Nigeria and the undying spirit of separatism

The state has existed both in medieval and modern terms. While there are diverging views on the origin of the medieval state, the same cannot be said of its modern variant. The modern state, as we have it, came into being through the signing of the Treaty of Westphalia in 1648. That means, the modern nation-state system is 375 years old, this year. That is quite recent, given the long existence of humanity on earth! The emergence of the modern state is not a mere happenstance. It was a deliberate creation that owed its strategic provenance to important historical developments in Europe. It came into existence as a product of the interplay of forces standing at opposing ends – one acting as forces of convergence (centripetal) and the other as forces of divergence (centrifugal) (Olaniyan, 2014).

The Treaty of Westphalia was a product of events of cataclysmic proportions. It was preceded by thirty years’ war, which led to the forceful dissolution of Europe’s empires and kingdoms; fragmentations and emergence of warlords with military and economic powers (Spruyt, 2002). These forces later coalesced into the emergence of the state as we have it today. Therefore, the battle was between the forces of convergence and that of divergence, and the triumph of the former over the latter represents, in a real sense, a major factor in the emergence of the state in Europe (Poggi, 1978). Except in isolated pockets, this was replicated all over the world (Olaniyan, 2014).

The foregoing suggests that the creation of the modern state in Europe, as well as its replication in other climes, has been a product of wars, forceful occupation, annexation, conquest, and subjugations (Shively, 1997:25). If there was any negotiation or bargaining, they were of little essence and significance. For a very long time after their creation, the states in Europe were in ferment as the two forces were locked in a battle of supremacy. Peace was elusive until the forces of convergence eventually and finally prevailed. The triumph of centripetal over centrifugal forces marked the consolidation of the nation-state in Europe (Olaniyan, 2014).

Mr Vice Chancellor, from the foregoing, four major facts about the state have come to bold relief. One, states, except for a few cases, are products of force. Two, they are an agglomeration of different groups. Three, these disparate groups were forcefully cobbled together by superior forces and maintained by such. Four, implanted within the nation-state system are the two forces of convergence and divergence. In other words, all states possess, in varying measures, unifying, and separating tendencies. This means, right from inception, the nation-state system has been under the constant threats of centripetal and centrifugal forces (Olaniyan, 2014). Mr Vice Chancellor, Sir, centrifugal forces remain the albatross of the nation-state and have resulted in the failure, collapse, and re-arrangement of several states (Olaniyan, 2014). In 1814, the Kalmar Union (also called the Nordic empire) which had existed since 1397 got dissolved, and Norway emerged as a separate state. In 1830 Belgium separated from the Northern Netherlands. In 1905, Sweden parted ways with Norway. In 1922, Ireland separated from the United Kingdom and became the Irish Free State, now the Republic of Ireland. In 1944, Iceland split from Denmark.

In 1947, the British India Dominion was partitioned into India and Pakistan; and 1971, Bangladesh left Pakistan. In 1965, the Parliament of Malaysia voted 126-0 to expel Singapore from the Malaysian federation. In 1991, the great Soviet Union spilt into 15 states. In 1992-93, Czechoslovakia split into Czech Republic and Slovakia. In 2002, East Timor left Indonesia. In 1993, Eritrea separated from Ethiopia and in 2011, South Sudan left Sudan. Except in few cases, most of the instances cited above, were not velvet divorce. States that have not outrightly broken up also face the onslaught of centrifugal forces at various levels. Examples are legion: The United States of America, despite its towering stature in the world, has faced threats of secession or arguments justifying such from its inception as a state (Kperogi, 2023). At a point in its history, it had to fight a bitter civil war to keep centrifugal forces at bay.

Since 1982, the Movement for the Democratic Forces of Casamance (MDFC) has launched a violent separatist movement against the Senegalese state. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) waged a 50-year deadly war against the Colombian state. The Tamil Tigers fought long years of brutal and brutish war of separation in Sri Lanka before it was defeated. Spain, for long, has been battling with the separatist forces of Catalonia, Basque and ETA. In fact, the country had to enter into an agreement with the Basque region to prevent that part of the country from going away (Dowsett, 2017). The Nagal separatist army has, for over fifty years, engaged the Indian state in a bid for separation (Olaniyan, 2017). The French-speaking Quebec has been persistent in craving for a separate identity from the larger English-speaking Canada. The Englishspeaking people of Cameroun have been up in arms against the state in seeking the creation of Ambazonia state.

The Middle East is not spared of the forces of separation as we have seen in Yemen and Syria. The Palestinians, since 1948, have sought for the emergence of their state, away from the iron grip of the Israeli state. What the foregoing tells us is that separatism or secession threats are neither race-bound nor region-specific. It is a global phenomenon. Even with the growing powers of the state in terms of accumulation of powers of coercion, the spirit of separatism never dies. Thus, as the state gets more entrenched, so also is the power arrayed against it (Olaniyan, 2010). So, separatism spirit is alive in virtually every state of the world. Based on the powers of the interplay of the centripetal and centrifugal forces within the state system, I have come up with three basic configurations as follow:

1. When centrifugal forces outweigh the centripetal ones, the state will collapse. In recent times we have witnessed the disintegration of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia, and Czechoslovakia, when a quasi-federal system failed to withstand the forces of division. In other words, the domination of forces of centrifugal over centripetal will result in the dismemberment of the state. 2. When centripetal forces overwhelmingly dominate the centrifugal forces in an entity, such a society will experience relative stability and cohesion. Some states and state systems, such as USA, European states, and the EU, exemplify this. 3. When there is a seeming balance between the two contending forces, the state will experience precarious stability characterized by serious frictions. It will be a case of a hen perching on the rope. It is neither easy for the rope, nor for the hen! (Olaniyan, 2014) The third scenario, to some extent, captures the Nigerian situation, and is thus adopted for this presentation. The demonstration will come out clearly as I go into the full discourse.
2. Nigeria and the Spirit of Separatism As we all know, Nigeria came into being in 1914. It can be conveniently argued that the story of the beginning of Nigeria is one of acquisitions and merger (Olaniyan, 2014). It began with the annexation of Lagos in 1861, followed by spates of seizures and sackings of the various societies, kingdoms, and empires in the hinterland until they were all brought under British suzerainty. By early 1900, a picture of three units with varied historical origins had emerged: the Colony of Lagos acquired following the Treaty of Cession of Lagos of 1861; the Northern Protectorate; and the Southern Protectorate (Onabamiro, 1993, Ayoade, 1998). These variegated colonies were later subjected to two waves of amalgamation. The first was in 1906 when the Colony of Lagos was merged with the Southern Protectorate under one administration and the second (albeit the grander) was in 1914 when the Northern and Southern Protectorates were conjoined to form Nigeria (Olaniyan, 2014).

