When the 1954 constitution conference started, my good friend, Chief Obafemi Awolowo tabled a motion to the effect that in the new constitution, provision should be made that any state which feels like seceding should do so. I was opposed to it and said ‘no’ and said that once we have a federation, we are indivisible and perpetual.

That was when we began to use that expression – ‘The Indivisibility and perpetuity of the federation’ – and that to secede would amount to treason. And so, a debate ensued.


The Secretary of State then was Oliver Littleton, later Lord Chandos and he was very much interested and that was his first time in saying that the people of African descent were people actually debating at a high level.

So a full day was given to Chief Awolowo to make his points. He spoke brilliantly as a lawyer. He made his points why secession should be incorporated in the constitution. He cited the case of the Soviet Union which is a federation, and that secession is written there so that any state in the Soviet Union can secede at will. He also cited the case of Western Australia and eventually he finished his case and was applauded.

Lord Chandos said that on the face of the arguments before him it would be suicidal to incorporate secession in our constitution and that is why we have section 86 in our constitution that if any region or state should secede, then it will be an act of treason

We adjourned. The next day, I had to reply. I availed myself of the opportunity to, well, demolish the arguments of my friend and I cited the case of United States which based its constitution on that of the Swiss Confederation. That is Switzerland. I pointed out a case, I think, that of Texas versus White, where Mr. Salmon Chase, the Chief Justice laid down the principle – he was really an arbiter – that the union was intended to be perpetual and indivisible and that any attempt to divide the union by secession was treasonable.

helinues:
Toh

mrvitalis:
So zik was not even the one that made the decision, he only debated in favour of it? The final decision was in the hands of a Brit... Who had already made up his mind not to include succession before zik debated?

If they can change national anthem they can change the Constitution this is not even a debate

mrvitalis:
So zik was not even the one that made the decision, he only debated in favour of it? The final decision was in the hands of a Brit... Who had already made up his mind not to include succession before zik debated?

If they can change national anthem they can change the Constitution this is not even a debate

mrvitalis:
So zik was not even the one that made the decision, he only debated in favour of it? The final decision was in the hands of a Brit... Who had already made up his mind not to include succession before zik debated?

If they can change national anthem they can change the Constitution this is not even a debate

mrvitalis:
So zik was not even the one that made the decision, he only debated in favour of it? The final decision was in the hands of a Brit... Who had already made up his mind not to include succession before zik debated?

If they can change national anthem they can change the Constitution this is not even a debate

smileyoo:
Indeed Mr Azikiwe contributed in placing us in this bondage like contraption called Nigeria because of his fanatical yet unrealistic believe in Nigerian unity as a nationalist, but 6 decades counting, his vision of Nigerian unity is still a mirage, proving chief Awolowo vindicated as a realist and a visionary leader.
even during the Biafra / Nigeria civil war, Mr Azikiwe was still sadly deluded by his personal conviction of the imaginary Nigeria unity, to the extent that he rigidly refused to lend any support to the Biafra struggle and the yearnings of our people, i wish he was still alive to see the precarious situation, that his illusion of imaginary national unity had placed upon the victimized citizens of Nigeria.
Indeed Awolowo was the best president that Nigeria never had.

seanfer:


Who opposed the inclusion of secession in our constitution? NNAMDI AZIKIWE. Without him opposing it, we won't be where we are today and the civil war pf 1967 would have been avoidable.

ElSudani:


The problem with zik is similar to what we experience with Ibos today. They always want to go the opposite way on everything with Yoruba, whether it is in their interest or not is secondary.

BlowYourMind:
If zik was wise and had foresight, he would have opposed the removal of secession, but he is blind to the future, he want to be premier in the south west.

ElSudani:


The problem with zik is similar to what we experience with Ibos today. They always want to go the opposite way on everything with Yoruba, whether it is in their interest or not is secondary.

gidgiddy:


He was blind. But if talk about putting the same secession clause in the constitution of Nigeria today, about 4 out of Nigerias 6 geopolitical zones will be ready to fight war. Showing thst they are no different to Zik

mrvitalis:
So zik was not even the one that made the decision, he only debated in favour of it? The final decision was in the hands of a Brit... Who had already made up his mind not to include succession before zik debated?

If they can change national anthem they can change the Constitution this is not even a debate

Armaggedon:
Zik stood for regionalism and federalism with financial and legislative autonomy where the regions developed in their own pace. No contradictions.

One of the most confusing figures in Nigeria's history was Awolowo. He claimed he wanted secession and zik rejected. But when the opportunity presented itself during Biafra, the same Awolowo made a complete U-turn and became and started fighting for a unitary one Nigeria as championed by gowon.

gidgiddy:


It's one of the reasons both tribes have no business being in one country

gidgiddy:


Zik is like many Nigerians of today who see a disaster of a country that should be dissolved, but want it to last forever. Zik could never understand that his vision of a A great united Nigeria was simply not possible, the people are too different

It was one disastrous vision Zik had, and he should have known better, that Nigeria would never work

AlexBells:
Zik was a statesman.

gidgiddy:


It's one of the reasons both tribes have no business being in one country

gidgiddy:


Zik is like many Nigerians of today who see a disaster of a country that should be dissolved, but want it to last forever. Zik could never understand that his vision of a A great united Nigeria was simply not possible, the people are too different

It was one disastrous vision Zik had, and he should have known better, that Nigeria would never work

ElSudani:


Zik was not very smart.