CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY AND METHODS
3.2. STUDY SETTING
286 The Dynamics o f Inter-group Relations in Nigeria Since 1960
regional nationalism, demanding a re-negotiation of the federalist foundations of the Nigerian state have resulted in the escalation of ethno-religious conflicts in many of Nigerian’s urban communities Foundational issues, which had hitherto been classified as non- negotiabie’ in the constitution-making process of the late 1980s, appeared to have been re-invented in recent times. These issues constitute the core of the ‘national question’, which had remained lingering and unresolved since independence.
Although ethno-nationalism is a phenomenon that dates back to Biblical times, it is a plague of the post-World War II era. Some of the most explosive flashpoints in the world are the products of the disputes between groups in multi-ethnic and culturally heterogeneous countries such as Afghanistan, Belgium, Canada, Nigeria, Russia, Somalia, Spain,’
Sri Lanka, Turkey, Liberia, Sierra-Leone, Sudan, and Rwanda to name a few. Ethno-political cleavages have produced a surge of serious conflict since 1945. According to The Minorities at Risk Project, over three hundred ethno-political minority groups facing discrimination have een involved in serious, often violent struggles between 1945 and 1997, and the trend has steadily accelerated since the 1990s.1 For example in 1994, all but Five of the twenty-three wars fought were based’on communal rivalries and ethnic challenges to states.2 About three- quarters of the world’s refugees, estimated at nearly twenty-seven million people were in flight from, or were displaced by these ethnic conflicts.3
African leaders have long been concerned with the potential for fragmentation along ethnic lines. With rare exceptions, sub-Saharan states like states in most parts of the world are conglomerations of groups, thrown together by the vagaries of colonial boundaries. Thus, states’ preceded ‘nations’. In essence, ‘Nigeria’ came into being long before a substantial number of its residents felt themselves to be
■TecI Robert G urr Minorities at Risk• A Global View o f Ethno-political Conflicts (Washington D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, 1993).
.. ',Cd JJ,°bert G urr and Barbara Harff. Ethnic Conflict in World Politics (Boulder Colo.: west view, 1994).
Ted Robert Gurr, Minorities at Risk.
Self-Determination, Ethno-Regional Organisations and Conflicts in Nigeria 287
‘Nigerians’. They felt themselves far more likely to be Igbo, Tiv, Hausa/Fulani or Yoruba peoples than citizens of the Nigerian nation.
Many early African leaders pressed for unity in the face of division.
While Senegal’s 'Leopold Senghor advocated federation and rallied against "micro-nationalism” , Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah pressed for political unification of the newly-independent African states. Although, the fear of destabilisation based on ethnicity did not result in a ‘United States of Africa’, it did result in creation of the Organization of African Unity, and a pledge to maintain the inherited status quo. The O A U - now transformed into the African Union (AU) - has from its inception, taken strong stands against revising borders or dividing states, in order to accommodate ‘sub-national’ claims. Among its principles are preservation of unity within inherited frontiers, unreserved condemna
tion of plotting against sister states, and respect for sovereign equality.
From the foregoing, it is quite obvious that ethno-nationalism is a phenomenon, which is linked to forms of affiliation and identification built around ties of real or putative kinship. To the extent that conflict within and between ethnically disunited and divided states becomes a major axis on which twenty-first century world politics revolves, the power of and independence of the state can be expected to decline exponentially in a new era of global anarchy or lawlessness.
This study attempts to answer the following questions: Should each
‘people’ or ‘nation’ enjoy a right to sovereign independence? What economic and political rights can ‘people’ claim? How can they achieve self-determination within the context of an existing ‘state ? Is ethno- nationalism compatible with the legal framework of a nation state?
Should each ‘people’ or ‘nation’ enjoy a right to sovereign indepen
dence? Can a multi-ethnic or multi-national state survive in the face of conflicting group claims for power?
T h e o r e tic a l C o n s id e r a tio n s
One broad category of national groups is ethno-nationalist groups whose members share a common nationality, language, cultura
< Benjamin Barber, Jihad vs. McWorld (New York: Random House, 1995).
