Prodding National Unity Along By Giving It Constitutional Backing

By

Chidera Michaels

chideramichaels@gmail.com

For a nation peopled by disparate and quasi-civilized tribes, a perfect mix for gratuitous distrusts and suspicions among the tribes, it is dumbfounding that the framers of Nigeria’s current constitution did not think it necessary to insert in the nation’s Constitution a unity-engendering clause, an equivalent of some kind to the “Privileges and Immunities Clause” in the United States of America’s Constitution. This clause in the America’s Constitution has been credited with being responsible for bringing together the disparate nationalities that made up the early America into a unified nation that it is today. The privileges and immunities clause states that “The Citizens of each state shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.” Art. IV, section 2, clause 1. What this means is that any American who decides to move to another state within that country is automatically accorded all the privileges and immunities that accrue to the other residents of that state. This provision was inserted in the American constitution to reverse the effects of the Confederation fiasco that the states experimented with after the War of Independence, when citizens of the various states had to battle all sorts of tariffs and excise duties in order to be allowed to visit or sell their commodities in other states of the Confederation. As could be imagined, those that stood to gain from the chaos of those days worked assiduously to frustrate the aims of the “Privileges and Immunities Clause.” But the courts (at first, in fits and starts) enforced this constitutional provision. And today, Americans are the ones that choose where they want to live within that country, not the fortuity of their parents’ domiciliary preference.

Nigeria is a nation where children who were born in a state grow up into adulthood, establish their own families and sire a third generation, but are still seen and treated as indigenes of the state where their parents originally came from. Nigeria is a nation where clashes between towns or clans break out with dizzying frequency, each time claiming thousands of lives and millions (and sometimes billions) of naira in property damages. Nigeria is a nation where “leaders” constantly stoke the embers of tribal and sectional strife by phonily screaming that their people are being marginalized, when in fact all the noise is mostly for these” leaders’” own selfish purposes. Nigeria is a nation where the law of the land allows a state governor to inaugurate the potentially retaliation-spawning phenomenon of ordering all non-indigenes in his state’s civil service to be fired, and the central government bats no eyelid. Bear in mind that this indefensible behavior, if copied by those other sticky-fingered governors, will implode whatever semblance of civilized society that remains in the country at the moment. None of the above enumerated albatrosses would engender cohesion among a population that is already fragmented by suspicion and distrust.

The present crop of Nigeria’s leaders need to be tasked to decide what kind of a nation they plan to leave behind when their terms are up: a unified nation where tongue or place of birth would no longer matter, or a continuation of the present delusional arrangement (which is hated by all Nigeria’s constituting tribes) but loved by these looters occupying government positions that have earned the disdain of the world? The above questions may probably be a joke to these leaders since most of them are so steeped in tribal hegemony (at the expense of nation building) to notice that the house they are looting is being burnt down by a war being waged full-bore by the Boko Haram Islamists. To these leaders’ eternal shame, most of them have done nothing but shamelessly utilize the primordial distrusts amongst the tribes to feather their own nests.

To be sure, tribal animosities and the questionable needs to maintain tribal purity and distinctiveness may cause some people to move against a “privileges and immunities clause” being inserted into the nation’s Constitution. But with little passage of time, and as people get better educated, the dishonesty of such dissenters’ urgings back to the present hate-bating, insecure, and terrorism-spawning political arrangement of today will be exposed for what it really is - an attempt to keep the nation from joining the 21st century.

