The question of indigeneship has for long been a recurring decimal in our national struggle for true nationhood in Nigeria . It has been said to be the albatross of national cohesiveness, the bane of unity and the root cause of chaos, conflicts and seeming anarchy in our society. Of recent, the Plateau crisis has brought to the fore the ever present problem of indigeneship in Nigeria . So much commentary has been made that revisiting the issue may, to a large extent, be seen as beating an already well-trodden path and may also appear to be an unnecessary exercise in futility. However, the truth still remains: the problem looms large and hangs over the national psyche like a sword of Damocles.

 

Our major flaw as a nation is the fact that we exude, with terrible joy, all the “virtues” of profound hypocrisy. Confronted with issues of national unity, development and progress, we prefer to play the ostrich than yield to common sense and dialogue, brain storm and proffer practical and realistic solutions to them. Invariably, we submit quickly and unquestioningly to easy, unpractical political solutions that never last a day. This is amply demonstrated by the refusal of the Federal Government to convene a national conference to discuss and settle, once and for all, issues that seem to strongly wedge dividing lines in our quest for unity. And interestingly, our constitution does not, even to the most seasoned lawyers, present clear solutions to various issues such as indigeneship.

 

There is no denying the fact that indigeneship of any locality in Nigeria is a serious matter. It has always been perceived as the driving force behind our disunity, yet no one seems inclined to finding lasting solutions to it. The truth is that indigeneship is a concept that defies exact definition but as real as the air we feel and breathe. It is an attachment to an ancestral tribal home which happens to be the origin of one’s being within a given geographical national, regional or even local demarcation. In places where one does not even feel that attachment there are strong unseen forces that make it impulsive, in most cases, to identify with such a place, defying even some elements of time. In some other instances, one is often reminded of his “roots” by others who do not feel inclined to sharing their “indigeneship” with you especially when costs and gains are concerned. At such instances, you are reminded of your “citizenship” of that locality and “settlership” of that same place.

 

One commentator once mused, with some bits of rhetoric, a time when Nigerians will think, talk and act like Americans: “I am an American of Scottish descent”. But let’s take a peep at this simple statement. Amply implied in this statement is the recognition of the person’s indigeneship-Scotland, and settlership-America. It also explains why Americans refer to their country as an immigrant nation, accepting the fact that they lord it over indigenes of America . It also demonstrates why African Americans are the most segregated and discriminated race in America -they do not know their countries of origin and are therefore a “nationless” people. In the earlier statement, the person did not say “I am an American of European descent”-he named his nation of indigeneship. The African Americans’ crisis of identity stems largely from their inability to be identified with an indigenous nation of their own, apart from the continent Africa . Indigeneship is therefore an important ingredient of human existence. And if it could be applied at the national level, it equally is applicable at the regional and local levels as well.

 

Let us go elementary and draw on history for insight into how we came to this crossroads as a country. This is necessary taking into cognizance the level at which the discourse has taken on the garment of the ridiculous especially since supposedly well informed commentators have taken into the field, speaking from both sides of he mouth, eating their cake and wanting to have it back.

 

The two great religions in Nigeria , Christianity and Islam, both subscribe to the same belief of a single original parentage-Adam and Eve in an original, indigenous home- Garden of Eden . From this garden all humanity originates though the sin of Adam and Eve denied mankind the privilege of remaining in their ancestral home. They were relocated and “settled” outside their origin. Subsequently all other places inhabited by man was outside this original home on earth. Assuming this thesis to be right, it translates that we all are settlers, wherever we may presently be, irrespective of national boundaries. But this submission, though correct, is far fetched and presently unrealistic.

