THE AMALGAMATION OF STRANGE BIRTH FELLOW IN 1914 AND INDIRECT RULE EFFECT IN THE POST-COLONIAL NIGERIA

THE AMALGAMATION OF STRANGE BIRTH FELLOW IN 1914 AND INDIRECT RULE EFFECT IN THE POST-COLONIAL NIGERIA

BY
EKENEME VINCENT  CHIBUKE


INTRODUCTION

The country which is now called Nigeria is characterized by different peoples of cultures, traditions, natural resources and many other dynamics attributes. The history of Nigeria can however be traced down to the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial era. These stages are characterized by different peoples, events, calamities, displacement of identity and dignity and several other developments and disappointments. The fact remains that these stages of Nigeria formation cannot be overemphasized especially the Colonia era that was the heart of the default setting which Nigeria today is operating
The Berlin conference held from 1884-1885 was the colonization of the African continent by European powers. That Berlin event was the awful of the many evils that besieged her. Africa’s head was shaved in her absence and divided into irregular fragments not considering language, culture or traditions.
In the bid to mention the irrationality of the amalgamation, it has been called many names in Nigerian history such as a celebration of slavery, a historic fraud, a merging of opposites and so forth. Just as the Berlin Conference was Africa’s undoing in more ways than one, one of which even by the time independence returned to Africa in 1950, the realm had acquired a legacy of political fragmentation that could neither be eliminated nor made to operate satisfactorily, amalgamation too has not left the best tidings on the Nigerian socializations and politics. The first pointer to the irrationality of the amalgamation is that fact that it was not even legal. It was done illegally even though it followed the spirit of the Berlin Fathers, it wasn’t legally done. Tayo Oke argues that “My search through the United Kingdom Parliamentary archives did not reveal any promulgation of an Act of Parliament on the subject as it should have…Lord Lugard had simply prevailed on the Secretary of State to rubber stamp his wish to rule over a vast swathe of land which he had christened Nigeria. However, we cannot blame the amalgamation for all the current ills we are experiencing now as many claim. A brief retrospection into Nigerian annals proved that the amalgamation of the south and north was not the first merging and in fact after the merging things still went on well.
For the purpose of this work however, a closer outlook will be taken on the effect of amalgamation and indirect rule to the greatest bane of national unity of the country which is now called Nigeria. To dazzle into this elaborate discuss, it will be fitting to elucidate these thematic issues using the following outline:
Clarification of terms
The history of what came to be Nigeria
The Amalgamation in the colonial era
The effect of amalgamation and indirect rule in the post colonial era
Evaluation
Conclusion
CLEARIFICATION OF TERMS
Amalgamation according to Cambridge Dictionary is the process in which separate organizations unite to form a larger organization or group, or an organization or group formed in this way. Amalgamation can also be described as the merging of joining two or littler enterprise or community in order to form a larger one. Although, amalgamation is often used for business enterprise or sector but it has been coined also to be used for community, state and geographical entities. This means that amalgamation can be used for like example to describe the coming together of the communities in order to for one larger community which will enhance more effectiveness. Amalgamation of the Southern and the Northern region of Nigeria can be referring to as joining the two regions together.
Similarly, Colonialism is the establishment, exploitation, maintenance, acquisition, and expansion of colony in one territory by a political power from another territory. It is a set of unequal relationships between the colonial power and the colony and often between the colonists and the indigenous population. The European colonial period was the era from the 16th century to the mid-20th century when several European powers (particularly, but not exclusively, Portugal, Spain, Britain, the Netherlands, Russia, and France) established colonies in Asia, Africa, and the Americas. At first the countries followed mercantilist policies designed to strengthen the home economy at the expense of rivals, soothe colonies were usually allowed to trade only with the mother country. By the mid-19th century, however, the powerful British Empire gave up mercantilism and trade restrictions and introduced the principle of free trade, with few restrictions or tariffs.
Collins English Dictionary defines colonialism as "the policy and practice of a power in extending control over weaker people or areas.” The Merriam-Webster Dictionary offers four definitions, including "something characteristic of a colony" and "control by one power over a dependent area or people." The 2006 Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy "uses the term 'colonialism' to describe the process of European settlement and political control over the rest of the world, including Americas, Australia, and parts of Africa and Asia." It discusses the distinction between colonialism and imperialism and states that "given the difficulty of consistently distinguishing between the two terms, this entry will use colonialism as a broad concept that refers to the project of European political domination from the sixteenth to the twentieth century’s that ended with the national liberation movements of the 1960s.
