Of indigenes and Nigerians

THE controversy that has raged in the
past few months about Abia State
expelling non-indigenes from its civil
service has been going the way of all
Nigerian debates — aspersions, name
calling, threats and more noise which
when expended leaves the matter
unaddressed.
None of these is new. The details of the
matter are that the Abia State
Government expelled those not from the
state’s service. Abia did not deny the
action. Its explanation that it was the last
of the five states from the former East
Central State, in the mainly Igbo-
speaking parts of former Eastern Region,
to have acted this way, sounds retaliatory,
but again, it is the truth. The further
explanation that Abia was sagging under
the weight of its citizens sacked from
service in other states is emotional and
debatable.
From 1991 when two more states (Abia
and Enugu) were created from Imo and
Anambra states, the issue was hot. Enugu
State almost collapsed on inception
because the bulk of the civil servants from
Anambra State left, most fearing then
that they had no future in the new state.
Some of the new states systematically
weeded out the non-indigenes, who they
claimed oppressed them in the former
states. The practice from the military
endured. In 2002, the civilian government
in Imo State refused to pay pensioners of
Abia State origin, who retired from its
service. There were some complaints then
and the matter was never resolved.
The absurdity of this situation arises from
the fact that the governors of the five
states meet regularly. They even have
dreams on common economic plans. They
were in tandem when they shut their state
universities over disputes with lecturers.
Why would a profound matter of this
ranking escape their attention?
Whether Abia is right or wrong is not the
matter at stake. The real issue is status of
the Nigerian. Is he an indigene or a
Nigerian citizen? Which of the status is
legal? Which status serves him well as he
navigates the challenges of life in a
country its leaders boldly canvass national
positions while standing firmly on ethnic
platforms?
At stake is a constitutional breach of
Section 42. The section meant to protect
Nigerians from discriminations is not of
interest to the National Assembly that
should have enacted laws against the daily
discriminations Nigerians face because
they are not indigenes of a particular
state.
Section 42 states, (1) A citizen of Nigeria
of a particular community, ethnic group,
place of origin, sex, religion or political
opinion shall not, by reason only that he
is such a person:- (a) be subjected either
expressly by, or in the practical
application of, any law in force in Nigeria
or any executive or administrative action
of the government, to disabilities or
restrictions to which citizens of Nigeria of
other communities, ethnic groups, places
of origin, sex, religions or political
opinions are not made subject; or (b) be
accorded either expressly by, or in the
practical application of, any law in force
in Nigeria or any such executive or
administrative action, any privilege or
advantage that is not accorded to citizens
of Nigeria of other communities, ethnic
groups, places of origin, sex, religions or
political opinions. (2) No citizen of
Nigeria shall be subjected to any disability
or deprivation merely by reason of the
circumstances of his birth.
Instead of the debates, the affected
citizens or their governments should sue
Abia for breaching the Constitution. Or is
it a case of unwillingness to seek equity
because of soiled hands?
When abrogations of the rights of
citizens are so unimportant that we just
debate them, we sustain bases for people to
be indigenes of states and not Nigerians,
who the Constitution awards rights as
citizens.