Lazynigerian1:
So we want to go back to regions?

Sorry, but no thanks.

The 1963 constitution did not solve Nigeria's problems then and it won't now

Our problem is not constitutions it is our lack of willingness to follow due process.

And I ain't pro North or South by the way

But

Lazynigerian1:
So we want to go back to regions?

Sorry, but no thanks.

The 1963 constitution did not solve Nigeria's problems then and it won't now

Our problem is not constitutions it is our lack of willingness to follow due process.

And I ain't pro North or South by the way

But that system works for us in the West.
Infact, they should include secession clause in the constitution, so that we can remove those useless bridges joining SW to the rest of Nigeria.

Sipsum:


But that system works for us in the West.
Infact, they should include secession clause in the constitution, so that we can remove those useless bridges joining SW to the rest of Nigeria.

Didn't work in the West, ...otherwise there would have been no support for state creation...and even now, there are campaigns for more state creation there.

Also, if you want secession clause, don't talk about it on Nairaland...join a party, or form one, and advocate for it actively.

Awoleesu:
For the umpteenth time, this Man should please swap titles with that cricket on Bourdillon road...

In Yoruba parlance, Asíwájú is the One leading. He takes the lead, sets the pace and rally contemporaries and folks to a point of reason. Asíwájú is not a Bullion Van dealer, not a morally bankrupt person, who only thinks about himself and his family alone! An ideal Asíwájú is altruistic!

Arákùnrin on the other hand, means just an ordinary fellow! An Arákùnrin is an insignificant personae, a day-to-day person who commands no special attention or respect! He's essentially a follower, who is not to be followed!


So, Let Aketi become Asíwáju
And Tinubu be Arákùrin.

You think Tinubu just became Asiwaju?.
You will have to work really hard to achieve this objective of yours.

abu12:
EVERYBODY IS NOW TALKING OF 1963 CONSTITUTION , THE SAME CONSTITUTION IBOS STOPPED NORTHERN PART OF THE COUNTRY NOT TO USE. THEIR FATHER NNAMDI AZIKWE AND IRONSI MUST BE LAUGHING AT IPOB RIGHT NOW

Yorubas love 1963 constitution, they should just amend it by adding the secession clause.
You will be shocked that the whole country is looking in the direction of the North, but the people that will vehemently oppose the return of 1963 constitution, will not be the northerners.
The reason is that SS will not agree to going back to pre independent arrangements. .

Christistruth00:


Aburi left the Eastern Non Igbos completely under Ojukwus Hegemony

I don talk am,, I no mention name o.
Those people have problem with the 1963 constitution, this was why they got rid of it.

Nice 1

gidgiddy:


First they said Ironsi abolished the Regions, now they say he only made them weak. I still wonder how Ironsi made the Regions weak when he allowed resource control? The greatest thing any Region can control is its resources. How does a unified civil service affect Resource control if the Regions are controlling their resources paying the agreed tax to centre and keeping the bulk of what accrues on their land? What makes you federal is when you control your resources and pay the centre. When the centre controls your resources and pays you, you are only federal in name only. I laugh when people say that Ironsi took out 'federal' and Gowon brought it back. Nigeria is still answering 'federal' but nobody is controlling their resources. So whats the point? Its better that Ironsi took out Federal but allowed resource control, than Gowon who bought it back but took away resource control

What Province did Ironsi create? He met 4 Regions, he left 4 Regions.

Gowon came in, abolished all 4 Regions he inherited from Ironsi, created 12 states(6 of which he gave his Northern Region), took away resource control and abrogated the revenue sharing formular agreed at independence. Gowon was the person who kept Nigeria where it is today for had he not abolished the 4 Regions and resource control, Nigeria would have have been able to go back to the 1963 constitution after military rule

Ironsi did not do 1% of what Gowon did. The only problem Ironsi had was that he was Igbo man while Gowon was a Northerner. When your a Northerner, you can get away with daylight robbery.

