages of culture“.

Since pre-independence, identity politics of ethnicity, regionalism, and religion never worked well for Nigeria at any time of our checkered history. In fact, this brand of politics has almost crippled Nigeria, and presently set her “dancing on the brink” (borrowing from the title of John Campbell’s book). Nigeria’s President-elect Tinubu must think up now, and recreate a new kind of politics after being sworn in, in order to be able to manage Nigeria’s diversity without reminding Nigerians, by his policies, programs, resource distribution, and leadership selection, of their differences. Diversity doesn’t necessary mean differences, even though some may view both as mere synonyms. President Tinubu must manage diversity through the principle of containment. What do I mean by this?

For more than two decades, Nigeria has tried to implement what she calls “Federal Character”, even setting up a “Federal Character Commission” to oversee its implementation; but rather than strengthen our national bond, this practice has weakened it—being a sore point in our national conversation. How can a people implement a character that they have grossly misunderstood? The Federal Character Commission is required by the Constitution of Nigeria to “work out an equitable formula subject to the approval of the National Assembly for the distribution of all cadres of posts in the public service of the Federation and of the States, the armed forces of the Federation, the Nigeria Police Force and other government security agencies, government owned companies and parastatals of the States” in order to give “effect to the provisions of sections of section 14(3) and 14(4) of” the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria [See Third Schedule, Part 1 (C) ]. President Tinubu should request for and review, with his team, the formula in reference above, which the Federal Character Commission uses in the implementation of its functions. It is difficult for rational beings to accept that the framers of the Constitution would support denial of social justice in order to achieve the object(s) of “Federal Character”. Accordingly, there should be a policy of containment in order to preserve social justice and promote excellence and competence in public service. Can the Federal Government “promote a sense of belonging and loyalty among all the peoples of the Federation” by promoting less qualified or junior staff over and above their better qualified or senior colleagues in the name of “implementing Federal Character”? I would request President Tinubu to support, encourage, and cause to be prepared and laid before the National Assembly an equitable formula, which respects seniority, qualification, and competence, for the distribution of public positions. This is what I mean by “principle of containment”.

It is encouraging that the president-elect has publicly stated that he is more interested in forming a government of national competence rather than a “government of national unity”. What has not worked must not be preserved as a perfunctory monument in our national life. The way “Federal Character” is being practiced in Nigeria is to punish excellence while rewarding mediocrity on the altar of “diversity”, which only reminds, painfully so, that we are different. This is what Nigeria has constitutionally encouraged for decades. Why are we surprised then about the drum beats of ethnic wars that have rocked our atmosphere? We are reaping the seeds that we sowed. We are implementing “Federal Character” by discrimination, which is a violation of our Constitution, which forbids discrimination on account of sex, place of origin, religious or political opinion, or ethnic affiliation! So, in applying discriminatory “quota systems” or standards, we make victims to feel alienated. How then can we achieve the intentions of Section 15 (4) of Nigeria’s Constitution? It provides that: “The State shall foster a feeling of belonging and of involvement among the various peoples of the Federation, to the end that loyalty to the nation shall override sectional loyalties.” President Tinubu must keep an eye on this constitutional provision in all his official conduct. He must strive to be a Nigerian as the President of Nigeria; then, he will become a great president such as Nigeria has never had.

I have taken note of the constitutional amendments which President Buhari has signed lately, translating more items (such as electricity and railway development) from the Exclusive Legislative List to the Concurrent Legislative List. I commend this action. President Tinubu should push more items out of the Exclusive List; and before the conclusion of the tedious legislative amendment process, he should productively use the tool of Executive Orders.

I hope Tinubu shall leave behind, after his fruitful tenure, a new Nigeria that works for all and not for only a few.

Leonard Karshima Shilgba is a mathematics professor, writer, author, Bible teacher and pastor.