PHILOSOPHY FOR
INDEPENDENT NIGERIA
By
Obafemi Awolowo
A lecture delivered by Chief Obafemi
Awolowo (Action Group (AG) Leader,
and Leader
of Opposition in the Nigerian Federal
Parliament) to Nigerian
Students at Conway Hall,
London, on 3rd September, 1961
Politically, the independence of a country
can be viewed
from two angles: the corporate and the
individual angle.
A country is said to be free only when it
has unqualified
control over its internal affairs. On the
other hand, a citizen
of an independent country enjoys individual
freedom when
he is free to say and do what he likes,
subject only to laws
enacted by the freely elected parliament or
the popular
legislative
assembly of the land.
The dependency of a country and the
subjection of its
citizens to alien rule are conterminous.
But the
independence of a country does not
necessarily mean the
freedom of its individual citizens. It all
depends on the
form of government. If, for instance, the
form of government
is oligarchical, authoritarian, or
totalitarian, individual
freedom will almost invariably be denied to
the masses of
the people. The point must be made,
however, that in times
of national crisis or emergency, it is
legitimate for the
Government to call upon the citizens to
surrender, for the
duration, some measure of their individual
freedom, in order
that the freedom of the country and its
citizens may be
preserved from violation.
In a democracy, therefore, and in normal
circumstances,
the freedom of a country connotes the
freedom of its
individual citizens.
Furthermore, when the freedom of a country
is looked at
in its complete functional embodiment, it
exhibits two
conspicuous and inseparable facets. They
are the political
and economic facets. A country can only be
said to be truly
free and independent which has these two
functional facets
co-existing and cohering in their
inseparable absoluteness.
I have emphasised the inseparable nature of
these two
facets in order to focus attention to the
point that, for a
subject people, political freedom is not
the end of the journey
or struggle: it is nothing more than a most
potent means to
the acquisition and consolidation of the
economic and other
facets of the country's freedom.
It is, I believe, generally agreed that
political freedom is
meaningless unless it goes hand-in-hand
with economic freedom.
Anyone who cares to read his history aright
will readily
concur that the prime and sole motivation
for imperialist
predations, conquests, and rule is economic
in character. If
the imperialist powers can accomplish their
economic exploitation
of the weaker nations without political
control they
will much prefer to do it that way. As a
matter of historical
fact, colonial expansion began with the
division of the
territories of the weaker peoples into
economic spheres of
influence. It was when it became clear to
the imperialists that
economic control would become precarious
unless there was
political control as well, that the latter
was imposed. In other
words, it is erroneous and dangerous to
assume that the
subjection of a country is at an end,
simply because it is politically
free. In these modern times, the economic
subjugation
of a country does take several, but not
easily perceptible,
forms, with the result that many free
nations are only ostensibly
so. The economic shackles they wear are
heavy and
extremely depressing, but are visible only
to the discerning
eye.
The influence which a nation exerts, the
respect which it
enjoys, and the prestige accorded to it on
the world scene,
depend on two important factors: the size
of its wealth and
the calibre of its leadership. Granting an
incorruptible,
courageous,
public-spirited, enlightened and dynamic
leadership,
the wealth of a nation is the fountain of
its strength. The
bigger the wealth, and the more equitable
its distribution
among the factors and agencies which have
helped to produce
it, the greater the out-flow of the
nation's influence and
power.
There are two intangible essentials for the
attainment as
well as the preservation of freedom
(whether national or
individual) which must be mentioned. They
are the will on the
part of a people to be and remain free, and
a recognition
that the subjection or suppression of other
peoples is a standing
peril to freedom wherever it may exist.
Again, in these modern days the functions
of a Government
are multifarious. But the primal ones can
conveniently
be classified under two headings:
i) its duty to the State to preserve its
corporate existence
against internal disorder and external
aggression, and
ii) its duty to the citizens to cater for
their welfare and
promote their happiness.