The colonialism in African down to Nigeria can therefore be divided in ti three different parts; the pre colonial period, the colonial period which lasted from 1900 to 1960, an lastly the post colonial period which was invented after amalgamation and independence of the state. In 1900, the Niger Coast Protectorate and some territories of the Royal Niger Company were united to form the Southern Nigeria Protectorate, while other Royal Niger Company territories became the Northern Nigeria Protectorate. In 1914, the Northern and Southern Nigeria Protectorates were unified into the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria while maintaining considerable regional autonomy among the three major regions. Progressive constitutions after World War II provided for increasing representation and electoral government by Nigerians. In October 1, 1960, Nigeria gained independence.
Also, ' strange bed fellow' is a form of coined phrase or idiom which means that If two people or groups make strange bedfellows, they are connected in a particular activity though they are very different and would not usually have the same opinions or be seen together. It can also mean People who would normally dislike and avoid one another will work together if they think it is politically useful to do so. This proverb therefore describes the amalgamation of the Northern region and the Southern region of what came to be Nigeria.
THE HISTORY OF WHAT CAME TO BE NIGERIA
Nigeria was a creation of the British colonial adventurer and empire builder. The March for markets, raw materials and the need to exert political influence overseas led Britain to journey to places as distant as Wikki in present day Borno State. To the Northwest, Sokoto came under her influence too. Deriving the name Nigeria from the word 'Niger' - the name of the river that constitutes the most remarkable geographical feature, the colonial master coupled together the diverse peoples North and South of the river and its tributary the Benue into a modem nation- state. The vegetation in tile South is predominantly rain forest, but moving northwards one finds a belt of savannah and scrubland which gives way to the Sahara Desert. From across the desert came the earliest external influence to reach some of the areas now part of Nigeria. That was Islamic faith and ideas which began to filter from North Africa, first into Kanern- Bornu. The Niger River, the name from which Nigeria is coined, empties into the Bights of Benin and Bonny, through an intricate network of Delta characterized by a thick mangrove which the British ventured in order to get prized items of trade in the nineteenth century. But this was after the trade in slaves had been outlawed in 1833.
SLAVE TRADE: The external influence resulting from this trade brought tremendous impact on Nigeria. From the late 15th Century, Europeans began frequenting the Bights of Benin (now the Bights of Bonny), in search of tropical products and slaves.

By the eighteenth century, the ports of Nigerian coastlines, mainly Lagos, Brass, Bonny and Old Calahar, had become centers of the trans-atlantics slave trade. Trade routes from these ports extended through the communities of the South to the Hausa States. But the industrial revolution and the advent of the machine made the trade unnecessary and unprofitable. The aftermath was an increased interest in palm oil trade. In 1849, the British Government appointed John Beecroft as the Governor of Bights of Benin and Bonny His job was to regulate commercial relations with the coastal city States. Backed by fierce gunboats, he interfered with the internal affairs of these States and the process which culminated in the imposition of colonial rule came afoot.
There were also missionary interests at play. In 1861, Lagos was proclaimed crown colony. And through the initiative of the United Africa Company, formed by George Goldie, through an amalgamation of British firms in 1879, most of the parts which became Northern Nigeria were preserved as British sphere to the chagrin of French and German competitors. The Company received a charter to administer it until 1899 when the charter was revoked, and tile British Government administered it directly, under the name "Protectorate of Northern Nigeria" The Delta Area had itself been proclaimed the Oil Rivers Protectorate, following the signing of a number of treaties between the local rulers and British consular officials. Finally, in 1914, the two British administrations were merged, to form a single territorial unit known as Nigeria. This territory was administered by the British until 1960 when the Union Jack (British flag) was lowered for the Nigeria flag to take its place. From the point of view of the evolution of the Nigerian state, the most significant thing about the 1954 Constitution, which remained in force until Independence in 1960, was that the Lugardian principle of centralization was replaced by the formula of decentralization as a matter of policy in the administration of the Nigerian state.

