By Editor
In a searing rebuttal to a recent proposal by Chief Emeka Anyaoku, former Commonwealth Secretary-General, to President Bola Tinubu, the Nigerian Indigenous Nationalities Alliance for Self-Determination (NINAS) has issued a blistering critique, condemning the move as a “rigged process” designed to cement the ongoing subjugation of Nigeria’s ethnic constituents. The statement, penned by Tony Nnadi on behalf of the NINAS Secretariat, dissects Anyaoku’s suggestion for a Constituent Assembly to draft a new constitution, likening it to “building a house from the roof” and accusing the elder statesman of perpetuating a historical fraud that has plagued the nation for decades.
The proposal in question, which Anyaoku and a group of self-styled “Patriots” recently presented, advocates for the convening of a Constituent Assembly as the first step towards the constitutional reconstruction of Nigeria. According to NINAS, this proposal fundamentally ignores the unresolved foundational issues that have haunted Nigeria since the promulgation of the 1999 Constitution, a document they describe as a “Caliphate-Imposed Unitary Constitution.”
Nnadi’s response, which has reverberated through political circles and ignited a fresh debate on Nigeria’s future, lays bare the deep-seated mistrust and frustration within NINAS and the broader Nigerian populace regarding the nation’s constitutional framework. This detailed examination will critically analyze the underlying tensions, historical context, and potential implications of this latest clash in Nigeria’s long-running constitutional saga.
The Anatomy of a Constitutional Fraud: Three Egregious Falsehoods
At the heart of NINAS’s argument are what they term the “three egregious falsehoods” enshrined in the preamble of the 1999 Constitution. These falsehoods, according to Nnadi, must be addressed in the sequence of their occurrence before any meaningful constitutional reconstruction can take place.
- The Fiction of “We the People of Nigeria”: The first falsehood, Nnadi argues, is the assertion that the 1999 Constitution was the product of a collective agreement among Nigeria’s constituent ethnic groups. The preamble’s claim that “We the People of Nigeria” came together to form a political union is, in NINAS’s view, a blatant lie. The ethnic nationalities that make up Nigeria were never consulted or involved in any genuine dialogue or negotiation to create the current political structure. This lack of consultation, they argue, has resulted in a constitution that is not only illegitimate but also fundamentally unrepresentative of the diverse interests and identities within the country.
- The Myth of Indivisibility: The second falsehood is the notion that Nigeria’s constituent peoples “firmly and solemnly resolved to live in unity as one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign nation.” NINAS contends that this statement is not only false but also dangerous, as it assumes an agreement that never existed. The forced unity under a unitary constitution, they argue, has been the source of endless conflict, marginalization, and disenfranchisement, particularly for the indigenous nationalities whose sovereignty was hijacked by the colonial and post-colonial state.
- The Illusion of Self-Governance: The third falsehood, according to Nnadi, is the claim that “We therefore make, enact and give to ourselves the following constitution.” This statement, he argues, is the ultimate insult to the Nigerian people, as the 1999 Constitution was imposed by military decree, not by any democratic process or popular mandate. The constitution, he asserts, was designed to entrench the power of a narrow elite, particularly the so-called “Caliphate” that has dominated Nigeria’s political landscape since independence.
These three falsehoods, Nnadi insists, must be resolved in the order in which they occurred. NINAS has spent the last 25 years working to compel Nigeria to address these foundational issues, and they are adamant that any attempt to draft a new constitution without first rectifying these historical wrongs is doomed to fail.
A Proposal Destined for Failure?
Given the gravity of these unresolved issues, NINAS’s rejection of Anyaoku’s proposal is unsurprising. Nnadi’s response is not just a critique of the proposal itself but also a broader indictment of the Nigerian state and its ruling class. He argues that Anyaoku and his fellow “Patriots” are attempting to “jump over” the critical questions of identity and unity in order to impose yet another fraudulent constitution on the Nigerian people.
This approach, Nnadi suggests, is eerily reminiscent of the process that led to the imposition of the 1979 Constitution, which was later carried forward as the 1999 Constitution. He points to the role of Chief Rotimi Williams and Prof. Ben Nwabueze, both of whom were instrumental in drafting the 1979 Constitution under the direction of General Murtala Mohammed. This constitution, Nnadi argues, was designed to entrench the power of the ruling elite and maintain the status quo, much to the detriment of Nigeria’s diverse ethnic nationalities.