The general well-being of the citizen
depends on objective
and subjective factors. He needs a healthy
body which can be
reared only on good food, adequate shelter,
decent clothing,
a reasonable measure of comfort and luxury,
and a whole-
some environment. He needs a sound and
cultivated mind
which is free to know and meditate upon the
things of its
choice. He has natural, conventional, and
legal rights which
must be protected and upheld, with
impartiality and inflexible
justice, mainly by the appropriate organs
of Government,
and partly by the society in which he
lives. But, of course,
the citizen owes enormous duties to the
State and to his
fellow-citizens, which are regulated and
enjoined by
customary usages and the laws of the land.
No Government, however, can hope to
discharge its duties
to the State and to the citizens
satisfactorily or effectively,
unless it is, or at the very least strives
continually to be, on
good terms with its immediate neighbours
and the rest of the
world. At the same time, it must ensure at
home as near a
state of equilibrium as possible among all
the citizens, in their
legitimate demand for equitable shares of
the national
products.
In other words, the internal affairs of a
State must be
ordered by the Government in such a manner
as to guarantee
social justice and personal security to
all, and the external
affairs conducted in such a manner as to
promote world
peace, and undiscriminating respects for
human dignity in all
parts of the world.
I have made these fundamental and, I dare
say, self-evident
propositions, because I consider them
essential (1) to
a proper understanding of the doings and
happenings in
Nigeria since October 1, 1960, and (2) to a critical
assessment
of any proposals which I may make in the
course of this
lecture.
A good many things have happened in
Nigeria since
October 1, 1960.
The first major act of the Government took
place on the
very day of our independence. It is an act
which in my considered
judgement detracts very seriously from the
sovereignty which was that
day conferred upon us. On
October 1,
1960, the British High
Commissioner in Nigeria
(Viscount Head) and the Prime Minister
(Sir Abubakar
Tafawa Balewa) exchanged correspondence, by
means of
which an agreement was concluded on that
day between
Britain and Nigeria. Under this agreement, Nigeria assumes
and undertakes all the rights and
obligations of
Britain under
any valid international instruments in so
far as they were
applicable to
Nigeria
before the latter's attainment of
independence. These rights and obligations
were not spelt out in
the correspondence; and in spite of
repeated demands by my
colleagues and myself, the Federal
Government has refused to
inform the country of these rights and
obligations of
Britain
which our country assumed and undertook on
the day of her
independence. Viscount Head, who by the way
is generally
regarded as the ruler of
Nigeria, did
once volunteer a public
explanation of the agreement in reply to my
criticism of it.
He said that the agreement was harmless,
and that some of
the rights and obligations assumed and
undertaken by
Nigeria under it were those under The Geneva Convention.
My own view is that if we would be party to
the Geneva
Convention, we must do so in our own right
as a sovereign
state, not as
Britain's
underling or foster child.
I have consistently held the view that this
agreement is
much more dangerous than the Anglo—Nigerian
Defence
Pact. Under the Pact (with which I will be
dealing briefly
later), we know exactly what rights and
obligations we have
assumed and undertaken. Besides,
Nigeria as a nation is
directly a party to it. Under the
agreement, the obligations
which we have undertaken are omnibus and
undefined, and
what is more, they are all, without
exception,
Britain's
obligations under any valid international
instruments, in so far
as they were applicable to us in the days
of our subjection.
Now, who is there in the Federal
Government, or among
Nigerian politicians and intelligentsia as
a whole, to tell us
with candour and unimpeachable accuracy the
number and
contents of valid international instruments
— both open and
secret — to which, in the days before
October 1, 1960, Britain
had, on behalf of herself and of her
territories overseas,
committed herself?
The Monrovia Conference has been given a
good deal of
boosting by the Western Press, and Sir
Abubakar has been
specially patted on the back for the part
he played in it. This
is on1y to be expected. This Conference is
known to have
been inspired and completely financed by
the more important
countries of the Western Bloc. Undoubtedly,
the
Monrovia
Conference had been brought into being as a
counter-poise
to the Casablanca Powers which do not
appear to find
favour with the Western Powers and their
Press.