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
tradnion, and kinship ties. They view themselves as members of their nationality first and of their state only secondarily - a definition that follows the interpretation of Francis who maintains that “cultural a fimties manifest in shared linguistic, religious, racial, or other markers ... and enable one community to distinguish itself from others.”5 An ethnic group is regarded generally as a social collectivity, whose members not only share such objective characteristics as language core- territory, ancestral myths, culture, religion and/or political org’aniza- ton, but also have some subjective consciousness or perception of common descent or identity.6
« ° ^ wudiba NnoIi elaborates on the meaning of ethno-nationalism as a phenomenon associated with contact between cultural-linguistic communal groups, characterized by cultural prejudice and social discrimination.” Underlying these characteristics are the feelings of pride in the in-group, and the exclusiveness of its members. Ethno- nationalism is therefore defined in this study as people’s loyalty to and identification with particular ethnic nationality groups within a nation ststc.
• ,Al ! he heart of ethno-nationalism lies the «sue of ‘self-determina
tion . What economic and political rights can ‘people’ claim? How can J e y achieve self-determination within the context of an existing ‘state’?
The basic issue is the right of a ‘people’ to determine its own destiny However, what constitutes a ‘people’ is still a subject of scholarly arguments, which are not the focus of this study.
A • y heT PrinLlpb\ ° f ^ d e te rm in a tio n is prominently embodied in Article 1 of the Charter of the United Nations. Earlier it had been explicitly embraced by US President Woodrow Wilson, by Lenin and others, and became the guiding principle for the reconstruction of Europe following World War L The principle was incorporated into the 1941 Atlantic Charter and the Dumbarton Oaks proposals which
r~— t --- --- >
6 Pmer,ChcFrLlncis’ ^ e t h n i c Relations (New York: Elsevier, 1976) p 76
B o o k ^ 96) ’ “ Min0' “ ’' C° nlli“ ’ ”d » N ig « i. (Spectrum
y " T n
7'j?,Jod
Kr“6" ' "° 4 '"'
»POida
J he World (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993) p.3 4.
88 The Dynamics o f Inter-group Relations in Nigeria Since 1960
Self-Determination, Ethno-Regwnal Organisations and Conflicts in Nigeria 289
evolved into the United Nations Charter. Essentially, the right to self- determination is the right of a people to determine its own destiny. In particular, the principle allows a people to choose its own polmca status and to determine its own form of economic, cultural and social development. Exercise of this right can result in a variety of different outcomes ranging from political independence to full integration within a state. The importance lies in the right of choice, so that the outcome of a people's choice should not affect the existence of the right to make a choice In practice, however, the possible outcome of an exercise of self- determination will often determine the attitude of governments towards the actual claim by a people or nation. Thus, while claims to cultural autonomy may be more readily recognized by states, claims to in epen dence are more likely to be rejected by them. Nevertheless, the right self-determination is recognized in international law as a right o process (not of outcome) belonging to peoples and not to states or governments^
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights in - committed the idea of the right for self-determination to the body o international protocol. In essence, all people reserve the right to seek self-determination to address a lack of proper representation or oppression from any given government. There is tension between the concept of self-determination and that of territorial integrity. The prevailing force of the principle of territorial integrity was exemplified by the adherence to the principle of ‘uti possidetis during the decolonization process (that is, the retaining of colonial borders in e birth of independent nations). This conflict has been resolved m practice by defining the notion of "people" entitled to self-determination as persons living in a particular geographic area within a nation-state rather than persons sharing a common culture or language. Hence, determination as it is understood in the early 21st century does no generally promote the political aspirations of oppressed ethnic The right .to self-determination has become one of the most complex issues (or U.S. foreign policymakers and the mternaumu community at large. Confusion over the issue stems not so m u c k i t a whether there exists a right to self-determination, w ic is 1
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
many international human rights documents, but from the failure of those documents to define exactly who is entitled to claim this right — a group, a people, or a nation — and what exactly the right confers. In recent years, many groups that constitute minorities in their states have invoked the “right to self-determination” in their demands for autonomy — or, in some cases, secession — and have resorted to violence to pursue their aims. These groups typically justify their demand for self-determination as a way to end years of repression and human rights violations by the majority ethnic group or the central government. The absence of a precise definition of what the right to self-determination entails has left the international community, and the states concerned, without guiding principles with which to respond.
