Unsettled accounts with the SNC
By
DR. Edwin Madunagu's "Settling accounts with SNC" deserves some comments. Madunagu had argued inter alia that the origin, concept and scope of the Sovereign National Conference (SNC) is in fact to his credit. Unfortunately he laments, this has been hijacked by ethnic chauvinists and pro-democracy activists. And that the SNC (whether his own version or the adulterated brand) is at variance with a Conference of Ethnic Nationalities. Given the above premise therefore, Madunagu submitted in toto that the SNC of his persuasion runs parallel with whatever Conference of Ethnic Nationalities. What is more, Madunagu took a swipe at the ethnic chauvinists and asserted unequivocally that Nigeria is no longer a union (if ever it was) of ethnic nationalities (emphasis mine). The material fallacy inherent in the above assertions require prompt rebuttal so as not to mislead the reading public that is vulnerable to sheer sophism. The problem with the author actually relates to the ideological realm into which an issue as crucial as the SNC has been dragged. Yet it is trite that the socio-political problem confronting Nigeria today cannot conform to any ideological rationalisation. Thus any attempt to resolve the national question within the Marxist fold is fraught with frustration as such route clearly undermines the historical context of the impasse.
It is true that the origin and concept of the SNC as rightly pointed out by the author is largely misunderstood. But this is neither unexpected nor incidental given that the very concept of Nigeria as a country means different things to different people. Thus whereas it took Britain, the master colonialist a whopping 14 years of expedition (1900-1914) to decree a union of Nigeria, it took less than an hour of sheer sophism by a Madunagu to write off that historical epoch. But such material fallacy only compounds the debate on the national question such that no rational point of convergence is attainable. Yet, contentious as it is, the national question must be resolved either peacefully or otherwise. But for that to be via the SNC route, the latter must of necessity be defined categorically devoid of any ambiguity and conjectures. In the first place, there is no divide between the SNC and a Conference of Ethnic Nationalities. What that means is that the one can be taken for the other. But why is this so? Simply because the operating term in both concepts namely, national(ities) is not only definite and descriptive but also authoritative conferring legitimacy on the conveners (sovereign) of the conference. For example, a conference of ethnic nationalities will provoke the following questions. What gathering is it? A conference. For whom and by whom? Ethnic nationalities of Nigeria. This rationalisation is equally apt for the SNC. But Edwin Madunagu quibbled badly in his erroneous definition of what an SNC is in the course of which the operating word national was deliberately severed from its true adjunct namely, sovereign. The question then is where does sovereignty lie? It amounts to fallacy of petitio principi to assert as Madunagu did that the SNC is concomitant with the Nigerian institution, unspecified. By conferring sovereignty on the latter rather than its ethnic components, Madunagu no doubt has opened a new vista in constitutional law. It is doubtful however, if this bizarre theory will have any universal appeal. And that brings us to the second limb of the argument namely, whether as a union of ethnic nationalities in 1914, Nigeria has in the year 2001ipso facto ceased to be and by virtue thereof has its sovereignty conferred on its social institutions. In my all treatise on the national question viz, "Victim of the National Question" (The Guardian, January 20, 1999), "Ethnicity and Nationality" (The Guardian On Sunday, September 26, 1999) and "Politics of Nation Hatred" (The Guardian On Sunday, March 14, 2000), I have been conscientiously guided by our cruel history. Thus I have consistently refrained from ever referring to Nigeria as a nation-state but rather a union of ethnic nationalities of variegated interests. It was the members of that union that met for the first time at the 1950 national conference to give validity to the Lugard experiment of 1914. Other conferences of significance were to follow later in May 1957 (Lancaster conference) and September 1966 (Constitutional Conference, Lagos). I shall return to these last two later. But the point to note here is that all these conferences were at the instance of the ethnic nationalities of Nigeria and never those of its institutions. Unfortunately, all of them failed to produce a nation state out of the union. Given the above therefore, it goes without saying that the so-called social institutions do not have loci standi to debate, let alone resolve anything on behalf of the rest of us save that exclusively reserved for the respective ethnic groups to which their membership belongs. The argumentative leap that a recognised professional body in Nigeria by virtue thereof can partake on the SNC debate is fraught with danger. Why? Because while all ethnic nationalities are bona fide Nigerians, not all members of the Nigerian institutions are of necessity Nigerians. Again, what becomes of our rural populace who constitute well over 70 per cent of the national population? Is it to be taken that they have ceased to be Nigerians given that they do not and cannot belong to the Nigerian institutions of Madunagu's persuasion?
But by far Madunagu's theory has a bigger problem. For instance, in the event of our Arewa overlords invoking yet another araba (revisiting July 1966) and the union is dissolved as it almost happened at the 1966 constitutional conference but for the misplaced patriotism of the Midwest delegation to that conference, where will that leave the so-called Nigerian institutions? First, they will vanish into the thin air. Secondly, their membership will be absolved and assimilated into their respective ethnic folds. But while that transfusion lasts, the various ethnic groups will emerge (in the absence of anything to the contrary) taller and stronger to claim and retain their autochthony. In "Politics of Nation Hatred" (supra), I did opine as follows: "...That Nigeria as a political entity is an amalgam of various ethnic nationalities and not that of political parties and their military associates. It is trite therefore that only their true representatives, the Urhobos, Izons, etc that can validly resolve, make, enact, give and finally proclaim a constitution for and on their behalf..." My position in this regard is informed by the firm conviction that the national question can only be resolved within the ethnic circumference. Unpatriotic as this position may be, the fact remains that the above rationalisation has remained ever valid till this day. While concluding "Ethnicity and Nationality" (supra), I did warn that "for the Nigerian experiment to succeed, we must revisit the Lancaster misnomer de novo which for all intents and purposes, remains a voidable instrument." The question then is why is the Lancaster instrument a voidable one? First, the instrument as a product of fraud fraudulently vested state power on a triumvirate to the utter exclusion of over 240 ethnic nationalities in the union. And no relationship ever built on fraud ever succeeded. You can check it out from history.
Secondly, and this is an adjunct to the first premise, a voidable agreement remains valid until set aside by the adverse party. And once that happens, it remains void ab initio. From the Isaac Adaka Boro 14-day revolution (1966) to the Biafran Revolution (1967-1970), the Gideon Orka/Ogboru coup (1990), the Ogoni uprising (1990) to the recent Ijaw revolt (1999), it has all been a case of one aggrieved party (entity) within the union attempting albeit, unsuccessfully so far to set aside the Lancaster misnomer of 1957.
The Ijaw revolt was not only remarkable but also significant as it unmasked for the first time the invisibility of our armed forces. Nigerians had a first hand account of how our combat-lazy army was humiliated by a less formidable, ill-equipped yet determined Ijaw youths in the aftermath of the Kaiaima declaration. But like a jinxed polity completely set for self-destruction, the above alarums rather than sharpen the thinking of our leadership on the need to equilibrate our total social system, have on the contrary hardened their resolve to religiously believe that yesterday has nothing to teach today. Yet behind that misplaced optimism resides the apprehension that sooner than later, the guns may boom louder.
Dr. Madunagu appears to be in dilemma. His resolve to live and die in Marxism which ideology finds no relevance in our total social system no doubt informs his resolve to boycott well in advance the impending conference of ethnic nationalities. My candid advice to him is to dump the Marxist garb as times have changed and there is no going back on the ethnic question. Even the defunct Soviet Union founded on Karl Marx model succumbed to the ethnic question. In the alternative, Dr. Madunagu should pack his baggage and leave this country for the rest of us the ethnic chauvinists to sort out ourselves. He can try Cuba where the fading light of Marxism still flourish.