But whatever attitude the Western Powers
and their Press
hold, there are outstanding attributes
which the
Casablanca
Powers possess, but which the Monrovia
Powers are still to
demonstrate. First, the freedom of each of
the countries
which constitute the Casablanca Powers is
not only legally in
existence, but also is being made to be
seen in all the
country's doings at home and abroad.
Second, the resolutions
passed at the Casablanca Conference are
positively constructive,
and bear the radical stamp of contemporary
African nationalism
at its best. In order to clinch this second
point, I would like
to refresh your memories by giving you a
summary of some of the
resolutions of each of the two groups of
Powers. The resolutions
of the Casablanca Powers include:
1. The setting up of an African High
Command.
2. The liquidation of colonial regimes through the
liberation
of territories still colonised.
3. The elimination of all forms of racial
segregation in
African States.
4. The consolidation and defence of the
sovereignty of
New African States.
5. The acceptance of the objective of a political
union of
Africa, and the taking of such steps as will lead to the
early attainment of this objective.
6. The reaffirmation of Africa's non-alignment to
any of
the two East and West Blocs.
7. The evacuation of all occupation troops from
Africa.
8. The barring of Africa to all nuclear
experiments.
Those of the Monrovia Powers include:
1. The recognition of absolute equality of
sovereignty of all
African States irrespective of size and
population.
2. Each African state has the right to exist and
no African
state should try to annex another for any
reason.
3. Should any African State desire freely and
voluntarily
to join with another State no other
African State
should stand in its way.
4. All States should respect the principle of
non-interference
in the internal and domestic affairs of any
African state.
5. Each State should respect the
territorial integrity of
another State and should not harbour,
within its boundaries,
any dissident elements from another State
who might wish to use that
State as a base for carrying out
subversive activities against
their own State.
6. Any conception of unity entailing the
surrender of
sovereignty of any
African State
to another is totally
unrealistic.
It will be seen that, apart from the fact that the
Monrovia
Powers lack the attributes of the
Casablanca Powers, the
Monrovia resolution are actuated by fear,
and place much,
too much, emphasis on the minor differences
between some
African nations.
Before independence, cur economy was
dominated by
Britain and
her fellow-members of the N.A.T.O. Since
independence, we have
made no effort to relax this imperialist
stranglehold on our economy.
On the contrary, we now
throw the doors of our country wide open
to indiscriminate
foreign exploitation. Every conceivable
inducement
is being
given to foreign investors of the Western
Bloc to come
to
Nigeria to
exploit our natural resources in whatever way
they
choose. The type of venture, its financial
structure, and its
location, are left entirely in the hands of
intending foreign
investors. The assumption appears to be
that foreign businessmen are
so altruistic and philanthropic that their
main concern would be to
help the masses of Nigerian people, and
not to enrich themselves at
our expense. In seeking foreign
aid for our development, our Government
has allowed itself
to be led into a blind alley by its Western
masters
and mentors.
`Money has no earmark,' so says an old
adage which is
as true as ever. But our present Government
has so imbibed
the prejudices of
Britain that
it appears to see the very Devil
himself in any foreign currency other than
British or
American.
It is now eleven months after independence,
and yet our
Government has not succeeded in producing a
bold development
programme for the prosperity and happiness
of our
people, with the result that, economically,
we just drift, and
become more and more dependent on foreign
aid of a kind
that is not likely to be in the long-term
interest of Nigeria.
I understand — or more precisely the
country has been promised
by the Government — that a five-year
development programme
is in preparation. The architects of this
programme
are a Mr. Prasad from the International
Bank Mission and
an American from the Ford Foundation. The
United States
has promised substantial aid towards the
execution of the
programme, but 90 per cent of such aid, I
understand, will
be in the form of American goods.