Future efforts to make the right to self-determination genuinely universal must rest on answering the crucial question, “Who are the peoples to whom it is meant to apply, and so moving beyond the traditional focus on the process of decolonisation, and including within its scope a substantive recognition of indigenous, oppressed and minority peoples.
Given the perceived risk of constant fragmentation, states have approached self-determination cautiously. The threat of fragmentation due to self-determination can be regarded as very dangerous to other communities in a country, especially if the groups striving for self- determination live in an area with the majority of a country's wealth.
O n the other hand, supporters of self-determination argue that if the wealth is coming from the land they live in, the local inhabitants deserve the wealth not the country as a whole. This is an important dimension of the self-determination arguments in Nigeria as well as many other countries.
Article 1, inserted into the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) in large part was as a result of pressure from Third World countries. Donnelly summarized the political effect of the covenant thus:
In practice, then, the internationally recognized right to self-determination, despite its seeming breadth, has been treated as an
290 The Dynamics o f Inter-group Relations in Nigeria Since I960 Self-Determination, Ethno-Regional Organisations and Conflicts in Nigeria 29 1
extremely narrow right. States’ fear of secession and governments’
fear of revolution have combined to restrict the right to self- determination to little more than the right to sovereignty for those states (and colonies) that currently exist. Given that the right to self- determination emerged as part of the struggle against Western imperialism, this is not surprising.8 9 * *
What would be the likely results, when groups within existing independent states claim the ‘right to self-determination’? They would experience sharp opposition, indeed probably forcible repression, from their governments. Feeling their sovereignty under threat, governments treat claims to self-determination (which sometimes in reality may be requests for a fairer share of political and economic opportunities), as demands for secession. The weak basis for national unity in multi-ethnic societies encourages leaders to turn to coercion rather than to compromise. They could point to the once-and-for all-time indepen
dence: disaffected communities must work within the confines of their own political systems, not creating a sovereign new one. A clear example comes from the African Charter on Human and People s Rights which stresses the duty of individuals ‘to preserve and strengthen the national independence and the territorial integrity of their country.
Therefore, in dealing with ethno-nationalism and group rights, one is focusing on one of the most emotional issues in both contemporary Africa and international human rights debates. The legal interpretation of self-determination and the place of the individual versus the group in human rights discourses remain items of serious contention. Ethnic groups seeking to empower themselves collide with the desire of states to maintain centralized control. Thus, pluralism, far from being viewed as an essential building block and a safeguard for competitive democracy, is perceived as a weapon of potential destruction.
8 Jack Donnelly, Universal Human Rights in Theory and Practice (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989).
9 Wolfgang Benedek, ‘The African Charter and Commission on Human and People’s Rights: How to make it more effective’, Netherlands’ Quarterly o f Human Rights, 3, 1993 (2: 25-36).
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
292 The Dynamics o f Inter-group Relations in Nigeria Since 1960
E thno-R egional O rg an isatio n s and Conflicts in N ig eria
Four ethno-regional organisations in Nigeria are examined in this study.
These organisations are the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People (MOSOP); Egbe Afenifere (Society of the lovers of good things);
Ohanaeze-Ndigbo (Igbo Citizens Assembly) and, the Arewa Consulta
tive Forum (ACF). These groups epitomise the conflicts inherent when sub-national groups seek greater political and economic clouts and use the language of human rights and the democratisation struggle as ‘basis of their campaigns.’10 While these groups operate between the primary units of society and ruling collective institutions, on the other hand, they emphasise the collective identity of specific groups, and are willing to use confrontation to achieve their objectives, on the other. They started obscurely as ‘socio-culturaT organisations within groups that felt marginalised, and have become political pressure groups. Their strategies for empowerment and struggle evolved in politically and socially repressive settings.