A vehement resistance to the insertion of a “privileges and immunities clause” must be expected from the fanatical adherents of the two major religious groups in the country since creating this “fundamental right” that will be protected by the Constitution would be feared as leading to dilution of their religious separateness. These arguments will be made, but the arguments will be phony because they will be based on false premises. For instance, having a Roman Catholic Nigerian from Rivers State live and have full rights of citizenship in Maiduguri does not threaten any Moslem from practicing his religion up there. And in the same vein, having a Moslem from Kano live and enjoy his full rights as a citizen of the country in Aba does not distract a Pentecostal Christian from being a born-again Christian down there. But what the “privileges and immunities clause” will ensure is that after the Moslem had lived in Aba for a prescribed period of time (as the “privileges and immunities clause” should provide – usually not exceeding a couple of years), the Moslem will have the full privileges and immunities enjoyed by other residents of Abia State. These rights must include being treated as a bona fide citizen of Abia State – with all the concomitant duties and benefits that the Abia State’s citizenship comes with. And the law courts must be empowered to make sure that the privileges and immunities of the Moslem in Aba are realistically meaningful rights. Having realistically meaningful rights means that this Moslem’s rights must include the right to vote and be voted for in his state of domicile, the right to engage in any kind of work he is qualified for or he had acquired the training for (in both public and private sectors), and the right to practice his religion unhindered by covert or overt intimidation by the state government or by activities of private individuals or groups condoned by the state government. And it goes without saying that the Roman Catholic from Rivers State, now resident in Maiduguri, must be accorded the same rights enjoyed by his other Borno State fellow residents.  

And of course, the insertion of the “privileges and immunities clause” in the nation’s Constitution will certainly lead to the demystifying of the mores of other tribes because when the Roman Catholic feels that he is at home in the midst of Moslems in Maiduguri, he will be more likely to develop interest in the lives and culture of his neighbors, and be less likely to see his Borno co-residents as “the others.” A situation like this will encourage more people to speak the tribal tongue and practice the tribal cultures of their host states – for the simple reason that they will feel relaxed in the knowledge that they are living in their own homes among Nigerians, in their own country. This will be a good thing as it would begin to break down the barriers that constitute the bedrocks of tribal jealousies and distrusts now pervasive among the tribes in the country.

But tribal bigots will not see this as a good thing. They will argue that their tribal customs and distinctiveness are being corroded or diluted. But that will not be true because more people learning about a culture will not dilute that culture. Rather the more people from other cultures learn about a tribe’s way, the more they are able to understand why their host tribe do and behave a certain way. And the more these other people understand why their host tribe does what it does, the more they will respect such host’s traditions. And respecting the traditions of other tribes will engender peace among the constituting tribes of the nation.

As alluded to above, the truth is that some of the tribal “leaders” will resist the inclusion of “privileges and immunities clause” in the Constitution on the guise that its inclusion will lead to the decimation of their tribal mores and customs. But the truth is that these tribal “leaders” will be perpetrating a fraud. You know, what is perplexing is that becoming tribal leaders usually means that these “leaders” had acquired some kind of rudimentary education – this means that these tribal leaders are usually not total illiterates. And their levels of education, no matter how marginal the quality of this education, has ways of exposing them to the cultures of the other tribes in the nation. The point being made here is that these tribal leaders will not oppose the “privileges and immunities clause” because they sincerely see no good in it. They will oppose it because the present arrangement enhances their pecuniary interests.

Seeing the “privileges and immunities clause” come into fruition may be a long-drawn process. Nobody should be kidded that the present crop of leaders will suddenly see the light and embrace the “privileges and immunities clause” with open arms. Abraham Lincoln emancipated the slaves in the early 1860s. But the Southern States obeyed this law let go of their slaves only because the central government deployed its might to enforce the law. Not long after, the Southern States replaced slavery with gratuitous hatred of these hapless former slaves by lynching them for every conceivable reason, by despoiling them, and by denying them every opportunity to make a living – hence “racism” entered the lexicon of American English grammar. To despoil these former slaves, the Southern States embarked on the enactment of a rash of discriminatory laws – the Jim Crow laws – which were aimed solely at denying the freed slaves the rights to make a living. Even though laws were in the federal law books that allowed the freed slaves to vote, they were not allowed to vote in most states of the Union. Poll taxes were passed that required these impecunious freed slaves to pay certain amounts of money before they could vote, and “literacy tests” laws were enacted that screened the illiterate freed slaves out of voting.

The US central government fought back by making laws to annul these discriminatory laws that had sprung up in the South and in other parts of the country. Some salutary effects were recorded during this era but things really began to change as the years wore on and the bigots began to die off. The point of this story is that sometimes all that is needed is the courage to make the right laws. All good and trailblazing laws were resisted by some of those whose interest the laws went against. But subsequent generations always see more clearly than the generation before it the indecency the law was enacted to fight against. But those later generations see the injustice of the past clearer only because the former generations had the courage to put such laws in the books in the first place.