Based on the foregoing, and as abundantly represented in the literature, the Nigerian state is mainly a creation of European imperial powers with the boundary, composition and nomenclature shaped by three personalities: Otto Von Bismarck, the German Chancellor, who presided over the Berlin Conference of 1884-85 that partitioned Africa for the European powers to possess; Sir Frederick John Dealtry Lugard, who superintended the conjoining of the erstwhile two separate halves into one (Ballard, 1970:333, Tamuno, 1989:4); and lastly, Lady Flora Shaw, the then mistress (what this generation would call a ‘side chick’) of Lord Lugard who, in what could be interpreted as an ‘imperial pillow talk’, succeeded in influencing the imposition of the word “Nigeria” on the amalgamated entities (Olaniyan, 2006, Olaniyan, 2014).

Flora Shaw had earlier written an article on January 8, 1897 where she used the word Nigeria to describe the area of the northern region, which Lugard, her boyfriend, was administering (Shaw, 1897, Kperogi, 2019). After amalgamation, the word that was hitherto coined exclusively for the northern part was imposed on the new country that came out of the amalgamated entities. However, evidence later showed that the word “Nigeria”, meaning “Niger-area”, has been used as far back as 1550s by European explorers (Kperogi, 2019). Thus, the Nigerian state was formed largely without a shred of inputs from its inhabitants.

This was the pattern in several of the colonial states all over the continent of Africa. This was to set in motion a series of agitations in several parts of the continent after the exit of the colonial powers. In the case of Nigeria, Professor Tekena Tamuno, in one of his 1970 scholarly works, argued that separatist agitations started right from the year of amalgamation in 1914. Some of these are listed below:

 

Pre-independence Separatist Agitations

1. During the constitutional conference in Ibadan in 1950, the Emir of Zaria threatened secession of the North if 50% of seats in the central assembly was not given to the Northern region. In the words of the Emir, “unless the Northern Region was allotted 50 per cent of the seats in the Central Legislature, it would ask for separation from the rest of Nigeria on the arrangements existing before 1914” (Tamuno, 1970:568). Apparently for peace to reign, the colonial government obliged the request by allocating 68 seats to the Northern Region, 34 to the Western Region, and 34 to the Eastern Region. (Ugorji, 2022).
2. 2. In 1953, the northern region attempted to declare secession, following the humiliation of its delegates in Lagos during the debate for independence (Tamuno, 1970).
3. In 1953, the Yoruba threatened to secede from Nigeria over the status of Lagos. The debate was on whether to administer Lagos as a neutral entity or part of the Western Region. The delegates from Eastern Region regarded Lagos as a “no-man’s land” to the annoyance of Chief Awolowo’s Action Group who regarded Lagos as a Yoruba town. In the heat of the debate, Obafemi Awolowo sent a strongly-worded cable message to the then Secretary of State that the Western Region was “to decide whether or not they will remain in the proposed Nigerian Federation” (Tamuno, 1970:570). He was reprimanded by the Secretary of State.
4. At the constitutional conference in 1954 in Lagos, Action Group wanted the right of secession to be inserted into the constitution. It was however defeated (Tamuno, 1970).

 

Post-colonial

1. In the run-up to the 1964 general elections, Michael Okpara, the then Premier of Eastern Region, threatened that the Eastern Region would “secede from the federation” as a response to allegations of intimidation and election rigging (Tamuno, 1970:574).
2. On January 15, 1966, Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu, in a claim of patriotism, led a coup that resulted in the death of several political and military figures. Following this coup, the shout of “Araba” (divide Nigeria) became the slogan of separatism in northern Nigeria. This was to set in motion chains of events in the polity, such as the counter-coup of July, 1966, pogrom, and civil war. Interestingly, on 29 July, 1967, just over a year after the coup, Nzeogwu was killed fighting on the side of Biafra, to divide Nigeria.
3. On February 23, 1966, Isaac Jasper Adaka Boro, led his Niger Delta Volunteer Force (NDVF) to the first open insurrection in Nigeria. It declared a Republic of Niger Delta (Boro, 1982). The 12-day revolution was later quelled by federal troops, and the separatists clamped into jail. Adaka Boro was sentenced to death, but was later released. Interestingly, Boro died in the Civil War while fighting on the federal side, to keep Nigeria one (Isamah, 2013).
4. The counter-coup of July 1966, led by northern officers, was staged partly to avenge the killings of northern compatriots in the January 1966 coup; to stop what was feared as the Igbo domination; and ultimately secede from Nigeria. It was the British High Commissioner in Lagos, Sir Francis CummingsBruce, who dissuaded them from doing so, pointing out that “they were now back in power, so why secede into a landlocked North” (Ogunbadejo, 1979:94).
5. In 1967, the Igbo ethnic group declared a Republic of Biafra, a secession bid that took three years of serious war to quell. By the time the Biafra soldiers surrendered in 1970, millions of lives had been wasted on both sides.
6. In a brazen demonstration of the roving spirit of separatism, on 22nd April, 1990, Major Gideon Orkar, in a broadcast to announce his coup, which was staged, according to him, on behalf of “marginalised, oppressed and enslaved peoples of the Middle Belt and the south”, excised five states from the federation. These states were Sokoto (today’s Sokoto, Kebbi and Zamfara), Kano (today’s Kano and Jigawa states), Katsina, Bauchi (today’s Bauchi and Gombe states) and Borno (today’s Borno and Yobe states). In today’s calculation, that is 10 states. The citizens of these states living in other states were ordered to return to their states. He gave some conditions to be met before the re-admission of the excised into the federation would be approved. Facts emerged later that the Orkar coup was a Niger Delta coup. The planning, funding and execution were done by officers from the Niger Delta, and Gideon Orkar was co-opted to the conspiracy as a cover, and as a result of his own rabid anti-establishment orientations in the army (Siollun, 2013).
7. Following the annulment of the June 12, 1993, election, the Oodua Peoples’ Congress was formed by Dr Frederick Fasehun, but later hijacked by Gani Adams. The group was formed to countervail the annulment of the famous June 12, 1993, election, but a central part of its objective was seeking the secession of the Yoruba people from Nigeria (Fasehun, 2002, Olaniyan, 2002; Olaniyan, 2007; Olaniyan, 2008; Olaniyan, 2021).

