By Chidi G. Osuagwu, published by Njenje Media News
When Akin Fapohunda circulated his memo on restructuring Nigeria, it drew considerable criticism. Among the critiques was one from Professor Ọbasi Ìgwè, which I shared with Fapohunda. His reaction was one of frustration, prompting a discussion between us.
Fapohunda expressed his dissatisfaction with the negative feedback and sought my suggestions for amendments. I emphasized that the matter at hand was not suitable for ad hoc changes, especially given his perception that his plan was already in motion. I reminded him that the Southern and Middlebelt Alliance group, of which we are both members, had commissioned a team to develop working papers on restructuring. Ironically, his nominee from the Southwest had failed to submit contributions as expected. Despite this, we had reviewed the inputs received and reached consensus positions, none of which were reflected in his memo. Fapohunda seemed to have forgotten or misunderstood our decisions, but I believe he is engaging in the kind of political maneuvering that has plagued Nigeria for years.
The collapse of Nigeria’s first republic, a federal system with flourishing economies, was due to an imbalanced federalism. British colonial documents reveal that they intentionally created a federation dominated by the North, controlled by Fulani viceroys, to maintain indirect control over Nigeria. This neocolonial setup, designed by Britain, has persisted since Nigeria’s independence in 1960.
The impatience of the Igbo, unable to endure the racist and feudalistic oppression, led to the disruption of this unsustainable system, fueling animosity and culminating in the Biafran genocide. Therefore, any proposal for a federal Nigeria that does not address the fundamental imbalance, such as Fapohunda’s, is misguided.
I originated the concept of a six-regional federation in Nigeria to resolve the destabilizing imbalance that collapsed the first republic. As a structuralist, I approach problems and solutions from a structural perspective. I developed this idea as a student in America, proposing a seven-regional structure for Africa, which I shared with Professor Wole Soyinka in 1975.
In 1982, after returning to Nigeria, Dr. Chuks Osuji published my proposal in his Opinion magazine. The idea gained traction, and I circulated the article to notable figures like Nnamdi Azikiwe and Sam Mbakwe. This is how the concept of a six-regional federation began to spread in Nigeria.
The core principle of the proposed six-regional federation is structural balance. With this balance, which the British avoided in Nigeria’s independence structure, the country would achieve stability and prosperity under the 1963 Republican Constitution.
The proposed six-regional federation aims to balance:
1. The North (three regions) and the South (three regions).
2. Major ethnic groups (Hausa, Igbo, and Yoruba) and all Nigerian minorities (three regions).
General Sani Abacha, a Kanuri, collaborated with the Igbo to legislate the six-regional system, aiming to free his people from Fulani political dominance. Unfortunately, Abacha’s death led to the removal of this provision from his draft constitution by Fulani imperialists, who sought to maintain Northern Nigeria as their realm of control. Only the Fulani oppose a balanced federation, as they, along with their British allies, profit from chaos and instability.
Any realistic proposal for restructuring must address this balance issue to solve Nigeria’s fundamental problems. Balancing the North and South, as well as minorities and majorities, is essential. Even if more regions are desired, they should be in multiples of six (e.g., 12, 18). Ignoring the balance issue is a failure to understand why Nigeria’s first republic collapsed and why the country remains troubled.
The British, who understand the relationship between structure and stability, have profited immensely from Nigeria’s instability. Nigerians must awaken to this reality and stop engaging in ineffective memos.
Chidi G. Osuagwu