Movement for the Survival o f Ogoni People (MOSOP)
The Ogoni people are an indigenous group that have been known to occupy their present location for about five hundred years.11 The people, estimated at over half a million in number live in an area of about 100,000 square kilometres, making the area one of the most densely populated in Africa.12 The town of Bon serves as the headquarters of the Ogoni people while Eleme, Tai, Giokona, Bab be, Ken-Khana, and Nyo-Khana are the six kingdoms constituting the group. The Ogonis speak four related languages with Khana and Gokana serving as the two major ones. There are also dialects peculiar
1 0 K. Olayode, Civil Society and Democratisation in Africfc The Nigerian Experience,
Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2004.
" Olorode, Toye, Wumi Raji and Ogunye, Jiti (ed.). (1998) Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Crises o f the Nigerian State (Lagos: CDHR).
K. Olayode, The Hanging o f Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Implications for Nigerian Foreign Policy, Unpublished M.I.R. Thesis, Department of International Relations, Obafemi Awolowo University, Jle-Ife, Nigeria, 1997.
Self-Determination, Ethno-Regional Organisations and Conflicts in Nigeria 293
to each major tongue. Irrespective of these differences, the people are united in their peculiar environmental reality.13
The Ogoni struggle arose from their strategic location in the Nigerian state. Though, Nigeria as a whole has received billions of dollars from oil, most of it seems to have disappeared into the national economy and private hands without perceptible benefits to most Nigerians, and particularly to the areas of origin. With the exception of investment in capital-intensive wells, pipelines and refineries, few petrol- dollars have flowed back to the Ogoni area.14 Few Ogonis have benefit from jobs, development, or amenities in the oil industry. Instead, they suffer serious environmental degradation that has polluted fishing streams and fresh water sources, poisoned land through spills and blow
outs, and created an atmosphere fouled by decades of flaring natural gas.15 Thus, the Ogoni struggle was against ‘political marginalisation, economic exploitation, and environmental degradation.’16 17 The struggle was about ‘the emancipation of the people, the re-establishment of the rights of a community as small as Ogoni, and by implication, this stretches to other similar minority groups throughout the country.
In claiming the right to a greater financial share, Ogoni leaders challenged the fundamental principles of centralised government.
Control of revenue is the basis of political power in Nigeria. And, speaking in terms of rights for ‘a people’, they unconsciously echo demands by earlier African nationalists for maintaining political borders. Not to be taken by surprise, on May 5, 1993 the Babangida administration promulgated the Treason and Treasonable Offences
1 3Austin, James, a chieftain of MOSOP: Interview at Abuja, Nigeria, 5th February 2004.
1 4 Austin, James, a chieftain of MOSOP: Interview at Abuja, Nigeria, 5th February 2004.
1 5 Toye Olorode, Wumi Raji and Jite Ogunye, ed., Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Crises o f the Nigerian State (Lagos: CDHR, 1998).
1 6 K. Olayode, The Hanging o f Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Implications fo r Nigerian Foreign Policy, Unpublished M.I.R. Thesis, Department of International Relations, Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria, 1997.
1 7 K. Olayode, Civil Society and Democratisation in Africa: The Nigerian Experience, Unpublished Ph.D Thesis, University of Cambridge, United Kingdom, 2004.
