– Olukayode Salako.
In my unapologetic opinion, the most realistic solution to Nigeria’s age-long and perennial challenges, is for the Northern and Southern parts of the country to become separate nations.
My Reason:
The way the Northern part of Nigeria wants the country to be governed is fundamentally different from the way the Southern part wants it governed.
The predominantly Muslim North appears to favour a socio-political system that is strongly influenced by Islamic principles and Sharia law, reflecting the historical legacy of leaders, such as Uthman dan Fodio and the Sokoto Caliphate.
On the other hand, the South largely favours a secular constitutional democracy, founded on civil liberties, political pluralism, and the democratic structures, inherited from the colonial era, and advanced by nationalist leaders, such as Herbert Macaulay, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Obafemi Awolowo, and others.
These two visions of nationhood, often seem difficult to reconcile.
As stated in the Holy Bible:
“Can two walk together, except they be agreed?” (Amos 3:3).
This fundamental divergence in political and social outlook is one of the reasons Nigeria has struggled to achieve lasting national cohesion and a united sense of purpose since independence.
Until Nigeria is either comprehensively restructured into a system that accommodates its deep diversities, or peacefully re-organised into separate sovereign entities, the country may continue to experience many of the political, social, and constitutional tensions that have characterised its history.
My Conclusion:
Any Nigerian President, who is unwilling to confront this structural question, may ultimately leave Nigeria much the same way he met it.
Such a President may build roads and bridges, construct schools and hospitals, and execute numerous development projects.
While these achievements are important, they may not fundamentally address what many consider to be the country’s underlying structural challenges.
Successive leaders, including General Ibrahim Babangida, President Olusegun Obasanjo, President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, President Goodluck Jonathan, and President Muhammadu Buhari, made contributions to national development, yet the core debates about Nigeria’s structure and governance remain unresolved.
If President Bola Ahmed Tinubu wishes to leave a transformational legacy, he should give serious consideration to meaningful constitutional restructuring that reflects Nigeria’s diversity and aspirations.
If restructuring proves impossible, then a peaceful and democratic conversation about alternative political arrangements, including greater regional autonomy, or other constitutional options, should not be considered taboo.
Until Nigeria honestly addresses its structural challenges, many of the problems that have persisted throughout its history may continue to endure.
May President Bola Tinubu too, like others, not leave Nigeria the same way he met it.
