October 16, 2026
Greetings!
I am Harry Agina. This is a discourse on Nigeria—a failing British colonial concoction—and its internal secessionist agitations. In other words, this is about Political “Self-determination” in Nigeria. Generally, Self-determination meansthe free choice of one’s own acts or government without outside pressure. It applies broadly across political, international, and personal psychology. My interest here is Political Self-determination. It is defined as the right of a country or group in the country to be independent, select its own form of government, and manage its economic, social, and cultural development, free from foreign intervention.
As you must have deduced from my title, this is a comparison of two different approaches to Political Self-determination” in Nigeria.This discourse was inspired by a document dated October 12, 2026. It is about a self-determination move by a group of people of the Yoruba tribe in Nigeria. It wants to secede or break their tribe away from the British concoction called Nigeria. They want their own “Oduduwa Country” or “Oduduwa Nation” as they call it. They approach their quest through a “Plebiscite,” otherwise known as a “Referendum.”
Aplebiscite is a direct vote by the eligible voters of a country or region on a major public question, policy, or choice of government. Voters answer “yes” or “no” to a single, significant proposal rather than voting for a political party or candidate. “Plebiscite” comes from the Latin word, plebiscitum, meaning a “decree of the plebeians”—the common people of ancient Rome.The plebiscite question by the Yoruba group would be: Should the Yoruba tribe of Nigeria break away from Nigeria to form a new country named“Oduduwa Nation”? Every voter simply votes “yes” or “no.”
THE ODUDUWA NATION PLEBISCITE DOCUMENT, VERBETUM:
Official Plebiscite Request Letter — Velvet Divorce Model*
*YORUBA PARAPO — TRUE MAP APPROVED*
*OFFICE OF THE AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINAIRE*
Date: 12th October 2026
Ref: YP/UN-C24/PLB-2026/001
The Chairman,
United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization (C24),
405 East 42nd Street,
New York, NY 10017, USA.
Through: The Secretary-General, United Nations.
Through: Chairperson, African Union Commission.
*RE: REQUEST FOR SUPERVISION OF A PEACEFUL, UN-SUPERVISED PLEBISCITE FOR THE YORUBA PEOPLE (ODUDUWA NATION) — PURSUANT TO RIGHT TO SELF-DETERMINATION WITHOUT BLOODSHED*
Your Excellency,
I have the honour, on behalf of the 60 million indigenous Yoruba people comprising Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, Ekiti, Kwara South, Okun and Itsekiri, to submit this request under:
– UN Charter Article 1(2) — Right to Self-Determination
– ICCPR & ICESCR Common Article 1
– African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights Article 20
– UNGA Resolution 1514 (XV) and 2625 (XXV)
*THE FACTS:*
1. The 1914 Amalgamation of Northern and Southern Nigeria was an administrative act by Britain for 100 years, which expired on 31st December 2014, without plebiscite of the peoples.
2. The Yoruba people are a distinct nation with distinct language, culture, traditional governance (Ooni, Alaafin), economic base (Lekki Port, Ondo Bitumen, Cocoa Belt, Industrial Ogun), and True Map, meeting Montevideo Convention criteria for statehood.
3. Continued federation has led to insecurity, economic marginalization, and constitutional grievances that cannot be resolved within the 1999 Constitution.
*OUR PRAYER — THE VELVET DIVORCE MODEL:*
We do NOT seek war. We seek law. Following the peaceful precedents of Singapore (1965), Czech Republic & Slovakia (1993), we request:
*a)* That the UN C24, AU and ECOWAS supervise a peaceful Plebiscite/Referendum in all Yoruba homelands.
*b)* Simple Question: _“Do you wish the Yoruba people to exercise self-determination and form a sovereign Oduduwa Nation within its True Map, in peaceful negotiated separation from Nigeria?”_
*c)* That upon clear majority, the UN facilitates negotiated separation on asset, debt, citizenship and border basis — without bloodshed.
*COMMITMENT TO PEACE:*
We, Yoruba Parapo, commit to:
– Total non-violence and non-incitement
– One united Yoruba voice via traditional council
– Economic viability dossier already filed (Transport 4-Pillar Blueprint)
– Willingness to dialogue with Federal Republic of Nigeria under AU/UN mediation
Your Excellency, history will record whether Yoruxit was done by gun or by pen. We choose the pen.
