October 21, 2001
Further to the advice of the President of Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Aremu Matthew Obasanjo I hope Nigerians at home and abroad would during this period of the celebration of ‘Independence Day’ leave aside their various political differences and their pasts and reflect on the meaning of this day, October 1, of any year since 1960. This is what I shall be doing in this two-part essay.
In this first part, I shall focus on what I knew as the ‘Independence Settlement’ of October 1, 1960 from the ‘Independence Election’ of December 1959.
I personally knew what happened on October 1, 1960, because I was very much an adult being a trained and certificated schoolteacher, with an experience of a voter to my credit. I participated in what I call the ‘Independence Election’ of December 1959. I hope many Nigerians who played different roles before and during the period of the event of October 1, 1960 would reflect on the event itself, the journey so far, the present and the future and their relationship.
Was the current Nigeria what we voted for in 1959? Could we imagine that the Nigeria of today was what the voter of 1959 prayed for? This is my way of approaching this first part of this essay.
FROM MY REFLECTION
After reflection, I came to the conclusion that Nigeria of today was not what I voted for in 1959 or what the successor to the founders of Nigeria bargained for. I would want to make this distinction between the founding fathers of Nigeria who were three, Lord Harcourt, Lord Lugard and Sir James Robertson and not the so-called Nigerian politicians.
Chief Obafemi Awolowo was very clear of this that Britain created or founded Nigeria and the nationalists such as Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe or Chief Obafemi Awolowo or Sardauna of Sokoto were merely successors to what Britain created or founded between 1914 and 1960. I once dismissed President Obasanjo’s thesis that God created or founded Nigeria and that God in His Infinite Mercy must have had something in mind when ‘Amalgamation’ was contemplated and probably when the ‘Independence Settlement’ was arrived at. With all the injustices in the land, God had no hand in the plan and in the implementation of the plan.
Since Nigerians did not create or found Nigeria, the question is what did the founder, the British have in mind when its officials took many actions they took beginning with the ‘Amalgamation of 1914 and culminating in the ‘Independence Settlement’ of 1960? There is a
relationship between the past, the present and the future. If the past in its relationship with the present has anything to teach us, it is that the relationship between the present and the future of Nigeria is bleak. These relationships are sometimes glossed over. If 1914 was ‘a fraud’ courtesy to Chief Richard Akinjide, then October 1 1960 should have been made to correct the fraud by the colonial ruler and the Nigerian political leaders; it was not so done.
October 1, 1960 compounded and complicated the fraud of 1914.
Other settlements concerned how the minority groups in the north and in the south were denied homes or regions or states of their own in Nigeria as part of the ‘Independence Settlement’. At independence they were left in the three regions inhabited and dominated by the
three ethnic nationalities in the north, west and east despite their claim that they were victims of many human rights violations, which made them to agitate for their regions before independence.
October 1, 1960 was a huge fraud, because it left the country and its leaders, military and civilians with the two nagging problems unresolved and still lingering today. I am referring to how Nigerians from all ethnic nationalities can live together; and how
Nigeria should be governed,which formed the basis of my contribution to the October 1, 2001 edition of the Vanguard.THE ‘MISTAKE OF OCTOBER 1960’ FROM ‘INDEPENDENCE ELECTION’ OF 1959
I knew what happened on October 1, 1960; I voted a year earlier. From what I knew from the data on the election from the data supplied in the book by Ken Post (The Nigerian Federal Elections of 1959), that election was inconclusive, as it did not produce a winner. The
system of election was at variance with the nature of the Nigerian plural set up and the political class failed in their primary duties of ensuring that each ethnic nationality was adequately represented.
If the principle of Proportional Representation (PR) were adopted, the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) would have secured majority of seats in the House of Representatives. The Governor General would not have had a choice but to invite the leader of the NCNC, Dr.
Nnamdi Azikiwe to form the government. Dr. Azikiwe would have been the first Prime Minister of an independent Nigeria under the PR system in his won right, which he rightly deserved and the history of Nigeria would have been different. One could ask some pertinent questions.
Why did the political leaders not make a case for PR as a condition for participation in the Independence Election?
Did Dr. Azikiwe and Chief Awolowo not foresee what was to befall them in 1959 under the unrepresentative system of election called the First-Past-the-Post?
Why did they settle for the Westminster model, which is antithetical to the nature of plural society?