UNIVERSITY OF IBADAN LIBRARY
294 The Dynamics o f Inter-group Relations in Nigeria Since 1960
D ecree, under w hich the death penalty could be imposed for advocacy
or ethn ic au ton om y’. 7
T he O goni struggle clearly illustrates the interplay o f politics econ om ics, and ethnicity. Political and socio-econom ic changes do not’
necessarily directly diminish ethnic awareness and identity; they may in fact provoke it. As Crawford Young (1983) observed:
Cultural collectives are not simply disembodied primordial givens, but contingent patterns of solidarity whose activation depends on the organisation and mobilisation of consciousness on the one hand, and the intrusion of the political process in the form of perceived domination, competitions, threats or advantages, on the other.18
In 1990 M O SO P drafted the ‘O goni Bill o f Rights’, w hich called for internal au ton om y’ for the O gonis w ithin the Nigerian federation as a so lu tio n to their marginalisation. As contained in the Bill o f Rights the O g o m s demanded political control o f O goni affairs; the right to control and the use o f a fair proportion o f O goni econom ic resources for Ogoni developm ent; the right to protect the O goni environm ent and ecology from further degradation, and; to have adequate and direct representa
tio n as o f right in all Nigerian Institutions.19 W hile making the demands for self-determ ination’, the O gonis equally re-affirmed ‘their wish to rem ain a part o f the Federal Republic o f N igeria.’20 The Bill also authorised M O SO P to make representation, for as long as the injustices against O gon i continue, to the United N ation s C om m ission on Human R ights, the C om m onw ealth Secretariat, the African C om m ission on H u m an Rights and oth er international bodies w hich have a role to play in protecting the rights o f a m inority group.
T h e O goni struggle and the organisation o f M O SO P were pressed m ost vigorously by Ken Saro-Wiwa. Through his writings, Saro-Wiwa sk ifh illy drew international attention to the plight o f O goni people. H e argued that the N igerian federal system under the military had become essentially unitary, w ith oil resources transferred from the N iger Delta
„ Crawford, ‘The Temple of Ethnicity’, World Politics 3 5, 4, 1983
2 0 M O SO P' “Ogoni Bill of Rights" Port Harcourt, Nigeria, 1990
M OSOP, “Ogoni Bill of Rights” Port Harcourt, Nigeria 1990
Self-Determination, Ethno-Regional Organisations and Conflicts in Nigeria 295
area to selected favoured locations. Articulating the demands for political autonom y for the O gonis, Ken Saro-Wiwa, declared:
The extinct lop of the ethnic groups in this area appears to have become polic>. The present structure of Nigeria spells the death- knell of the Ogoni and other Delta mtnonties and their environment. Solving none of our traditional problems, it merely intensifies the murderous struggle for power at the centre by the majority ethnic groups. What we require is a loose federation o r ^ confederation of egalitarian ethnic interdependence. The federatm&
ethnic groups should hold a National Conference to resolve the basis of their union and install an interim government in which the military will have no role.
Ken Saro-Wiwa effectively presented the O goni case to international human rights groups. It received sympathetic hearing and interest from the Holland-based Unrepresented N ations and Peoples O rganisation (U N P O ), and the International Federation for the Rights o f E th nic, Linguistic, Religious and O ther M inorities, based in N e w Y ork. In th e summer of 1993, M O SO P members attended the V ienna W orld Conference on Hum an Rights and the Geneva meetings o f C o m m ittee on Racial Discrim ination (CERD). The United N a tio n s sub- C om m ission on the Prevention o f Discrim ination and P rotection ot M inorities also received the petition o f the O goni people against the Nigerian military regime. In all these international fora, O g o n i materials were widely circulated, and the Nigerian governm en t and Shell Petroleum D evelopm ent C om pany were called upon to respond.
By taking the O goni case to International N G O s and th e U rnte N ation s, M O SO P achieved a high level of recognition w h ich had a negative impact on the Nigerian government. Predictably, K en Saro- W iw a and other O goni leaders were harassed and detained several tim es by agencies o f the federal governm ent between 1993 and 1994.
H ow ever, it was General Sani Abacha w h o subsequently arraigned
Saro-2 1 Ken Saro-Wiwa, Nigeria- The Brink o f Disaster (Port Harcoum Saros ,1991).
2 2 Toye Olorode, Wumi Raj. and jite Ogunye, ed., Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Crises o f the Nigerian State (Lagos: CDHR, 1998).