Two words have proved very sensitive in Nigerian socio-political context for decades now — indigenes and settlers.
While some contend that Nigeria ought to have matured to the point of all feeling free enough to step into full rights wherever they are settled, others hold the view that cultural identity conferred by heritage and language cannot be passed on to people who came to settle from other communities, far or near.
It is against this background that the bill being sponsored in the House of Representatives by the Deputy Speaker, Benjamin Kalu, has stirred another debate among the lawmakers and outside. Coming at a time when cultural identity and land ownership is at the centre of the conflict in parts of Bokkos and Bassa local government areas of Plateau State, the bill is worth careful consideration by the two houses of the National Assembly, in consultation with the general public.
The bill’s sponsor contends that residency should be enough for citizens of Nigeria to be admitted to full rights wherever they may be settled. Besides, marriage is expected to integrate a wife to the community of her husband. But, this is more theoretical than practical. We therefore advise that the bill be withdrawn now in the interest of peace and unity. There are justifiable fears that if this is allowed now, some people who are more adept at moving from one part of the country to another could displace the original inhabitants and this could create or prolong bad blood that would last ages.
In Plateau State, the Berom have been up in arms against the Hausa-Fulani who migrated and settled in parts of the state, including Jos North. This has led to relentless blood shedding that even intermarriage has been unable to curb. This was the same with Ife-Modakeke communities in Osun State, communities around the boundaries of Ebonyi and Benue states, and the Aguleri-Umuleri inhabitants of Anambra State
Communal clashes are not limited to Nigeria. The red Indians of the United States sought and obtained some guarantees of their cultural independence that reflect in their political rights. Besides, in some states, local offices are reserved for indigenes only.
In Spain that has a long history of such crises, no one would dare introduce a Bill among the Basque nationalists without provoking another round of fight. Yet, Spain is a developed country. The Scots and Welsh are mindful of their identity and political autonomy.
It would therefore be unthinkable to seek a law that would obliterate cultural identity. The Northern Ireland crisis was only settled not long ago, with enough guarantees for Irish nationalism.
We concede that Nigeria should grow into a nation where there are equal rights for all, but we cannot pretend to be there yet. There is still a long way to go. We must be given enough time to work at it, otherwise things could get worse. All tiers of government have to begin aggressive programme of promoting integration among the various peoples of the country.
At the moment, many are suspicious of the motive behind introduction of the bill, and feel that it was not informed by the purest of intentions. It is, therefore best that the bill be withdrawn now while Nigerians realise that we have a duty to promote interethnic harmony more than a century after the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates.
Culled: Nation