 THE AMAGAMATION IN THE COLONIAL ERA
The eventual amalgamation of Nigeria on January 1, 1914, was as much the outgrowth of the extant global order as well as evolving policy of Britain that claimed this part of the continent for itself. Much of the parts now known as Nigeria were recognized to have come under British influence by other colonial powers at the 1884 Berlin Conference. British citizens as missionaries or traders thereafter became more active in the areas which peoples didn’t know Britain as much as Britain knew them. And it wasn’t as if there was a truckload of knowledge of what Britain knew about most of these areas before 1900 to make it claim full ownership (apart from places where treaties had been signed with local rulers, or armed expedition had taken place). For as late as 1920, colonial officials continued to go into the interior, collecting information on tribal history and making maps of places that the then international system had long conceded to Britain. And of course a close look at the vast productive savannah, forested and water areas that Britain claimed, while it ignored the vast desert all around, showed why this part was a big prize which Britain in the pre-1900 period held under three different administrations namely; the Niger Coast Protectorate, Niger Sudan Protectorate, and Colony of Lagos.
Back in 1896, Sir Ralph Moor, the Consul-General of the Niger Coast Protectorate, had complained to the Foreign Office in London about the different fiscal policies among the various parts of the British territory. Moor said the policies were detrimental to commercial development. Jealous of the Royal Niger Company and its dominance in trade, Liverpool Chamber of Commerce also wrote London, suggesting the unification of the three territories. What the Secretary of State for the Colonies, Lord Chamberlain, with the Foreign Office did by setting up a committee to consider the request was typical of bureaucracy; it was a step that would delay the bringing together of all parts of Queen Victoria’s territory and make Nigerians of 2014 link that general period in their nation’s history more closely to the name of one man – Lord Frederick D. Lugard. Now, Lugard remains such a huge figure. And it’s not just in Nigeria where he looms large in colonial history, but in Britain’s pre-second world war colonial establishment. So, it’s in order if some attention is paid to the man who was appointed by the British political establishment to bring about the amalgamation of Nigeria.
Lugard was born Frederick John Dealtry Lugard on January 22, 1858. His journey through life cast him on marble as a soldier, explorer of Africa and colonial administrator, Governor of Hong Kong (1907–1912) and Governor-General of Nigeria (1914–1919). And he was much more. He was born in Madras (now Chennai) in India to the Reverend Frederick Grueber Lugard, a British Army Chaplain at Madras. He was raised in Worcester, England, educated at Rossall School and the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, an institution many Nigerian military officers would latter attend. Lugard was commissioned into the 9th Foot (East Norfolk Regiment) in 1878, joining the second battalion in India. He served in the Afghan War in1879–1880, Sudan campaign in1884–1885, and in the Third Burmese War in 1886–1887. In May 1888, he took command of an expedition organized by the British settlers in Nyasaland against Arab slave traders on Lake Nyasa and was severely wounded. After he left Nyasaland in April 1889, Lugard joined the British East Africa Company.
In 1890, he was sent by the company to Uganda, where he secured British predominance of the area and put an end to the civil disturbances. After his successful efforts, Lugard became Military Administrator of Uganda from December 26, 1890 to May 1892. When he returned to England in 1892, he dissuaded Prime Minister William Ewart Gladstone and his
Cabinet from abandoning Uganda. In 1894, he was dispatched by the Royal Niger Company to Borgu, where he secured treaties with the kings and chiefs acknowledging the sovereignty of the British company, while distancing other colonial powers that were there. From 1896 to 1897, Lugard took charge of an expedition to Lake Ngami on behalf of the British West Charterland Company. From Ngami he was recalled by the British government and sent to West Africa where he was commissioned to raise a native force to protect British interests in the hinterland of the Lagos Colony and Nigeria against French aggression. In August 1897, he organized the West African Frontier Force, and commanded it until the end of December 1899.
In 1900, the British government took over direct control of the parts under the Royal Nigeria Company. Lugard had relinquished command of the West African Frontier Force, and was made High Commissioner of the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria. He was made Knight Commander of the Order of St Michael and St George (KCMG) in 1901 and raised to a Knight Grand Cross (GCMG) in 1911 from which time until 1928 he was addressed as Sir Frederick Lugard. In 1928, he was elevated to the peerage as Baron Lugard (and called Lord) which could not be transferred to a descendant when he died because his marriage to Flora Shaw did not yield a son. Meanwhile, Lugard remained at his post as the High Commissioner of the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria until 1906. During that time, his military officers had to engage in various expeditions to secure large portions of Northern Nigeria from the North-West to the North-East, a process officially referred to as pacification. Lugard left for Hong Kong in 1906 by which time Nigeria was increasingly being peacefully administered under the supervision of British residents who presided over each of the Provinces into which Northern Nigeria had been divided. A year after he resigned as High Commissioner of the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria, he was appointed as Governor of Hong Kong, a position he held until March 1912 when he returned to Nigeria with the title of Governor of the two protectorates of Northern and Southern Nigeria. Main objective of his appointment was to work out the amalgamation of the North and South into one administrative entity. And from 1914 when he formally achieved this till 1919 when he left for London, Lugard had the title of Governor-General of the united territories.