As a matter of interest, it may be
mentioned in passing
that while Nigeria's proposed five-year
programme is already
being studied in Britain and America, for
the past five
months or so, even an outline of its
contents has not yet been
made known to the Nigerian people or their
parliament. In
other words, Sir Abubakar wants to clear
the programme
with
Britain and
America first, before his Government can
ever have the courage to lay it before his
fellow-citizens
whose lives and fortunes are going to be
affected for good or
for evil by the proposed programme.
The Government has also slavishly committed
itself to
British economic and political ideals and
prejudices. Words
like nationalisation, public ownership of
the means of
production, or socialism, are to the
Government what the
rag is to a bull. The advocacy of the
Opposition for
nationalisation
(a) of the Plateau Tin Mines where foreign
companies declare as much as 150 per cent
yearly dividend
(b) of the entire mercantile marine operating in
Nigeria, and
(c) of insurance businesses, as an interim step,
has been
roundly condemned by the Government as
heretical and
mad. Instead, the Federal Government has
declared that
industries shall not be nationalised in
Nigeria beyond the
extent to which public utilities are
already public-owned.
Before independence the Government of the
Federation was not so
scared by the demand for nationalisation as
it is at present. Indeed
in a Government publication, first issued
in 1956 and reissued in 1958,
it was made clear that in the event
of any industry being
nationalised, fair compensation would
be paid. It would appear,
therefore, that on the issue of
nationalisation, which conflicts with
the basic economic ideal
of the Western Powers, our present
Government
has shown
less courage in freedom than its
predecessor had done
in
bondage.
In emulating British political ideals, the
Government has
even gone much farther than the Tories of
the deepest dye
would approve here in
Britain. Up
till today, Communist
literature is banned from entering
Nigeria. Even though the
public has been told, after pressure from
the Opposition, that
permission has been given for the opening
of a Russian
Embassy in
Nigeria,
every obstacle is actually being placed in
the way of the Embassy being opened. The
representative of
the Russian Government, who has been in
Nigeria for some
months now, stays in the Federal Palace
Hotel. Every effort
of the Soviet Government to secure
accommodation for its
Embassy is being secretly foiled by some
countries of the
Western Bloc with Embassies in
Nigeria. I
know a Nigerian
businessman who has been threatened with
reprisals by a
Federal Minister for daring to offer
suitable premises to the
Russian Government.
In keeping with the fashion obtaining among newly
emergent
Asian and African nations, our Government
has put the
label of `Neutrality' on its foreign
policy. But our brand of
`neutrality' is, to all intents and
purposes, sui generis. In our
`neutrality', we are already militarily
aligned to
Britain, and
hence indirectly to N.A.T.O. In our
`neutrality, we do everything
to prevent the opening of a Russian Embassy
in
Nigeria and we do
nothing to open one in Moscow ourselves.
We proclaim `neutrality',
and yet Chief Okotie-Eboh,
Federal Minister of Finance, on his
way to Soviet Russia a the head of our
Economic Mission, went to
very great pains
to assure an audience of British
businessmen and
politicians here in London that though he
was going behind the Iron
Curtain, they could rest assured that be
was going to return
from there with his natural colour intact
and untarnished.
We proclaim `neutrality' and yet the
Sardauna of Sokoto,
with the express consent of Balewa, is
moving heaven and
earth to drag
Nigeria into
a Commonwealth of Moslem
States.
He has done more. As if the Northern Region is not
just an integral part of the Federation of
Nigeria, and as if he
is entitled under the Constitution to
pursue a separate foreign
policy for the North, he has, with the open
acquiescence of
Sir Abubakar, committed the Northern Region
to the Arab
side in the Arab-Israeli dispute. We
proclaim `neutrality',
and yet we refrain from participating in
the
Belgrade
Conference of `non-aligned nations'. Our
Government's
`neutrality' in foreign affairs must, in
the light of events, be said
to have been conceived in deceit and born
in hypocrisy.