Respectfully submitted,
[SIGNATURE]*
H.E. Ambassador Olujobi Olushola*
Ambassador Extraordinaire, Yoruba Parapo
True Map Custodian
Cc: ECOWAS Chairman
Cc: AU Peace & Security Council
Cc: British Foreign Office (as former colonial power)
YORUXIT is SELF-DETERMINATION
Oduduwa a gbe wa!
=============
BACKGROUND PRELUDE TO THE DISCOURSE:
The foregoing is the introduction to my discourse, which is a comparison of two different approaches to Political Self-determination in Nigeria. But before we dive into the comparison, here is some relevant background information. In 1914, Britain amalgamated (merged) its colonial northern and southern protectorates in West Africa, creating a unified territory under the pre-existing name of Nigeria. A British journalist Flora Shaw had coined the name “Nigeria” on January 8, 1897, by combining “Niger” (river) and the “area” near and around the river. That was before she married Lord Lugard, the colonial Governor-General of Nigeria in 1902 to become Flora Lugard.
Many critics, including I, call that 1914 merger an insensitive, indeed, evil self-serving British colonial concoction. Why? Because the British colonialists did not bother to put into consideration the interests and feelings of the human components of the merger. They forced those incompatible components into a union only for the commercial interests of, and benefits to Britain and her people.
The most worrisome and troublesome aberrations in the union of Nigeria are in the matters of the terrible management of the ethnic, religious, and ideological differences in the relationship between the north and the south. The relationship has been very destructively toxic and unhealthy. The components have been described as “Strange Bedfellows” by several critics, and I totally agree. Northern and southern Nigerians shouldn’t have been merged. In fact, even some ethnic components of the south are better separated into different countries, and some components of the north are better separated into different countries, too. It is on record that the self-serving machinations of colonial Britain in early Nigeria were responsible for the toxic relationship between northern and southern Nigerians. It benefited Britain to clash the north against the south.
In 1960, that colonial concoction gained independence from Britain and became a sovereign country called Nigeria. Thenceforth, the toxicity in relationship among the strange bed-fellows in the composition of Nigeria has continued to fester as they compete for sectional supremacy. First, it lead to the first wave of military coup d’états, which started January 15, 1967. Two close successive coup d’états eventually escalated to Biafran War of two and a half years, from July 6, 1967 to January 15, 1970. Most, if not all of the subsequent military coup d’états that have retarded the progress of Nigeria since after the Biafra War were also the products of the toxicity of the north-south dichotomy relationship. Each section is always in the struggle to dominate and control the other, with the north always more successful. The north-south dichotomy hatred, the struggles that come with it, and their destructive consequences are now 66 years on since the so-called independence of Nigeria from British colonialism in 1960. Rather than improve for the better, it is getting worse and more destructive by the day.
SHOULD THE CONCOCTION CALLED NIGERIA CONTINUE, OR DISINTEGRATE, AND HOW?
I have introduced my subject matter—comparison of two approaches to political self-determination.I have also given you the background that brings up the matter of agitations for political self-determination and secession from the colonial concoction called Nigeria.
Now, here is my subjective compound thematic question for the topic of the day: Would it be much better for everybody involved if this retrogressive concoction called Nigeria was/is spilt apart into few progressive countries, if yes, how should it happen? Views are divided among Nigerians on both counts of my compound question, based on various factors. There are those who benefit from the terrible nature and state of the union who are doing everything possible to keep the union going purely for their selfish gains. I am not going into details here but suffice to say that the crude oil in southern Nigeria, which is the lifeline of Nigeria’s economy is a major factor. It goes without saying that northern rulers, especially some Fulani oligarchs, are in the forefront of “Indivisible Nigeria” campaign. In fact, some extremist agents of that class insist that Nigeria belongs to them, “ordained by Allah.”
Due to the satanical corruption among Nigerian rulers and the docility of Nigerian masses, the southern rulers are also benefitting from the rot in the country. They are never held to account for what they steal from the national wealth. So, it doesn’t really matter much to them whether the country breaks up or stays united. They don’t see the need to rock the boat against northern oligarchs who insist that “One Nigeria is not negotiable.” The latest to announce this was the now late President Muhammadu Buhari during his reign from 2015 to 2023. Generally, therefore, the agitation for secession from Nigeria is by the masses in some tribes who feel marginalized in one form or another. Again, the details for some of the key issues I raise here are stories for other days.
