Separatist agitations in Nigeria: The way forward by Jideofor Adibe

Separatist Agitations by Sam Kargbo
August 8, 2017
A brief case for Nigerian unity by Emeka Aniagolu
September 12, 2017
Separatist agitations in Nigeria: The way forward by Jideofor Adibe

What is to be done?

The typical response of Nigerian governments over the years to separatist agitations is to brand the agitators “troublemakers,” and send law enforcement agencies to use force to quell their agitations. This often results in casualties, stoking ethnic tensions in the process, which further hardens separatist agitations. For instance, Amnesty International accused the Nigerian security forces, led by the military, of embarking “on a chilling campaign of extrajudicial executions and violence resulting in the deaths
of at least 150 peaceful pro-Biafra protesters.” The report by Amnesty International was exploited by IPOB supporters who saw it as a legitimation of its argument that its protests were peaceful and that the Buhari government used it as an excuse to kill the Igbos. Nigerian authorities denied the claim by Amnesty International, saying it was only aimed to
tarnish the reputation of the country’s security forces. Although in recent times the government appears to be showing more willingness to use dialogue to solve some of the country’s separatist challenges (such as the recent remark by Acting President Yemi Osinbajo that
citizens have right to discuss their continued existence in Nigeria), much more needs to be done. Below are recommendations to address these separatist challenges:

Power sharing

At the root of the north-south dichotomy is the distribution of power between the two blocs and access to infrastructure and privileges at the federal level. It will be helpful to institutionalize or codify the existing conventional system of power sharing and rotating the presidency between the two blocs as an interim measure—until the country’s democracy matures and trust between the two blocs and among Nigerians has improved. Strengthening the
Federal Character Commission (FCC), an agency created in 1996 to ensure fairness in the distribution of jobs and socioeconomic amenities among different parts of the country, would help build trust among groups. Making it a mandatory requirement that certain federal appointments and distribution of infrastructure must have the imprimatur of the FCC will reduce the suspicion that the ethnic group in power will privilege its in-group and disadvantage others. This move will, in turn, help attenuate the anarchic character of the country’s politics.

Tolerance of uncomfortable views

One of the arguments for free speech is that through a robust competition of ideas in the political marketplace, the truth will be discovered. Unfortunately, some of the ideas that are brought into such markets are necessarily those that “shock and awe” and annoy and aggravate people. Banning them, though, will make them more dangerous by driving them underground and glamorizing the leaders of those who espouse such ideas. Indeed, when Nnamdi Kanu, who was hardly known in Nigeria, was detained, his popularity soared to eclipse those of other Biafra separatists, turning him into a cult hero among his followers and making it easier for his group to recruit and raise funds. Criminalizing separatist demands romanticizes the hush-hush agitations for independence.

Therefore, handling such uncomfortable viewpoints in such a way that they do not put stress on the system is the acme of statecraft. It is probably for this reason that purveyors of offensive views such as the as the KKK in the United States are not banned. The preference is to draw these groups’ ideas out and then out-compete them. While some argue that “proportionate force” should be used to deal with such groups, the carrot approach should always be the first line of engagement.