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 INITIATIVE 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. The discourse 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. As the above plebiscite proposal of the “Yoruba Parapo” group states, Britain did not bother to conduct a plebiscite to seek the opinions of the tribes and regions involved in the merger. They unilaterally 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 northern and the southern regions that they had merged. 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 regional supremacy. First, it lead to the first wave of military coup d’états, which started January 15, 1967, led by southern soldiers. Shortly after, on July 29, 1966, northern soldiers executed a counter coup d’état that put the country in a total turmoil. Subsequently, it escalated to Biafran War of two and a half years, from July 6, 1967 to January 15, 1970. Most of the subsequent post-Biafra war military coup d’états that have retarded the progress of Nigeria 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 conflicts that come with the hatred, 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 NIGERIA CONTINUE AS ONE NATION, OR SHOULD IT DISINTEGRATE, AND HOW?
I have introduced my key subject matter—comparison of two approaches to political self-determination.I have also given you the background information why some Nigerians are agitating for political self-determination and secession from the colonial concoction called Nigeria. Now, my question is whether Nigeria should remain one and continue in the toxic retrogressive union among incompatible components, or split into smaller progressive countries?
Naturally, views vary, depending on who you ask. There are Nigerians 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 the senseless “Indivisible Nigeria” campaign that has kept the country together. In fact, some extremist agents of the northern class insist that Nigeria belongs to them, “ordained by Allah.”
Most, if not all the rulers on both sides of the divide are satanically corrupt, and the chronic docility of Nigerian masses is not helping matters. The corrupt rulers who are stealing and squandering the wealth of the country are never held accountable by the docile masses. The southern rulers are benefitting from the rot in the country as much as the northern rulers. So, it doesn’t really matter much to the southern rulers whether the country breaks up or stays as one. They don’t see the need to rock the boat against northern oligarchy that insists on “One Nigeria is not negotiable.” The latest public announcement of the indivisible Nigeria ideology was the now late Muhammadu Buhari during his reign as president from 2015 to 2023. Mind you, the “ordinary” masses on both sides of the north-south dichotomy are suffering in misery while the few evil corrupt rulers on both sides live like gods with looted national wealth.
NIGERIA IS A FAILED CONCOCTION THAT SHOULD BREAK UP:
The foregoing is a background for some reasons for the agitations for secession from Nigeria by the masses in some tribes who feel marginalized in one form or another. Again, the details of some of the key issues I raise here are stories for other days. Meanwhile, I am not and will never be a man of nonsensical Political Correctness. So, I bluntly say that Nigeria is a woefully failed country that should be salvaged by disintegration into functional countries. There are three main suggestions already, thus: (1) “Oduduwa Republic” for the Yoruba tribe in southwest Nigeria. (2) “Arewa Republic” for some people in northern Nigeria. (3) “Biafra Republic” for the Igbo tribe has already existed for two and a half years. It was the reason for the war between the Igbo tribe and the rest of Nigeria. Named “Biafra War,” it was an attempt by Igbo people to secede from Nigeria for a new country named “Biafra Republic.” The country and the war lasted from 1967 to 1970 when they were quashed by the northern proponents of “Indivisible Nigeria.”
The foregoing secessionist suggestions and attempts were/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. Other minority tribes are expected to be subsumed into them if their secessions become realities to result into three new countries of “Biafra Republic,” “Oduduwa Nation,” and “Arewa Republic.”
THE “ODUDUWA NATION PLEBISCITE” APPROACH VERSUS NNAMDI KANU’S RADICAL “BIAFRA REPUBLIC” SECESSION:
Now, it’s time to dive into the comparison that inspired this discourse. Mazi Nnamdi Kanu of the Igbo tribe of southeast Nigeria launched a movement to break his Igbo tribe region away from Nigeria for “Biafra Republic” in 2009. Recently on October 12, 2026, a “Yoruba Parapo” group initiated a move to secede the Yoruba tribe from Nigeria for their independent “Oduduwa Nation.”
Whereas the “Ududuwa Nation”self-determination is a new formal plebiscite approach,Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s approach to self-determination for “Biafra Republic” is informal and unnecessarily radical. It has apparently failed because he is currently in prison because of his radical approach with lawless acts that gulped a lot of human blood. The “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. It is unlikely to involve any bloodshed. On the contrary, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s failed attempt for “Biafra Republic” was radical and through the gun, with lots of agony and bloodshed.
Surely, Nnamdi Kanu’s quest for the Republic of Biafra would have been very justifiable if it was managed well. His people of the Igbo tribe have been treated as vanquished people since after the end of Biafra war in 1970. They have been openly marginalized and persecuted by successive federal governments of Nigeria up to the present day. There is absolutely no question about this fact. The late Muhammadu Buhari of the Fulani tribe in northern Nigeria was perhaps the meanest persecutor of the Igbo people during his terrible reign as Nigerian president from 2015 to 2023. He openly declared his hatred of the Igbo people without any qualms. In one instance, he hatefully described the Igbo people as “a 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, Nnamdi Kanu completely destroyed his good self-determination initiative for the Igbo people when he turned radical and lawless with widespread bloodshed of innocent citizens. He turned himself into what I call a power-drunk maximum ruler, with too many acts that amounted to crimes. Before long, many of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu’s acts were doing far more harm than good to the same Igbo people who he claimed to be fighting for. In clear contrast, the “Yoruba Parapo” plebiscite approach to self-determination of the Yoruba people is absolutely lawful, peaceful, devoid of any bloodshed, and desirable.
PLEBISCITE FACT: Nigeria is a signatory to the United Nations Charter Under Articles 1 and 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! It is important to note that it is the same self-determination principle that made it possible to free Nigeria itself from British colonial rule in 1960.
So, you can see why I boldly state that anybody who pronounces that “Nigeria is Indivisible” is simply senseless!!! This is to say that, if any group decides to break away from Nigeria, the proponents of “Indivisible Nigeria” have only two reasonable 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 (UN) organization is worth the paper on which its Charter and Articles 1 and 55 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, I reiterate my position that the phrase, “One United Nigeria Is Non-negotiable” is absolutely nonsensical and actually criminal. I may have paraphrased what I have seen or heard some Nigerians say to the 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.”