"Buy land, they have stopped making it."

Mark Twain.

"If you want to be rich, you must learn not only how to make money, but how to economise it too."

Benjamin Franklin.

"The Nigerian poverty, and that means also the African poverty, is a stab on the conscience of the world. President Bush also said that Africa is a disease ridden nation in spite of all our oil and its 24 nations, with 2,000 ethnic groups. You may wish to know that one of every nine gallons of oil that is being pumped into any car in the world comes from Africa south of Sahara.  There is no doubt that oil, far from being a blessing, is a curse for black Africa, particularly for Nigeria. This is a paradox of plenty. Now, very little of the oil revenues make it to those who really need it most, our oil has produced more jobs for the Europeans and those from the United States of America than for Nigerians or Africans. You may wish to know that only 5% of the billions invested in African petroleum in black Africa is spent in Africa. Oil exploration is capital intensive and not labour intensive. Now, you possibly know that the oil producing states are Edo, Ondo, Delta, Bayelsa, Rivers, Cross Rivers, Akwa-Ibom and Abia. The World Bank, as you well know, ranks Nigeria as one of the poorest countries, no infrastructure is working, 90 million Nigerians are living below poverty level, we have low life-expectancy. Nigeria is now a country which nobody wishes to spend his or her honeymoon and, yet, we produce 2.6 million barrels of sweet crude oil everyday.

Nigeria is like a marriage which nobody wants but the marriage nobody dares dissolve."

Chief Richard Osuolale Akinjide. Former Attorney General of the Federation under Shagari. Excerpt of long interview given in January 2008.

"We hold (they say) these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal. In what are they created equal? Is it in size, understanding, figure, moral or civil accomplishments, or situation of life? Every plough-man knows that they are not created equal in any of these....That every man hath an unalienable right to liberty; and here the words, as it happens, are not nonsense, but they are not true: slaves there are in America, and where there are slaves, there liberty is alienated. If the Creator hath endowed man with an unalienable right to liberty, no reason in the world will justify the abridgement of that liberty, and a man hath a right to do everything that he thinks proper without controul or restraint; and upon the same principle, there can be no such things as servants, subjects, or government of any kind whatsoever. In a word, every law that hath been in the world since the formation of Adam, gives the lie to this self-evident truth, (as they are pleased to term it) ; because every law, divine or human, that is or hath been in the world, is an abridgement of man's liberty..."

Excerpt of the US declaration of independence July 4, 1776. Authored by Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

"The manhandling of the youths again confirmed the INC view that the JTF was an occupation force and certainly not one to restore hope for the people of the Niger Delta. The brutalisation of over 50 protesting youths at Ogboimbiri, calls to question the raison d'etre of the JTF."

Prof. Kimse Okoko, President of Ijaw National Congress (INC).Excerpt of interview given in May, 2008.

"ExxonMobil said Thursday its first-quarter profit rose 17 percent from a year ago to 10.89 billion dollars, but the earnings were below Wall Street forecasts. The biggest US oil and gas company said gains from record-high crude prices were offset in part by weaker profit margins and higher operating costs.

The profit for the Texas-based firm amounted to 2.03 dollars per share, below the 2.13 dollars expected on Wall Street. Revenues for the January-March period rose 34 percent from a year earlier to 116.9 billion dollars. The quarterly earnings, a new record for the energy giant, followed a banner year for the company as crude oil prices soared on strong demand, particularly in China and India.

ExxonMobil posted a 2007 profit of 40.6 billion dollars, the largest US corporate annual profit in history. Despite the strong profits, the company is being pressured on a number of fronts, analysts said. While company officials say the profits are in line with other industries, it is seen as gaining from troubles inflicted on consumers. “The world's largest energy company may once again come under scrutiny by lawmakers for earning a record profit while US consumers face the burden of record-high oil prices,"

AFP Energy report. May 1, 2008.