Back in London, he was appointed to the Privy Council, entitling him to style himself “The Right Honorable” in the 1920 New Year Honours. His written work continued to make him a name to reckon with in the British colonial establishment. He had earlier published The Rise of our East African Empire in 1893 which was partially an autobiography. He also had various reports on Northern Nigeria, so valued by the Colonial Office that it had them published. And The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa published in 1922 would further establish him as a household name in British colonial enterprise. He discusses indirect rule in colonial Africa in this book, outlining the reasons and methods for the colonization of Africa. Part of his justifications includes spreading of Christianity; meanwhile he sees state-sponsored colonization as a way to protect missionaries, local chiefs and local people from themselves. From 1922 to 1936 he was British representative on the League of Nations’ Permanent Mandates Commission. During this period he served first on the Temporary Slavery Commission and was involved in organizing the 1926 Slavery Convention. Lugard also served on the International Labour Organization’s Committee of Experts on Native Labour from 1925 to 1941. He died on April 11, 1945.
THE EFFECT OF AMAGAMATION
On January 1, 2015, it will be 101 years since the colonial rubber baron, Lord Frederick John Dealtry Lugard (1858-1945), made the audacious decision to bring what was then the Northern part of the Niger (area) in unison with the Southern part, to create what we have today as Nigeria. Before then, the two protectorates lived as distinct and separate entities; not having much in common. Lugard, however, felt it expedient to create the new country, Nigeria, purely for administrative convenience. No account was taken of differences in culture, tradition, religion, way of life or, for that matter, and the wishes of the people being so rudely submerged. After all, the inhabitants of the protectorates were colonial subjects, and so, it was left to the master to do as he pleased. This singular colonial fiat has been the source and fountain of Nigeria’s persistent crisis of nationhood ever since. Thus, the Federal Government’s plan to throw up a huge party to “celebrate” the centenary of this forced merger, next year, is bizarre and ill-advised. Of course, the act of drawing up arbitrary boundaries and creating new state territories are not such a unique thing to Nigeria.
As a matter of fact, the whole of modern African states were created in exactly the same fashion at the Berlin Conference of European powers in 1885. They sat around a long, round table with the boundary-less map of Africa in the middle, and started carving up the territories into choice names: Cameroon (Land of shrimps), Gold Coast (Land of gold), Ivory Coast (Land of ivories), Upper Volta, Kenya, Mali, among others. That is how modern African states acquired their identities. It is a painful part of African history. That is why no one proposed the centenary celebration of the Berlin Conference in 1995. The 1914 amalgamation of Nigeria was an unfinished business from ‘Berlin 1885’. It therefore defies logic that right-thinking Nigerians would want to turn that into a cause célèbre. Perhaps, more than just the funfair planned by the Federal Government is the more pressing issue of the legality of the amalgamation itself. My search through the United Kingdom Parliamentary archives did not reveal any promulgation of an Act of Parliament on the subject as it should have.
Lord Lugard presented a series of “reports”, one of which was published in May 1913 in which “the Secretary of State has decided that the combined territories of Northern and Southern Nigeria, divided into two or more subsidiary administrations, shall be placed under the control of a single Governor-General…” Lugard had simply prevailed on the Secretary of State to rubber stamp his wish to rule over a vast swathe of land which he had christened Nigeria. The next occasion of historical significance that took place in relation to this was when Lugard actually delivered the “Amalgamation speech” on the “amalgamation day of January 1, 1914”. He boldly announced to the world, based on his agreement. With the Secretary of State the previous year, his “desire therefore as briefly as possible to describe to his audience, and through them to the official and unofficial community of Nigeria the basis on which this Amalgamation is to be carried out…’’
The basis, of course, was to facilitate the continued exploitation of the people and their natural resources. Let’s not forget, this was done as World War 1 was just breaking out, Parliamentary process was thus dispensed with. It is my submission, therefore, that a Nigerian court of competent jurisdiction can and should be given the opportunity to rule on the said amalgamation. Committed eminent Nigerian lawyers could, if they choose to, seek a judicial review of the decision to amalgamate as soon as it is practicable to do so. A declaration that the decision is null and void should usher in an immediate convocation of a Sovereign National Conference to give Nigerians the long awaited say on this most vexed of all issues. Having said that, I can hear discordant voices saying; ‘leave well alone; let it be; the fraud was perpetrated long time ago; it’s an act of God; it’s our destiny to be together, among others. These voices are well-meaning, but wrong in a fundamental respect.