The Ghosts of 1979: A History of Betrayal
Nnadi’s reference to the 1979 Constitution is not merely historical trivia. It is a stark reminder of the ways in which Nigeria’s political elite have repeatedly manipulated the constitutional process to serve their own interests. The 1979 Constitution, like its 1999 successor, was the product of a top-down process that excluded the vast majority of Nigerians from any meaningful participation.
The parallels between the current situation and the events of 1975-1979 are striking. In both cases, a small group of elites—backed by the military and international interests—sought to impose a constitution on the Nigerian people without their consent. The result, as Nnadi and many others have pointed out, has been decades of political instability, economic stagnation, and social unrest.
The Role of the “Patriots”: Who Benefits?
One of the most damning aspects of Nnadi’s critique is his characterization of Anyaoku and his colleagues as “Patriots” in name only. He questions their motivations, pointing out that the term “Patriot” has often been used as a cover for those who seek to maintain the status quo and protect their own interests.
Nnadi is particularly scathing in his assessment of the group’s leadership. He notes that Chief Rotimi Williams, the founding chairman of the “Patriots,” was the architect of the very constitutional fraud that NINAS is now fighting to dismantle. Williams, he argues, was handsomely rewarded for his role in drafting the 1979 Constitution, a document that has done incalculable harm to Nigeria and its people.
Similarly, Prof. Ben Nwabueze, who succeeded Williams as chairman, is described as a willing participant in the imposition of the 1979 Constitution. Nnadi cites a 2013 confession by Nwabueze in which he admitted to making grievous errors in his work on the constitution, errors that have had far-reaching consequences for Nigeria’s political and social fabric.
As for Anyaoku, the current chairman, Nnadi paints him as a man whose loyalty lies not with the Nigerian people but with the British Commonwealth, an institution that has historically served the interests of the colonial powers rather than those of the colonised. This, Nnadi suggests, makes Anyaoku ill-suited to lead any genuine effort at constitutional reform in Nigeria.
A Call to Action: Discuss or Dissolve
The NINAS statement ends with a stark ultimatum: “We either discuss Nigeria forthwith or we dissolve the union of death it has become for the peoples of Nigeria.” This is not mere rhetoric. For NINAS, the stakes are incredibly high. They argue that the continued existence of Nigeria in its current form is untenable and that without a fundamental restructuring of the state, the country is headed for inevitable disintegration.
Nnadi’s call for immediate discussions on Nigeria’s future is a direct challenge to the Nigerian government and its supporters. It is also a plea to the international community to recognise the seriousness of the situation and to support the legitimate aspirations of Nigeria’s indigenous nationalities.
The Road Ahead: A Time for Sober Reflection
As Nigeria grapples with this latest constitutional crisis, it is clear that the country stands at a crossroads. The choices made in the coming months will have profound implications for the future of the nation and its people.
For NINAS and its supporters, the path forward is clear. They demand a complete overhaul of Nigeria’s constitutional framework, starting with the resolution of the foundational issues that have plagued the country since independence. Anything less, they argue, will only perpetuate the cycle of violence, corruption, and underdevelopment that has characterised Nigeria’s post-colonial history.
For Anyaoku and the “Patriots,” the challenge will be to demonstrate that their proposal is more than just a rehash of past mistakes. They must show that they are willing to engage in a genuine dialogue with all of Nigeria’s constituent groups and to address the deep-seated grievances that have driven the country to the brink.
A Nation on the Brink
As the debate over Nigeria’s constitutional future continues to unfold, one thing is clear: the status quo is no longer sustainable. The NINAS statement, with its powerful indictment of the current constitution and its call for immediate action, has struck a chord with many Nigerians who are fed up with the endless cycle of broken promises and unfulfilled dreams.
Whether or not Anyaoku’s proposal gains traction, the issues raised by NINAS cannot be ignored. The question of who “We the People of Nigeria” truly are, and whether we have genuinely resolved to live together in unity, must be answered once and for all.
