FROM THE ARCHIVES 

Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe’s Opinion of the Biafran Leader, Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu and his diplomatic roles to resolve the face off between Nigeria and Biafra.

Excerpts from the interview Zik of Africa granted to New Nigerian Newspapers, 1979, as Presidential aspirant under the platform of Nigerian People’s Party.

“Yes. I played a prominent role in Biafra for the unity of the country in order to restore peace and bring about unity of the country. That’s the role I played. I advised Ojukwu. I said well look, you have declared secession.

What we should do is to get the elder statesmen and women of the nation to reconcile you and Gowon. I said by declaring secession, you get so many people who do not believe you to remain there.

You see all of us were interned. As we were interned then, we couldn’t express our own views as we see it because, he made Decree Number 5 which vested absolute powers in himself and if you were against his views, it then constituted an act of subversion and the penalty was death by shooting.

Well, it was a war-time measure and that is understandable. So, I advised him. I said go to the conference table and iron out your differences. Allow elder statesmen and elder stateswomen to bring the two of you to the conference table and settle this matter so that there will no more be civil war and the country may be united. He agreed. But Gowon was advised by the Ministry of External Affairs to insist on pre-conditions .

That is that before he could negotiate with the secessionists, that they must accept certain terms; accept the 12-state structure and all. So, it was quite obvious that the Federal Government wanted Biafra to come to the conference table with their hands tied and their feet tied. But they won’t be free agents.

That was the diplomatic mistake on the part of the Federal Government. So, when they did that, then Lt- Col. Ojukwu told me, “How can I go to the conference table based on these ultimatums?”

Still I advised Ojukwu to go to the OAU and ask them to use their good offices to settle the dispute and that we should avoid loss of lives. He accepted my advice in good faith.

Then he said, ‘Now, you have some heads of state in Africa who are your friends, would you mind going to appeal to them to use their good offices so that the Nigerian civil war could be an item on the agenda for OAU summit in Kinshasa?’ I said I would gladly go. So he sent me to Monrovia as a peace envoy.

I went there and met my friend, President Tubman. Tubman expressed his willingness to use his good offices. He told me he would see another mutual friend, the late Haile Sellassie, Emperor of Ethiopia, and both of them would see that the civil war was placed as first item on the agenda of the OAU Summit in Kinshasa.
I returned and broke the news to Ojukwu. He was very pleased.

Then, when the OAU summit opened, Chief Awolowo, as Vice-Chairman of the Federal Executive Council and Commissioner for Finance, led a strong Nigerian delegation to Kinshasa and raised a very strong objective on the Nigerian civil war being placed as an item on the agenda on the grounds that according to the OAU Charter, this was a domestic affairs and member states were precluded from interfering in the domestic affairs of each other, which was really sound according to international law.

But we wanted to solve it in the African way, to use mediation and conciliation to bring two warring brothers together.

The OAU accepted the submission of Chief Awolowo and so it was not put into the agenda. Well, history will show now between Chief Awolowo and myself, who actually accentuated the war. I was trying to get the OAU to settle the dispute so they could go to the conference table and he was thinking of legalism, that it would amount to interference in the domestic affairs of a member-state.

But meanwhile here you have two brothers killing each other.Well, Ojukwu told me, I have done my best. You see, Nigeria was relying on law and we are relying on humanity.

What’s next? I said why not try other heads of states and see what could be done to bring about peace? He then said he left the initiative with me. I suggested going to some heads of state and see what can be done. But his advisers led by Dr. Nwakama Okoro suggested recognition.

That if we can get other states to recognize Biafra, maybe the hands of Nigeria may be forced to go to the conference table.
Well, I thought that was a sound idea and I placed my services at their disposal so as to meet my friends.

We had in mind President Senghor of Senegal, President Houphouet Boigny of Ivory Coast, President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, President Milton Obote of Uganda, President Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia and of course Francois Bongo, he is now Omar. He now has become a Muslim. He was then a Christian.

The long and short of it all was that I and these great African statesmen agreed that if Gowon persisted with pre-conditions, then they would accord recognition to force the hands of Gowon to go to the conference table and bring about peace.

That was one.

Two, Gowon had already predicted that the war would end on March 31 and as far as these African statesmen were concerned, these killings and atrocities did not do any credit to the image of Africa and as such what should be done was to stop it as soon as possible.