 

The historical graduation of man from being a gatherer and wanderer to domesticated living demanded that certain things be owned. The necessity to carve out a territory for one’s self and family to ensure constant sustenance of livelihood called for more resources in terms of wisdom, wiles, strength and courage to create a niche for oneself and defend it. This could easily be visualized in large predatory animals which carve a territory for themselves that they are ready to fight for and defend, even to death. However, society became organized on micro levels-starting with a husband and wife, and then extended to children and nearby neighborhoods which subsequently produces an enlarged society of people of similar background, culture, and tradition etc. Some other societies may dislodge the other in wars and battles for an enlarged neighborhood, and the elements of climate and nature such as drought, famine, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions may engineer movements away from a settled area and the displaced would move on to settle another territory. Such were the movements that took place when the earth was still an open country to be settled and owned. However, with time most of the habitable areas became subject to territorial lords we now call ancestors, who had fought wars and battles to keep their pieces of God-given land to ensure the continuity of their tribes, clans or race. In places like Nigeria where the land is the primary means of sustenance, such attachments could be very strong and would definitely be the basis of any structural organization, be it political, economic, social, cultural etc. Thus we come to classification of individuals within any given territory as indigenes or settlers.

 

It is safe to say that reference to one’s indigeneship is acceptable so long as it is the agreed norm in a given society. Every individual is an indigene of a place on this earth. There is nothing therefore wrong in building an organizational structure of political, social and economic existence on the concept of indigeneship so long as it would be accepted by all stakeholders as fair especially as everyone could claim indigeneship of a “land”. So long as it would be abided by and shall be binding on all, who collectively comprise the state, and enforced by the state apparatus saddled with the responsibility of implementing policy with fairness and justice, there shall still be unity. The present government policy of affirmative action gives full recognition to indigeneship as the basis of “even” development in almost all spheres of life in Nigeria . It is therefore very surprising and heart-rending to hear our political leaders and commentators deny the existence of our socio-political structure organized around the principle of indigeneship.

 

For starters, let us take a look at our so-called policy of federal character as contained in the Third Schedule (Part 1) of the 1999 Constitution of Nigeria. This is a federal government policy that seeks proportional representation of all states, ethnic or interest groups in Nigeria in appointments to offices, promotions, and employment in government. Section 8 (1a,b,c) provide that:

 In giving effect to the provisions of section 14(3) and (4) of this Constitution, the Commission shall have the power to:

(a) work out an equitable formula subject to the approval of the National Assembly for the distribution of all cadres of posts in the public service of the Federation and of the States, the armed forces of the Federation, the Nigeria Police Force and other government security agencies, government owned companies and parastatals of the states;

(b) promote, monitor and enforce compliance with the principles of proportional sharing of all bureaucratic, economic, media and political posts at all levels of government;

(c) take such legal measures, including the prosecution of the head or staff of any Ministry or government body or agency which fails to comply with any federal character principle or formula prescribed or adopted by the Commission;

There is no denying the fact that the FCC’s sharing formula has as its cardinal concept, indigeneship, as its pivotal principle. In Obasanjo’s cabinet, all states of the federation were asked to nominate indigenes qualified to be appointed as ministers and ambassadors. This is meant to be a panacea to the most victimized word in the Nigerian political vocabulary-marginalization. The argument has been that each people, as defined by state boundaries, are entitled to benefit from the national cake and should therefore be adequately represented. It is therefore expected that “a son of the soil” shall be mandated by the people of a given state to be their representative. The people also should possess the capacity to accept or reject anyone for any given number of reasons ranging from a mistrust of his capability to represent them on the basis of political affiliation, social and cultural background or even economic circumstances. Invariably, except for a few isolated cases where the consent of the people are not sought as in situations of promotions in the civil service, nominees to such federal appointments have been “indigenes” (as we know the term to mean in Nigeria) of their states. Consequently, no Igbo man has so far been nominated to represent Lagos State for a ministerial appointment even though some Igbo families have been in Lagos for over a hundred years. And no Yoruba man has been nominated to represent Kano for an ambassadorial appointment even though some Yoruba families have been in Kano for decades on end, and in the same vein, no Hausa man has been nominated to head the Niger Delta Development Commission even though some Hausa families have been in the delta region for nearly a hundred years. These are things supposedly reserved for indigenes for which questions as to those qualified to be nominated are answered without being voiced or questioned. Imagine Obasanjo choosing an Olagbemiro from Jos (the Olagbemiro family has been in Jos for more decades than I care to mention) as his Vice-Presidential candidate in this dispensation on the basis of the spurious claim that the man is an indigene of Jos in the north!!