"The state-organised killing of Ndigbo started in northern part of Nigeria in 1953, during the agitation for Nigeria's independence. The massacre continued in January and July of 1966, in most parts of the North. That also resulted in the Nigeria/Biafra war of 1967-1970.Since the end of the said civil war, there has been no end to the genocide against the Igbo ethnic group, arising from religious crisis, moreover in northern Nigeria. As lives and property of Ndigbo could not be guaranteed in Nigeria, the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB) was floated in 1999, to continue in a non-violent manner, the pursuit of a separate independent state, for the people of Eastern Nigeria. Irrespective of the non-violent approach of MASSOB, the Nigerian State continued its genocide against our people. From May 22, 2000 to April 22, 2008 more than 2,000 registered members of MASSOB in various cities in Nigeria were killed by Nigerian security personnel. It is believed that unrecorded casualties may be higher than that. Presently, more than one thousand MASSOB members are languishing in various prisons in Nigeria. We are yet to receive any form of sympathy from government over the unfortunate incidents. We will not retreat, despite threats on the lives of our members. We are also calling on the international community and 'men of goodwill' to dissuade the leadership of the country from its continued genocide against the group as well as release her members from detention. We believe that it is our inalienable right to agitate for our freedom through non-violent means. We also believe that no amount of hardship and danger will deny us this right."

Chief Ikechukwu Ekwe. Regional Administrator of MASSOB. Excerpt of speech in May, 2008.

 "Our people are not free yet. Our resources are still under the control of a few persons and development is nowhere to be found here. So, we will continue in this struggle until we achieve what we want. The struggle we have inherited was started by the likes of Adaka Boro. He showed us light while we were in the dark, so we owe him this duty as a hero."

Alhaji Asari-Dokubo,  Niger Delta Peoples Volunteer Force, Excerpt of speech during a rally to commemorate the 40th Anniversary of the death of Isaac Adaka Boro in Port Harcourt. May 2008.

"There are certain things that are happening and we think they have a political undertone. It is rather unfortunate that the Federal Government is still trying Henry Okah secretly, despite calls for them to try him openly. It is wrong for people not to have access to his trial. As a people, we do not accept that trial and we will not be a part of whatever comes out of it. If they convict him as a result of this kangaroo trial, we will not accept it. This is a revolutionary struggle and the Federal Government should be able to take responsibility for all the hostilities. This is because the long years of neglect caused all this. Henry Okah is an Ijaw son who believes in this struggle. So, if they think they will secretly try him and come up with any verdict, we won't accept it. We have always cried for a fair share of our natural resources. How come that when we cry out for what rightly belongs to us, people call us names? That is why we have continued to insist that Henry Okah should either be released or tried in an open court where everybody will be able to know what is happening to him. It is the height of injustice for anybody to think that we will accept the judgment that will be pronounced on him. Except that they are doing this to see what the Ijaw people will do, there is no reason why Henry Okah should not have the right to see his wife and family members whenever he wants to see them, or whenever they want to see him. There is no reason why the government should insist that they will not try him openly if they do not have other motives."

Emeka Madunagu, chairman of IYC. Excerpt of interview given in May 2008

"Achieving freedom from the north, would not be such a Herculean if a few southern elements have not been immersed in the sea of corruption. Come to think of it, what would the north do if today, the whole south says they want to be on their own? The Yoruba and the Igbo hold the key to dismantling Nigeria but lack of honesty and good leadership have robbed them of this. Could the north have won the civil war without Yoruba collusion? The answer is a loud no. In the case of the Igbo, though politically disabled, they could still free themselves from Nigeria with an honest leadership. Experience has shown that in Nigeria, the Igbo have the greatest number of "Sabo" elements. Its hard to find two Ibos agreeing on a subject. I used to think of what would happen if the Igbo could summon up courage and speak with one voice. In circumstances, where they displayed a semblance of this, it paid off handsomely. A case was when some years back in the north when they were massacred in religious riot. There was the story of the Igbo risng up to the occasion by way of retaliation. It was said they loaded some luxurious buses from the east with well-armed people. They headed for the north and unleashed a reprisal killings never witnessed in the north before. This incident was not reported in Nigeria papers. Added to that, is the Igbo resolve that no killing of their own in the north must go unpunished, the reason for reprisal killings in Igbo cities.

But one funny thing I always think is: what would happen if all Igbo in the north wakes one day and head eastwards. Who would stop them from returning to their land? The problem with most Ibo is that they place money over their survival and happiness. Some years back when a lot of Ibos were massacred in religious riots in the north, Col. Achuzia who was then the secretary general of the Ohaneze called for the Ibos to return home but this advice was not heeded. They felt they have too much to lose by abandoning their shops in Kano, Zaria and kaduna. Could it be the Ibos could not survive outside their enclave? Obviously, they would, like during the civil war. And if there were no dollars, pounds, naira, and people still lived like in the past when you built houses with local materials, and provided your own food, nothing would have taken the Ibos out of their ancestral land. In the present setting, the Igbo have more than what it takes to be independent. They have human and natural resources like oil to run an own state."