The system of election was a big mistake then and it appears one of those who pushed their party to adopt this system, is advocating it today as part of his pact with the PDP. I am referring to Chief Anthony Enahoro who is advocating for a return to the Parliamentary System
the system he knew as a politician. Why did he make it one of his deals with the PDP? He ought to have known that there is no way Nigeria would ever return to that system, which failed and relegated the minority groups to the background in the past, whatever his understanding with the PDP. It was this ignorance, which led the successors to the colonial order to agree to the Parliamentary System. This is evident in the argument of Chief Enahoro. With the greatest respect to Chief Enahoro, what he is advocating will diminish the power of the minorities in the country. I hate to believe this is not his plan.
The problem with Nigeria is not in the Presidential System; the problem is that what General Murtala Muhammed wanted for himself with Sharia to the bargain was not understood by the first person (Alhaji Shehu Shagari) that became the elected President in 1979. The record is there, he did not believe in the Presidential System and worked against it in the Constituent Assembly in 1977/78. It was an irony that those who worked against the Presidential System became the operators of the system in 1979 and those that worked for it never found themselves to the position to operate it.
Here we are with another elected President (Obasanjo) who through no fault of his own and with little or no faith in politics and politicians from his past finds himself running the system alone. One would ask whither the National Assembly and the political parties and the
non-governmental organizations?
Maybe because the National Assembly is still in search of a role for itself, this was why the gifted parliamentarian as Chief Awolowo aptly described Chief Anthony Enahoro wants a return to the parliament of old. The power of the Parliament under the Westminster Model even in the United Kingdom is on the decline, whereas parliament under the Presidential System like in the US could be powerful if the members know their power. The legislatures at all levels in Nigeria since 1999 are made up of persons in search of roles for themselves and for the institution of legislature.
There is still an unexplained part of our political history, which I would discuss in my forthcoming book on the political dynamics in the Constituent Assembly. I am referring to the genesis of the Presidential System in the Constituent Assembly in 1977/78.
THE ‘INDEPENDENCE SETTLEMENT’ OF 1960: A CASE OF TWO v ONE
The ‘Independence Settlement’ produced a case of two against one. What I mean by this would be obvious. It was unwittingly planned and implemented by the North and the East to destroy the West and its leaders.
By the condition of the settlement, Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa of the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) with no member outside the north was made the first Prime Minister of an independent Nigeria. Dr. Azikiwe with a national coverage with the largest supporters in the
country north and south resigned his seat in the House of Representatives and was made the President of the rubber stamp Senate. He later became the first Ceremonial
Governor General on his birthday on November 16 1960. That was the ‘Independence Settlement’.
In the end he knew he was tricked and he never forgave himself for accepting this role as he rightly lamented in December 1978, ‘I never ruled this country even for one day’. Many of us who heard the Owelle of Onitsha and a Presidential aspirant on the platform of the Nigerian Peoples party wondered what he meant. It was later that I knew that he was reacting to how the north tricked him in the past.
One should also recall that Chief Obafemi Awolowo one of the three political leaders who could lay claim to the leadership of an independent Nigeria also like Dr. Azikiwe with representatives throughout the country was excluded from the ‘Independence Settlement’.
This is what I mean when I call the ‘Independence Settlement’, ‘two against one’. The ‘Independence Settlement’ for Nigeria provided for only two of its three pillars, Dr. Azikiwe of the east and Sir Abubakar/Sir Ahmadu of the north. It was noted above that October 1, 1960 did not provide for the minorities in the north and in the south.
Thus the ‘Independence Settlement’ was the beginning of the ‘politics of inclusion and exclusion’ culminating in the ‘Mistake of 1960’. Is this not still continuing today?
I was amazed with the revelations in the memoir of the last British Governor General, Sir James Robertson (Transition in Africa, 1974). Sir James opined that the Sardauna threatened to take his ‘North’ away, if the two southern leaders were allowed to form a government, even though the two leaders had representatives throughout the country including the north. From the results of the Federal election of 1959, the NCNC had the northern members through the NEPU and the Action Group had members in the through the UMBC. Which ‘north’ would the Sardauna have taken away?
Who told Sir James that the three political parties (NPC, NCNC and AG) could not work together as a transitional measure within the first four years after independence? They could have formed Government of National Unity to take the country to independence and beyond. This was where the three political leaders made mistakes.
Another mistake was how the two political parties (NPC and NCNC) engineered the crisis in the west in 1962 with the sole purpose of destroying the AG and its leadership for their narrow selfish interest. This criminal act engineered both by the two political parties against the
Western Region and the Action Group led to the series of events as Chief Anthony Enahoro rightly foretold on the floor of the House of Representatives in May 1962, the end we did not know. We had since known that, that act culminated in the first coup and in the series of events the end no one knew up till today. Could this have been averted or avoided? This could have been averted.