 

The Fourth Republic

The Fourth Republic that began in 1999 has been bedevilled by groups with separatist agenda.

1. The republic was ushered in by agitations for separation, as championed by the Gani Adams-led Oodua Peoples’ Congress (OPC). The agitation was, however, silenced by the ruthlessness of President Obasanjo, who clamped the leader into detention. By the time the leader was released, the movement had lost steam (Olaniyan, 2021).
2. Ralph Uwazuruike formed the Movement for the Actualisation of Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB). The group clamoured for the restoration of the defunct and defeated Biafra state. He too was clamped into detention, and the agitation lost traction (Olaniyan, 2021).
3. In the Niger Delta, shades of separatism have been couched in the rhetoric of resource control, and have been violently pursued through large-scale vandalism, kidnaping, arson, robbery, and general unrest. Their activities became so intense that it led to destruction of vital oil pipelines, leading to disruption of oil production activities and further destruction of the environment. Nigerian state lost huge amount of revenue to the agitation. Amnesty had to be declared before some semblance of peace could be achieved in the region (Olaniyan, 2015b, Olaniyan, 2018, Olaniyan, 2021).
4. Boko Haram insurgents, at the beginning of the fourth republic, emerged as an innocuous group seeking some imaginary religious puritanism. It later transformed into a ferocious terror group by factors bothering on indoctrination and official conspiracy. Eventually, Boko Haram carved out a large swathe of land as big as the size of Belgium (Campbell, 2014). Boko Haram presented the most frontal attack on the Nigerian state as a corporate entity, second only to the Civil War of 1967-70. In addition to widening the existing cleavages in the land, its violent activities resulted in countless deaths. It also led to the destruction of the environment, of cultural heritage, and of peaceful coexistence among previously harmonious neighbours (Olaniyan, 2015a, Olaniyan, 2015b, Olaniyan, 2015d, Olaniyan, 2018a, Olaniyan, 2018b Olaniyan, 2018c, Olaniyan, 2021, Olaniyan and Bello, 2022).
5. During the Constitutional Conference (tagged confab) organized by President Goodluck Jonathan in 2013, the Lamido Adamawa, His Royal Highness, Muhammadu Barkindo Mustapha, threatened to relocate to Cameroon if Nigeria broke up. During the debate, he was captured as saying, “if anything happens and the country disintegrates, God forbid, many of us who are shouting their heads off may not have anywhere to go. My people and the people of Adamawa have got somewhere to go. I am the Lamido Adamawa and my kingdom extends to Cameroun. The larger part of my kingdom is in Cameroun. Part of that kingdom is today called Adamawa State in Cameroun. You see, if I run to that place, I will easily assimilate” (Godwin, 2014).
6. In 2015, the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) came to the fore as a group possessed by the spirit of separatism. The group had been formed in 2012 by Nnamdi Kanu but it was practically unknown to most Nigerians. It is currently the largest, most renowned, and most active Biafran secessionist movement that boasts of numerous sympathisers amongst the Igbo diaspora from virtually every part of the globe. It was facilitated by long distance Igbo nationalism. The group has the declaration of Biafra Republic as its ultimate agenda. In fact, the central belief of IPOB is that “It is impossible to achieve independence without war and violence” (Uborji, 2022:2). In the task of achieving this, the group employed violence, harassments, treats, hate speech and scaremongering as methods of propaganda (Johnson and Olaniyan, 2018, Olaniyan, 2021).
7. In June 2017, sixteen northern youth groups, after a meeting in Kaduna, issued a three-month quit notice to all Igbo people residing in northern Nigeria to vacate the region. The group further sought global observers to witness the dissolution of Nigeria (Akhaine, Alabi, Njoku, Olumide, 2017). The “Igbo Must Go” notice was handed down as a response to the violent activities of IPOB, which had stepped up attacks on people of northern extraction living in the southeast. Curiously, the eviction notice was supported by notable northern figures, one of whom was Professor Ango Abdullahi, a former Vice Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria (Odunsi, 2017). This is like using madness to cure madness, which could have ended in a multiplicity of madness.
8. In 2017, a group, known as Mboho Mkparawa Ibibio, proposed the creation of Atlantic Republic, to show their disagreement with the inclusion of South-South region under IPOB’s Biafra. The proposed republic will encompass the South-South states of Akwa Ibom, Bayelsa, Cross River, Delta, Edo, and Rivers, with Port Harcourt as the capital city (The Herald, 2017).
9. In 2021, a group called Oodua Nation emerged from the southwest. It was headed by Banji Akintoye, a professor of history and a former senator of the Federal Republic. And soon, one Sunday Igboho, a person with great exploits in political violence in the southwest, emerged as the poster boy of the group. Professor Akintoye declared the Oodua Republic in 2021, but we are still waiting to see the new republic take off. Under pressure from the state, Igboho later escaped to Benin Republic with a bid to escape to Europe. He was arrested at the Cotonou airport on accusation of forgery and put under house arrest in Benin Republic (Olaniyan, 2021). But the group is still kicking. On May 28, 2023, a handful of them invaded a radio station in Ibadan, over the station’s inability to broadcast their activities (Kaffi, 2023).

With these, we can see that the spirit of separatism is in every part of Nigeria, pursued, mouthed, and acted on by different classes of people, both during colonial and post-colonial times. The spirit of separatism has always been alive in Nigeria.

 

Why separatism spirit lives

Various reasons account for the resilience of the spirit of separatism in Nigeria. As noted earlier, Professor Tekena Tamuno in a 1970 piece argued that separatist agitations started from the year of amalgamation in 1914, and they are buoyed by six powerful factors: (1) Heterogeneous ethnic composition; (2) cultural diversity; (3) vast size; (4) varied administrative practices; (5) controversial political and constitutional arrangements; and (6) absence of a strong ideological magnet. With these factors still in operation, it could mean the spirit of separatism still has a long time to operate in the country. It gives a feeling of hopelessness. Other factors include the following:

 

Bargaining Strategy

The idea of separatist agitation as part of the bargaining process in Nigeria was advanced by Professor Ayoade. In his 1974 piece, he argued that separatist agitations are nothing but redressive mechanisms in Nigeria. He submitted that when people invoke separatist threats, they do so to gain concession from the Nigerian state either to themselves or their groups. The separatist champions before Ojukwu’s declaration of secession in the East, did not necessarily mean it in their hearts. Within this context, he sees Ojukwu’s declaration of Biafran independence as a poor reading of the Nigerian situation.