A tipping point was reached in 1857 when the United States Supreme Court held in DredScott v. Sanford that a freed slave was mere property, and as such had no right to bring action against a citizen of the United States to reclaim property bequeathed to him by his former owner. The uproar generated by that decision quickly dragged the nation into a genocidal civil war that ended with the 14th Amendment becoming part of the US Constitution. The 14th Amendment made these rights available to every American: everybody born or naturalized in the United States of America is a Citizen of that country; residents of every state have Privileges and Immunities in all other states of the nation; every American has a Due Process right to notice and hearing before his life, liberty, or property can be taken away; and every American has the right to Equal Protection of the law.

But even after the 14th Amendment became part of the Constitution of the United States, citizens and the law courts flouted the 14th Amendment with impunity for over a century. Gradually, however, decency began to take hold and people began to loudly decry these injustices meted out by the courts. Slowly, the prejudicial decisions by the racist judges began to be overruled. Today, racism and injustice has not been wiped out in the United States of America – not by a long shot – but minds and attitudes are changing, simply because some Americans in those heady days had the courage and decency to include the 14th Amendment (and others like it) in the American Constitution. It is also true that a lot of those courageous legislators did not expect the constitutional amendment to be a silver bullet that will erase prejudice and injustice from people’s minds – heck, some of the legislators that fought for the enthronement of the 14th Amendment were widely known as racists themselves – but they knew what was right even if they were steeped in racism themselves.

The point is that nobody is under the illusion that if the legislators in Abuja summon up the courage to insert “privileges and immunities clause” in the Constitution, the Boko Haram scourge will instantly disappear overnight, or that the Area Boys will disappear from Lagos State neighborhoods, or that Abia State governor will recall those fired civil servants. Nobody is asking the legislators in Abuja to become moral crusaders. But we know that they may be decent enough to want the cow they are milking daily to survive another day; if for nothing else, for selfish reasons. For these legislators, we ask that they do what those American Congressmen did in 1868 when they passed the 14th Amendment, despite their own dirty hands. The American Congressmen of 1868 did not allow their own indecent cravings to crowd out the moral decency ensconced in perhaps a tiny part of their souls. Today history remembers these Congressmen as moral giants even though they might not have passed for moral Lilliputians in their day. Nigeria’s corrupt legislature has the chance to etch their names in the stone of time by including this amendment in the Constitution of the nation. If for nothing else, they should do it because the amendment may not even take hold completely in their lifetimes.

From where I stand, the only panacea to forestalling Nigeria’s certain implosion (which is underway as it would seem) is a surge of assurance to all Nigerian citizens that not only are they bona fide Nigerians, but also that they could be secure as Nigerians in their dwellings in whatever part of the country they happen to live. It is my belief that all Nigerians want to know and feel that other Nigerians from every constituting tribe in the nation recognize them as Nigerians, just as these other citizens believe themselves to be Nigerians. Until Nigerians begin to see themselves as being in it together, Nigeria’s days as a nation may be numbered. If there are some Nigerians in the North who are of the illusion that Christians of the southeast are still those of the 1960s who will turn tail and run when half-crazed religious zealots come after them with machetes and clubs, they should think again. Somebody should tell them that if the Nigerian-Biafran war were to be fought today, the result will be different.

For instance, if another war is to break out today and no nation on earth offered to help Biafra (which is not likely in today’s electronic age), the Igbos in Diaspora will be able to keep the war efforts going for twenty years without any sweat. Times have changed. But it seems that nobody has told those Islamists running around and blowing things up in the North that a new era has dawned. Blowing up police stations and UN offices is cruel enough, but blowing Christians up when they emerge from worship on Christmas Day is as a poke in the eye as it will ever get.