Therefore if the war didn’t end by March 31, then the propaganda of ‘Biafra’ that it was an act of genocide would be justified. And they didn’t want to accept that.

I went on this mission and succeeded in persuading these heads of state to agree to give recognition just to force the hands of Nigeria, diplomatically speaking, to the conference table.
President Senghor said he couldn’t because the majority of his supporters were Muslims and rightly or wrongly they felt it was a religious war. And he said well, if he granted recognition, then his government would fall.

But he supported the idea of forcing the hands of Nigeria to the conference table. Houphouet Boigny was prepared, provided his people backed him. Ditto for the others except Milton Obote who told us that Prince Mutesa and the Bagandans wanted to secede and he couldn’t support secession when his own state was confronted with similar problems. It left four of them.

That is, President Nyerere, Houphouet Boigny, Kaunda and Bongo. They agreed on the understanding that the war did not end by March 31, 1968 and pre-conditions would be removed to make it easy for both Ojukwu and Gowon to go to conference table.

So they granted recognition and it worked like magic because immediately after this, Dr. Okoi Arikpo, who must be presumed to be responsible for this diplomatic blunder (he was the Commissioner for External Affairs]—a good man no doubt, but he is a very poor diplomat in my own humble opinion – announced to the outside world that Nigeria would no longer insist on pre-conditions and that he was prepared for conference table but the war did not end on March 31 and so, they left the impression, you see, that Nigeria wanted to annihilate the Ibos.

You noticed the Soviets gave Nigeria more arms and Nigeria used those arms to destroy the secessionists. Here, I came in again and I advised Ojukwu. I said look since Gowon has withdrawn the pre-conditions, go to the conference table and argue the points so as to pave way for a peace conference.

It was agreed that they should meet in Niamey. I advised Ojukwu to go. Again Gowon was ill-advised so he couldn’t come.

At Niamey here was Ojukwu. I was on his side. Gowon wasn’t there but Haile Sellassie, Hamani Diori, Tubman and General Akran were there representing OAU. So, I told Ojukwu, I said now you have an upper hand.

These respected leaders of the OAU were there. I had briefed Ojukwu. I said ‘look your line of approach is to express appreciation for what the OAU was doing in order to maintain peace in Africa but you were prepared to co-operate and you are leaving the whole matter in the hands of the OAU to see what could be done to bring an earlier cessation of hostilities.

I said just say that and thank them and sit down.Now Gowon didn’t attend. He sent a junior man, I think Alhaji Femi Okunnu or so, to represent him. And they didn’t even attend this conference at which the four heads of state presided. It was only the Biafran side.

So Ojukwu won a diplomatic victory and you know Ojukwu is a very good speaker if you give him all the facts. He was a good public relations expert and he won. He said, ‘well if Gowon was sincere why did he spite such great men and didn’t attend?’ That worked.

They agreed that Nigeria could be contacted so that we have a peace conference in Addis Ababa. It was a diplomatic victory for Biafra and so we returned to Biafra highly elated. And Ojukwu insisted that I should accompany him to Addis Ababa.

Then something happened. Some of his advisers felt that I was becoming a victim of compromise and that I was a bad influence. That all I was trying to do was to make Biafra impotent. They told Ojukwu that Biafra was holding its own militarily. And why should we want a peace conference?

That he should be very, very careful with me, especially as an Onitsha man because they thought that I was using him as a means to give publicity for myself internationally and that time will come when people will look more to me than to himself.

Well, as a young man, human, he fell for such flattery. I don’t want to mention all the names, but particularly influential in swinging his opinion at that material time was Mr. C. C. Mojekwu, who was based in Lisbon. Then Mr. Matthew Mbu was our Commissioner for External Affairs and he himself did as much as possible, but then he realized that he was having someone who has power of life and death over everybody.

So, we went to Addis Ababa and on the night before the conference, Matthew came to my bedroom at about 10 in the night. He said, “Do you know that all we have done, this man is going to undo them tomorrow?’ I said ‘No’. Then he brought out a printed version of a long speech.

The world press said it lasted for 90 minutes.
He [Ojukwu] went back on everything we discussed. He attacked the United Kingdom, the United States, the Soviet Union – all the nations of the world and the OAU, and said that they were misleading us and that the sovereignty of ‘Biafra’ was not negotiable.

We went to the conference. I sat next to him. I thought that he was going to speak in accordance with the spirit of Niamey. But he spoke for 90 minutes and he just got the whole place upside down.

Naturally, Tony Enahoro – he led the Nigerian delegation – replied in kind and so we were back to square one. So, when we returned, I advised him. I told him that I was surprised at what he did but it was not late. He said, ‘The sovereignty of Biafra is not negotiable and if anybody should try to compromise that sovereignty, then it will be an act of subversion.’

Well, that was quite clear to me so I said, ‘Your Excellency, you still have Port Harcourt and you can still bargain from position of strength – after all, the main issue in the civil war is oil and they say that in international politics, oil is combustible and as you have a combustible situation you can begin from the position of strength’. He said, ‘No, Port Harcourt is impregnable.’ ‘Very well, Your Excellency,’ I said. I went back to Nekede where I had been in protective custody since February, 1968. Two weeks later, Port Harcourt fell.

He sent for me. I said, ‘Well, Your Excellency, I did warn you. You cannot now negotiate from a position of strength but having received recognition from four states, we can still use them to see what we can do to appeal to the outside world.’ He said, ‘Very well, I think you should go to the United Nations to seek for recognition.’ I said, ‘Your Excellency, let us wait until after OAU summit in Algiers and find out what Africa thinks.’ In the meantime, I went to Tunisia to see my friend Habeeb Bourguiba of Tunisia. He wasn’t quite well, so we moved from Carthage to Hermit where he stayed. Ojukwu had always said the civil war would be won on the battlefield and not on the conference table, and Bourguiba didn’t take kindly to that. He said don’t you people advise this young man? I explained to him that I have done everything I could to advise him, but he insists on going to the battle field.

So we crossed our fingers awaiting the verdict of Algiers. You know it was decided by 33 to 4 in favour of Nigeria. I advised Ojukwu that to go to the United Nations to seek recognition would be unrealistic since Africa had decided by 33 to 4 in favour of Nigeria. I said Nigerian envoys, the Nigerian delegations, would just percolate the membership of the United Nations and they would frown at the whole thing. He insisted. I was then in Paris. I wrote him a letter. I said,

‘Since you refuse to go to the conference table to negotiate for peace, since you prefer that the civil war should end on the battle field and not on the conference table; since you said that the sovereignty of Biafra is not negotiable, I am afraid I cannot continue as a peace envoy because you have destroyed all the vestiges of any optimism for peace.

Therefore I am relieving myself of my services as a peace envoy. I cannot continue as a peace envoy. I cannot continue as a peace envoy because you have let me down. You left me under the impression that if I succeeded in getting recognition you will go to the conference table. You got four recognitions; you did not go to the conference table. I am therefore going to London on exile.’

I went to London in voluntary exile and the British government granted me asylum. I do not see how anybody could say that I ran away from my country.

I crossed the Atlantic 46 times, trying to negotiate with various heads of state so that they could grant recognition or make OAU to settle the dispute. How could the head of state turn round now and accuse all those who were politicians in pre-1966 and post-1966 as being responsible for the downfall of the republic?

I did my best to preserve the unity of Nigeria and also to preserve the lives of old men, able-bodied men and women and children but I failed. What could I do? I went on free exile and they keep saying that I was among those responsible for the downfall of the republic. I plead not guilty”.

The Peoples Democratic Party on Sunday faulted President Bola Tinubu for decorating the visiting Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi, with the Nigerian second highest national honour of the Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger.

Speaking with The PUNCH on Sunday, the Deputy National Youth Leader of the PDP, Timothy Osadolor, described the President’s action as misplaced priority.

But the Deputy National Organising Secretary of the ruling All Progressives Congress, Nze Chidi Duru, kicked, arguing that the President didn’t do anything unprecedented.

The PDP’s criticism comes a few hours after Tinubu conferred Modi with the highest honour in the land during the Nigeria/India Bilateral meeting held at the Presidential, Abuja.

The President said the award was bestowed on the Indian Prime Minister as a show of appreciation for their partnership and bilateral relationship.

He said, “Nigeria values its excellent relationship with India. We work to deepen and broaden the same to the mutual benefit of our two friendly countries. You have been doing a good job historically. Winning three consecutive elections in a complex society is a feat that we respect so much.