Before I pass on to deal with matters of
purely domestic
character, I would like to make one or two
observations.
The emergence of
Nigeria as an
independent nation was
hailed as an event of exceedingly
favourable portent for
Africa. In size, population, and natural resources, Nigeria is
indisputably a giant in
Africa. Those
African nationalists
who, since our independence, have come to
Nigeria for
succour and added inspiration, have gone
back to their homes
disillusioned and frustrated. The high
hopes which were
cherished in
Nigeria as an
unassailable bastion in the last
phase of
Africa's
struggle against colonialism and neo-colonialism
of whatever nature and guise, are fast receding.
Among true
African nationalists, Nigeria, as at
present led by our Government,
is thoroughly suspect, and does not
enjoy the respect and confidence
to which she is entitled by
virtue of her natural potentialities.
At home, our pressing problems not only
remain unsolved,
but are also not even being tackled with
vision and vigour,
nor with the correct ideological
orientation.
Education is still in its inchoate stages.
The masses hunger
after education but are not being
satisfied. In regard to
primary education, the position in the
South is good. All
children of school-going age are now in
school in the South. But
it is very far from being so in the North.
A little over 250,000
children are now receiving primary
education in the North,
as against 1.3 million in the East and 1.2
million in the West.
Secondary education ought to be free, but
only the well-to-
do can afford to send their children to any
post-primary
schools. The award of scholarships tenable
in Institutions of
Higher Learning, and for technical and
vocational studies,
now lags very much behind the present needs
of the country,
with the result that many a lustrous talent
is wasting and
rotting away either in a soul-depressing
job or in an asylum.
The finances of the Federation are being
very badly
managed. We are now right on the brink of a
balance of
payments crisis. Yet, according to the
latest pronouncement by
the Federal Minister of Finance, our
imports of consumer
goods have increased appreciably; but as
far as is known no
visible effort is being made for a big
export drive. I have told
the Federal Government, on a number of
occasions, that
unless the present adverse trends which.
have continued for
four years are checked,
Nigeria will,
figuratively speaking,
one day find herself in a debtor's prison!
Bribery and corruption, especially in high
places, are
alarmingly on the increase. A large
percentage of monies
which are voted for expenditure on public
projects find their
way into the pockets of certain
individuals.
There is unemployment everywhere. The
standard of
living in the country as a whole is very
low, and in most parts
of the country the peasantry and the
working class wallow in
abject poverty and misery. The cost of
living is more or less
the same throughout the country. The fact
reflects itself in
identical salaries, in different parts of
the Federation, for
Ministries and Parliamentarians; for
Government, Mercantile
and other employees in the so called upper
brackets and
the established grades. But this is
unfortunately not the case
with the daily-paid workers and the
peasantry who are in the
vast majority. The territorial disparity in
their income is
extremely and senselessly wide, constitutes
a social injustice of
the worst kind, and is an eloquent evidence
of a complete
absence of national approach to the
country's problems.
Nigerianisation of the different sectors of
our public service
moves at an unpatriotically slow pace. But
as if this is
not damning enough, the situation is
aggravated by the
Federal Government when, as it often does,
it applies criteria
which have no regard at all for merit, in
the advancement of
some Nigerians. The present dispensation is
that, provided
your Region of origin is in the privileged
category, and your
connections in Government circles are
strong, mediocrity and
want of requisite qualifications are no bar
to any high post,
even though a number of other Nigerians who
are infinitely
better qualified in all respects may be
unjustly superseded.
Our federal structure remains unbalanced.
The Northern
Region bestrides the rest of the country
like a Colossus. As
long as this Region remains a unit, the
party in power there,
even in a free and fair election, will
always have an electoral
advantage over other political parties. But
elections in the
North are neither free nor fair. Various
iniquitous devices
were used at the 1959 Federal Elections as
well as in this
year's Northern Region Elections to ensure
victory for the
N.P.C.
To this end, murders, arsons and other
forms of violence
to the person and damage to property were
committed, and
ballot papers were illegally distributed to
N.P.C. party
faithfuls. I have three books of such
ballot papers here with me as
exhibits. On the eve of any elections,
opposition parties are
precluded from holding public meetings;
mass arrests and
imprisonment, with or without trial, of
their members are
made; and leaders of such parties are
harassed and sometimes
dragged to court on trumped-up charges. I
believe you
have all heard of what happened to Messrs
Tarka and
Olawoyin, and that you are aware that the
Action Group
Leader of the Opposition in the Northern
House of Assembly
has not, because of open threat of violence
to his person, and
the utter destruction of his house and
property, been to his
home in Maiduguri since August last year.
Today the N.P.C. rules both the North and
the Federation;
and yet its leaders refuse to change the
name of the
organisation to permit the admission of
Southerners into its
membership. But of course the Sardauna has
declared, in his
characteristically pompous manner, that
`N.P.C. is Nigeria
and Nigeria is N.P.C.' Besides, he has
never made any bones
about the fact that the Federation is being
run by his loyal
lieutenants who must look to him, from time
to time, for
direction on major issues. In actual fact,
therefore, the centre
of gravity of the Federation is
Kaduna
not Lagos; and this
degrading state of affairs will continue so
long as the present
unbalanced and unusual structure of our
Federation persists.
Many irresistible conclusions flow from
what I have so far
said. Only some of them need be mentioned.
In the first
place, de jure Nigeria is now
free from alien rule, yet through
the activities of our Government she is
de facto utterly
subservient to British control, direction
and undue influence.
Secondly, though fundamental human rights
are enshrined
in our Constitution, yet the rights of the
commonality count
for nought in the Northern Region. Thirdly,
democratic
practices and processes are being rapidly
discredited in the
Northern Region of Nigeria, simply because
the leaders of
the N.P.C. who also rule
Nigeria have
never believed in a
democratic form of Government. Fourthly,
because of the
error of omission of our Government,
Nigeria is already
beginning to slide in
Africa.
African nationalists now look upon
our Government as a tool and a stooge of
Western Imperial-
ism. Fourthly, the actions of our
Government do not measure
up to some of its pronouncements, and its
conduct is far from
being guided or influenced by the ideals
which today animate
and rule the hearts of the people of
Nigeria. Sixthly, our
Government appears to find itself
helplessly and hopelessly
on an uncharted sea, in the face of the
country's problems.
These questions are now relevant. What do we do to
accelerate our progress on the road to
modern development, to
arrest the deteriorating situation with
which we are beset,
and to retrieve the integrity, honour and
self-respect which
true national sovereignty ought to confer
on our country?
And, knowing what and what to do, how do we
go about
accomplishing them?
There must be many and varied
answers to these questions. A good
many have occurred to
me, and I now want to pass on to you the
more
important
ones among them. I do so in tabular form.
1. The Anglo—Nigerian Defence Pact, and the
October 1 Agreement
under which we assume and undertake all
the rights and obligations
of
Britain under
valid International instruments, should both be abrogated
forthwith.
2. Every vestige and every channel of the
undue influence
of
Britain and
her allies in and on Nigeria should be
totally eradicated. This, in my view, can
be done in
three significant ways. First, by the
widening of the
circle of our international friendship, and
in particular
by the immediate establishment of
diplomatic,
cultural, trade and other mutually
beneficial relations
with Soviet Russia, China, and Eastern
Germany;
second, by the progressive but accelerated
termination
of our undue economic dependence on British
and
other Western Agencies and Business
concerns; and
third, by the translation or transformation
of Nigeria
into a Republic, and by the initiation, at
an early date,
of steps to this end.
3. The Federal Government should right now
set before
the nation well-defined economic objectives
and
development programmes which will be
embodied in a
successive series of five-year plans. The
objectives and
the programme should be sufficiently bold
and expansive
to fire the imagination and stimulate
afresh the
hopes of Nigerians and their
fellow-Africans. To this
end three important considerations must be
borne in
mind. One, our economic objectives and
development
programme must be rooted in and strictly
guided by
the socialist ideals of
(a) equal opportunity for all,
(b)
equitable distribution of the national
products,
(c) the
liberty, dignity, and well being of the
individual, and
(d) brotherhood among all mankind.
Two, the admission
of foreign investment into the country
should be
carefully regulated, and channelled in the
overall
national interests. In the words of the
Report of the
Conference on Administrative Organisation
for Economic
Development — `To allow all foreign firms
to
enter indiscriminately may stifle nascent
local enterprise
and jeopardise the balance of economic
expansion. It may also rob
the country of valuable sources of
income.. .` In this connection,
a comprehensive list of
categories of industries, specifying those
that are in the
present and in the near future reserved for
the public
sector, as well as those that are, in the
short term,
reserved for the private sector, should be
prepared.
Three, the development of agriculture (its
modernisation
in every sense of the word) must go
hand-in-hand
with industrialisation. If agriculture
stagnates,
industries will either not grow, or become
a bane to the
people.
4. In order that our planned economy may be
in the best
interest of our people, a high-powered
Economic Planning
Commission should be set up forthwith. This
Commission would consist only of qualified
Nigerian
economists and public men, and its
membership should
be full-time. The Commission, may, from
time to time,
avail itself of such expatriate expert
advisers as appear
to them to be sufficiently well-meaning,
and detached
from local business interests. It will be
the duty of the
Commission to produce a five-year plan for
the
Federal Government. It will assess and
appraise the
various surveys of our natural and
man-power re-
sources, establish priorities, determine
the type and the
location of industries, work out and
supervise details of
the development programme and the manner of
its
execution, and make a periodic review and
any necessary
modification of the programme.
5. In order to correct the imbalance in our
federal structure,
more States or Regions should first and
foremost
be carved out of the existing Northern
Region. To
ensure viability, the North should, as a
first step, be
broken into three States — the Middle Belt,
the
Bornu
and the
Northern
States. The Mid-West and the
C.O.R.
States should also be created as already pro-
posed.
6. To ensure the advent and growth of
democracy and
democratic practices in the North, the
following re-
forms should he introduced without delay:
a) Emirs, District heads, Village Heads and
Ward
Heads, and other Native Authority
functionaries
should, from now on, have nothing at all to
do with
the maintenance of law and order during
election
and on polling day, and should be present
at polling
stations and in the polling booths only to
cast their
votes.
b) During elections (Federal, Regional or
Local) there
should be no restraint whatsoever on public
meetings.
Political parties should be free to hold
public
meetings where and when they choose, unless
in the
interest of law and order the prescribed
authority is
of the opinion that meetings of rival
political parties
should be regulated by the issue of
permits, or by
agreement among local party leaders. For
this
purpose, the Nigerian Police Force should
be the pre-
scribed Authority, and should also be
responsible for
maintaining law and order during elections
in the
Northern Region as well as in the other
parts of the
Federation.
c) Where suitable buildings are not
available, polling
booths with permanent materials should be
erected
by the Federal Government. On no account
should
private dwelling houses, palaces, or
official
residences be used as polling booths or
stations.
d) Symbols should be painted on all sides
of the Ballot
Box, and where this is not possible, they
should be
pasted on all sides of the Box by means of
a transfer
system. All ballot boxes should be made of
steel.
e) All Native Authorities shoud be
democratised as
has for long been the case in the East and
West.
Those who operate the present feudal system
in the
North and are, from head to toe, steeped in
un-
abashed autocracy can never take kindly to
the need
for, and the practices of democracy and of
a free
and fair election.
