Suitable Constitution

But after 146 years of a studied policy of acculturation, each national group retains its language.

Ironically enough, it is the conquering Fulani in Sokoto, Kano, Katsina, and Northern Zaria whose language has succumbed in the process. In the North today, those who claim Fulani descent but do not speak the language, far outnumber those who claim the same descent and speak the language. In any case it must be emphasized, in this connection, that the Fulani who speak Hausa as their mother-tongue have been totally assimilated with the Hausa national group in Sokoto, Katsina, Kano, and Zaria Provinces, while those ‘of them who still speak Fulani as their mother-tongue are very thinly spread over many parts of Bauchi and Adamawa provinces, and are in other respects fully assimilated with their neighbours.

The so-called ‘Cattle Fulani’ are nomadic, and do notenter into reckoning in our present exercise. For all practical purposes, they are nothing more and nothing less than temporary immigrants in any constituent State in which they may be found, at any given time.

The Efiks, Ibibios, and the Annangs are members of one and the same nation. They each speak a different dialect of the same Efik or Ibibio or Annang language. Because of sentiments which have been stimulated over the years by the British and some Nigerian politicians, no Efik, or Ibibio, or Annang likes to bear any generic name other than his own. In order to avoid causing unnecessary offence, therefore, we have given to this linguistic group the long appellation of ‘Efik/lbibio/Annang’.

The tribal units which constitute each of the 51 national groups are territorially concentrated and contiguous. There are no geographical barriers of any importance as between one tribe and another in each national group. And barring some minor local variations, the cultures of all the tribes in a national group are basically the same. Since the advent of British rule, such inter-tribal strife and prejudice as existed has been considerably reduced to the extent that the tribes in any national group can be expected to act in concert on any important issue that touches any of them.

As a matter of fact, for some years past, the Yoruba, lbo, lbibio/Annang, Edo, and Urhobo have each launched a non-political, non-partisan-national movement which caters for the interests of the individual members and tribal units within the national group, and pursues the goal of national unification. In short, as far as we can ascertain, no tribal unit within any of the nations has developed such a divergent or autonomous outlook as to make it insist on remaining independent of the others within the nation. On the’ contrary, the obvious phenomenon among all the units within each nation is the tendency to cohere as one unified entity.

The sum and substance of all that we have said thus far is that Nigeria is a multi-national or multi-lingual country. For this reason’ it comes within the ambit of the third of the four principles whioh we enunciated, at page 91 ante, as follows: ‘If a country is bi-lingual or multi-lingual, the constitution must be federal, and the constituent States must be organised on a linguistic basis.’ It follows, therefore, that the Constitution of Nigeria must be federal, and the constituent States in the country must be organized on a I inguistic basis.

A strict applicati6on of this principle (hereafter called the multi-lingual principle) to Nigeria now will produce at least 51 constituent states, or as many as 60, in addition to the composite state of Nigeria itself. Until the census analysts have completed their job, we shall not know exactly how many nations there are in Nigeria.

But since the 1952 census count recorded only 5 I, and though the count did not show any minor linguistic groups for Bauchi and Adamawa Provinces, it is none the less safe to assume that the final figure is not likely to go up by more than nine, which is close on 20 per cent of the 1952 total. We are strengthened in this assumption because we are authoritatively informed that some of the minor national units in the North, like the Shuwa Arabs and the Bussawa for instance, have become completely assimilated with their respective neighbours. For the time being, therefore, we will confine ourselves to the 51 nations which are already identified; especially as any subsequent increase would not be likely to affect substantially the proposals which we intend to make for applying the multi-lingual principle to Nigeria.

For the reason which we will state presently, it is our considered view that Nigeria’s composite state would be threatened with certain collapse if it were to have 51 constituent States now.

From our personal knowledge of them, the 41 minor national groups cannot each, for the present, sustain a viable state. We hasten to declare that viability, in this regard, is essentially a question of administrative relativity and not, as popular notion has it, primarily a financial or population problem. There are large and small states, whether composite, single or constituent, just as there are. rich and poor ones.

The world has its U.S.A. (population 186m.), U.S.S.R. (237m.), and People’s China (657m.), just as it has its Gabon (440,000), Gambia (315,000), Luxemburg (314,000), Iceland (190,000), Tonga (67,000), Andorra (I 1,000), Romansch Canton (50,000), and Kurdish Autonomous Region (60,000).

Granting administrative competence then, any constituent or independent state will manage to eke out some sort of existence. An Ikenne constituent (even independent) State can be viable.

Ikenne has a population of 9,000, and it can always produce one competent person at any given time who will be both Premier or Executive Governor as well as Minister For All Purposes.

It can also produce at all times, from among its own citizens, the small number of administrative personnel required for the efficient running of its affairs. The Head of Government does not need a car to tour his domain; consequently none will be bought. He, together with the members of his Parliament, does not have to devote much more time to the affairs of his domain than the Chairman and members of Ikenne Town Council are expected to do; consequently only a slight increase in the sitting allowances paid to the Chairman and other members ofIkenne Local Council is required to remunerate them for their efforts. The State Assembly will combine the functions normally performed by Local Government Councils with its constitutional functions, thus eliminating the duplication of the deliberative and legislative organ.