“I will confer on you today, the Prime Minister of India, Nigeria’s national honour, the Grand Commander of the Order of Niger. This to signify Nigerian appreciation and commitment to India as a partner,” Tinubu said.

On his part, Modi commiserated with Nigeria over the recent floods that ravaged several cities across the country, including Maiduguri, Borno State.

The Indian Prime Minister promised to support Nigeria with 20 tonnes of relief materials.

”We had a very productive discussion with President Tinubu. We talked about adding momentum to our strategic partnership. There is immense scope for ties to flourish even further in sectors like defence, energy, technology, trade, health, education and more,” Modi said.

However, the PDP expressed disappointment in Tinubu, wondering why he chose to gift the second highest national honour in the land on the basis of mere friendship.

The member of PDP National Working Committee emphasised that though the President has the right and prerogative to confer a national honour on anybody, there must be criteria to show why they deserve it.

“It is not something you dish out for the sake of friendship and all of that. I don’t know what the Indian Prime Minister has done to have warranted such an honour. But this is the second highest honour in the land. It is a misplacement of priorities.

“I would have thought that the President should have asked the Indian Prime Minister how the Indian economy has been able to move away from being the poverty capital of the world to being one of the fastest growing economies in the world now. The biggest tech moguls across the globe at the moment are all Indians.

“Just look at Microsoft, the Silicon Valley in America and startups. They are all being run and set up by Indians. I would have thought that Tinubu, in a bid to shore up the lacuna his cabinet lacks, would have been humble enough to ask the Prime Minister to offer him a clue as to how to help his government and Nigerians. Not dishing out unnecessary awards that the man doesn’t need other than for pictures and commentary,” he said.

Continuing, the PDP chieftain took a further swipe at the current administration, saying it wouldn’t stop playing to the gallery with some of its alleged theatrics.

Osadolor also wondered if the President took the liberty of asking the visiting PM and his delegation the right questions on investments and how Nigeria can borrow a leaf from the Indians to move the country out of the woods.

He said, “Tinubu is not serious. He should leave out frivolities for bigger issues. Now that the Indian Prime Minister has taken it upon himself to visit Africa, yes, we have a significant and sizeable Indian community in Nigeria. But to what end can we maximize and leverage these businesses?

“Are we asking the right questions, seeking the right investments and pushing for the right policies? But the distraction from this administration is becoming one too many. I think President Tinubu should wake up from these media gimmicks and focus on the real issues.

“Nigerians are hungry and dying. The technologies the Indians are currently deploying globally will help a great deal to solve most of these basic challenges.”

But the APC Deputy National Organising Secretary, Duru, raised concerns that the PDP was not playing its role as a responsible opposition.

He said, “I think the question to ask is, whether there is a precedent in this. Then the next question is if it is within the confines of the power of Mr President to confer such an award. If it is, is the process approved? Once all these questions are answered in the affirmative, it then becomes the discretion of Mr President to confer such honorary award on whom he pleases.

“Having said that, it is also important to underscore the fact that we will need to go beyond the politics of emotions to begin to address the issue. So, the PDP is more than welcome to continue to play the role of opposition, which is admirable.

“However, we like to see a situation whereby what they put on the table is, with respect, how we can make Nigeria a lot better and more improved that will address the issues facing us as a country. I am talking about things like how do we put food on the table, create a better environment for business to thrive and create a better level playing field. These are things that should worry any of us than to chase shadow.”

Meanwhile, a United States of America-based Nigerian security expert, Dr. Sylvester Okere, on Sunday, said the Indian-Nigerian partnership would secure the people’s assets.

Okere, who would be among personalities that would be hosted by the Central Association of Private Security Industry from November 21 to 22, 2024 in India, said the invitation by CAPSI to the 19th Security Leadership Summit 2024 in New Delhi was coming at a time when the Indian Prime Minister, Narendra Modi arrived in Nigeria for a state visit.

Okere will speak on ‘Indian-Nigerian Partnership in Securing People and Assets,’ as well as other critical security issues affecting both countries.

It was gathered that CAPSI, the umbrella organisation of the Indian private security industry, has ties with some of the leading global security education organisations like the World Association of Detectives, International Federation of Protection Officers, the US-based Association of Investigation and Security Agencies Regulators and the United Kingdom-based Security Institute for training and placement of trained youth in foreign countries.