 

Strange bed-fellows notion

The ready-made answer in the mouth of most people for the undying desire for separation is that Nigerians are strange bed fellows (Olaniyan, 2009) and that the colonial powers lumped people of differing nationalities with differentials in cultures and histories into what Adebayo Williams (2000) called a “colonial cage”. This perspective had been given impetus by utterances from the three foremost nationalists often called the founding fathers. Ahmadu Bello refers to the amalgamation as “the mistake of 1914”. In his autobiography, Ahmadu Bello goes further to say: “Lord Lugard and his Amalgamation were far from popular amongst us at that time. There were agitations in favour of secession; we should set up on our own; we should cease to have anything more to do with the Southern people, we should take our own way (Bello, 1962:133).”

In 1947, Chief Obafemi Awolowo in a speech said: Nigeria is not a nation. It is a mere geographical expression. There are no “Nigerians” in the same sense as there is ‘English’, ‘Welsh’, or ‘French.’ The word “Nigeria” is a mere distinctive appellation to distinguish those who live within the boundaries of Nigeria and those who do not (cited in Oshuntokun, 1998:77). In an address in 1948, Tafawa Balewa also said: Since 1914 the British Government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people themselves are historically different in their backgrounds, in their religious beliefs and customs and do not show themselves any signs of willingness to unite. Nigerian unity is only a British invention (cited in Coleman, 1958:320). In the run-up to the 1964 general elections, Nnamdi Azikwe, in an address as the President of the country, warned of the possibility of a separation when he averred that: “I make this suggestion because it is better for us and for our admirers abroad that we should disintegrate in peace and not in pieces. Should the politicians fail to heed this warning, then I will venture the prediction that the experience of the Democratic Republic of the Congo will be child’s play if it ever comes to our turn to play such a tragic role. (Daily Times, January 13, I965, as cited in Tamuno, 1970:574, Ugorji, 2022:72-73).”

I have presented these quotes to show the spirits of separation inherent in the minds of the first drivers of the Nigerian state since the amalgamation.

 

The 1966 Military Coup

In 1966, some young military officers staged a bloody coup where prominent political figures and military brass hats from the north, midwest, and southwest regions were brutally eliminated. By their action, they literally put a dagger to the jugular vein of Nigeria and killed the spirit of unity. Their action contributed to the mess Nigerian has come to be. To solve what they perceived as a problem, they created more problems. The inclusion of top military officers and their pregnant spouses in the list of the eliminated cast aspersions on the altruism of their mission. The coup eventually resulted in the nullification of the federal system as practiced in the First Republic, the Civil War of 1967- 70, and the aggravation of ethnic suspicions in the land. Curiously, Nzeogwu, the mastermind of the coup, was found fighting on the Biafran side during the Civil War, which provides evidence of his own noncommitment to Nigerian unity in the first instance, the basis for which he murdered several political leaders in the January 1966 coup.

 

Nigerian federalism

In discussing separatist agitations in Nigeria, discourses often centre on its federal practice. The argument is that the nature of the federal system gives impetus to agitation for separation. It is often said that the federal system is over-bearing, and over-centralized and therefore unworkable. One major characteristic of Nigeria’s federalism is that it exists basically as a ‘holding-together’ – in contradistinction to a ‘comingtogether’ – federation. Its emergence was neither a product of grassroots agitations nor of mass mobilization. Rather, it had federalism thrust upon it via a combination of external influence and local elite compromise (Olaniyan, 2006, Olaniyan, 2019, Olaniyan, 2021).

Significantly, the famous compromise had been based on five major realities: (1) the sheer size of the country which made a unitary system right out of the question; (2) the fact that Nigeria is an agglutination of variegated nationalities; (3) fears of domination by the minorities; (4) the uneven level of development between the North and the South; and (5) the desire of the political gladiators of the time to retain their political relevance within the cocoon of their ethnic groups (Olaniyan, 2006:115, Olaniyan, 2019).

At independence, the immediate successors of the British colonialists maintained the inherited federal system in its pristine form, until the coup entrepreneurs of 1966 put a dagger into it and shredded it to pieces. The coming of the military saw the complete erosion of federal practice. What came out was a unitarized federal system, fashioned in the military tradition of centralization. The country was subsequently carved into states by the military, and the whole federal system exists practically on paper. What we have now is a pseudo federal system. This is part of what is fuelling the spirit of separatism in the country.

 

Ungoverned spaces

In 2017, I streamlined the forest space into discourses on insecurity and insurgencies in Nigeria. I argued that the Nigerian forest space has become an ungoverned area, and therefore one of the enablers of Boko Haram insurgents, in their march to banishing the Nigerian state. I argued that Boko Haram elements have taken the opportunity of the abandonment of the forests in the north-east to wreak havoc on hapless citizens and the Nigerian state. The same goes for kidnappers and other violent elements. The neglect of the forest space has emboldened violent non-state actors to launch attacks. Apart from Boko Haram, we also saw the usage of the forest space by IPOB and Niger Delta militants (Olaniyan, 2017, Olaniyan and Johnson, 2017, Olaniyan, 2018, Olaniyan, 2021, Olaniyan and Okeke-Uzodike, 2021).

 

State fragility and growing insecurity

That Nigerian state is fragile and irresponsive is already a stated fact in the literature. The fragility is evident in its inability to exert total dominion over its territory. There are several spaces that have been occupied by non-state actors where mayhem is being unleashed on the people in forms of banditry, cattle rustling, insurgency, kidnapping, ritual killings, and armed robbery (Olaniyan, 2015, Olaniyan and Yahaya, 2016, Olaniyan and Omotola, 2016, Olaniyan, 2018, Olaniyan and Okeke-Uzodike, 2021). In recent times, herdsmen have been identified as major players in the nefarious business of kidnapping and farmland destruction in West Africa (Olaniyan, 2015a, Olaniyan & OkekeUzodike, 2015, Olaniyan, Francis & Okeke-Uzodike, 2015, Olaniyan and Akinyemi, 2017). The interpretation of the activities has followed the fault lines in the country thereby fuelling feelings of domination and government complicity. In this instance, the Fulani ethnic group has increasingly come under profiling in various parts of West Africa. The spectre of violence and the free reign of violent actors all over the country gave a fillip to the argument that Nigerian sovereignty is daily being contested and that its claim to monopoly of violence is increasingly being eroded.

