Fifty-four years ago, Major General Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu (of blessed memory), then military governor of the former Eastern Region of Nigeria, proclaimed the territories under his control as an independent Republic with the appellation of Biafra in defiance of the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. In the ensuing days, the young Nigeria of seven, under the military junta of General Yakubu Gowon, (just like every other sovereign country whose territorial integrity is threatened would), responded with unprecedented force and violence in the history of Nigeria.

At the time of the declaration of Biafran independence, the late Ojukwu strongly emphasized inter alia the failed security apparatus of the Nigeria State, placing heavy reliance on the 1967 Igbo pogrom in the then Northern Region of Nigeria and further on the non-implementation of the accord reached between both governments at central and regional levels at Aburi, Ghana, which amongst other things entailed greater autonomy for the constituent regions of Nigeria, which the Eastern Region, as the causes for the secession of the then Eastern region of Nigeria.

Today, Nigeria, which by good fortune has remained one sovereign political entity and has acquired through the resilience of its young and industrious population the status of the giant of Africa (in reference to its position as the largest economy in Africa), is yet to fill up the fissures exposed and also created by its civil war of over five decades. In this regard, what is more to be said of the increased insecurity, the normalized nepotism and tribalism, the astonishing prevalence of corruption, the unparalleled rate of poverty, and the rapidly dwindling economy and resources under President Muhamadu Buhari?

In the wake of all these, the calls for the disintegration of Nigeria have yet again gained momentum, particularly amongst the Igbos and Ijaws of the defunct Biafran State and the Yorubas of Sunday Igboho, as secessionist movements in the region have stepped up efforts channelled towards the ultimate disintegration of Nigeria as a sovereign political entity in the earnest belief that this would rewrite the stories of the population of a failing state under the glorious States of Biafra and Oduduwa Republic. In this regard, the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), the Biafran Zionist Movement (BZM), and the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) have been the most articulate in championing the causes of the indigenous people.

However, while the causes of these secessionist organisations are justifiable based on their grievances, demanding and acting within the fine contours of the law remains critical to the eventual achievement of their aims and objectives. In this regard, an in-depth analysis of the positions of these secessionist organizations reveals essentially three demands, viz.

1. A referendum on the people of the former eastern Nigerian region to decide by popular vote whether to continue under the aegis of Nigeria or Biafra;

2. A restructuring of Nigeria to give the constituent parts more autonomy; or

3. The unconditional grant of independence to the area formerly known as Nigeria's Eastern region.

Flowing from the above, and aided by a cumulative appraisal of the position of extant Nigerian law, it behoves to state that these remedies or demands sought are not achievable in the near future if the legal machinery must be employed. Indeed, Nigerian laws as they relate to these issues are stringent.

The 1999 Nigerian Constitution in force indeed does not contemplate the issue of secession as it makes virtually no provision for the subject matter. This has, over time, been the major encumbrance encountered in addressing the problems associated with agitations for secession in Nigeria. It is trite that a lacuna, created by the fundamental norm of the land itself, cannot be effectively filled up by any other law.

Hence, as it relates to the demand for a referendum on secession, deemed by circumstance to be the least exerting of the remedies sought, it is very necessary to note that extant Nigerian laws do not provide for referendums except under two circumstances, to wit: the recall of members of the National Assembly and the creation or adjustment of boundaries of states within a sovereign and unified Nigeria. Yet, under these circumstances, the procedures remain stringent as they essentially involve the explicit expressed consent of the population of the concerned regions, those of the National and State houses of assembly, the Independent National Electoral Commission, and also the President.

On the restructuring of Nigeria as an alternative demand, the construction remains largely vague as to essence except when analysed against a backdrop of the specific demands. In this regard, the crux of the matter lies in a return to the erstwhile regional system of government together with an accompanying greater autonomy translated into a confederacy or at worst, a "true federalism". Hence, an amendment to the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria becomes incumbent. However, the difficulties of amendment associated with rigid, written, and federal constitutions interpose themselves to the achievement of this end. This is particularly pronounced as a sizable population of Nigeria, represented by the Northern region, favours the present setup.

In another light, as it relates to the unconditional grant of independence, this is, for all intents and purposes, a demand founded on no basis and placed on nobody. In effect, no authority as extant within Nigeria reserves the right to grant independence under any condition to the tune of sovereignty to any constituent region whatsoever. In fact, by a cumulative interpretation of Nigerian laws, every citizen and indeed every government official has an attending duty to preserve the sovereignty of the country to the extent of frustrating every secessionist attempt.

However, it does not suffice to have laws that prohibit the secession of parts of a country to portray love for every part of such a country or to prevent the eventual breakup of such a country. In effect, history across civilisations validates this position, as countries that promoted unusual unity have ended up breaking up when the tears in the fabric become visible.The defunct Soviet Union is one example that must be noted.

Yet, it must be noted that no country has ever set out to eventually break up, nor has any countryman ever set out to destabilise or cause the breakup of his country without justifiable reasons. As rationality would suggest, the majority of calls for and attempts at secession are motivated by grievances against systemic and institutional flaws. This is no less true of the Biafran attempt at secession.

If one must, therefore, be fair, efforts ought not to be channelled towards suppressing such calls, which are legitimate, but should rather go towards addressing the identified challenges and grievances in the spirit of justice and fairness.

Today, as the election draws near and the aggrieved Nigerians are presented with a gleam of hope in the candidacy of Peter Obi, the calls for secession have seemingly abated. Needless to say, a huge compromise was made here by the secession sympathisers between a near-utopian abstraction of the Biafran State and a fairly working Nigeria. "Justice" demands that these compromisers be celebrated by the "patriotic" Nigerians rather than having them blackmailed as unstable.

In any case, this goes on to show that the calls for secession in Nigeria are truly issue-based rather than a dogmatic or fanatic push.

While calls for secession may well be criticised from a patriotic standpoint, the specific circumstances of the Biafran struggle must not be overlooked. The degree of frustration must be taken into consideration. When this is done, from an objective point of view, the agitators become the real heroes of Nigeria who ought to be celebrated.

As the presidency of Peter Obi promises a secure, free, fair, just, and equitable Nigeria, emasculated in economic prosperity and forward-looking, what the Biafran sympathisers are asking essentially is "Could Nigeria be the dream Biafra?" What will you say to them? Acclaimed patriot.