Okere said, “This visit to Nigeria by the Indian Prime Minister will pave the way for high-level discussions between the two Presidents, focusing on strengthening cooperation in areas such as trade, technology, energy, and education.” (PUNCH)

Former Minister of Health and eminent statesman, PROFESSOR A. B. C. NWOSU, in this interview responded to some of the issues raised by General Yakubu Gowon in his recent interview, on his roles in the Nigeria – Biafra War.  He is of the view that there are critical issues that the former Head of State did not address, warning that “Nigeria will continue to be an unstable state until we restructure.”

You must have read General Yakubu Gowon’s interview; as a person close to Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu and final year undergraduate who was politically active, how did you feel at the time?

I felt sad.  Very sad because I had expected that Gowon would reveal at least some of the things which have bothered me and Ndigbo from 1966 till now.  Gowon’s interview was not only sad for me because of his self-serving half-truth but for the major things not said. I don’t think that Gowon believes that total deviation from the Aburi agreement was the cause of the civil war but everybody, and I mean everybody who was a “Biafran” at the time, doubted that it was.  That’s why ‘On Aburi We Stand’ was the war cry from the East.  If Aburi had been implemented there would have been no Nigeria – Biafra War.  I thank the respected Journalist, Chuks Iloegbunam, for his masterful response to General Gowon published in the Vanguard.

For example, when General Gowon said that he didn’t call his Secretary to Government to the Aburi meeting whilst Ojukwu did, I said to myself that General Gowon has lost it because Aburi was not a single’s tennis match between him and his so-called friend, Ojukwu.

Why is Aburi critical for Nigeria?

Aburi was critical because every other discussion on what had happened namely, the January 15 coup, May 29 pogrom and the July 29 counter coup had failed to resolve the matter as the various delegations had feared for their lives and would not attend further meetings. Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s meeting with Ojukwu on May 5th and 6th, 1967 did not succeed in bringing the Eastern delegation to the meeting. As Gowon correctly said, the East could not attend any meeting in Nigeria because they feared for their lives. As Gowon also said, a British war plane as well as a Naval war ship were considered but rejected by the East because of the involvement of Britain in the conflict.  So the acceptable venue was General Ankrah and his offer of Aburi in Ghana.  It was not a meeting between Gowon and Ojukwu, that’s why I insist it was not a single’s tennis match between the two of them.  It was a meeting between General Gowon, who came with the federal cabinet secretariat; General Hassan Usman Katsina and the Secretary to the Northern Government; Governor David Ejoor, who came with the Secretary of the Midwest Government; Governor Adeyinka Adebayo, who came with the Secretary of the Western Nigerian government and Governor Odumegwu Ojukwu, who came with Eastern Nigerian government.  So, it was a full-fledged Nigerian meeting to avert a war and not a meeting between Gowon and Ojukwu.

One of the key unanimous decisions at Aburi was that the conflict would not be settled through a war.  Therefore to say that we fought to live together is not true since all of them had agreed that fighting was not necessary and would not be used to settle the matter. In any case, the matter of dividing Nigeria into 12 states was neither tabled nor discussed at Aburi. What was discussed was devolution of powers from the centre to the federating units including coercive agencies of State like Police, Army etc.  What was discussed with unanimity was in making appointments to  “Super Permanent Secretaries”, Inspector General of Power, etc.   This greatly irked the super permanent secretaries at the time, who submitted an anti-Aburu agreement memo.

What was required in order to keep good faith was a follow-up meeting by all those present at the original meeting where the original agreement was reached.  The other members cannot implement their version of the agreement without consulting and getting the concurrence of the Eastern government that wore the shoes that were pinching them on all sides – refugees and  rehabilitation, burial of so many dead bodies and fleeing citizens, etc. So, it was wrong to have implemented the civil servant-mutilated Aburi Agreement.  If one checks the sequence of events leading to the Nigeria – Biafra war, the creation of 12 states on 5th May 1967, which was not part of Aburi, was done to take the wind off the sails of the urge for the creation of Biafra. This was clearly bad faith shown by the federal government.  Unfortunately, this was the impetus that accelerated the declaration of Biafra on 30th May, 1967 because people of the East feared that the federal government could declare a state of emergency and invade the East.   Biafra was not declared before the creation of the 12 states, which was not in the spirit of the Aburi agreement.