Overall, Nigeria has been unable to provide welfare and support to the citizens. It has failed to secure its citizen, which is the primary essence of the state. It has failed to deliver services to the people. It has failed to elicit patriotism. It has been found wanting in meeting the empirical condition of statehood. This has become the basis for some people dreaming of exiting the Nigerian state, to form their own, which they believe will provide succour (Osaghae, 1999). You cannot blame the people for thinking this way. The state gave them the basis to think so. You cannot beat a baby and prevent him/her from crying.

 

Democratic window

The space provided by democracy is another aspect that has allowed the Nigerian people, particularly the youth, to ventilate their grievances in a way that could not have been allowed under military rule. This has been captured vividly by Wale Adebanwi when he averred that: The constriction of the democratic, public spheres for several years, under the military, prevented various interest groups and social and political formations from advancing their interests and expressing their grievances through democratic means. When democratic rule was achieved, these interests and grievances burst forth or, indeed, gushed forth – like an overflowing dam whose boundary walls have been brought down on a still-limited democratic space, producing the conflagrations which we are witnessing (Adebanwi, 2004:328).

The meaning of the foregoing is that democracy provided opportunity for people to ventilate their grievances, which they could not do under the military. This does not in any way imply superiority of military rule. Rather, it shows the beauty of democracy. That people resort to violent protests cannot be blamed on democracy. We must put the blame on the managers of the democratic order. It is their inability to put in place necessary means that would have forged the nationhood among the disparate nationalities that led to ventilation of pent-up grievances, and further fuel the spirit of separatism (Olaniyan and Bello, 2020).

 

Lost opportunity

The failure to utilize the opportunity provided by the Civil War of 1967- 70 is a major factor in the refusal of the spirit of separatism to die. In his contribution to the debate on the COVID-19 outbreak, Rahm Emanuel, the chief of staff to President Barack Obama, said: “Never allow a good crisis go to waste. It’s an opportunity to do the things you once thought was impossible” (Emmanuel, 2020). Nations rise after experiencing great disaster such as civil wars. It provided the opportunity to fashion out fundamental solutions to the problem of disunity. Rwanda was able to use the sad incident of the genocide to fashion out a Rwandan citizen, through legislative provision. The policy of “No Victor, No Vanquished” and the three Rs – Re-integration, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation – though good, did not address the fundamental problem of citizen patriotism and nationalism. It amounted to scratching the problems on the surface. Nigerians identify themselves first as representing their ethnic groups before being Nigerians. Primordial attachment to ethnicity should be channelled to building a collective Nigerian identity. This is best done through a legal provision. The civil war provided the best opportunity to achieve this, but it was wasted.

 

Resource control

Resource control has been a major factor as manifested in the Niger Delta where various militant groups have waged “war” on Nigerian armed forces, pillaged Nigerian asset and unleashed destruction on the environment. They were responsible for dwindling economic resources for the country. Resources was what fired the first Adaka Boro insurrection in 1966. Also, the oil in the Niger Delta, which was part of the eastern region by then, was part of what gave Ojukwu the confidence to declare Biafra Republic in 1967.

 

Leadership Failure

Leadership is about the most critical element in the forging of a nation out of a state. Unfortunately, the Nigerian state has largely not experienced great leaders at the national level. Many a time, leadership performance is intertwined with preparedness. It is often argued that Nigerian leaders at the national level are more of the accidental type, and hence their poor performance. This is a plausible argument; but it suffers the problem of reductionism. History is replete with personalities who assumed office accidentally but rose to become great leaders. As a fact, leaders are made during moments of serious socio-political and economic crises. America was in the middle of a Civil War when its charismatic president, Abraham Lincoln, fell to the assassins’ bullets. But Andrew Johnson, the vice president, rose to the task and not only prosecuted the war to a logical conclusion; but also strengthened the American confederacy. On 12 April 1945, President Franklin D. Roosevelt suddenly collapsed and died. It was at the crucial time in the prosecution of the Second World War. Harry Tuman suddenly had power thrust on him. But Truman rose to the occasion and in a short time, brought the Second World War to an end by taking some hard decisions. He left indelible marks on the sands of history in the formation of the United Nations Organisation (UNO) and the Marshall Plan (Cohen, 2019). The issue has to do with capacity and character. A personality with capacity and strong character will make a difference, even if emerged as an accidental leader.

Mr. Vice Chancellor, Sir, based on this position, let me offer my opinion on Nigerian leaders. Tafawa Balewa was an accidental leader. He became the Prime Minister because his boss, Ahmadu Bello, preferred to remain at the regional level. In fairness to him, he rose to the occasion. He saw himself as the father of the nation and tried to act it. He was a pacifist with a towering figure in the continent and played a decisive role during the formation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963 (Olaniyan, 2023). He was nicknamed the ‘golden voice of Africa’ by virtue of his outstanding command of the English Language. However, the fraud of the 1964 census and elections, the handling of the crisis in the Western Region, and his seeming indirect support for the persecution of Obafemi Awolowo created a fertile ground for the 1966 coup plotters to launch murderous attacks on his person and the nascent republic he headed.

Thomas Aguiyi Ironsi had power placed on his laps by the lacuna created by the misadventure of the January 1966 coup plotters. He was still trying to figure out what the national leadership task was all about when his regime was brought to a tragic end via the smoking guns of his rebellious junior officers. Technically, therefore, his regime did not take off before it ended, and the unification decree he enacted, which he had received much knocks, was never implemented by him. Yakubu Gowon was also a circumstantial leader who was brought into power by the northern mutineers of July 1966. He came as a young dashing bachelor who knew next to nothing about administering a complex country like Nigeria. After initial wobbling and fumbling, he rose to the task. He did learn on the job and prosecuted the Nigerian Civil War to a logical conclusion. He declared the policy of “no victor no vanquished” as a good peacebuilding strategy. He also established the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) as a force of unity. Eventually, he was eased out of power when the allures of office entrapped him to renege on his promise to return Nigeria to democratic order.

