In a recent video on Arise Tv from 07:40, Mike Ozekhome, a prominent Nigerian legal expert, recently emphasized the urgent need for a comprehensive review of Nigeria’s constitution to better reflect the country’s diverse nature. According to Ozekhome, “The constitution is the birth certificate of a nation. It sets out how we live together—the rules of engagement.”
Ozekhome argues that countries with a pluralistic society, like Switzerland, Sweden, and India, have successfully managed their diversity by embedding it into their constitutions and conducting referendums. These nations demonstrate that acknowledging and respecting differences can lead to a harmonious “unity in diversity.” This approach, he suggests, contrasts sharply with countries like Yugoslavia, the USSR, and Czechoslovakia, which fragmented due to failure to address their pluralistic nature effectively.
Drawing parallels with Africa, Ozekhome points out that Sudan, despite its long history, disintegrated recently because its leaders did not adequately address the country’s diversity within its constitutional framework. He reflects on a historic conversation between Nigerian leaders Tafawa Balewa and Nnamdi Azikiwe in the 1940s. Azikiwe proposed unity despite differences, but Balewa countered that Nigeria’s diverse ethnic and religious identities were too significant to ignore.
According to him, “Let me tell you why we need to really look at our constitution. The constitution is the birth certificate of a nation, right? It sets out how we live together—the rules of engagement. Countries that are pluralistic and acknowledge this plural nature in their constitution, with a referendum, for example, like Switzerland, Sweden, or India, you see them living very well together because they realize their differences.”
“They are not one people, but they have been able to live in what we call “unity in diversity.” That’s the short form. But other countries, for example, like Yugoslavia or the USSR, later broke up into about 14 to 17 independent states. Similarly, Czechoslovakia broke up into two: the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Even nearer to home, here in Africa, Sudan, after living together for 3,000 years, still broke up about 5 to 6 years ago because the framers of their constitution or the leaders did not address this pluralistic nature.”
“That was why, I think I said it here some time ago, or somewhere else, when Tafawa Balewa and Nnamdi Azikiwe were having a conversation in the 1940s, Zik told Balewa, “Let us be together as one people. Let us take our differences together as one people.” The answer that Balewa gave him was, “No, we can’t be one people. We are different. You are an Igbo man, an Easterner, and a Christian. I’m a Northerner, a Fulani, and a Muslim.” It is in realizing these differences and agreeing upon them that we can live together.”….Seê – Morê