 

The quota system, popularized by our educational system, is another point. States have been designated as either educationally advantaged or disadvantaged. Candidates to federal educational institutions are admitted based, largely, on three criteria- merit, educational status of state of origin, and catchment area of the federal institution. Cut off points for specific academic disciplines form the basis for admission into the programmes in the university and there are three different cut-off points, one for each of these three criteria. For example, the University of Jos could have vacancies for only 100 candidates in the medical programme for a given year. It could then decide to grant admission on a 50-30-20 percent for merit-educational status of states of origins-catchment area bases respectively. And the cut-off points may be 270-250-230 JAMB points in that order as well. This means that only 50 candidates that have JAMB scores from 270 and above would be admitted to the medical program in the university irrespective of the candidate’s indigene status. If 70 students qualify on this basis, other criteria would be put in place such as the 50 candidates with the highest points or those with the best GCE/WAEC results among the pack etc. The remaining twenty would not qualify on the basis of merit and would therefore not be admitted on that ground. However, some could still be admitted on the basis of either of the remaining two grounds, if they qualify. For instance, an Abdullahi from Kano State, which is designated as an educationally disadvantaged state, with a JAMB score of 250, could be admitted while his counterpart, Segun, from Ogun State (which is not an educationally disadvantaged state) who has 272 points (but could not be admitted on merit because 50 others had more scores than he does) would not. In like manner Usman, an indigene of Bauchi State (which is one of the catchment area states together with Plateau, Benue, kaduna and some other surrounding states) who has 230 JAMB points would still be admitted ahead of Segun from Ogun State (who has 272 points). This is the arrangement that takes place in ALL federal educational institutions in Nigeria . How then do you identify candidates’ indigeneships without recourse to their tribal-ancestral settlements? Would a Segun who lives in Kano be considered as an indigene of Kano and be admitted on the basis of Kano being an educationally disadvantaged state?

 

To ensure that the candidates for appointments, nominations for political offices, employments and even admissions into federal institutions are bona fide indigenes of the states they profess to come from, all states have “Indigene Forms” (mark this, not Citizen Forms) as proof of indigeneship of the state. These forms are administered at the local government levels for which the names and tribes of one’s parents are to be filled in, and one’s village/ward head is to append his signature affirming that one is a bona fide indigene of the locality one professes to come from. These are documents, not only accepted at the federal government level, but demanded as pre-requisites for employments, appointments, promotions and admissions, all in the bid to create, maintain and sustain a “federal character”. The constitution provides for a Federal Character Commission which thrives on the principle of indigeneship, yet our leaders refuse to acknowledge indigeneship merely because the writers of our constitution did not expressly call it by that name. As Shakespeare would say: call a rose by any name, it will still smell as sweet. And to rub the insult in Obasanjo, Atiku, Saminu Turaki etc all have indigene forms from Ogun, Adamawa and Jigawa states affirming that they are indigenes of these states respectively! So how come the term is now alien to Nigeria ?

 

The too-often-heard cry of marginalization in Nigeria is nothing but a pointer to the issue of indigeneship, a reference to the fact (or fiction) that “indigenes” of certain parts of Nigeria have been sidelined and are not being adequately represented. The irony of it all is that the word takes meaning only if it is voiced by one of the so-called majority tribes. If the Hausa man cries of marginalization in appointments, he means that there are no enough Hausas from Kano , Sokoto, Zamfara etc in a particular government. Ditto for the Yorubas or Igbos. No other people have the right to the use of this word outside this linguistic trinity. In such very remote cases where the minority tribes squeal from the burden of genuine marginalization and subjugation, as is the case in Plateau State now, recourse is immediately made to the concept of citizenship. Take for instance, the question of 2007 presidency. Would the north accept an Mbanefo from Jos (The Mbanefo family in Church Street has been in Jos since 1907) for a president if it be zoned to the northern region on the basis that they are northerners? Or would the Igbo accept a Yoruba man whose family has lived in Aba for the past 70 years to be president if it be zoned to the South-East? If so, why is the North and South-east at each others’ throat over the zoning of the presidency? Why won’t an Igbo man from Kano be endorsed by both regions as a consensus candidate and kill two birds with one stone-an Igbo president and a northerner all rolled into one? For other people outside the Hausa, Igbo and Yoruba groups, indigeneship does not exist. Only citizenship suffices. What hypocrisy!