Murtala Muhammed was a beneficiary of the coup that was staged by some young officers. He was a northern irredentist that assumed a national leadership. He came like a hurricane and his regime was like a flash in the pan. He cut the image of a charismatic leader with a social axe to grind. He sought to bring sanity to the land. His speech at the Addis Ababa meeting of African Head of States meeting that “Africa has come of age” remains an indelible mark of leadership at the continental stage. He saw a clear problem, but effort to sanitize it led to more problems. He met a civil service that was lazy, ineffective, and corrupt. He tried to sanitize it through a purge. Unfortunately, the purge became the reason for the grand corruption that is happening afterwards, up till this moment. Death came early and prevented the nation from knowing him well.

Olusegun Obasanjo is a living example of someone who always has his coconut cracked for him by unseen hands. People had to die for him to shine. His first and second coming into powers was products of circumstances. In February 1976, Murtala Muhammed had to die for him to be Head of State. He was spirited out of his hiding place to lead. In 1999, he marched on the grave of MKO Abiola into power as a civilian president. On that occasion, after serving terms in Abacha’s Gulag, the powers that be had put him forward to lead. While he duly acknowledged and honoured General Murtala Muhammed, the word MKO Abiola did not even feature in any of his words throughout his eight years stay at the presidential palace. Obasanjo cut the image of an intellectual, and has remained the only head of state with the highest number of books and academic engagements to his credit. Even though he was always helped into power, he has a reputation of being his own man. Obasanjo came to fulfil the promise of Murtala Muhammed to return Nigeria to a democratically elected government in 1979. He got an international recognition for doing that, even though he was not the first person to do so in Africa.

By the time he did it in 1979, he was the third. In 1969, General Akwasi Afrifa voluntarily handed power to Dr Kofi Busia in Ghana; and on 29 September, 1979, Flight Lt. Jerry Rawling handed over to another civilian, Dr Hilla Limann (David-West, 2019). On his second coming, Obasanjo read the problems correctly, but personal vendetta prevented him from taking the high route. He refused to acknowledge the huge sacrifice of MKO Abiola in the famous June 12, 1993 presidential election. By this, he did not heal a wound. Though he made some good economic reforms and tried to repair the global image of Nigeria, his government could not be absolved of corruption. The problem of those who have their coconuts perennially cracked for them by unseen hands is feeling of self-importance and infallibility. He pushed his luck too far by attempting to change the constitution to remove presidential term limits for his own benefit. For this, he got his hands burnt, and his democratic credentials was seriously damaged. He deployed a scorched-earth policy to quell separatist agitations and set state institutions against his real and perceived enemies. At the end, though, he has a pan-Nigerian outlook in his approach; he failed to become the father of the nation by his “me alone” mentality. He demonstrated capacity, but deficient in character.

The ambition of Shehu Shagari was to be a senator before he was catapulted to the presidency by the powers that be. He was therefore not prepared for the presidency, and he did not learn on the job in four years. Though he had a pedigree of being one of the political actors in the preindependence political activities and held high office as a minister in the First Republic, he proved to be an ineffective leader. Though not accused of corruption personally, he allowed his party men to have a free access to the national till, and they helped themselves to the patrimony at the expense of the masses that wallowed in poverty. He left the country worse than he met it. This is a case of lack of capacity. Ibrahim Babangida is the kingmaker that became the king. He was nicknamed Maradona, after the Argentine footballer famous for dribbling. He schemed himself into power, and to remain in office in perpetuity, he dribbled everyone until there was nobody left to dribble except himself. His style was to court and settle his critics before bringing them to ruins. He courted power, he got it but it turned out that he never had a good plan for the country. He was the grand master of the art of deception and a scam artiste that took the country on an expensive transition that ended nowhere. General Babangida was the man who signed the death warrant of his best man, and treated himself to a live watch of the execution. He annulled the June 12 election and threw the country into a crisis. Separatism was at its peak when he left. North-south dichotomy became sharper, and the possibility of break up was real. At the end, the smiling General left Nigerians wailing and gnashing their teeth. But the smiling General undid himself. If he had allowed the results of the June 12 election to stand, his sins would have probably been forgiven, and would have been elevated to the global stage. But he became a parish-pump politician, ensconced in his hilltop mansion. The dribbler eventually dribbled himself to a local corner.

Babangida’s case is more of character issue. Ernest Shonekan was neither a bird nor a bat. His stay was inconsequential. It was like a snake that passed through the surface of the rock, leaving no mark. Shonekan’s tenure was one of Babangida’s act of consummate deception designed to make his annulment of the Abiola’s mandate a fait accompli. Sani Abacha became the head of state by seeming design. He was the Nigerian version of Jean Bedel Bokassa of Central African Republic (the Butcher of Bangui) and Idi Amin of Uganda (the kleptocrat of Kampala. He was the face of oppression and brutality. Unlike Babangida, Abacha made no pretence to any niceties. His style was to shoot first before asking questions. He would rather send his critics to the great beyond rather than listen or court them. Only the lucky ones escaped to exile. Before a ‘natural or biological coup’ gave him and his regime a short shrift, General Abacha was already on the verge of shedding his khaki for a kaftan, by transmuting from a military to a civilian ruler.

The five parties that he decreed into existence, which Bola Ige described as five fingers of a leprous hand, had all picked him as their candidate (Agbaje, Akande & Ojo, 2009:81). He succeeded not only in cornering the national patrimony into his personal foreign accounts, but also widened the already existing cleavages in Nigeria. His regime revved up the feelings of separatism. He lacked both capacity and character. General Abdusalami Abubakar’s stay was brief. He only came to return Nigeria to democratic order. This has remained his legacy. But the sudden death of MKO Abiola under his watch remains a blight in his regime.

Umaru Yar’Adua was going to retire from being governor of Katsina to his home when he was frog-marched to the presidency. He was a sick man that was propped up to take a gruelling assignment. He was quite a personable man, but he seemed too provincial. His international experience was too limited to the extent that on his first ever visit to the American seat of power, the White House, he said “I feel highly honoured and privileged to be here…this is a moment that I will never forget in my life” (The White House, 2007). He appeared to have been mesmerized by the sublimity of the White House. It was not a good statement to have come from the leader of a country like Nigeria. Nonetheless, he applied practical approach to solving the problem of violence and separatism in the Niger Delta by instituting an amnesty programme (Olaniyan, 2020). But Boko Haram got transformed to a ferocious terror group under his watch. Death came early to cut short his presidency, and thus prevented us from knowing how his administration would have ended.