Overdryv, NVS Villager. excerpt of comment on part 3 of article. April 26, 2008.

WHEN ARE RESOURCES FREE AND WITHOUT OPPORTUNITY COSTS?

 All along, in our submission, we have argued that resources, all things being equal, are not free, but have their prices and opportunity costs. At this juncture, we need to make a very important reservation and restate that "resources are, or can, only be free, without any opportunity costs only in one situation." In what situation? ONLY IN ROBBERY! What do we mean when we state that resources are not free and have their opportunity cost save in robbery? This is a very important point and statement in our discussion which definitely needs an elaborate explanation.

 Robbery is divided into 2 categories: 1) Illegitimate Robbery and 2) Legalised Robbery. Legalised robbery in turn is divided into 2 parts: 1) Slavery and 2) Colonialism. Before explaining the difference between illegitimate and legalised robberies, we need to first define what robbery is. Since our discussion and analysis will be concentrated on robbery, slavery and colonialism, for a mutual understanding, if you don't know mind, I will like to ask you a little favour. Before reading on, could you please write down 3 sentences each to define or describe your understanding of 'robbery,' 'slavery,' and 'colonialism?' If this exercise is carried out correctly, you should have at least 9 sentences in all. At the end of this article, you will have the opportunity to compare your understanding of robbery, slavery and colonialism with mine. Moreover, I believe this exercise is important for objectivity. I want to remind you again that this exercise should be carried out before reading on. Thank you for your understanding and co-operation.

 So, what is robbery? Robbery is when somebody takes away something that belongs to you without your consent. Robbery is when somebody deprives you of your property or resources with force. Robbery is when somebody takes your properties or resources without preliminary negotiation or compensating you 'adequately' for them. Robbery is when somebody forces you to part with your resources for peanuts. In illegitimate robbery, when you are robbed of your property, normally, you lodge a complaint with the police, and you rely on them to help you find the robber and return your stolen property. In illegitimate robbery, the robber tries as much as possible to avoid detection, keeps on hiding the stolen goods or tries to get rid of them as fast as possible.

 But in legalised robbery, the victim knows the robber very well. In legalised robbery the victim even knows where the robber keeps the stolen goods. In legalised robbery, the victim and the robber not only know each other very well but are also in regular contact. In legalised robbery, the robber does not hide from the victim. In legalised robbery, the robber does not wear mask in order to avoid detection when robbing. In legalised robbery, the robber does not rob his victim only in the night. In legalised robbery, the robber robs his victim any time he likes, including the day time. In legalised robbery, the robber robs his victim right in his presence, and not in his absence. In legalised robbery, there is no police or court that the victim could run to for help. In legalised robbery, the victim is just powerless to do anything to the robber! The focus of our analysis will be on legalised robbery, which as earlier said, is divided into slavery and colonialism.

 EUREKA! AFRICA!

 Those who are well acquainted with European history are well aware of the fact that the whole of Europe was formerly battle grounds. Europeans were always waging wars against one another for territories. But one very important event practically  brought an end to the numerous wars among Europeans. What was that event? The discovery of AFRICA! With the discovery of Africa, the Europeans realised that there was just no point in killing themselves any more for their poor little piece of lands. They realised that Africa, extremely rich in human and mineral resources, was theirs for grab! Thus, the scramble for Africa started. With the blessings of the queen of England, the Archbishops of London and Canterburry respectively, fleets of ships sailed for Africa. Poor Africans were chained and shipped to America to work in plantations as slaves for free. As we are well aware, 3 things are needed for production: Capital (resources), land (resources) and labour (resources). All these 3 are equally important factors of production. Production, without any one of the three, is just impossible. They complement one another. At that time most productions were labour intensive. In the capacity of slaves, Africans were 'forced' to give out their resources, which in this case, was their labour for free. The only compensation hundreds of millions of African slaves got for tilling and mowing the land from dawn till late in the night was food, which was cultivated by them too. Nothing more.