The civil service is the institution through which a government carries out its duties of revenue generation from the natural and human resources found within its domain, and the application of the generated revenue to embark on projects, payment of salaries and other functions. In essence the civil service is the engine room of government hence stripping the regions of their civil services and transfering same to the center was tantamount to taking away from them their powers to generate revenues from their domains and use same for their duties. A centralized civil service can't generate revenue and remit it to the regions. Can the current civil servants of the federal government generate revenue and remit it to the state government? Imagine a federal government civil servant working in Enugu State and remitting the revenue generated in his office to Enugu State government rather than to the federal government which employed him. Is it possible? Once the civil service became centralized by Ironsi all the civil servants became bound by law to remit revenues to the center and that was how resource control died. This is simple logic and law.

gidgiddy:


First they said Ironsi abolished the Regions, now they say he only made them weak. I still wonder how Ironsi made the Regions weak when he allowed resource control? The greatest thing any Region can control is its resources. How does a unified civil service affect Resource control if the Regions are controlling their resources, paying the agreed tax to centre and keeping the bulk of what accrues on their land? What makes you federal is when you control your resources and pay the centre. When the centre controls your resources and pays you, you are only federal in name only. I laugh when people say that Ironsi took out 'federal' and Gowon brought it back. Nigeria is still answering 'federal' but nobody is controlling their resources. So whats the point? Its better that Ironsi took out Federal but allowed resource control, than Gowon who bought it back but took away resource control

What Province did Ironsi create? He met 4 Regions, he left 4 Regions.

Gowon came in, abolished all 4 Regions he inherited from Ironsi, created 12 states(6 of which he gave his Northern Region), took away resource control and abrogated the revenue sharing formular agreed at independence. Gowon was the person who kept Nigeria where it is today for had he not abolished the 4 Regions and resource control, Nigeria would have have been able to go back to the 1963 constitution after military rule

Ironsi did not do 1% of what Gowon did. The only problem Ironsi had was that he was Igbo man while Gowon was a Northerner. When your a Northerner, you can get away with daylight robbery.

Per the bolded, find below the interview granted by Philip Asiodu, an Igbo man, in which he laid it bare that Ironsi and Ojukwu were the architects of the abolition of the regions.


https://www.sunnewsonline.com/impunity-killing-nigeria-phillip-asiodu/


Please carefully note where the report reads:

"As for May 30, I am not for division. Emeka Ojukwu and myself were very good friends in school, Kings College, Lagos, and Oxford University. In fact when the coup happened, he wanted me to join him in Enugu and I told him that I was not a regional man. And Ojukwu told me ‘we shall abolish the regions within 6 months’

Lazynigerian1:


Didn't work in the West, ...otherwise there would have been no support for state creation...and even now, there are campaigns for more state creation there.

Also, if you want secession clause, don't talk about it on Nairaland...join a party, or form one, and advocate for it actively.

Regionalism worked for us in SW, if you say it didn't work, tell me how it didn't work.

Sipsum:


Regionalism worked for us in SW, if you say it didn't work, tell me how it didn't work.

Well, the West by 1965 was insecure(Operation wetie), most rural areas had no roads, and there was not much electric power outside the big cities....and free education was not universal per se.(There is a reason why people wanted states...and STILL want states)

Plus the model the regions all worked on was sell raw materials at prices controlled in London and share the money to import stuff. It would have failed with our growing population in due course....

By the way, what I have said here applies to all the other regions, and applies to Nigeria, in a way today. And the regions were in the past. Nigeria is a different country from what it was in the 1960's,...even from what it was in the 1980's self.

Deadlytruth:


The civil service is the institution through which a government carries out its duties of revenue generation from the natural and human resources found within its domain, and the application of the generated revenue to embark on projects, payment of salaries and other functions. In essence the civil service is the engine room of government hence stripping the regions of their civil services and transfering same to the center was tantamount to taking away from them their powers to generate revenues from their domains and use same for their duties. A centralized civil service can't generate revenue and remit it to the regions. Can the current civil servants of the federal government generate revenue and remit it to the state government? Imagine a federal government civil servant working in Enugu State and remitting the revenue generated in his office to Enugu State government rather than to the federal government which employed him. Is it possible? Once the civil service became centralized by Ironsi all the civil servants became bound by law to remit revenues to the center and that was how resource control died. This is simple logic and law.

Then that means you lying about what Ironsi did. Ironsi at no time siezed the resouces of the Regions. He at no time changed the revenue allocation formular agreed at independence between the federal government and the Regions. Infact, Ironsi's first and only budget was calculated at what the federal government expected the Regions to remit in taxes.