In 1707, the previously disagreeable Kingdoms of Scotland and England were merged by King James a Scottish Monarch, and was later ratified by Scottish and English Parliaments when they both met for the first time in October 1707. There lies the basis of the United Kingdom as we know it today. Why was this precedent not applied to the amalgamation of Nigeria over 200 years later? Nonetheless, parliamentary legitimacy notwithstanding, the “Act of Union” between Scotland and England has been a running sore in the hearts of many Scots for a long time. With its population of just over five million compared to England’s 53 million (or 84 per cent of the total UK population), Scottish nationalist leaders have long felt “sub- merged” and “marginalized” within the UK although, this may be more apparent than real to an outside observer. Nonetheless, because this feeling runs deep, it was given political expression by the formation of the Scottish Nationalist Party in 1934. Why can’t, for instance, Boko Haram members be allowed to express their political grievances through a legitimate political party with the sole aim of establishing a Sharia state in the Northern region for that matter? Why not? Once you have feelings of “injustice” running so deep, and being so visceral, it needs to be given democratic expression or, the people will resort to violence.
Anyway, back to Scotland. The SNP was berated and shunned for much of its early existence, until it gradually began to win the hearts and minds of the Scottish people. It won its first parliamentary seat in 1945, then, substantially increased its representation in 1974 with 11 Members of Parliament, before finally becoming the majority in Scottish Parliament in 2007. The partys mantra since formation has remained full independence for Scotland and a break away from the UK. Guess what?
The UK Parliament has now agreed a referendum of the Scottish people to take place in 2014 to determine whether Scotland should opt out of the UK and re-start life as an independent entity. The campaign has already started between pro and anti independence camps. It promises to be lively and enlightening. My haunch is that there will be a narrow victory for those who wish to remain in the UK and the nationalist fervor would have been extinguished for the foreseeable future. The question for us in Nigeria is why are we afraid of an open democratic debate about the terms of our existence as a state? Why is this type of debate encouraged in Western countries as a mark of political maturity and it is discouraged in our society as heresy? Why do we want to spend a trillion naira bringing out dance troupes and masqueraders next year to celebrate the centenary of an amalgamation, which to all intent and purposes is a legal infamy? Our leaders appear to have taken leave of their senses with this one. Let’s hope common sense will eventually prevail.
Nigeria’s tragedy is that its people, particularly its leaders, have not been able to turn the potentials offered by the amalgamation of 1914 into enduring benefits. The amalgamation brought Nigeria’s constituent nationalities into a melting pot that was intended to distil its disparate peoples into one united country. Nigerians have so far been unable to birth a more united nation out of the crucible of amalgamation. That failure has nothing to do with Lugard, or with the amalgamation. It is primarily a failure of Nigeria’s leaders – especially the triumvirate that led Nigeria to independence. For all their brilliance and erudition, none of those three – Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello and Azikiwe – can be called a father of the nation. They did more for their tribes than they ever did for Nigeria. They were all sadly incapable of forming a nation.
At the end of their two decade control of Nigeria’s politics from 1946 to 1966, these men had managed to create a country whose inhabitants identified themselves first as members of their regions and ethnicities, before they were citizens of Nigeria. It must be conceded that the three leaders of the Nigerian nation created fully functional and effective regional governments. The period of their leadership of their various regions has been unrivalled since, in terms of the real growth engendered in schools, public health facilities, public infrastructure, and economic development. As Nigeria enters into its second centennial, the question that still lingers in every mind is whether the Nigerian nation will make it. Will this marriage survive? There are two answers to that question. If Nigeria continues along its current path, where charlatans and ethnic jingoists jostle for power and place their interests above that of the nation; Nigeria will die, if not a sudden death, then a slow, painful death that will include bloodshed and internecine strife. However, if leaders who are genuine in their intentions and nationalistic in their outlook emerge, and find a way to win the confidence of the Nigerian people, a strong and virile Nigeria will yet emerge.