  Free labour of African slaves were not limited to the plantations and the Americas alone. They were also used in Europe and the present territory occupied by the United states to implement different very complex and labour intensive infrastructure projects. Needless, to say that slavery or free labour of African slaves contributed immensely to the industrial revolution in Europe in the 18th century and rapid economic development of the United States. With the free labour of millions of African slaves, Europe was able to save enourmous amount of money or capital which were invested into research and development and other sectors of their economies. Lloyd's of London, one of the biggest insurance companies in the world today, made fortunes from insuring the ships that were bringing slaves and goods from Africa to Europe and the Americas. The agricultural products produced on plantations through the free labour of African slaves were traded, and the profits invested into the economy.

 While African slaves were busy working on the plantations, Europeans now had more than enough time to devote to thinking and development of better machines for production. The result was the industrial revolution which led to the discovery of the steam engine (1769); spinning jenny (1770); the Arkwright water frame (1771); the puddling process for making wrought iron (1784); the power loom (1785); the cotton gin (1793); interchangeable parts (1798); improved soil tillage and improved breeds (of livestocks (around 1800); the steamboat (1807); the water mill for powering factories (1813); the three-piece iron plaw (1814) e.t.c. Because of the agricultural revolution, large fluctuations in harvest diminished, and with the exception of Ireland in the 1840s, famine disappeared from western Europe. In the 1700s life expectancy at birth was approximately thirty years, rising to forty years in 1850, fifty years in 1900, and well over seventy years today.

 Robert Solow, the MIT economist, won a Nobel prize for his formulation of the neoclassical theory of growth, which stressed the importance of savings and capital formation for economic development, and for empirical measures of sources of growth. If the Europeans had paid millions of African slaves that worked for them for centuries absolutely for free, it's obvious that they would not have been able to save so much to invest in other sectors of their respective economies. If the Europeans had paid the market price for the mineral resources that they shipped away from Africa, it's obvious that they would not have had so much money left to inject into their economy. Their development would have been slower. However, since the Europeans could not or did not want to pay the market price for the  labour (resources) of Africans, but wanted them for free, they decided to enslave us, and subsequently forced us to give out our labour, which is also a resources and a factor of production, for free.

 Africa's vast mineral resources, which are not available in Europe, equally played a very important role in European industrial revolution and development. When Europeans realised how rich Africa was in mineral resources, they decided to colonise us in order to take these resources for free. European were taking African mineral resources like gold, diamond, copper, zinc and other mineral resources absolutely for free. Many European companies like Nestle, Unilever and financial institutions like the British's Barclay's bank made fortunes from slave trade and colonialism. It was a super profitable trade for the Europeans!

 WHAT WAS THE REAL CAUSE OF THE SECOND WORLD WAR?

 We are yet to be told the real cause of the first and second world wars respectively in Africa. So far, all we were told was that Adolf Hitler was a 'blood thirsty' fascist, who wanted to wipe out the Jews from the face of the earth. That was true undoubtedly, but only partially. It was true that Hitler hated the Jews, and many Germans were not happy with the fact that Jews controlled a substantial part of their economy. But that was not the whole truth. In actual fact, the first and second world wars were about resources, like most wars. Being a European super power, Germany was just not happy with the fact that she was left behind by Britain, France, Portugal and Spain in the race for Africa. The access that these countries had to the sea and the fact that they started their expendition to Africa much earlier gave them a substantial advantage over Germany. Despite the fact that the maps or boundaries of respective African countries were drawn in Berlin in 1884, nevertheless, Germany was completely not satisfied with just a slice of Africa that she was apportioned. The boer war (1899-1902) between the Dutch and British was for control over the vast resources of South Africa, especially diamonds. Realising that she had lost out in the scramble for Africa and her resources, Germany decided to go to war with other European countries. In addition, Germany's economy which was in recession due to war reparations she was forced to pay by allied forces after loosing the first world war, prompted her to decide to settle scores finally with her adversaries; including Russia which controlled almost one-seventh of the world total landmass,  with the second world war. In order to finance the war, Adolf Hitler needed gold and cash which the Jews fortunately, or unfortunately, had in abundance. Since there was no other way of getting the gold and money of the Jews for free except by force, a campaign was started to rob the Jews and wipe them out. If Adolf Hitler had succeeded in his military campaign to capture Europe and Russia, the whole of Africa together with all her mineral and human resources, would had belonged to him automatically. Unfortunately, Germany lost the war, and consequently all her few remaining colonies in Africa.