I hope the former military Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon would revisit the period before and after independence and stop distorting the history of Nigeria. I was shocked when he stated recently that the cause of the lingering political problems in Nigeria as the first coup. There was no evidence in his assertion that could identify these lingering political problems. Maybe he did not even understand them. Haba! General give us a break! The lingering political problems started with the fraud in the ‘Amalgamation’ of January 1, 1914 and in the ‘Independence Settlement’ of October 1, 1960. Period!
As if the above distortion was not bad enough, General Gowon went before an august Conference of the Civil War at Ibadan to make false claim that he meant to hand over to civilian government in 1976. This is dastardly falsehood, as the records of his aides did not bear this out. I shall deal with this in my forthcoming book on the plan of his aides to make General Gowon transform himself into something, which he did not even understand.
It was unfair for the General to castigate Chief Awolowo when he told his audience that the cause of the coup that threw him out of office in 1975 was because Chief Obafemi Awolowo left his government after the Civil War to commence his political ambition. How could he attribute
the management of the economy to one man? Where were the Shagaris and others working with him when Chief Awolowo left on the belief that General Gowon was serious and honest with Nigerians with his plan to return Nigeria to civilian rule in 1976? It was a display of faith in the plan of General Gowon and on General Gowon himself if a renowned Chief like Chief Awolowo should go to the Nigeria people to tell them that General Gowon meant what he told Nigerians. It was still one of the mistakes of Chief Awolowo to have believed General Gowon that he meant to return power to the civilian in 1976.
General Gowon should read the account of his officers during this period such Generals JJ. Oluleye, Segun Obasanjo, Joe Garba and Jemibewon and respond to them in a reasoned memoir instead of this unsubstantiated assertions attributed to him since he returned to Nigeria.
Another error in the historical account of the ‘Independence Settlement’ of October 1, 1960 has to do with how Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe became the ceremonial Governor General and later the ceremonial President. We are told that Dr. Azikiwe became the ceremonial Governor General as
a result of the alliance between the northern led political party (Northern Peoples Congress-NPC) and the eastern led political party (National Council of Nigerian
Citizens-NCNC). The records in the British Colonial Office, which were ably reflected on by the last British Colonial Governor General, Sir James Robertson in his
memoir ought to have informed our scholars and politicians that Dr. Azikiwe was not made Governor General from the goodwill of the northern political leaders. We should correct our records.
But for the British Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan, Sir Abubakar had reached another deal with the outgoing executive Governor General Sir James Robertson to ditch Dr. Azikiwe after using him to divide the southern front and make Sir James extend his tenure as the first
Ceremonial Governor General of Nigeria after independence. You can see this account of the northern intrigue in the memoir of Sir James Robertson written in 1974 called the Transition in Africa.
For the interest of those who are concerned about the genesis of the Nigerian political problems, let me state what is not usually discussed, which I already refer to as the ‘Mistake of 1960". If this is what we are celebrating, we should make some efforts or use the
occasion to call on the President to address this mistake.
It is unfortunate that Nigerians are made to recite the ‘Mistake of 1914’ and ignore the ‘Mistake of 1960’. One would recall that the ‘Mistake of 1914’ was voiced twice in the nation’s history and no one knows of or talks about the ‘Mistake of 1960’.
MISTAKE OF 1999
We are beginning to read of the ‘Mistake of 1999’ in some northern circles. They are ashamed to remind the country of the ‘Mistake of 1914’ because they thought they had overcome that, and had successfully turned the ‘Mistake of 1914’ into the ‘Blessing of 1914’ and the ‘Blessing of 1960’.
General Babangida made the north to swallow the bitter pills and commit the "Mistake of 1999’ on the erroneous assumption that the northern interest would be best served if the north should support a candidate made by the north through him. Under this arrangement, the new President from the south would be beholden to the north during his administration. General Babangida thought that the north should try that candidate with just one term in the first instance with a condition for a second term being dependent on how he fared as a ‘Good Boy’.
Why did the plan, which produced President Obasanjo turn out to be a mistake? It was not a mistake but it was General Babangida who misled the northern political leaders that the quality they dreaded in Chief MKO Abiola would NOT be present in the man he was recommending. This
was arrant nonsense for General Babangida to think or give the impression to the northern leaders that Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was not a true son of his father.
This was the ‘Mistake of 1999’ for making General Abdulsalami Abubakar to go for General Olusegun Obasanjo after the death of General Sani Abacha in 1998.
Part (2) OF THIS REFLECTION IS FORTHCOMING.
October, 2001
Guides
October 1, 2001: