ABuja declaration: S/West leaders, ACF disagree with Igbo

•.as restructuring agitation resurfaces ahead of polls

By Dayo Johnson, Dapo Akinrefon, Olasukanmi Akoni, Dickson Omobola, Rotimi Ojomoye, Deola Badru

Barely three months to the 2027 general elections, the controversy generated by the position of the Igbo Leaders of Thought, ILT, on the restructuring of Nigeria, yesterday, provoked mixed reactions from South-West and northern leaders, with some describing aspects of the proposal as unrealistic and capable of causing political destabilisation.

The ILT had rejected the communiqué issued at the Abuja restructuring conference of August 20, 2026, accusing the organisers of disregarding the position of the Igbo delegation.

The group proposed a 10-region political structure for Nigeria, with regional control of resources and regional police, while calling for the temporary suspension of the 2027 general elections pending the completion of the restructuring exercise.

The ILT also proposed an enlarged Igbo Region extending beyond the five South-East states, and called for the restructuring exercise to be completed before May 2027, after which elections would be conducted under a new constitutional arrangement.

The proposal has triggered a fresh debate over the structure of the Nigerian federation, the place of regionalism, the future of the existing 36-state arrangement, resource control, regional policing and the implications of delaying the 2027 elections.

Reacting to the development in chats with Sunday Vanguard, South-West and northern voices differed on the precise form restructuring should take, but several questioned the ILT’s approach and particularly its proposal to suspend elections.

Their position is unrealistic—Adejumo

Speaking on the matter, Mogaji Gboyega Adejumo, who led the South-West Zone to the Patriots Constitutional Conference in Abuja, said the position of the Igbo Leaders of Thought was unrealistic, arguing that the various ethnic groups in Nigeria appeared to be struggling to identify the precise solution to the country’s structural problems.

Adejumo, who took a swipe at the Igbo Leaders of Thought over some of their positions, said the confusion was not peculiar to the Igbo, but reflected a wider failure among Nigeria’s constituent groups to determine what they wanted from the Nigerian project.

He said: “What I can say is this, the Igbo are as confused as any. Most of the tribes in Nigeria are in that kind of situation of confusion, of knowing absolutely what next to do.

“It could still be part of the main frustration coming out of the fact that no region, except perhaps the core North, is fully enjoying being in this contraption called Nigeria.

“But again, to be critical and to be discretionary is to look at the whole matter of our coming together, unity, existence as a nation. It is faulty right from the beginning, we know.”

Going down memory lane, Adejumo said several attempts had been made to resolve Nigeria’s structural problems, but without producing a lasting solution.

“Many attempts have been made but nothing so concrete has come out,” he said.

“Again, restructuring that has now been in the front burner for many years now is not new. It’s what the Action Group government started to do or had started to do since 1951, culminating in the 1953 London Conference. It is restructuring.

“It is because the structure was disrupted in 1962, that is why we now say we want to restructure.”

Igbo, Fulani

According to him, the South-West proposal presented at the Patriots Constitutional Conference was not fundamentally different from some of the demands being made by the Igbo.

He said: “What exactly are the Igbo saying? They said they reject the recent attempt in Abuja. I was the leader of the South-West Zone that went to the Patriots Constitutional Conference in Abuja and we presented the South-West proposal.

“Now, it is no different from what the South-West has always advocated for, which is not diametrically different from what the Igbo are saying.

“The only thing that is different is that the Igbo seem to not know what exactly is the situation with our problem, where the trouble lies.”

Adejumo argued that the fundamental issue was not simply the question of which region got what, but how the constituent parts of Nigeria could negotiate a workable political arrangement.

“Between the Igbo and the Fulani, somehow the idea of coming into a union is not about the spread. It’s about what each other can get. It is not about making sure that everybody has got something but trying to corner whatever is left to themselves,” he said.

Awolowo, 1966 and 1979

Adejumo also went into the history of the relationship among the major ethnic groups, particularly the political choices made by the Igbo and Yoruba at different periods of Nigeria’s history.

He said: “1959 going towards 1960, the Igbo, rather than take the Prime Ministership, they decided to go into partnering with the North. Everybody didn’t bother to, in any way, begin to complain. We just went back to our shell and began to do our thing.”

He also referred to the 1966 coup and the subsequent Civil War.

“Same thing, well, the Civil War started and it was blamed on the Igbo on January 15, 1966. I’ve done many interviews ever before, but Ibrahim Babangida came out and said it was not an Igbo coup. It was not an Igbo coup.”

According to him, the political relationship between the Igbo and the North continued after the Civil War, including in the Second Republic.

“But then, with all that the Igbo suffered in 1979, they still went back into an arrangement with the North, leaving the South West,” he said.

He recalled a statement attributed to the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo concerning the consequences of the secession of the Eastern Region.

“Obafemi Awolowo said something. He said, whether by acts of omission or commission, if the Igbo are allowed to leave, then the Yoruba will not stay.

“How is it that people just don’t understand that question? The Igbo determined that to mean that Awolowo promised the Igbo that he would leave.

“Was Awolowo a soldier? Did he even have a gun? Was he the military head of the South West as at that time? Was he like an Ojukwu figure? Could he even declare anything beyond his household?

“But what Awolowo was saying was simple. Nigeria stands on a tripod. The North, the South, and the East. If you allow the East to go, it will just be the North and the West. And that will be a disaster for the West.

“We will never be able to grow. We will never be able to even breathe. So, it is better for the three of us to stand together, rather than for one part, the Igbo, to go and the Yoruba to suffer.”

Choices

Adejumo said the political choices of the different groups over the years should inform the current restructuring debate rather than be used to deepen ethnic divisions.

He said the South-West had consistently pushed for restructuring, recalling the various constitutional conferences and political initiatives that preceded the current debate.

According to him, the Yoruba position had evolved through the 1979-78 Constituent Assembly, the 1991 process associated with Alao-Aka Bashorun, the Abacha era and the 2014 National Conference.

“Now, that will not happen. So, the Igbo had to stay. But in staying in 1979, what did they do? They teamed up with the North. The Yoruba didn’t complain.

“Now, we have a situation where the Awolowo School of Thought, and everything that had always won over the South West, lost out to a new regime led by Bola Tinubu that took the Yoruba, for the very first time, to join with the North.

“And all hell is let loose. But who are the people leading the charge that we must balance it? It’s the Yoruba.”

Adejumo said the South-West delegation to the Patriots Conference did not depart substantially from the historical Yoruba demand for restructuring.

“And when we went to that constitutional conference, of which I was the leader, we presented nothing short of what has been the confluence of all thoughts,” he said.

“Right from 1953 to what we went to discuss in the 1979-78, Constituent Assembly, to the 1991 profound statement of Alao-Aka Bashorun, and that was where the idea of restructuring started afresh. 2004, 1999, Abacha and everything that they did, the Yoruba wanted out.”

2014 Confab

He also criticised the political handling of the recommendations of the 2014 National Conference.

“Now, let us now look at the 2014 CONFAB, which was largely a nefarious affair. But at the same time, we had perhaps the best of all that has happened since the 1963 constitution.

“But Nigeria, in their wisdom, chose Buhari, who was never ever going to honour that 2014 CONFAB report, which gave everything to everyone. If you want regionalism, go for it. If you want statism, go for it.”

Adejumo said the Yoruba position was not necessarily a return to the old regional arrangement in which all states within a geographical area would automatically be subordinated to one regional authority.

“The Yoruba will always want regionalism, but along with statism. Because the Ondo man will say, I’m not going back to Ibadan. The Ekiti man will say, I’m not going back to Ibadan.

“But the question I always tell them is, is Abuja nearer to you than Ibadan?”

He also questioned the practicality of calls for a Yoruba nation.

“Here we are, even within the Yoruba, some people are shouting for Yoruba nation. But where is the pathway? I don’t see it. Where will the boundaries be? Who will you sit down with? Who is the arbitrator?

“Who is going to sit down with you and say, okay, this is the boundary between Yoruba land and the North, or the East, or even anywhere else? So, it was all a farce.”

‘What exactly do the Igbo want?’

Turning specifically to the latest position of the Igbo Leaders of Thought, Adejumo questioned what he described as inconsistencies in the group’s demands.

“Now, talking about what the Igbo have just put out. Is it any different from what was said at Aburi, that was rejected? You want resource control, you want this, you want that. You reject restructuring.

“So, what exactly do you want?”

He recalled his involvement with Afenifere and the formation of the Southern and Middle Belt Leaders Forum, SMBLF, saying efforts had been made to create a broad platform for the various southern and Middle Belt groups.

“I was a spokesperson for Afenifere. I spent many years in Afenifere. But look at the way we wanted to even bring some kind of solution.

“In 2017, we had the Yoruba Agenda spread all over again in the Ibadan Declaration. And we invited, well, the Ndi-Igbo in Ohanaeze, and the PANDEF of the South-South, and the Middle-Belt Forum. Come and see what we are doing.

“So, we formed the Southern and Middle Belt Leaders Forum, SMBLF.”

He said Afenifere’s independence from government was important to its position.

“Afenifere, we are not affiliated to any government, any state government. Because he who pays the piper, dictates the tune.

“We were doing our thing, and we could not be moved, we could not be influenced by any government, state, federal, or local.”

‘Where is the mass movement?’

Adejumo also questioned the practical route to the creation of separate nations from Nigeria.

“The only way you can create a nation out of any nation is by mass movement,” he said.

“If the people rise and say this is it, and they are not relenting, most likely they are going to get it.

“Or there is a serious crisis, chaos, in which even the government is not existing anymore. Then you could create something out of something. Or perhaps by consensus, you all sat down and say, okay, now let us break up.

“So, where is the mass movement now? Where is the crisis? Where is the chaos? So, why create nothing out of it? Why try to create something out of nothing?”

He said the approaching election made it even more difficult to pursue such an agenda.

“Everybody is focused on the election. This election, we don’t know what the outcome will be. But, even if there is going to be a recourse to something, it will have to be after the election.

“It will have to be after that election.”

Adejumo said the various groups should concentrate on achieving workable reforms rather than making demands that lacked a clear pathway to implementation.

‘Go back and think about Igbo liberation’

He advised the Igbo Leaders of Thought to reconsider their approach and build alliances with other groups.

“So, in all of this, what is taking over? I don’t think we have conviction anymore in this country. I think what we have are personal interests, not even sectional interests.

“So the Leaders of Thought should better go back and think very well about how the Igbo people can be liberated.”

He said the Igbo needed to work with other groups rather than pursue a strategy in isolation.

“Who is talking about him? It’s largely forgotten. So, what the Igbo need to do is go back to the drawing board and come up with something realistic and begin to liaise with other groups.

“We have to understand what we want out of Nigeria.”

Adejumo warned that separation itself did not automatically guarantee stability or prosperity.

“Everybody is saying we want to go separate ways but if that is so easy and that will guarantee that each path will survive, what are the guarantees? I can see none.

“I can only see Sudan that even after separation, there is a continuation of war. I can see Ethiopia and Eritrea but if we want the kind of separation that brought about USSR, fine, let’s walk towards that. That’s dialogue.

“If we want to be like United States of America, it is still about dialogue.”

He ultimately advocated negotiation among the various constituent groups.

“So I would rather we choose a dialogue so that we can at least know that we can settle things amicably.

“The Nigerian question is, where are we, all of us? Where are the Yorubas? Where are the Igbo? Where are the Middle-Elders? Where are the South-South? Where is the Core-North?

“Are we exactly where we want ourselves to be? If the Yoruba said this is what we want, we want the maximum strength of us Yoruba to go and negotiate. Let the Igbo too come with their own. Do not leave anyone behind.”

Regionalism will cause destabilisation — Afenifere

Pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation, Afenifere, also rejected the proposal for regionalism, warning that it could create fresh political instability, particularly in areas with significant minority populations.

National Publicity Secretary of the group, Justice Faloye, said the organisation remained committed to the resolutions of the 2014 National Conference.

Faloye said: “Until another wider representative sovereign conference is held, Afenifere stands on the 2014 Confab Resolutions, made up with a wide and balanced delegation, which, after thorough deliberations, agreed on States as Federating Units.

“The very reason Afenifere had to step down from regionalism is what transpired in Abuja, where the Igbo delegation accused Yorubas of backing Ijaws and walked out.

“Regionalism will cause disaffection, especially in South-South and North Central regions. Regionalism will cause great political destabilization that will arise from allocating states and ethnicities to regions from above.

“Nigeria is made up of 371 ethnicities, so how do we allocate them to regions for representative governance?”

Faloye said the 2014 Conference had already provided an alternative approach.

“At the Confab, it was agreed that states with the same ethnicity that want to amalgamate into one region are free to do so, if voted for amongst themselves.

“It was also agreed that ethnicities in local governments are free to vote to join neighbouring states.

“This will make the whole process bottoms up whereby people can decide their representation from local governments upwards, and not a top down approach whereby peoples are allocated to arbitrary regions from the Federal Government downwards.”

He described imposed regionalism as problematic.

“Regionalism is at best internal colonization, and at worst, a diversionary tactic by those that don’t want to do anything but to derail real restructuring.”

Afenifere: ‘We stand by 2014 Confab’

The Secretary General of Afenifere, Chief Ademola Folarin, said the organisation was not part of the Abuja conference and had not changed its position on the 2014 Confab.

Folarin said: “Afenifere was not part of the Abuja Conference.

“The position of Afenifere has not changed from the one established by the 2014 Confab, where duly accredited representatives of Nigerian nationalities, by consensus, passed 600 resolutions.

“The resolutions included the retention of federal/state structure, with the possible creation of more states to accommodate minorities.

“With the states having the power and right to merge or de-merge through a well established constitutional process. The creation of regions was jettisoned, essentially to protect minorities.”

He said the conference had also advocated substantial devolution of powers.

“It was also resolved that more powers should be devolved to the STATES, including policing, mining, local government and so on and so forth. The proceedings and resolutions of the 2014 are well documented.

“Afenifere stands by them, until the duly accredited representatives of the nationalities meet to vary them.”

Restructuring must be by consent— Omololu

The Convener, Conscience of Yoruba Nation Group, Apagun Kole Omololu, however, supported restructuring into autonomous regions, but insisted that the process must be based on the consent of the communities concerned.

Omololu said the South-West position was clear in supporting autonomous regions within a voluntary, inclusive and cooperative federal system.

He said: “The South-West position is clear: we support the restructuring of Nigeria into autonomous regions within a voluntary, inclusive and cooperative federal system based on the consent of the people.”

He warned that the historical fears of Nigeria’s minority nationalities must not be ignored.

“The fears of minority nationalities were sufficiently serious in the late colonial period to lead to the establishment of the Willink Commission in 1957 to investigate their fears and safeguards.

“The Commission acknowledged that many of those fears were justified, although it did not recommend the creation of autonomous regions for the minority areas.

“The fact that the minority question has remained unresolved in different forms since then demonstrates an important principle: restructuring must not merely replace one form of domination with another.”

According to him, every constituent community must have confidence that its interests would be protected.

“If Nigeria is to be restructured into autonomous regions, every constituent community must have confidence that its identity, culture, language, political rights and legitimate economic interests will be protected.

“A region should not become a new centre from which one group exercises control or domination over other constituent peoples.

“This is why the principle of restructuring by consent is fundamental,” he added.

Communities

Omololu said the Igbo Leaders of Thought should engage communities they wanted included in their proposed region.

His words: “If the Igbo Leaders of Thought believe that particular states or communities should constitute an Igbo Region, we encourage them to engage those states and communities and obtain their freely expressed consent.

“Where the people of the proposed constituent areas agree to belong to such a region, and the constitutional requirements for its establishment are satisfied, there should be no controversy arising merely from the identity of the proposed region.

“The same principle must apply to every other proposed region.

“The South-West does not seek to determine for the people of the South-East, Middle Belt, North, South-South or any other part of Nigeria where they should belong.

“Equally, no other group should determine the political identity or regional affiliation of communities in the South-West without their consent.”

Omololu said the most important questions were not whether Nigeria should have 10 regions, 17 regions or another number.

“The more fundamental questions are:

“Who decides? The Citizens or a group of leader?

“What do the people concerned want?

“Are the proposed boundaries contiguous and viable?

“Do the constituent communities freely consent to the arrangement?

“What constitutional safeguards will protect minorities within each region?”

He said Nigeria’s experience showed that a durable federation must protect both regional autonomy and the rights of constituent communities.

“The proposed autonomous regions should consequently be understood as federations of communities, cooperating with one another and with a Federal Government whose powers are limited to those agreed upon by the federating regions,” he submitted.

Omololu said the process should not be seen as an attempt to undermine any nationality.

“The Concerned Citizens Assembly, we understand is a citizen-centric process and not a project against any nationality. It is an attempt to engage the citizens in creating a constitutional arrangement in which no nationality, region or community needs to fear domination by another.

“We therefore welcome dialogue with all groups genuinely committed to restructuring Nigeria. Different proposals should be placed before the Nigerian people, examined openly and negotiated peacefully,” Omololu added.

No to democratic

vacuum —Adeniran

On his part, National Chairman of the Centre for Anti-Corruption and Open Leadership, CACOL, and President of the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights, CDHR, Mr. Debo Adeniran, said the development was significant because it exposed a deeper problem in Nigeria’s restructuring debate.

According to him: “There may be growing agreement that the present federal arrangement needs reform, but there is still no consensus on what the replacement should look like.

“The rejection by the Igbo Leaders of Thought, ILT, should not simply be dismissed as another ethnic disagreement.

“It is a reminder that any attempt to restructure Nigeria must be based on genuine consultation, consensus and the consent of the people concerned.”

He warned, however, that restructuring must not become a competition for territorial advantage.

“At the same time, every ethnic or regional constituency must recognise that restructuring cannot become a competition for territorial advantage.

“The proposal by the ILT for a 10-region structure, including a proposed enlarged Igbo Region extending beyond the five South-East states, inevitably raises questions about boundaries, the wishes of affected communities and the rights of minorities.”

Adeniran said such questions must be resolved through transparent processes.

“Those questions must be resolved through transparent dialogue and, where necessary, referendums not through historical claims, political pressure or demographic strength.”

Election suspension worries Adeniran

On the proposal to temporarily suspend the 2027 elections, Adeniran said it was arguably the most consequential aspect of the ILT position.

He said: “This proposal deserves serious public debate rather than either immediate endorsement or outright dismissal.

“A suspension of elections would have profound constitutional and democratic implications. It would therefore require a clearly defined legal framework, broad national agreement, an explicit timetable, institutional safeguards and mechanisms preventing a transitional arrangement from becoming indefinite.”

He warned against creating another governance problem in the process of trying to solve the existing one.

“Nigeria must not replace one governance problem with another. Restructuring should deepen democracy, not create a democratic vacuum.”

Adeniran also said there was merit in putting fiscal federalism and security architecture at the centre of the national conversation.

He said the most important lesson from the disagreement was that Nigeria’s restructuring debate had moved beyond the question of whether restructuring was necessary.

“The most important lesson from the disagreement is that Nigeria’s restructuring conversation has finally moved beyond the question of whether restructuring is necessary to the much harder question of what restructuring should actually mean.”

ILT is speaking for no one— Ekujumi

Giving his perspective, public analyst and human rights advocate, Comrade Nelson Ekujimi, was more dismissive of the ILT position, describing it as an exercise in free speech without a broader mandate.

He said: “This Umbrella of Igbo Leaders of Thought, ILT, are merely exercising their fundamental human rights to free speech and to aggregate an opinion on an issue, nothing more, their agitations are mere grandstanding and seeking to excite oneself.

“They are free to continue to hallucinate like we always witness groups or organizations indulge in, when elections is knocking on the door, nothing more.

“They are speaking for no one, but themselves and their self-interest, Nigerians are not amused by this theatrics from this group.”

Differing, President of Yoruba Council Worldwide, His Royal Majesty, Aare Sooko Oladotun Hassan, took a different position, arguing that Nigeria had reached a critical stage where restructuring could no longer be treated as an issue to be postponed whenever elections were approaching.

Hassan said: “I strongly believe that Nigeria has reached a critical point in its political history where the question of restructuring can no longer be treated as a matter of political convenience, ethnic bargaining or an issue to be postponed whenever elections are approaching.

“The country cannot continue to recycle an unjust and over-centralised federal arrangement and expect a different outcome. What Nigeria needs at this moment is genuine political restructuring that will give every constituent region a sense of belonging, ownership and responsibility in the Nigerian project.”

He said the position of the Igbo Leaders of Thought deserved national attention, particularly because of the allegation that the views of the Igbo delegation had not been adequately reflected in the Abuja communiqué.

“The position expressed by the Igbo Leaders of Thought on the Abuja restructuring conference communiqué of August 20, 2026, deserves serious national attention.

“No meaningful restructuring discussion can be built on exclusion, selective representation or the deliberate disregard of the contributions of any ethnic nationality.”

Negotiating table

Hassan urged all sides to return to the negotiating table.

“If representatives of a major constituent group believe that their position was ignored, the appropriate response should be to return to the negotiating table, address their grievances and build a consensus that genuinely reflects the interests of all Nigerians.”

Hassan said Nigeria’s challenge was not its diversity but the manner in which the country had managed its diversity.

“I have consistently maintained that Nigeria’s greatest challenge is not its diversity but its failure to manage that diversity through a fair and equitable political structure.

“We cannot continue to pretend that the present arrangement is working when insecurity, poverty, unemployment, political instability and the struggle over resources continue to threaten our national cohesion.”

On the 10-region proposal, Hassan said it deserved national debate, particularly its proposals for regional control of resources and regional policing.

“The proposal for a 10-region political structure, with regional control of resources and regional police, is an idea that deserves open, honest and comprehensive national debate.

“The regions must have the authority to develop their economies, harness their natural resources and determine their development priorities without excessive dependence on the Federal Government.

“A system in which every region is compelled to look towards Abuja for survival cannot deliver genuine federalism.”

Regional policing must have safeguards

Hassan also backed decentralised policing but cautioned against abuse.

“I am particularly convinced that state and regional policing must become a central component of Nigeria’s security reforms.

“It is unreasonable to expect a highly centralised security architecture to effectively address the peculiar security challenges of communities spread across a vast and diverse country.

“Those who understand the terrain, culture, language and security dynamics of their communities should have a meaningful role in protecting them, subject to constitutional safeguards, accountability and respect for human rights.”

He added: “However, regional policing must not become an instrument of political intimidation or ethnic persecution.

“There must be clear constitutional provisions to prevent abuse, protect minorities and guarantee the rights of every Nigerian, irrespective of their ethnic or religious background.”

Suspended

On the proposal to suspend the 2027 elections, Hassan urged caution, saying restructuring and democracy should not be presented as mutually exclusive.

“On the proposal for the temporary suspension of elections until the restructuring exercise is completed, I believe this aspect requires the greatest caution.

“Restructuring is urgent, but democracy must not be unnecessarily suspended or used as a bargaining instrument.

“Any transition must be founded on constitutional legitimacy, broad national consensus and clearly defined timelines. Nigerians must not be denied their democratic rights under the guise of pursuing a better political arrangement.”

He said the approaching elections should not be used as an excuse to abandon the restructuring question.

“I do not subscribe to the argument that the 2027 general elections should become an excuse to abandon the restructuring question.

“Elections and restructuring must not be presented as mutually exclusive national priorities.”

Hassan also cautioned against reducing the restructuring debate to ethnic rivalry.

“I also wish to emphasise that restructuring is not an Igbo project, a Yoruba project, a Hausa project or the exclusive ambition of any ethnic nationality. It is a Nigerian project.

“The interests of the South-East, South-South, North-Central, North-West, North-East and every other constituent part of Nigeria must equally be recognised.

“No ethnic nationality should be made to feel that its future is dependent on the goodwill of another. No region should be permanently disadvantaged by a political arrangement that concentrates power and resources at the centre.”

He called on President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the National Assembly, political parties, traditional rulers, socio-cultural organisations and other stakeholders to treat the restructuring debate with urgency.

“The Federal Government must provide an inclusive platform where the various positions can be harmonised and translated into actionable constitutional reforms.

“The Igbo leaders must also be given the opportunity to fully present their position, just as the Yoruba, Hausa, Middle Belt, Niger Delta and other interest groups must have their voices heard. We cannot build a united country by silencing legitimate disagreements.”

Hassan concluded: “My position is simple: Nigeria needs a new and fairer federal compact.

“We need a country where the regions can breathe, develop and compete; where security is closer to the people; where resources are managed with responsibility; and where every ethnic nationality has a genuine stake in the federation.”

