The Irony Of Britain In Nigerian Politics

Britain (has) offered unspecified assistance to end the state of insecurity/banditry in Nigeria. Despite the unspecified nature, it is not wrong to assume the offer is military instruction or guidance, even if surreptitiouusly disguised. Coming on the heels of the seeming widespread call for foreign aid to end the intransigence of Boko Haram, the frustration and, indeed, desperation could not be more glaring.

Yet, that should not be an excuse for foreign interests, especially with Britain’s background, to sneak in. Right from the eve of Nigeria’s independence in 1960, Britain had continued to seize the opportunity to cling to its special omnibus interest in Nigeria.

To that end, one of the secret decisions reached with Nigerian leaders was an Anglo-Nigeria Defence Pact, which would offer Britain military base in Nigeria or enable Nigeria to request military assistance from Britain, if and when necessary. For example, Chile offered Britain such military base to expel Argentina from Falkland Islands during the 1982 war.

Unfortunately, after independence in 1960, news of the secret Anglo-Nigeria Defence Pact got leaked to National Union of Nigerian Students, whose members in 1962, under the leadership of Dapo Falase, in a massive protest, invaded House of Representatives in Lagos and successively demanded instant abrogation of the pact. Any offer, therefore, from Britain to assist in ending Boko Haram should not only be seen in that light but also with the more dangerous prospect of inviting ISIS on a more daring military misadventure to Nigeria.

With its latest offer, Britain is just being true to its reputation since its colonial days in Nigeria. It is bad enough with its (Britain’s) notorious vested interests of tilting Nigeria to a prefered position, at the end of which it would be a question of time for eruption. In any case, where is the record that Britain is better in combating guerilla warfare?

Britain’s offer is coming at a time when United States is turning down Nigeria’s request to relocate America’s African Command from Germany to Africa. In short, after another bitter experience in Afghanistan, leading to unscheduled withdrawal. If not humiliating, that withdrawal was not complimentary. If Americans are always realistic (as was the country’s withdrawal from Vietnam in 1968, the same cannot be said of Britain.

After military fiasco in one country, the ex-colonial overlord always seeks another area of fresh influence. That was Britain’s disaster in Northern Ireland, leading to a forced agreement, thanks to ex-American President Bill Clinton leaving behind a legacy of bitterness between Catholics and Protestants. That was the same legacy, arising from its colonial rule in Nigeria, Britain planted among the various component ethnic groups in the country. By the way, Britain’s offer to deal with Boko Haram should be of great concern for Nigerians.

Britain is very calculating. This so-called offer is not without special interests. In less than two years, Nigeria is due for general election, which may be more monumental than that of 2015. But for Britain’s role in Nigeria’s crisis in the very early hours of the counter-coup in August 1966, General Yakubu Gowon told us that, “The basis for unity is not there. It is badly rocked, not only once, but many times.”

Then Sir Cumming Francis Bruce, British High Commissioner in Nigeria, advised against the imminent announcement of the landmark total restructuring of Nigeria. Why did Britain intervene to stop that development? Gowon is alive. Over 50 years later, we are still fighting over that “restructuring”. Gowon’s complaint on August 1, 1966, that the basis for unity in Nigeria “is not there but badly rocked, not once but many times,” is still dangling over Nigeria today. Britain must not be allowed again to wrong-foot the destiny of Nigerian people as it did in 1966 and will continue to do, if allowed in the 2023 elections.

And here is an irony: Britain in 1966 halted Yakubu Gowon from restructuring Nigeria. On the other hand, Britain had no qualms to restructure itself to preserve its genuineness and oneness as a country. About 50 years ago, following the discovery of oil in the North Sea, Scots commenced agitation not only for the control of their resources but, specifically, also, separate parliament.

Read Also: Britain, Go Or Stay, Stop Diverting Attention

The people of Wales similarly would not be left out. Fifty years later, there are three parliaments in Britain today, products of self-restructuing to preserve the United Kingdom. Even then, the Scots, despite their control of the oil, are still demanding referendum for break-up of the United Kingdom and independent Scotland.

Follow us on Facebook