 It's worth noting that Britain, compared to her fellow European robbers, emerged the richest robber. She captured Australia, New Zealand, Canada and the United States, which combined are more than half of the world landmass. In order to capture these territories, the aboriginal inhabitants were massacred. The Spanish in turn captured the whole of South America, with the exception of Brazil, which was captured by the Portuguese.  While these pogroms of aboriginal inhabitants were in full gear, there was no mention of human or civil rights that Europeans often love to talk about recently.

 WAS AMERICA'S INDEPENDENCE WAR ABOUT FREEDOM OR RESOURCES?

 In history classes and text-books, Africans were told over and over, and are still being told that the American revolution war which broke out in 1775 and lasted till 1783 was about freedom from Britain. But that was actually far from the truth. It's a big lie!  From  my personal and objective analysis of this historical event, it's a deliberate misinterpretation and falsification of history by Americans! Why? Because, first, if we are to analyse the events that led to the declaration of American Independence on July 4, 1776 'strictly' from   logical, legal and moral  angles, only aboriginal inhabitants or bonafide owners of a captured or colonised territory could talk of independence or freedom from their coloniser. It's just absurd that representatives of a coloniser, who were put in charge of her colony or stolen property, could talk about freedom from her.  The 8 year war was far from being war for freedom or independence, but a 'treachery' or 'rebellion' against the Queen of England by her representatives. Realising the size of the territory and resources they were put in charge by the Queen, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and their brothers in treachery, decided to revolt against Britain in order to take over the United States with her vast resources. The new and high taxes that Britain levied on her colonies was just used as an excuse to launch a military campaign.

 Having taken the decision to snatch Britain's colonies together with their resources, Washington, Jefferson and their band were faced with one serious problem: how to persuade African slaves to fight their dirty and treacherous war against Britain for free. They needed a very strong argument to convince African slaves to take up arms voluntarily against Britain without looking back. Thus, the idea of fighting for independence was born. Jefferson told African slaves that they were fighting for their independence! The British,  in order to dissuade African slaves not only from fighting on the side of the revolutionaries, but have them on her (the Brittan’s) side, told them (the slaves)too that if they supported her in winning the war against the revolters,  they would be given their freedom. They equally capitulated on Washington's discrimination and racial attitudes towards African slaves in his army. When the war eventually started Africans found themselves on both sides; some believed the revolutionaries, others believed the Queen. Poor blacks were in the forefronts of the very bloody war, and were killing themselves because of the British, on both sides, who started a war to defend their selfish economic and political interests. They naively believed that at the end of the war, they would be free. But when the revolutionaries eventually defeated the British troops, Jefferson and Washington reneged on their promise to set free African slaves who fought bravely for them! As a matter of fact, it's worth mentioning that the first matyr of the American revolution, which started with the Boston massacre on March 5, 1770, was a black man by name Crispus Attucks. Neither Jefferson nor Washington even set free their African slaves after the war was over. They still needed their free labour to buid America. Blacks would still remain slaves - and give out their labour for free long after the so called independence war was fought! Not until the late 60s and early 70s of the 20th century did the offsprings of African slaves, originally shipped in chains to America were given 'relative' equal rights with the offsprings of the slave owners.

 Perhaps, the knowledge of this historical fact prompted Muhammad Ali, the legendary Afro-American boxer, to refuse taking part in the Vietnam war. Ali strongly believed that since Vietnam never had never done anything to harm Afro-Americans, therefore they (black Americans) had no business fighting for America against Vietnam. He believed that the oppressors and  suppressors of Afro-Americans were not the Vietnamese but the American government. He believed that if there was anybody or country that Afro-Americans had to go to war with, then, it should be America, the coloniser, that enslaved blacks and forced them to work for free, and not Vietnam.

 America, thanks to the free labour of millions of African slaves that she enjoyed for centuries, was able to become the richest country in the world, overtaking Britain, within a relatively very short period. Slaves were used to build dams, roads, bridges, tunnels, rail lines, monuments, factories, e.t.c. Many American banks and companies, still in existence today, made fortunes from slave trade.