7. The foreign policy of
Nigeria
should be independent,
and should be guided by the following
principles:
A. in respect to the world in general:
1. The promotion of economic relations with
all nations
of the world.
2. Co-operation with all nations of the world in
so far as
they respect the ideals for which we stand.
3. Respect for the sovereignty of nations and non-
interference in their domestic affairs.
4. The settlement of international disputes by
peaceful
negotiations directly or through the agency
of the
U.N.O.
5. Attraction of foreign assistance (capital,
technical skills
and training opportunities for Nigerians)
on the most
advantageous terms.
6. Lasting world peace through
non-involvement in
military pacts, discontinuance of the
armament race, and
an end to the establishment of military
bases on foreign
soil.
7. Respect for the United Nations Charter.
B. In respect to Africa in particular:
1. The immediate and complete freedom and
sovereignty
of all those African States which are at
present only
nominally independent (a) by the abrogation
of any
military or defence pact or ties as well as
of all rights
and privileges appurtenant to such pact or
ties and (b)
by the elimination of undue economic or
technical
dependence on any single alien country.
2. The setting of a target date or dates in
the very near
future for the complete liberation of all
colonial territories
wherever they may be on the Continent of
Africa.
3. The immediate termination of the
existence of any
military base in any part of Africa and the
evacuation
of all occupation troops on the Continent
whether they
are attached to specific military bases or
not.
4. The mobilisation of all the forces at
our command to
assist in the immediate extermination of
apartheid in
South Africa and the restoration to the
African in
South Africa of his natural birth rights.
5. The outlawry of any form of
discrimination or
segregation against the black peoples in
particular and
Africans in general, iii Africa and in
other parts of the
world.
6. The maintenance and defence of the
dignity of the
African (particularly black African), and
of the
sovereignty of any independent
African State
against
derogation or violation from any quarter
whatsoever.
7. The promotion and establishment of a
community of
interests among all the peoples of
Africa, and to this
end to work assiduously for the realisation
of the ideal
of a political union or a confederacy
(whichever is
practicable in the prevailing
circumstances) among all
African States.
8. As a first practical step towards the
emergence of an
All-Africa political union, the immediate
division of
the Continent into Zones.
9. The initiation of steps for the
immediate introduction
in Zones of a Customs and monetary union as
well as
economic, technical, cultural and other
forms of essential
co-operation, and the fostering of an early
emergence of a political union among the
independent
countries situate within each zone.
10. Non-involvement of all African
countries in the
present East—West power politics and
struggles as well
as non-partisanship in the Arab-Israeli
dispute and
conflict.
It is my considered view that our foreign
policy should be
bi-partisan, and should be taken out of the
arena of party
politics. I have repeatedly made
suggestions to this effect both
on the floor of the House of
Representatives and privately to
Sir Abubakar, but in vain.
There is only one answer to the second
question. In the
national interest, all the progressive
elements in the country
must come together now, and get themselves
ready to take
over the Government of the Federation at
the earliest possible
time. We do not have long to wait. Our
chance will
come in 1964 or earlier. The life of the
present Parliament
comes to an end by effluxion of time in
1964. But Balewa
might choose to go to the country much
earlier. And the
likelihood cannot be completely ruled out
that the present
coalition, which is an enforced association
of incompatibles,
might break and collapse under the mounting
pressure of
public discontent and indignation.
Whatever happens, 1964 does not appear to
me to be too
far ahead. In the meantime, it is our duty
to mobilise public
opinion, and bring it to bear on the
Government, to the end
that it shall accept a philosophy of action
which springs from
and is broadly based on all the principles,
objectives, and
proposals which, within the compass of this
lecture, I have
sufficiently elaborated.
There are many who are beginning to despair
about the
future of our great country. May I
reaffirm, in all humility
and unshaken faith, that there is no cause
for despair. For,
it is to the progressive and radical
elements in
Nigeria, whose
numbers are rapidly increasing, that the
morrow of our illustrious
country belongs.