So it does not really matter how much Ironsi unified the civil service, what mattered was that the 4 Region's of the time still kept the majority of what accrued in their Region, and paid the federal government the 25% tax that was agreed at independence.

If all Ironsi did was to unify the civil service, then he did not do 1% of what Gowon who took over from him did

Sipsum:


Na North abolish 1963 constitution?.
Even North was doing well on their own, especially in agriculture.

That is good to know, all regions should go and compete favourably

Deadlytruth:


Per the bolded, find below the interview granted by Philip Asiodu, an Igbo man, in which he laid it bare that Ironsi and Ojukwu were the architects of the abolition of the regions.


https://www.sunnewsonline.com/impunity-killing-nigeria-phillip-asiodu/


Please carefully note where the report reads:

"As for May 30, I am not for division. Emeka Ojukwu and myself were very good friends in school, Kings College, Lagos, and Oxford University. In fact when the coup happened, he wanted me to join him in Enugu and I told him that I was not a regional man. And Ojukwu told me ‘we shall abolish the regions within 6 months’

Next time ask Philip Asiodu how Ironsi managed abolish all 4 Regions of the time if all 4 Regions were existing the day Ironsi died. Unless he is saying Ironsi later came back from the dead to do that

The argument of who abolished regional govt is inconsequential. Once the military took over, it was obvious they were going to centralize power and governance.
Military leaders rule by fiat, and power is top to bottom hierarchy in any military setting. A colonel cannot be telling a general what to do.

Besides neither Ironsi nor Gowon established the unitary system of govt we practising now. That dishonour goes Murtala.
Murtala Muhammad regime imposed the authority of the federal government in areas formerly reserved for the states, restricting the latitude exercised by state governments and their governors in determining and executing policy. Newly appointed military governors of the states were not given seats on the Supreme Military Coucil, but instead were expected to administer federal policies handed down by Murtala Muhammad through the military coucil.

http://countrystudies.us/nigeria/26.htm

Prior to Murtala regime, state military governors had some degree of administrative autonomy n enjoyed governance flexibility within their domain. Murtala abolished such privilege.
Besides, the crux here is to do away with a governance structure designed by the military when they had stopped ruling more than 20yrs ago.
This is no time for blame game.

Sipsum:


Yes, it was for us in the SW.

same SW awolowo and akintola dey fight?

ednut1:
same SW awolowo and akintola dey fight?

So regionalism was bad because dem dey fight in the West?.
Una never ready to move forward, regionalism ensure a healthy competition among the regions, Awo alone established over 10 industrial estates in the SW.
Can someone please help me with the numbers of industrial estates, that SW have managed to build since the ofo l'omi efo se unitary system of government?.

gidgiddy:


Next time ask Philip Asiodu how Ironsi managed abolish all 4 Regions of the time if all 4 Regions were existing the day Ironsi died. Unless he is saying Ironsi later came back from the dead to do that

If the regions were still in existence as at when Ironsi died, then how come the item number one in the Aburi meeting agenda was the restoration of the regions and abrogation of all Ironsi's decrees?

gidgiddy:


Then that means you lying about what Ironsi did. Ironsi at no time siezed the resouces of the Regions. He at no time changed the revenue allocation formular agreed at independence between the federal government and the Regions. Infact, Ironsi's first and only budget was calculated at what the federal government expected the Regions to remit in taxes.

So it does not really matter how much Ironsi unified the civil service, what mattered was that the 4 Region's of the time still kept the majority of what accrued in their Region, and paid the federal government the 25% tax that was agreed at independence.

If all Ironsi did was to unify the civil service, then he did not do 1% of what Gowon who took over from him did

How could Ironsi have drafted a budget when he got to power after the 1966 budget has been drafted and died before the time for the next budget drafting? Can you upload any documents here to substantiate your argument that the regional governors he appointed ever remitted taxes to him?
Your mention of revenue allocation formula lays it bare that you are the one lying. In true federalism there is nothing like revenue allocation let alone a formula for it. It is only in unitary system such happens hence the existence of revenue sharing formula under Ironsi means he ran a unitary government and destroyed federalism.
Was there revenue sharing formula during the time the regions were being headed by Ahmadu Bello, Awolowo and Azikiwe?

Deadlytruth:

How could Ironsi have drafted a budget when he got to power after the 1966 budget has been drafted and died before the time for the next budget drafting? Can you upload any documents here to substantiate your argument that the regional governors he appointed ever remitted taxes to him?
Your mention of revenue allocation formula lays it bare that you are the one lying. In true federalism there is nothing like revenue allocation let alone a formula for it. It is only in unitary system such happens hence the existence of revenue sharing formula under Ironsi means he ran a unitary government and destroyed federalism.
Was there revenue sharing formula during the time the regions were being headed by Ahmadu Bello, Awolowo and Azikiwe?

I wonder why people like you make claims when you obviously dont have basic grasp of Nigerias history

You dont know what the revenue sharing formular was before Ironsi came to power, you dont know about Ironsi's budget of March 31st 1966 and you dont know if Ironsi maintained the fiscal policy agreed at independence. So what do you know? That Ironsi unified the civil service structure?

Use Google and update your lack of knowledge

Deadlytruth:


If the regions were still in existence as at when Ironsi died, then how come the item number one in the Aburi meeting agenda was the restoration of the regions and abrogation of all Ironsi's decrees?

If Ojukwu went to Aburi as the Military Governor of the Eastern Region, then what Eastern Region was he going to Aburi to restore?

tritt:
Man wey get sense, forget his party affiliation, he is speaking like a proper SAN is supposed to speak.

But Malami is also an insane SAN

ceaser:
Apt!

The 1999 constitution drafted and approved by some northern military personnels is nothing but fraud.

It may though need some modifications to reflect the current realities of the country as a microsmcosm of the current world. But nonetheless it will be the template.

Let's wait to see Malami's (SAN) infantile argument as usual. Then followed by Garba "garbage" Shehu representing the presidency to pronounce support for Malami's view and counter opinions.

both are insane

gidgiddy:


If Ojukwu went to Aburi as the Military Governor of the Eastern Region, then what Eastern Region was he going to Aburi to restore?

Ojukwu went as the head of Eastern Group of weak and powerless provinces created by Ironsi which was, likewise other groups of provinces, in the process of being converted back to full autonomous regions at that moment hence the agreement that all previous regions be restored to their full status quo at Aburi.
If the regions were in place and resource control and other things in the 1963 constitution hadn't been tampered with, then what was the need going to Aburi in the first instance?

gidgiddy:


I wonder why people like you make claims when you obviously dont have basic grasp of Nigerias history

You dont know what the revenue sharing formular was before Ironsi came to power, you dont know about Ironsi's budget of March 31st 1966 and you dont know if Ironsi maintained the fiscal policy agreed at independence. So what do you know? That Ironsi unified the civil service structure?

Use Google and update your lack of knowledge

I knew it was going to get to this ..."You don't know history, you don't have accurate knowledge of that, use Google, blah blah blah...." That has always been your stock in trade when cornered in a debate. Are you suggesting that I help you find evidence for a claim you made? He who alleges bears the burden of proof.

Deadlytruth:


Ojukwu went as the head of Eastern Group of weak and powerless provinces created by Ironsi which was, likewise other groups of provinces, in the process of being concerted back to full autonomous regions at that moment hence the agreement that all previous regions be restored to their full status quo at Aburi.
If the regions were in place and resource control and other things in the 1963 constitution hadn't been tampered with, then what was the need going to Aburi in the first instance?

Regions are nothing but a group of provinces same as a state today in Nigeria is nothing but a group of Local governments. So wether you call it a Region, or a group of Provinces, doesnt change what it is.

If Ironsi made the Regions powerless as you say, then why was there any need for Gowon to travel to another country to meet Ojukwu? Why would a military ruler meet with a Governor of weak powerles group of provinces in another country?

The answer to that is the fact that the Regions were still in control of their resources, and paying for the Federal government to survive. When you control your resources, and contribute to centre, you are federal. But when the centre controls the resources and contribute to you, you are federal in name only, just like Nigeria is today.

Gowon had no choice but to meet Ojukwu in Aburi, the Regions were just too strong, the legacy of Ironsi.



So Gowon and his Northern cohorts knew that to control Nigeria, they had to do away with the 4 Regions as well as resource control. So Gowon enacted Decree 14 of 1967 that abolished all 4 Regions, replaced them with 12 states, placed all resources in the hands of the federal government

Of course, the Eastern Region was not about to be truly stripped of its federal powers and fought back

What is laughable about the whole thing is that the same people who were complaining that Ironsi made the Regions weak by taking power to centre, were the same people who complained that the confederation agreed at Aburi gave the Regions too much powers and made the centre weak lol

The same people said nothing when Gowon was abolishing the 4 Regions and replacing them with 12 States

The same people ganged up to fight Ojukwu and the Eastern Region in a civil war so as to help Gowon and his Northern cohorts fully implement "divide and rule"

The hypocrisy of Nigeria is alarming

gidgiddy:


Regions are nothing but a group of provinces same as a state today in Nigeria is nothing but a group of Local governments. So wether you call it a Region, or a group of Provinces, doesnt change what it is.

Your argument above is similar to that of someone who claims that if the presidency today signs into law a bill from the National Assembly seeking to transfer all the remaining items in the concurrent and residual lists to the exclusive list, it won't make Nigeria a full blown unitary state as long as the bill doesn't tamper with the existence of the 36 states. It is also like claiming that as long as the 774 present LGAs are still left in place, the governors' refusal to respect their autonomy doesn't in any way detract from true federalism.
For the umpteenth time, I have to tell you again that federalism is not the mere existence of subnational units but the degree to which they enjoy autonomy. Get it clear and very clear: no one was against Ironsi for creating provinces. After all people were already seeking a breakdown of the regions to smaller regions like it was already done to the Western Region to produce the Midwest, and was being agitated for by the people of the proposed Middle Belt, COR and many more regions. In fact there was just no way the regions were going to remain as the first four. Never! But the issue people had and still have with Ironsi was that after creating those provinces he rendered them powerless by stripping them of their autonomy through his unification of the civil service and his placing of them under the control of a governor rather than allow each of them govern itself completely. After creating them, he didn't allow them to be self governing at individual levels but grouped them again and placed each group under a single governor. Wasn't that a self contradiction? What then was the need creating them in the first instance only to re-enslave them under the regional governors again in the name of groups of provinces?
Ironsi created 35 provinces and they were rejected by the public, but today we have 36 states whose boundaries almost perfectly coincide with Ironsi's provinces yet people are happy and okay with it? What then makes the difference?
Simple Answer: the 36 states of today have their own governors and control their own affairs. They are not grouped together as groups of states with only one governor imposed on each group by the presidency and asked to be reporting to the president like it was with Ironsi's provinces. Do you get the logic now? The present geopolitical regions can best be described as groups of states. Now, haven't you ever noticed that the proposal that each of these present six geopolitical regions should have a single governor or regional vice president ruling over them is always roundly rejected in every confab because it would amount to the abolition of the autonomy of the states and make them powerless thus negate the very essence of creating the states in the first instance? Such was the kind of setting Ironsi put in place hence the inherent self contradiction in it and its rejection by the public.

gidgiddy:


If Ironsi made the Regions powerless as your say, then why was there any need for Gowon to travel to another country to meet Ojukwu? Why would a military ruler meet with a Governor of weak powerles group of provinces in another country?

As at the time of those travellings to meet each other, Gowon had already partly restored the power of the regions hence it was possible for Ojukwu to wield such power to ask for negotiations. In addition, Gowon made himself open to public opinion and suggestions hence his agreement with Ojukwu to go for fresh negotiations about a new constitution even though he knew that Ojukwu lacked the moral right to ask for such negotiation given the fact that he was an accomplice to Ironsi in destroying the very constitution he was seeking a return to. Gowon was unlike Ironsi who was stiff, self-opinionated, arrogant, rigid and unyielding to public opinion. Recall that Northerners twice sent powerful delegations to Ironsi to advise him that nothing was wrong with the 1963 constitution and therefore beg him not to tamper with it at all but focus on punishing the coupists, but Ironsi stuck to his guns and insisted that the 1963 constitution was Nigeria's problem and needed to be amended by decrees to remove regionalism which according to him was promoting tribalism over nationalism spirit. Can you just imagine?!

gidgiddy:

The answer to that is the fact that the Regions were still in control of their resources, and paying for the Federal government to survive. When you control your resources, and contribute to centre, you are federal. But when the centre controls the resources and contribute to you, you are federal in name only, just like Nigeria is today.

At independence Nigeria was run on the basis of the regions remitting just 25% of the revenues generated within their domains to the FG while retaining the remaining 75% to develop their domains. All mines and oil wells were under the regional premiers. Oil and solid minerals mining licenses were issued by the regional premiers and not by the federal government like it is today. Each region had their own separate ambassadors to different countries, each region made their own laws on security, education, agriculture, health, etc and all was working fine that way.
But Azikiwe was not happy with that arrangement as he kept on calling for one-Nigeria which was a euphemism for unitary system. This inspired the minds of the Nzeogwus and Ifeajunas into believing that federalism was inimical to national unity and on account of that a rather mild and normal political crisis which usually characterizes any young democracy was interpreted by Ironsi to mean the failure of federalism and its main feature of decentralized civil service, so without seeking public opinion or consulting anyone he seized the opportunity to quickly impose his own idea of governance in Nigeria in pursuit of the rather fraudulent idea of national unity which he got from Azikiwe, and that was where things began to go out of hand.

gidgiddy:

Gowon had no choice but to meet Ojukwu in Aburi, the Regions were just too strong, the legacy of Ironsi.

I think I have already clearly explained that the Gowon's open mindedness and positive disposition to public opinion inspired his concession to the Aburi meeting proposal from an Ojukwu who actually lacked both moral and legal right to so propose and demand.

gidgiddy:

So Gowon and his Northern cohorts knew that to control Nigeria, they had to do away with the 4 Regions as well as resource control. So Gowon enacted Decree 14 of 1967 that abolished all 4 Regions, replaced them with 12 states, placed all resources in the hands of the federal government.

Gowon and Northerners weren't the ones who introduced military rule that ended up destroying the regions and their autonomy. It also wasn't them that centralized the civil service in pursuit of a fraudulent one-Nigeria and dubious national unity. If anything, Northerners had always made themselves clear that they never wanted unitary system as it would enslave all other regions and tribes under whichever tribe clinches power at the center. In fact on noticing Ironsi's pro-centralization body language within his first few days in power they sent delegations to advise him to perish any thoughts of tampering with the strictly federal constitution by which they depended on revenues they generated from only their groundnut pyramids and solid minerals in contentment. But Ironsi refused and argued that all that must give way to a non-existent national unity and Azikiwe's fraudulent one-Nigeria.
So in all that scenario who between Northerners and Igbos could truly be said to have first nursed the evil agenda of destroying federalism and resource control? Be honest.

gidgiddy:

Of course, the Eastern Region was not about to be truly stripped of its federal powers and fought back

The Eastern Region was first to nurse the ambition of stripping all other regions of their federal powers back then through the introduction of military rule and their tampering with the independence Constitution to which delegates from all Regions (Eastern Region inclusive) appended their signatures in mutual trust and agreement in the 1958 London Constitutional Conference. Why later go through the backdoor to make alterations in the agreement you made with others openly before the whole world in London if you didn't have a dubious agenda up your sleeves?

gidgiddy:

What is laughable about the whole thing is that the same people who were complaining that Ironsi made the Regions weak by taking power to centre, were the same people who complained that the confederation agreed at Aburi gave the Regions too much powers and made the centre weak lol

The constitution which all Nigerians, through their delegates to the 1957 Lindon Constitutional Conference, agreed to was one in which the center and the regions shared power in a balanced way, i.e. the power sharing structure did not tilt too much in favour of either side, and Nigerians were very okay with that. But on coming to power through the backdoor, Ironsi, without consulting anyone, tilted it in favour of the center and even destroyed the regions, so people complained and fought against him and he lost his life. Then Gowon came in restored the regions and tried to rebalance power. But while on it Ojukwu came with the Aburi proposal to now tilt it totally in favour of the regions. Again Nigerians rejected it and insisted on the balanced structure which they all mutually agreed to at the Independence Constitutional conference in London. So how exactly did that amount to hypocrisy and inconsistency on the part of Nigerians? If anything, the inconsistent people were the Igbos who initially agreed with other Nigerian in London to a balanced structure, then later came through Ironsi to tilt it in favour of the center which they had just got control of though illegally, and once they lost control of the center they came up again with a proposal this time to tilt it in favour of the regions... meaning that they sought three different structures at different times and circumstances while the rest Nigerians kept on insisting on a particular one all through the same circumstances. So who were the shifty and inconsistent ones in all those scenarios? Be the judge.

gidgiddy:

The same people said nothing when Gowon was abolishing the 4 Regions and replacing them with 12 States

I have already explained that no one was against breakdown of regions to as many smaller units as possible. Gowon or no Gowon, there was just no way the regions were going to remain as four. What however made the difference in acceptance between Gowon's and Ironsi's was that Gowon's states were given their governors and allowed to have a sense of detachment from the center. Gowon didn't regroup his new states into groups of states over which he appointed military governors to govern and report to him unlike Ironsi's which re-enslaved his provinces directly under the center by way of placing them in groups over which the center imposed governors on them and asked them to be be reporting to the center. It was like giving someone with one had and taking away from him with two hands. Why didn't Ironsi grant the provinces the status of having their own independent governors chosen by the indegenous peoples of the provinces themselves?

gidgiddy:

The same people ganged up to fight Ojukwu and the Eastern Region in a civil war so as to help Gowon and his Northern cohorts fully implement "divide and rule"

The hypocrisy of Nigeria is alarming

Ironsi was actually the agent of divide and rule by way of dividing the regions into provinces which he again tried to rule by regrouping them into groups of provinces still to be ruled by himself through the same governors he imposed on the regions before he split them into provinces. How on earth do you create new subnational units and rather than let them govern themselves, you again regroup them into provinces to be governed by the same governors whom you imposed on them before you split them? Does that make sense?

Deadlytruth:

Your argument above is similar to someone who claims that if the presidency today signs into law a bill from the National Assembly seeking to transfer all the remaining items in the concurrent and residual lists to the exclusive list, it won't make Nigeria a full blown unitary state as long as the bill doesn't tamper with the existence of the 36 states. It is also like claiming that as long as the 774 present LGAs are still left in place, the governors' refusal to respect their autonomy doesn't in any way detract from true federalism.
For the umpteenth time, I have to tell you again that federalism is not the mere existence of subnational units but the degree to which they enjoy autonomy. Get it clear and very clear: no one was against Ironsi for creating provinces. After all people were already seeking a breakdown of the regions to smaller regions like it was already done to the Western Region to produce the Midwest, and was being agitated for by the people of the proposed Middle Belt, COR and many more regions. In fact there was just no way the regions were going to remain as the first four. Never! But the issue people had and still have with Ironsi was that after creating those provinces he rendered them powerless by stripping them of their autonomy through the unification of the civil service and still placing them under the control of a governor rather than allow each of the provinces govern itself completely. After creating provinces, he didn't allow them to be self governing at individual levels but still grouped them again and placed each group under a single governor. Wasn't that a self contradiction? What then was the need creating them only to re-enslave them under the regional governors again in the name of groups of provinces?
Ironsi created 35 provinces and they were rejected, but today we have 36 states whose boundaries almost perfectly coincide with Ironsi's provinces yet people are happy and okay with it? What makes the difference then? Simple Answer: the 36 states of today have their own governors and control their own affairs. The states are not grouped together as groups of states with only one governor imposed on eachgroup by the presidency and asked to be reporting to the president like it was with Ironsi's provinces. Do you get the logic now? The present geopolitical regions can best be described as groups of states Haven't you ever noticed that the proposal that each of the present six geopolitical regions should have a single governor or regional vice president ruling over the component states is always roundly rejected in every confab because it would amount to the abolition of the autonomy of the states and make them powerless thus negate the very essence of creating the states in the first instance? Such was the kind of setting Ironsi put in place hence the inherent self contradiction in it and it rejection by the public.
As at the time of those travellings to meet each other, Gowon had already partly restored the power of the regions hence it was possible for Ojukwu to wield such power to ask for negotiations. In addition, Gowon made himself open to public opinion and suggestions hence his agreement with Ojukwu to go for fresh negotiations about a new constitution even though he knew that Ojukwu lacked the moral right to ask for such negotiation given the fact that he was an accomplice to Ironsi in destroying the very constitution he was seeking a return to. Gowon was unlike Ironsi who was stiff, self-opinionated, arrogant, rigid and unyielding to public opinion. Recall that Northerners twice sent powerful delegations to Ironsi to advise him that nothing was wrong with the 1963 constitution and therefore beg him not to tamper with it at all but focus on punishing the coupists, but Ironsi stuck to his guns and insisted that the 1963 constitution was Nigeria's problem and needed to be amended by decrees to remove regionalism which according to him was promoting tribalism over nationalism spirit. Can you just imagine?!