In the end, the future of Nigeria will depend on the willingness of its leaders—and its people—to confront these difficult questions head-on. The time for half-measures and empty rhetoric is over. Nigeria stands at a critical juncture, and the choices made in the coming months will determine whether it emerges as a united, prosperous nation or descends further into chaos and division.
How Can Tinubu Respond?
President Bola Tinubu faces a complex and delicate challenge in responding to NINAS’s strong criticism of Chief Emeka Anyaoku’s proposal for a Constituent Assembly and constitutional reform. The response will require balancing the need to address genuine grievances with the desire to maintain national unity and stability. Here are some potential strategies Tinubu could consider in his response:
1. Acknowledge the Historical Grievances
Tinubu could begin by recognising the legitimacy of some of the concerns raised by NINAS. Acknowledging the historical grievances regarding the imposition of the 1999 Constitution, the exclusion of ethnic nationalities from the constitutional process, and the long-standing issues of marginalization can demonstrate that he is aware of and sensitive to these issues.
Key Points:
- Acknowledge that the 1999 Constitution was not created through a truly inclusive process.
- Express understanding of the frustrations of ethnic nationalities who feel marginalised.
- Affirm the importance of addressing these historical grievances in any future constitutional reforms.
2. Propose an Inclusive Dialogue Process
Tinubu could propose a more inclusive process for constitutional reform, one that involves all ethnic nationalities and stakeholders in Nigeria. This could involve setting up a national dialogue or conference where representatives from each of Nigeria’s regions and ethnic groups can come together to discuss the future of the country and the constitution.
Key Points:
- Announce plans for a National Dialogue or Constitutional Conference that includes representation from all ethnic groups and regions.
- Commit to a transparent and participatory process that allows all voices to be heard.
- Ensure that the process will be guided by principles of fairness, justice, and inclusivity.
3. Address the Sequence of Issues Raised by NINAS
In his response, Tinubu could emphasise the importance of addressing the issues in the sequence NINAS suggests, but with a pragmatic approach. He could propose a phased approach to constitutional reform that begins with addressing the foundational issues raised by NINAS before moving on to drafting a new constitution.
Key Points:
- Propose a phased approach to constitutional reform that starts with resolving the foundational issues of identity and unity.
- Commit to addressing the “We the People” question through an inclusive process.
- Suggest that the drafting of a new constitution will only proceed after these foundational issues have been adequately resolved.
4. Engage with NINAS Directly
Tinubu could extend an olive branch by inviting NINAS and other key stakeholders to engage in direct talks with the government. This would show a willingness to listen and collaborate on finding solutions to the issues at hand.
Key Points:
- Invite NINAS leaders to a roundtable discussion with the government to discuss their concerns and possible solutions.
- Express a willingness to listen to NINAS’s proposals and incorporate their perspectives into the broader constitutional reform process.
- Highlight the importance of unity and dialogue in resolving national issues.
5. Reaffirm Commitment to National Unity
Tinubu should reaffirm his commitment to keeping Nigeria united while addressing the concerns of all its constituent parts. He could emphasise that any reforms must strengthen the bonds that hold the country together and ensure that all Nigerians feel they have a stake in the country’s future.
Key Points:
- Reaffirm commitment to the unity and stability of Nigeria.
- Emphasise that constitutional reform should strengthen national unity while respecting the diversity of Nigeria’s ethnic groups.
- Call for patience and collaboration as the country works towards a more inclusive and representative constitution.
6. Outline a Vision for Nigeria’s Future
Finally, Tinubu could outline a clear vision for Nigeria’s future that includes constitutional reform as a key component. This vision should emphasise a Nigeria where all ethnic groups have equal opportunities and rights, and where governance is based on principles of justice, equity, and democracy.
Key Points:
- Present a vision for a future Nigeria that is more inclusive, equitable, and just.
- Highlight how constitutional reform will contribute to a stronger and more united Nigeria.
- Call on all Nigerians to work together in realising this vision.
A Delicate Balancing Act
President Tinubu’s response to NINAS will need to be carefully crafted to avoid further escalating tensions while demonstrating a genuine commitment to addressing the underlying issues. By acknowledging the legitimacy of the grievances, proposing an inclusive and phased reform process, and engaging directly with NINAS, Tinubu can position himself as a leader who is willing to tackle Nigeria’s most difficult challenges head-on.