Goodluck Jonathan became the president by providence. He is the most certificated Nigerian to be president. But he appeared too timid and inexperienced to rule over a complex country like Nigeria. He was seemingly overwhelmed. The image of Jonathan dancing in Kano when scores of young girls in Chibok were being hauled into servitude by some savages was a mark of insensitivity by a leader. Boko Haram was running riot in north-eastern Nigeria and he seemed not to have answers to it. He dithered while the country burned. His attempt to answer the national question led him to set up a Confab, with a promise to implement the recommendations in his second term. Eventually, he lost the election. Though he conceded election that he lost and has received praises for it, the fact remains that he left the country terribly divided and almost in economic ruins. His is a case of low capacity.

Muhammadu Buhari’s first and second coming was a study in contradictions. In 1983, as a military man, he was called upon to lead, but in 2015, he sought power and gave the impression that he was prepared to lead. But his entire second coming proved that he never had the capacity to be an effective leader. The second outing was a dispensation heralded by high expectations, but at the end of the tenure, he left several of his supporters, and indeed Nigerians, high and dry. His first coming in the last day of 1983 was brief, but in the brevity, he left an impression of anti-corruption and anti-indiscipline. He was assisted by Tunde Idiagbon, a no-nonsense military officer. He read the problems of the country correctly, but attempts to effect corrections were considered too harsh. Differential treatments of the political actors of the ancien régime he overthrew made him liable to be accused of pandering to regional and ethnic sentiments. By the time he was removed from office, Nigerians went up in jubilation.

But thirty years after, the same Nigerians brought him back as an elected president of the Federal Republic. Nigerians in search of heroes and strong leaders reminisced his earlier 20- months rule and thought they needed the strongman in his mould. He was elected based on this hope. But President Buhari turned out to be totally different from General Buhari. He fiddled while Nigeria burned. He was famous for keeping quite when he needed to talk. Most Nigerians will remember him for the unnecessary sufferings he inflicted upon them during his poorly-implemented currency redesign policy at the twilight of his administration. President Buhari displayed so much disdain for academia.

Nigerian academic community will not forget him in a hurry for the pains he inflicted on them through first, amputating their salary through IPPIS, second outright refusal to pay seven months’ salary, and third, unleashing a character like Chris Ngige, his Minister of Labour and Employment, on them when they demanded for a better working condition. Also, under his watch, kidnappers had a field day, and insecurity reached a fever pitch. Though he made some strides in the area of infrastructure and rolled back the murderous rampage of Boko Haram renegades, when it comes to uniting and securing the country, his performance was dismal.

The countdown to 2023 general elections was marred with regional, religious, and ethnic rhetoric that led to serious divisions in the polity. Nigeria of 2023 is deeply divided, more than the experience after the 2015 elections. It is left to be seen how President Tinubu’s tenure will turn out to be. He will be assessed after his tenure. For now, the search for great and transformational national leader continues.

 

Exorcising the spirit of separatism

As I have demonstrated in the preceding pages, the spirits of separatism hovers around Nigeria. There is much division in the land, and the love of the country has taken a dip, in comparison with what obtains at the early years of independence. Problems are meant to be solved. The best way to address a problem is to know the genesis. Having identified some of the problems, we can now discuss some of the ways out.

 

On strange bed-fellows

To me, the most popular excuse for separatist feelings, the strangebedfellows perspective, is the weakest. I quite agree that colonialism wreaked havoc on coexistence because different nationalities were forcefully lumped together. But every state is a creation of force, as I have shown with examples from Europe. They are artificial. They are multinational. Organic states are very few. At any rate, homogeneity is not a guarantee of longevity or survival. Somalia is a classic example here. As argued elsewhere, and represented in different studies, Nigerians are not entirely strange bedfellows to one another. Dudley (1982) and Olusanya (1982) had in their works punctured the notion of strange bedfellows in the making of Nigerian state. They have argued that there were series of interactions already in motion before the coming of the colonialists (Olusanya, 1970, 1980: 545; Dudley, 1982). The fact of precolonial interactions cannot be disputed. In my contribution to this debate, I have argued that: “Long before its incorporation into the nationstate system, the different ethnic groups making up the Nigerian state were far from being immured islands entirely to themselves. There is evidence of interactions in trade, culture and even linguistics between the people from the north and the south, people in the riverside areas and those in the hinterlands. The vestiges of linguistic interactions, for example, are found in extant languages across the land (Olaniyan, 2009a:521).”

I also argued that besides linguistic, there is evidence of long cohabitation amongst the various ethnic groups. For examples, there is long preamalgamation presence of Yoruba in Kano, (Olaniyi, 2005), Hausa in Ibadan (Albert, 1993), Hausa in Lagos and Abeokuta (Adamu, 1978) among others. We were told that Sango, the legendary Alaafin of Oyo, who later became one of the deities in Yoruba traditional realm, was born by a Nupe woman. Even Professor Siyan Oyeweso demonstrated in his inaugural lecture how some great Nigerians migrated from different places, long before colonial penetration. There are several instances of pre-amalgamation interactions to nullify the notion of strange bedfellows. While the pre-amalgamation interaction is not enough for people to live together, my argument is that the people are not strange to themselves and should not be a basis for seeking dismemberment of the country. Knowing this is very important for reducing the incidence of separatism from the psyche of the Nigerian people. This should be factored into the school curriculum.

 

Restructuring

Now let me make a comment on the most popular word around: restructuring. This is a topical issue on the lips of many people in the country. The constitution gives too much power to the central government. Some items in the exclusive list of the constitution should be removed and placed in the concurrent section. For example, states should be allowed to explore mineral resources in their areas of jurisdiction. There should be some flexibility on resource control. I also believe state police should be allowed. What I do not support is a return to regionalism. I think we have moved beyond that for good. I cannot imagine asking everybody in the southwest to go back to Ibadan as the capital of Western Region. Constitution is made by human beings for human beings. They are not cast in granite. They must be looked at from time and time, and be adjusted to suit the current moment. But constitution is also not what you change like a wrapper. That is why its review is always cumbersome. It is cheering that some of the President Buhari’s parting assent to certain bills are in order and capable of undermining and discouraging the urge for secession.