At independence Nigeria was run on the basis of the regions remitting just 25% of the revenues generated within their domains to the FG while retaining the remaining 75% to develop the regions. All mines and oil wells were under the regional premiers and all was working fine that way.
But Azikiwe was not happy with that as he kept on calling for one-Nigeria slogan which was a euphemism for unitary system. This inspired the minds of the Nzeogws and Ifeajunas to believe that federalism was inimical to national unity and on account of that a rather mild and normal political crisis which usually characterizes any young democracy was interpreted by Ironsi to mean the failure of a highly centripetal constitution and decentralized civil service so he seized the opportunity to quickly impose his own idea of governance in Nigeria in pursuit of the rather fraudulent idea of national unity which he got from Azikiwe and that was where things began to go out of hand.
I think I have already clearly explained that the Gowon's open mindedness and positive disposition to public opinion inspired his concession to the Aburi meeting proposal from an Ojukwu who actually lacked both moral and legal right to so propose and demand.



Gowon and Northerners weren't the ones who introduced military rule that ended up destroying the regions and their autonomy. It also wasn't them that centralized the civil service in pursuit of a fraudulent one-Nigeria and dubious national unity. If anything, Northerners had always made themselves clear that they never wanted unitary system as it would enslave all other regions and tribes under whichever tribe clinches power at the center. In fact on noticing Ironsi's pro-centralization body language within his first few days in power they sent delegations to advise him to perish any thoughts of tampering with the strictly federal constitution by which they depended on revenues they generated from only their groundnut pyramids and solid minerals in contentment. But Ironsi refused and argued that all that must give way to a non-existent national unity and Azikiwe's fraudulent one-Nigeria.
So in all that scenario who between Northerners and Igbos could truly be said to have first nursed the evil agenda of destroying federalism and resource control? Be honest.

The Eastern Region was first to nurse the ambition of stripping all other regions of their federal powers back then through the introduction of military rule and their tampering with the independence Constitution to which delegates from all Regions (Eastern Region inclusive) appended their signatures in mutual trust and agreement in the 1958 London Constitutional Conference. Why later go through the backdoor to make alterations in the agreement you made with others openly before the whole world in London if you didn't have a dubious agenda up your sleeves?

The constitution which all Nigerians, through their delegates to the 1957 Lindon Constitutional Conference, agreed to was one in which the center and the regions shared power in a balanced way, i.e. the power sharing structure did not tilt too much in favour of either side, and Nigerians were very okay with that. But on coming to power through the backdoor, Ironsi, without consulting anyone, tilted it in favour of the center and even destroyed the regions, so people complained and fought against him and he lost his life. Then Gowon came in restored the regions and tried to rebalance power. But while on it Ojukwu came with the Aburi proposal to now tilt it totally in favour of the regions. Again Nigerians rejected it and insisted on the balanced structure which they all mutually agreed to at the Independence Constitutional conference in London. So how exactly did that amount to hypocrisy and inconsistency on the part of Nigerians? If anything, the inconsistent people were the Igbos who initially agreed with other Nigerian in London to a balanced structure, then later came through Ironsi to tilt it in favour of the center which they had just got control of though illegally, and once they lost control of the center they came up again with a proposal this time to tilt it in favour of the regions... meaning that they sought three different structures at different times and circumstances while the rest Nigerians kept on insisting on a particular one all through the same circumstances. So who were the shifty and inconsistent ones in all those scenarios? Be the judge.

Give it to this fellow, you're the one of the most well-informed nairalanders. But the truth remains, no matter how well you articulate your points and back them with hard facts, you can NEVER convince these guys to see that they're the architect of the misfortune called Nigeria we all desperately want out of. I doff my hat for you bro