Let us continue our analysis with a simpler example. Supposing you are in a joint venture with a partner
(for simplification, we assume that it’s officially and properly registered – the reason for this assumption will be stated later), why would you want to end the economic relationship? May I ask you to please try to answer this question too before reading on? The reasons could include the following:
1. Commercial reason. You came to the conclusion that you can get more or do better on your own than in the joint venture;
2. Your control or say in the company does not reflect your overall contribution in terms of human, technical and financial resources;
3. Dishonesty. Your partner is always giving you a wrong report about the state of affairs in the company. He always manipulates data. In other words, he is a cheat;
4. You have practically no control or say in how the company is being run;
5. You have practically no control or say in how the profit of the company is being shared and invested;
6. Incompatibility in management style and general development of the company;
7. Your financial reward is not proportional to your contribution (this is not the same as 1 and 2);
8. To your greatest surprise, you discovered that your partner is not as competent as you initially thought;
9. Your partner enters into secret deals on behalf of the company. (not the same with 3);
10. You never gave your consent to the joint venture in the first place. To your greatest surprise, you discovered that your great grandfather was forced into the joint venture.
I. HISTORICAL FACTOR.
In other to deal with this issue comprehensively, it’s of utmost importance to remind ourselves again about the emergence of
While watching a documentary film about Fela Anikulapo kuti on Youtube titled ‘exciting interview,’ there was a scene where Nigerian soldiers speaking in Hausa shot to death at close range a harmless and armless Biafran teenager who was lying in the bush, almost naked with hands tied together. After shooting the poor boy, his corpse was dragged on the ground like a goat and disposed off like a dog. Believe me, I almost fainted when I saw this horrible video. It was difficult for me to control the tears that ran down my cheeks. I thought to myself, ‘how could some people be so wicked to that extent?’ I thought to myself, ‘how could people, who claimed to have good intentions for the country, be so heartless?’ I thought to myself, ‘how could people who claim that they had good intention for the people they were fighting commit murder on such a large scale all in the name of keeping Nigeria one?’ I thought to myself, “is it a crime for an ethnic group or groups to decide to live separately in their ‘own’ sovereign country, and concentrate their ‘own’ resources into their own development?” If anybody has any doubts as regards to what I have just narrated, please log on to youtube.com, type fela in the search box and press enter. It’s in part 1 of ‘the exciting interview.’ The issue of Ndigbos, who make up about 22% of
What I want to draw your attention to now is the ‘legality,’ or to be more precise, the ‘illegality,’ of the formation or emergence of
1. Was there a formal offer from the British to the respective ethnic groups in the south as regards to the amalgamation of the south with the north?
2. Was there a formal offer from the north to the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws, Ibibios, Efiks and other ethnic groups in the south?
3. Did the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws and other ethnic groups in the south have their respective independent parliaments then?
4. If yes, was there a formal deliberations of the offer from the British or the north at the independent parliaments of the respective ethnic groups in the south?
5. Was there a formal acceptance of the proposed amalgamation from the respective independent parliaments of the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws and other ethnic groups in the south?
6. Was any referendum conducted to seek the opinion of the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws and others on this issue?
7. Taking into consideration the fact that both the north and the south were British protectorates in 1914, could any agreement, most especially, as regards to the 1914 amalgamation, entered into on their behalf by Britain, but without their formal approval be considered valid and legally binding in general, especially from October 1, 1960?
To the best of my knowledge, though, I stand to be corrected, all the answers to the above questions are NO. As far as I am concerned, the ‘point of departure’ in our analysis should be the illegality of the emergence of
You don’t need to hold a PhD in law to know that if a company or a joint venture does not pass the legality test, i.e. not properly registered, whatever deals entered into by the company and her charter are ‘automatically’ invalid and not legally binding. In addition, one does not need to be a law professor to know that any testimony given, or deal reached under duress is not only invalid, but also can neither be presented nor accepted in a court of law as evidence. Taking into consideration the ‘undisputed’ fact that when
To buttress my point on the invalidity of the formation of
In the light of this fact, another question that begs for an answer is: “If the British, through their parliament and referendum, could decide whether to be a member of the EU, adopt the Euro as their national currency or not, why can’t the same right be extended to the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws, Ibibios, Ijaws and other ethnic groups in the south so that they can decide whether they want to be a member of Nigeria; live or form one country with the north; or adopt the naira as their respective currencies? Why should the British or Europeans have the right to decide while the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws, Ibibios, Efiks and other ethnic groups in the south are denied this same fundamental human right that the British claim so much not only to believe in, but flaunts as one of her major achievements as a democratic country? Why can’t the respective ethnic groups in the south enjoy the same right or exercise their veto power – just like the British when they refused to adopt the Euro as their national currency, to terminate their membership in
To the best of my understanding, if the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws, Efiks and other ethnic groups in the south can not decide, or are being denied the right to decide by themselves independently whether to honour an agreement that was reached on their behalf, but without their formal approval during colonial time, what this means in essence is that defacto and dejure, the south is ‘still’ a colony of Britain. This is the only conclusion that one can draw so far as far as this issue is concerned. Otherwise, why can’t the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws, Ibibios, Efiks and others draw their respective boundaries themselves without consulting or seeking the approval of neither the British nor the north? Why should the respective ethnic groups in the south be compelled to live within the artificial boundaries drawn by the Europeans in
On the other hand, if we are to base our argument on previous analysis that since the amalgamation took place when the south was a British protectorate, and without her approval, subsequently, it is not valid and can not be legally binding on the south! Going by this reasoning, consequently, all the respective ethnic groups in the south are completely within their right not to abide by whatever treaties entered into, or laws enacted by
The rational behind the composition of
TO BE CONTINUED…