 

State responsiveness

As narrated above, the state was created for the purpose of meeting the security and welfare needs of the people. Scholars of social contract perspectives have also explained that in case of failure of the state to meet these ends, the people reserve the right to revolt against it. It is obvious that the Nigerian state is found wanting in the discharge of these allimportant duties. This is responsible for the desire for separation. You cannot beat a child and prevent him from crying. So long the state is unresponsive, the people will continue to seek separation. The solution is for the state to rise to expectation. No amount of re-orientation will work if the state is found wanting.

 

Inclusion, equity and justice

One of the best ways to address separatism is to remove the basis for it. One of the bases for separatist idea is domination or marginalization. Therefore, inclusion, equity and justice in the treatment of constituent units of a polity goes a long way in uniting the people. Leadership Recruitment The problem with Nigeria has been laid at the footsteps of leadership. This is true, absolutely. Leadership, of a father figure stature, holds the key to uniting people of disparate nationalities in an entity like Nigeria. Several scholars have voiced this. Just like Chinua Achebe (2000) observed, nothing is wrong with Nigerian climate and weather. The country is blessed with prodigious human and material resources. God spared us of natural disasters such as earthquake, typhoons, hurricanes, tsunami, etc. People have argued that leadership is our own natural disaster. However, in one of my works in 2016, I argue that leadership cannot be discussed in isolation of followers. Leaders do not fall from outer space. They emerged among the people. If the system continually throws up the worst set of the people as leaders, then something is also wrong with the followers (Olaniyan, 2009b, Olaniyan, 2016). And that brings me to the clamour for God-fearing leaders in our polity. In this society, we look forward, even pray, to have leaders with the fear of God. It is good to have leaders with the fear of God. Fear of God is the beginning of wisdom. But relying on God for leadership choice is not in tandem with the tenets of democracy. Democracy is a human design that is built on the fear of the people, and not necessarily on the fear of God. In a democratic setting, people don’t look for leaders with the fear of God. Rather, they select leaders that will fear them in running their affairs. The way of God is different from the way of man. He can forgive even whom we have condemned as the worst of sinners. At any rate, God’s punishment for sins may not be immediate. It could be reserved for the day of judgment, which nobody knows when it will come. In a democratic setting, when leaders err, they are promptly punished with recall, rejection and even jail terms. Societies that witness progress are the ones in which leaders fear the followers. Nigerians must cultivate themselves in such a way for their leaders to fear them.

 

Conclusion: centrifugal, centripetal forces and the hen on the rope

Mr Vice Chancellor, Sir, let me conclude this lecture by connecting with my theoretical configuration mentioned earlier: the two forces of centrifugal and centripetal are almost at equilibrium in Nigeria. This explains the presence of tension in the land. It also explains why separation is a big task to accomplish. Let me explain. The forces that are pushing Nigeria apart and those that seek to pull it together are almost of equal capacity. Such factors as ethnicity, regionalism, state incapacity, long military rule constitute the centrifugal forces. These are what trigger counter-coups, the civil war, inter-religious conflagrations, brazen annulment of national elections and exclusion, which in turn fuel the spirit of separatism. However, these are being counterpoised by history and long social interactions among the Nigerian people and vigilance imposed on one another, particularly by the “big three” – Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba, and Igbo ethnic groups.

Mr Vice Chancellor, neither of the two forces – centripetal and centrifugal – has been able to overwhelm the other. The day one succeeds; we will either have a collapse of the state or enjoy an enduring peace. As it is, Nigeria hangs in the balance. It is neither falling nor standing well. Based on my reading and engagement with the study of the Nigerian state, the political elite seem to benefit more from the balancing of these two forces than allowing either of them to prevail: a collapsed Nigerian state is useless to them while a strong one will be difficult or almost impossible to plunder. So, it is in their best interest for it to remain on this shaky rope, neither fallen nor standing. And if the status quo remains, peace, development, and stability will be difficult to achieve. This is the Nigerian dilemma.

So far Nigeria is still standing. Mother luck has been on the side of Nigeria. The country has suffered self-inflicted injuries countless times and still endures. The country has been taken to the precipice several times, but refused to take the plunge. But for how long will the scale hold for Nigeria? Should there not be a limit to pushing one’s luck? That is the million-dollar question at the heart of this talk. “If gold can rust, what would the iron do?” asked Geoffrey Chaucer, in his prologue to Canterbury Tales. So, if a powerful country like the Soviet Union can split-up, what then do we think cannot happen to a country that cannot even handle some ragtag insurgents with dispatch? Examples from other climes cited in this lecture shows clearly that nothing is cast in granite. It may not be possible to exorcise the spirit of separatism from the state, because it is part of the nature of the state; yet the basis for it can be neutralized and its negative manifestation greatly curtailed by some of the suggestions highlighted in this lecture. These include: inclusivity, equity and justice, welfare, state responsiveness, constitutional engineering, purposeful leadership, good and critical followership.

Going forward, Mr Vice Chancellor, I will continue to engage the Nigerian state as a matter of professional duty. I will continue to pontificate on peace and conflict resolution. In the recent time, I have developed interest in political ecology, which is an analysis of the sociopolitical and economic consequences of environmental issues and changes. I have also recently taken keen interest in heritage studies within the context of conflict studies. In the years ahead, God willing, I will continue to explore these lines of research.

 

• Olaniyan, a professor of political science, presented this during the 11th inaugural lecture of the Federal University, Oye-Ekiti, Ekiti State held recently.

 

YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THESE HEADLINES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE

‘We want to go back to school’: Untold story of out-of-school kids in Ibadan

One of the kids who spoke to our reporter, Saheed Abiodun, ran away from home to look for succour…

Mali, Burkina Faso deploy warplanes to Niger Republic, meet on response to ECOWAS military threat

AMID mounting pressure by the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to restore civilian rule in the Niger Republic, Burkina Faso…

FG appoints 11 new CMDs for federal medical facilities

Federal Government has appointed 11 new Medical Directors for the Federal Government established Medical Facilities…

#BBNaijaAllStars: Biggie pulls another twist, introduces 4 new housemates

During the Sunday live eviction show of BBNaija, host Ebuka Obi-Uchendu unveiled a new twist…

Employment racketeering at FCC

IF there was any scintilla of doubt that the civil/public service in the country is a cesspit of corruption, the recent scandalous revelations…

Messi becomes most decorated footballer after winning record 44 titles

Following his Leagues Cup title wins with Inter Miami, Argentina captain and World Cup winner,  Lionel Messi…