War

However, disagreeing with the Igbo leaders, spokesperson for Arewa Consultative Forum, ACF, Prof Tukur Baba, said: “The call for the postponement of the election is not in the constitution. The circumstances under which elections can be postponed, delayed or whatever is clearly stated in the constitution in the case of war or civil unrest and so on and so forth. The constitution clearly states what and how it should be done. The call is therefore not constitutional. We cannot postpone elections. On restructuring, it has nothing to do with the elections with the current structure. The National Assembly has just gone through a process of constitutional changes. Although the details have not been made public, the position of the National Assembly has been transmitted to state assemblies and that is what the constitution says.

“None of the state assemblies has come out of the 36 states in the federation. To the best of our knowledge, none of the 36 states have come out to say, this is, this is what I propose, this is our position and so on. We will be shooting in the dark.

“For anything to happen, it has to conform to the constitution for now. When the National Assembly started its constitutional review process, the ACF put together a group of experts and we made a comprehensive recommendation to the National Assembly in writing. I remember one of the recommendations we made and I repeat is that certain parts of the constitution should be expunged. For example, the preamble that says, this is one divisible nation, indivisible. We recommended that it should be expunged.

“Something related to what the group is calling is that we say, well the constitution should as far as possible make room for any constituent element of the federation that want to secede. They may want to go away and so on. So, but we don’t know whether the recommendation we made has been accepted, rejected or modified. So, we cannot say much about it. But regarding the group itself, the group is not a constitutional group. It has no power to legislate or to dictate.

“This is a responsibility for their representatives in the National Assembly. While it is their right and it is the right of every Nigerian to make recommendations on what they think is the way forward for the federation. But this has to be done within what we have the constitutional provisions.

“As un-ideal, as defective as they are, this is what we have.

“We don’t know that any group, North, West, South and East, has any power to halt elections, to halt the political process or to demand that the federation must be uh restructured in accordance with their wish when and how.

“I think it’s a bit arrogant to just come out of a country with 36 states, with over 400 ethnic groups, with various religious followings, with all the diversity that we have for one group to come and hold a brief and hold the nation back on behalf of everyone else.

Negotiations

“I think if anything is going to be done in the way the group is responding, and it is a non-governmental group, it has to be through negotiation, consultation and give and take within constitutional means.

“While they have a right to protest, they have a right to make demands, but these demands have to take into consideration the rights of others. The only way we can do that is through constitutional provision.

“I will suggest that the group may wish to take their demand to those states that apply to them, since the state assemblies are making recommendations which will go back to the National Assembly.

“I think the right place to go is to go back to the state assemblies and let’s see the way forward from there.”

It amounts to selfishness – OPC

Meanwhile, speaking on behalf of the Yoruba socio-cultural organisation, Oodua People’s Congress (OPC) Worldwide, its Deputy National Secretary, Otunba Babatunde Thompson, said: “It’s very surprising that some amorphous group, tagging itself Igbo Leaders of Thought, will reject the present framework of six geopolitical developmental regions that is fast becoming accepted and institutionalised in the country’s socio-political environment and has served adequately as the administrative basis for organising the country’s 36 states.

“Ironically, recognised Igbo leaders like the Second Republic Vice President, Alex Ekwueme, joined other eminent Nigerians to propose this six-region structure. And their visionary move has indeed helped to settle some fundamental issues relating to the structuring of the country.

“Every of the six regions should be in control its own resources, while contributing to the Centre Abuja. This is what the Founder of the Oodua People’s Congress, Dr. Frederick Fasehun clamoured for: restructuring and resource control, and that is the agenda that this present crop of OPC leaders will queue behind.

“Moreover, this so-called Igbo Leaders of Thought coming up with the vulgar idea of suspending the 2027 elections amounts to complete selfishness and insensitivity.

“We say no in totality to their backward and retrogressive suggestion.

“These look like people who don’t believe in their region’s growth and find it very difficult to bring their own region together as one.

“However, we shall continue to insist that Nigerians do not yet have a people-created Constitution because the 1999 document we carry today was handed to us by the Military.

“The true representatives of Nigerians must come together in a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) to forge an acceptable document that adequately encapsulates the basis of their togetherness as one indivisible nation under God, where no man will be oppressed nor feel oppressed, and where each unit can grow unhindered at its own pace according to its people’s unique aspirations and God-given resources.”

The post ABuja declaration: S/West leaders, ACF disagree with Igbo appeared first on Vanguard News.