Meanwhile, the question again: Should Nigeria get split into more countries? I am not and will never be a man of nonsensical POLITICAL CORRECTNESS. So, here is my own blunt answer to my question: Hell fucking yes!!! Pardon my indescent language here. There are three main suggestions already, into which Nigeria should be split, thus: (1) “Oduduwa Republic” for the Yoruba tribe in southwest Nigeria. (2) “Arewa Republic” for some people in northern Nigeria. (3) “Biafra Republic,” which has already existed for two and a half years from 1967 to 1970 during the unsuccessful Biafra secession war. These are for the three major tribes of Nigeria. It is estimated that there are about 371 minority tribes in the country. Naturally, some of them would not mind having their own countries, too. But, let’s just suffice with the three suggested countries and other minority tribes would be subsumed into them. split Nigeria into “Arewa,” “Oduduwa, “and Biafra” Republics.
THE “ODUDUWA NATION PLEBISCITE” APPROACH VERSUS NNAMDI KANU’S RADICAL “BIAFRA REPUBLIC” SECESSION:
In 2009, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu of the Igbo tribe of southeast Nigeria had launched his movement to break his Igbo tribe region away from Nigeria for a country named “Biafra Republic.” As I said, this discourse was inspired by the “Ududuwa Nation” Self-Determination plebiscite document dated October 12, 2026 because I want to compare it with Nnamdi Kanu’s approach to “Biafra Republic” quest. The ongoing “Oduduwa Nation” plebiscite approach is idiomatically referred to as a secession through the pen, meaning a formal peaceful application for “Self-Determination” under the United Nations Charter and guidelines. On the contrary, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s failed attempt for “Biafra Republic” was radical and through the gun, with bloodshed.
Nnamdi Kanu’s quest for the Republic of Biafra was very justifiable because his people of the Igbo tribe have been treated as vanquished people since after the end of Biafra war ended in 1970. They have been openly marginalized or persecute by successive federal government of Nigeria up to the present day. There is absolutely no question about his fact. The late President Muhammadu Buhari was perhaps the meanest persecutor of the Igbo people during his terrible reign from 2015 to 2023. He openly declared his hatred of the Igbo people without any qualms. In one instance, he described the Igbos as “dot in a circle” during an interview onArise Television onJune 10, 2021. So, yes, I was among the people who initially appreciated Nnamdi Kanu’s secessionist campaign when it took off in 2009.
However, he started getting it all wrong when he turned himself into what I call a radical power-drunk maximum ruler, with too many acts that amounted to crimes. Before long, many of his acts were doing more harm than good to the Igbo people who he claimed to be trying to protect and defend.
FACT: Nigeria is a signatory to the United Nations Charter Under Article 1 (paragraph 2) And Article 55, And Related International Human Rights Treaties That recognize the “Right to Self-Determination.” This simply means that Nigeria as a country already signed this global human rights treaty that any segment of Nigeria has every right to break away from the British concocted Nigeria and form its own country, period! So, you can see why I boldly state that any fool who pronounces that “Nigeria is Indivisible” is simply what I call him or her: Very foolish!!! This is to say that, if any group decides to break away from Nigeria, the proponents of “Indivisible Nigeria” have only two DEMOCRATIC choices, thus: Either sincerely look into the grievances of the group and negotiate how to assuage the grievances and urge the group to cancel the idea of secession and remain in Nigeria. Otherwise, the group MUST be allowed to break away and form its own country. If the group’s grievances are not assuaged by the proponents of “Indivisible Nigeria,” it has the right to break away after satisfying the United Nations’ guidelines. And, if the United Nations organization is worth the paper on which its charters were written, then it SHOULD support the group in the event of any forceful confrontation by the Nigerian State. The UN owes that group this duty of support. Otherwise, it is my opinion that the UN is a worthless toothless bulldog that barks without the capacity to bite.
With the foregoing, therefore, my position is that the phrase, “One United Nigeria Is Non-negotiable” is absolutely nonsensical. I may have paraphrased what I have seen or heard some Nigerians say to that effect of the so-called “Indivisible Nigeria.” The important thing to me is that whosoever that came up with the “Indivisible Nigeria” position was/is absolutely senseless!!! I say this based on the global position on “Self-Determination.”