One of the major agreements of the Aburi was the repatriation of soldiers to their states of origin.  The West continued to whine over this until the Nigeria – Biafra war, where they joined the fight against Biafra.

But Aburi will continue to hunt Nigeria in the form of RESTRUCTURING of the Nigerian polity along the intentions of the founding fathers of the republic, where there are no senior or junior Nigerians, and where the federating units are coordinate government, not this nonsense of sub-national government.  Sub-national government implies that Tafawa Balewa was senior to Sir Ahmadu Bello, Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Chief Dr. Michael Okpara.  To me that is arrant nonsense, and all these people using the term Sub-national government don’t know what a federation is.

You told me that you are worried about Gowon’s silence over January 15 coup in 1966 and the counter coup of July 1966, what are your worries?

I am worried about the January 15th coup because I know it was fully investigated by the special branch of the police under late Inspector General of Police MD Yusuf and the report up till now is not public, even though some people have managed to lay their hands on it.  The report was said to have been submitted to the Chief of Army Staff under General Ironsi (which would be General Gowon) but Gowon has said nothing about it so far.  I would have liked to know how many people were investigated; the statement that they made and in particular, whether it was an Igbo coup. I know for certain that the report indicated that Emmanuel Arinze Ifeajuna and Demola Ademoyiga were the central figures of the coup and that Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogu was involved towards the later part of their planning.  There are rumors that others were involved but Nigerians would like to see what the report was like.  It was also sad that General Gowon kept total silence on the counter coup of July 29 and how he became Supreme Commander.

That interview by Gowon was also totally silent on the pogrom and killing of civilians in the North and West of Nigeria.  Easterners, especially Ndigbo, would wonder why he was silent because these were the bases of fears of insecurity by Easterners, especially Ndigbo, about their lives and property in their own country without being protected by their own government. Knowing the reason why people get killed and their properties seized when they venture out of their states of origin, is critical for stability in Nigeria.

 Gowon stated that he gave specific instructions on the rules of engagement for the Nigerian Army for the war…(cuts in)

Really, and were these rules enforced?  I never read of the tribunal and trials of those behind the Asaba Massacre for example.  Meanwhile, “Asaba still mourns” and have erected a memorial to give their sons respectable rest. The other day Ogbomosho people wanted National Honours for their son and hero, Brigadier Benjamin Adekunle. I wonder whether it was the same Brigadier Adekunle, the Black Scorpion, who ordered that anything moving should be shot, even the dogs, but I leave that for now.  And the West still feels that Colonel Emma Nwaobosi should be publicly hanged for killing Governor Akintola and his wife whilst idolizing Chief Awolowo.  It perplexes me.  ,

Finally, on war crimes, I am still to come to terms with the fact that starvation of new born children, their mothers and toddlers could be a legitimate instrument of war.  Is that part of the UN Convention?  And yet nobody talks about these things, just wishing that those who lost their loved ones should just hide in the corner and shut their mouths.  And Gowon kept quiet on this in the interview.

It is obvious, from what you said, that you expected more from Gowon’s interview…

Yes.  As I would have expected from Ojukwu, if he ever gave an interview in the later part of his life.  In three months it will be 55 years since the war ended and Nigerians are living together but the same problems that were to be solved by Aburi are still very much with us.  We keep having conferences upon conferences on how to live in a more stable united country. We even had under Obasanjo a Truth and Reconciliation Commission under the renowned jurist, Chukwudifu Oputa with also renowned Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah as Secretary, but nobody was ready to talk. Nobody also had any regrets. Governor Usman Farouk, Governor of Northwest State when Nigeria was a 12 state structure and member of the investigative panel of MD Yusuf Panel for the January 15 coup, wrote his book titled, “There were Victors and There were Vanquished”.  Some of us have copies. Nobody is still ready to talk and say exactly what happened.  Even when these national conferences agree on issues like State Police, Devolution of Powers, Less funds for the Federal Government, more percentage on Derivation Principle, they don’t get implemented either by a president who throws the report into the trash bin nor by a president, who is supposed to be an  apostle of true federalism and fiscal federalism.  The consoling issue is that we shall all go the way of all mortals  whether we like it or not.  And Nigeria will continue to be an unstable state until we RESTRUCTURE.