Since it will get its own full share of the country’s revenue, since it wiII not be expected to pay precepts to another body as the Ikenne Local Council now does, and since the people will continue to pay uch taxes and rates as may from time to time be ievied, the Ikenne State will have enough financial resources for launching and executing such programmes as its citizens demand and deserve.

With great respect, it must be emphasized quite candidly that the 41 minor national groups already mentioned are not, for the present, in the happy position of being able to produce, from among their respective citizens, self-sustaining pools of political leadership and competent administrative personnel.

Just as the viability of an Ikenne State would be seriously endangered if it were to employ expatriates, so would that of any of the minor linguistic groups be gravely jeopardized if they had to look outside their borders for efficient administrative staff.

On the other hand, however, we are perfectly satisfied that by judicious grouping, a number of minor national groups can supply the administrative personnel required from among their nationals, or failing that, they can, by reason of their combination, financially afford to employ outsiders for administrative purposes, until enough persons from among their nationals are trained to take the place of such outsiders.

In contrast, it is our considered view that each of the ten major national groups is viable. Each ofthem can either provide internally the administrative personnel it requires, or attract proficient outsiders to its service until such time as its own nationals are sufficiently qualified.

If we accept the foregoing arguments, ten constituent States, embracing the ten major national groups,with a population of 45 millions, emerge as follows:

(1)  Kano, Sokoto, and Katsina Provinces, plus the Northern part of Zaria Province including Kaduna Capital Territory, and Bedde Division. Population – 13.6 millions. (Hausal Fulani National Group.)

(2)  Ibadan, Ondo, Oyo, Abeokuta, Ijebu, and Colony Provinces, together with IIorin, Kabba, and     Warri Divisions, plus Akoko Edo District Council Area.

Population – 13 millions. (Yoruba National Group.)

(NOTE: This will be slightly affected by the proposals which we are making later in respect of Lagos.)

(3)  Old Onitsha and Owerri Provinces, together with Abakaliki and Afikpo Divisions of the Old Ogoja Province, plus the Old Aboh and Asaba Divisions, and the Aro Ibo County Council Area. Population – 7.8 millions. (Ibo National Group.)

(4)  Old Calabar Province minus Aro Ibo County Council Area.

Population – 3.2 millions. (EfiklIbibio/Annang National Group.)

(5)  Bomu, and Dikwa Divisions. Population – 2.2 millions. (Kanuri National Group.)

(6)  Tiv and Wukari Divisions. Population -1.5 millions. (Tiv National Group.)

(7)  Old Brass, Degema, and Western ljaw Divisions, Populatiori -0.9 million. (I jaw National Group.)

(8)  Old Benin and Ishan Divisions, plus Menmai Division excluding Akoko Edo District Council Area.

Population – 0.9 million. (Edo National Group.)

(9)  Old Urhobo Division. Population -0.6 million. (Urhobo National Group.)

(10)  Bida, Kwara, and Lafiagi-Pategi Divisions.

Population- 0.6 million. (Nupe National Group.)

After all this has been done, we are left with about 11 million Nigerians, spread over 41 linguistic groups, who have to be organized into constituent States. In tackling this problem the following important factors must be borne in mind.

ONE: In doing the grouping exercise, we must not make the mistake of bringing any of the minor linguistic groups into the same constituent State as any of the major ones. Vis-a-vis the majority national groups, the minority nations have fears – real or imaginary – which can only be allayed by making it possible for the latter to live apart from the former in separate States. In this connection, we must remember that countries like the U.S.S.R., Yugoslavia, and Britain, which recognize minorities, and make suitable constitutional arrangements to allay their fears, are reasonably free from the political troubles which usually emanate from this source.

But countries like Iraq and Ceylon which have tried to ignore the existence of minority linguistic groups have been incessantly plagued with violence involving considerable loss of lives and property.

TWO: Though it sounds superfluous, yet the point must be made that all the national groups being brought together must be territorially contiguous. Contiguity is used here in contrast to the Pakistani model wherein two parts of the same State are separated from each other by a vast expanse of alien territory. This must not be permitted in this exercise.

THREE: Every linguistic group should be made to remain as an undivided unit in anyone constituent State, In other words, no linguistic group should be divided into two or more constituent States.

FOUR: The linguistic groups being brought together must be large enough in population to be administratively viable; but must not be too large territorially to necessitate extensive travelling on the part of the functionaries of the resultant State.

YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THESE HEADLINES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE

Lagos Is Second Least Liveable City In The World For 2021

Lagos is the second least liveable city in the world for the year 2021. This is according to the most recent annual ranking put together by the Economist Intelligence Unit (EIU)…

FACT CHECK: Did UNICEF Say Blocking Children’s Access To Pornography Constitutes Human Rights’ Infringement?

CLAIM 1: A Twitter user claims UNICEF said any efforts to block children from accessing pornography might infringe their human rights.

VERDICT: MISLEADING!