The fact remains that the imbalance of the so called amalgamation has created a kind of default setting which project imbalance and injustice, for this very fact, the effect has continued to affect the developmental growth of the people and has continue to kill the search for unity in the country.
EVALUATION
To say 1914 Amalgamation was perfect will be the greatest fallacy one will likely commit in life. Similarly, to also say there is nothing good in the amalgamation will be wrong as well. The fact remains that the amalgamation has created a kind of imbalance default setting for what is called Nigeria today am we will continue to operate on this setting until we decide to restore the factory and go back to the missing point and try to get it right. Injustice and racial barrier as really destroyed the rope of unity in this country and this is simply because of the very grievous intentional mistake that has been committed by our so called colonial imperialist and our indirect rulers of the past.
Similarly, Nigeria is a very complex country. Our problems did not start yesterday. It started about 1894. Lord Lugard came here about 1894 and many people did not know that Major Lugard was not originally employed by the British government. He was employed by companies. He was first employed by East Indian Company, by the Royal East African Company and then by the Royal Niger Company. It was from the Royal Niger Company that he transferred to the British government. Unless you know this background, you will not know the root causes of our problems. The interest of the Europeans in Africa and indeed in Nigeria was economic and it’s still economic. They have no permanent friends and no permanent interest. Neither their interest nor their friends are permanent. Nigeria was created as British sphere of interests for business.
 The fact that the amalgamation was not instituted with the interest of Nigerians at heart does not imply that there was nothing about amalgamation that could benefit the inhabitants of the newly formed nation that became known as Nigeria. Was there anything about the amalgamation of 1914 that enhanced any movements towards unity that Nigerians were themselves already working towards? Were there any attempts by the peoples of the lands now known as Nigeria, to forge unions – through peaceful engagement or conquest – with each other prior to Laggard’s actions? Nigeria made sense to the British for the three primary reasons that motivate all expansionist conquests. Firstly, the Nigerian nation offered lands that were rich in minerals, superbly arable and fit for agriculture and animal husbandry; rivers and oceans that teemed with aquatic bounties. Secondly, the Nigerian nation offered inland waterways and unfettered access to seas that allowed for the movement of persons and goods. Thirdly, Nigeria offered an abundance of hardworking and enterprising people who would transform the factors of production with which Nigeria was abundantly blessed, into products and services that could be taxed. Although, one may also conclude that it is out of what they think they can benefit from what we now have as Nigeria that the developed interest in the country and mot for the good of the citizens.
Lastly, the thematic issue of amalgamation is like a double edge sword, it has its own little merits and it advantage but the fact remains that is was built successfully on the foundation of inequality and injustice. This problem lies solely on the colonial imperialist and the indirect rule of that time.
CONCUSION
Nigeria has a track record of tyranny, betrayals, ethnic and religious intolerance, civil war, marginalization, etc. but the question is: if we keep using one injustice to justify another, when will our cycle of stupidity end? Great nations are built by people who allow the past to correct and improve the future, not those who eat up others livers in destructive wars of vengeance and recrimination. No country can ever progress when citizens engage in a perennial ritual of wound-licking and trading scars.
It is not possible for us to solve contemporary religious and communal clashes, riots, conflicts and violence, racial prejudice and injustice in Nigeria without correcting the inherited primordial, religious and cultural, and colonial structures and negative values and redressing these legacies, if contemporary Nigeria is to be reoriented along the paths and principles of justice, equality, freedom and equity in socio-political relationships of all Nigerians in the distribution of national resources, rewards and statuses for the benefit of all by the Governments. (We need to do self-appraisal: what primordial values and structures of inequality and injustice that has crept into the society right from the advent of the country.
Lastly, it is not possible to achieve peace, unity and respect for human dignity and worth of all Nigerians, if we have not personally and collectively made a deliberate effort and commitment to these noble virtues as the primary goal or end of our dialogue and relations among and between people, and ethnic and religious groups. First, we must be committed personally and collectively to peace, unity and human rights and secondly see them as ultimate goals that must be attained before we can even start to deliberate with each other.