The crux of this piece is that the politicians in Abuja should face up to the reality staring them in the faces: unless they grow the civic courage to put Nigeria in the path of homogeneity where every citizen feels secure and have a sense of belonging by inserting a privileges and immunities-like clause (and others measures) in the Constitution, Nigeria will certainly implode in their faces. But I imagine that the prospect of Nigeria imploding may not bring sleepless nights to them. Not if they are in politics to make out like bandits; this is the belief of the world anyway. But since most of them are in politics for the loot, and will not summon the courage to insert a “privileges and immunities clause” in the Constitution, I suppose that they may also not care to summon a sovereign conference to divide up the country along the warring tribal lines or along whatever formula they come up with? The status quo, they should be made to understand, is not tenable. The raging Boko Haram mayhem is a pointer.

Most other countries of the world would recognize that Boko Haram has declared war on their countries, as evidenced the Islamists’ rampage at the moment; but not Nigeria. Just as an illustration: a group of Islamists hijacked four planes on “9/11”(9/11/2002) and wrecked havocs in New York and Washington D.C. and America declared wars on two nations and unleashed drone attacks on countless other countries (in which about ten thousand persons has been killed thus far from the air) towards which America had not officially declared wars against. But Nigeria is being decimated by a known terrorist group and nothing meaningful is being done about it. If you were in Boko Haram’s shoes, would you stop the attacks? Well, let’s see! Boko Haram has the government and people of Nigeria scared shitless right now, right? What incentive does Boko Haram have to stop the attacks? None! That’s a position of strength if there had ever been one. These death merchants has Nigeria by the balls, but all the politicians in Abuja do is voice empty platitudes about fighting terrorism but go about looting the treasury as usual.

Unless Nigeria receives a shot in the arm, as they say – the sort that would invoke nationalism in her citizens (as the world saw in USA following the 9/11 attacks) and spur an breakout of spontaneous national pride amongst Nigerians, and in the throes of such national pride inspire Northern Moslems to isolate and rat out the Boko Haram terrorists to the authorities – Nigeria’s days as a nation may be behind her already.

Finally, an unsolicited advice to the Babangidas, the Buharis, and the Abubakars of Northern Nigeria: what planets do you guys live in? If I were you, I would give marching orders to my cohorts to fish out (and round up) these murderous gang of Islamists called Boko Haram, for the simple reason that if Boko Haram eventually succeeds in touching off a second civil war in Nigeria and the North is cut off from the rest of the nation as it must, the North will turn into another Chad Republic or Niger Republic under a decade. Some say that the Chad scenario is too rosy; they say the North will turn to Afghanistan of erstwhile days before the invasion of USA. With the religious fervor broiling under the surface up there in the North, an Islamist revolution is certain to breakout. And if that happens, the murderous Islamists’ first point of order would likely be to decapitate these above-mentioned gentlemen for whatever apostasy reasons the Islamists would come up with; and if they could not come up with something religiously condemnatory, for these gentlemen’s sticky-fingers. Then the Islamists will go on to decimate whatever little progress the North has made in the sphere of education by plunging the North into the Stone Age as all fundamentalist Islamists always wanted to do.

Understandably, the nation’s youth restiveness stems largely from the off-the-wall unemployment situation. But lest it is forgotten, this economic climate was brought on by irresponsible leadership by persons almost entirely from the North. Hence, criminality has become entrenched as a cottage industry in all parts of the country – as a way of survival. But in the North, the chronically impoverished underclass who had never been made to understand the importance of education in a modern world by their fiefs (and who are awash in ignorance and suspicion of others that illiteracy brews in large amount), has been made to see the blowing up of others, along with themselves back to the bosom of Allah where the supposed 70 virgins await, in lieu of the travails of modern living. It is surprising that the moneybags in the North do not understand that they stand to lose more from Nigeria breaking up than other parts of the country. In my view, these moneybags from the North should be lobbying the national assembly to incorporate a “privileges and immunities clause” in the nation’s Constitution as quickly as they could get the national assembly to enact the amendment. It will augur to these Northern moneybags’ benefits for two obvious reasons: the settlement of others from other parts of the country in the North will mask these leaders’ failure to pull their constituents along into modern time, and the moneybags will be assured that their heads will, literally, not be separated from their shoulders by the murderous Islamist thugs in their midst.