 For decades, all efforts by African governments to get the United States, Britain, France, Holland, Spain and Portugal to tender their apology and compensate her for slavery have been frustrated. At the Durban World Conference Against Racism  held in Durban, South Africa in 2001, the United states, Britain and many other European countries that engaged in slavery refused to send high level delegates to the African summit. Ironically, the US Secretary of state at that time was Collin Powell, an Afro-American, and a war veteran. At the South African summit, the US delegates limited themselves to saying that the United States  'regretted' slavery and the fact that she used the free labour of millions of African slaves for centuries to build her economy. The word 'sorry' or 'apology,' was obviously and conspicuously  missing from the succinct press release of the US delegates. The US, Britain and other countries understood that if they tendered their apology for slavery, that would tantamount automatically to admitting to slavery, and unavoidable compensation which would definitely run into trillions of dollars. Moshood Kasimawo Abiola, of blessed memory, played a very active role in the reparation campaign.

 Why did the US attack Iraq? Because she wanted to get Iraq's oil for free. The US was in desperate need of more energy due to the expansion of her economy. Unfortunately for the US,  China and India stood in her way; they too needed a lot of oil to power their fast growing economies. This situation created a very high and unprecedented demand for oil. Going by the law of demand and supply, in a situation whereby there is a very high demand for a product but the supply is relatively constant, price equilibrium is bound to shift to the right significantly, i.e. increase drastically. But the US was not ready to play by the market rules of demand and supply. She did not want to pay the new market price for oil. She wanted free resources. Thus, a decision to rob Iraq of her oil was taken within Bush's close circles. A military campaign to achieve this mission was set in motion. But since this is the 21st century, and not the 15th century, when a country could just decide at will to attack another country, the United State needed a good excuse to attack Iraq and consequently steal her oil. A massive propaganda to convince Americans and the rest of the world that Saddam Hussein was in possession of nuclear arms. The United States turned deaf ears to all evidence and arguments by independent experts and the International Atomic Energy which repeated over and over that it did not have evidence to prove that Hussein had any arms of mass destruction. The United States eventually launched a military attack on Iraq.

 The purpose of this analysis is to explain explicitly the following:

1. To remind us that under normal circumstances, resources are never free and have their opportunity costs;

2. Resources can only be free without any opportunity cost only in legalised robbery, which could be in form of slavery or colonialism;

3. The One Nigeria project is nothing but a legalised robbery of the south by the north;

4. The south, in actual fact, is a colony of the north!

 More explanation is needed to explain points 3 and 4.

THE SOUTH IS A COLONY OF THE NORTH.

 If after October 1st, 1960, after getting our independence from the British, the north will not allow neither the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws, Ibibios, Ogonis, Efiks nor other ethnic groups in the south to go their seperate way(s), what this means in essence is that the whole of the south is a colony of the north! And as a colony, the north, our new colonial master, has free and unlimited access to the  resources of the entire south. The north, our new colonial master, without any preliminary negotiations, agreements has been stealing or taking hundreds of billions of dollars  from the south absolutely for free under the pretext of building One Nigeria and One Nation that we have never subscribed to. Slavery and colonialism, as we have learnt earlier, are the 2 forms of legalised robbery. The major difference between slavery and colonialism is that in slavery, the slave owner did not pay for the labour of the slave. In other words, he got the labour of the slave for free. The slave owner forced the slave to give his labour to him for free. He stole his labour. In colonialism, the colonial master robs you, your ethnic group or country of your land and the mineral resources underneath. He takes them for free without your consent.

 The Niger deltans, and the south in general know that they are being robbed of their resources by the north. But the Niger deltans and the south in general are powerless to revolt against the robber because they are her  colony. Despite the fact that the whole world know that the north is robbing the south of their resources, nevertheless, have chosen not to interfere because of their own selfish interests or are just equally powerless to help us get rid of the robber. There is no police or international court to report the robber to. This is what I call legalised robbery. A lot of parallels could be drawn between the historical event that took place in the United States on July 4, 1776,the day the US declaration of independence was read, the colonisation of Nigeria by Britain and what has been happening in Nigeria since October 1st till date. As was written earlier, the revolutionalists recolonised African slaves after using them to defeat the British forces. The same thing happened on October 1st 1960. The north recolonised the south after Niggeria got her independence from the British! If you think that stating that the south is a colony of the north is an over statement, then, please answer the following questions:

1. Which region has been ruling Nigeria, or has ruled Nigeria most since independence?

2. Who imposed Obasanjo, a southerner, on us?

3. Which region has an overwhelming majority in the Nigerian Army?

4. Which region are an overwhelming majority of Nigeria’s State Security Service (SSS) operatives mainly from? 

5. Where is Nigerian Defense Academy (NDA) located?

6. In which region is the bulk of Nigeria’s ammunitions stored?

7. Where is retired Major General Abdullahi Sarki Mukhtar, the security adviser to Yaradua from?

8. Where is the capital of Nigeria located?

9. Where is David Mark, the Senate President, from?

10. Where was Uwazurike, the leader of MASSOB, a militant group agitating for the independence of the Ndigbos, kept during his incarceration?

11. Where was Asari Dokubo, the leader of NDPVF, one of the militant groups in the Niger delta agitating for independence of the Ijaws, kept during his incarceration?

12. Where are Atatete and Henry Okah, the leaders of MEND, a military group in the Niger delta agitating for the independence, being kept?

13. In what region was Uwazurike's case heard?

14. In what region was Asari Dokubo's case heard?

15. In what region are Atatete and Okah's cases being heard?

16. Which region were all the 3 leading candidates in the April 2007 presidential elections from?

17. Which region are all the former and present ministers of the Federal Capital Territory from?

18. Which region spear headed the 1967-1970 civil war that led to the massacre of more than 3 million Ndigbos, Ijaws, Ibibios, Ogonis and other ethnic groups in the south south?

19. Which region has a free and unlimited access to all the vast resources in the south?

20.  Where is Babangida, the dictator that refused to hand over power to Abiola, a southerner, in an election organised by him and considered to be the freest and fairest ever, from?

21. Apart from the Nigerian Armed Forces and State security service, do you know of any other federal government institution that quota system is NOT used in recruiting?

22. Which region produced 100% of the resources that was used to build a new capital from scratch in Abuja?

23. Which region has most states in Nigeria?

24.Which region has the largest number of local governments in Nigeria?

25. Which region is desperate to keep Nigeria one at any cost?

 I assume that even a toddler knows the answers to all of the questions above. Now, if you don't mind, can I ask you a couple of questions more?  Do you think that it's just a mere coincidence that all the answers to the above questions is the NORTH, with the exception of questions 21 and 22 respectively? Do you think that it's just a mere coincidence that the Nigerian Defence Academhy is located in the north? Do you think that it's just a mere coincidence that the Nigerian Armed forces and State security Service are practically the only Federal government institutions where quota system is not used for recruiting? Do you think that it's just a mere coincidence that an overwhelming majority of Nigerian soldiers and state security service operatives are northerners? Do you think that it's just a mere coincidence that the security adviser to Yaradua, retired Major General Abdullahi Sarki Mukhtar, is a northerner? Do you think that it's just a mere coincidence that Nigeria’s new capital is now in the north? Do you think that it's just a mere coincidence that a bulk of Niggeria's ammunitions are stored in the north? Do you still think that it's just a mere coincidence that all the leaders of various militant groups from the south are trialed and kept in the north? Do you still think that it's just a mere coincidence that Babangida, alias evil genius, refused to hand over power to Moshood Abiola, a southerner, after his convincing victory in an election organised by him, and regarded as the fairest and freest in Nigeria’s history?

 It's obvious, even to the cynics, that there are just too many coincidences to make us believe that all the above are just mere coincidences. It's obvious that all the above are well planned and calculated acts by the north to keep on colonising the south. It's obvious that all the above are well planned and calculated acts by the north that will allow her to have a grip on the south politically and  militarily. It's obvious that all the above are well planned and implemented acts that will allow the north to quench easily any military uprising or attempts by the south to set themselves free. Believe me, recruiting and training of mainly northerners as soldiers and security operatives, and storing the bulk of Nigeria’s ammunitions in the north are not mere coincidences, but well planned acts to give her a 'substantial' military advantage over the south in case of an outbreak of another civil war or neutralise  any  coup that may be carried out by  southern military officers. All the above, if we are to be sincere with ourselves, undoubtedly, are attributes or characteristics of a coloniser, and not a partner.

 The north, since independence, has never for once acted or  behaved like a partner to the south. The north has always acted like a coloniser in all her relations with the south. Believe me, all the above are well planned and calculated acts by the north in order to continue not only robbing the south of her resources but to as well continue holding her to ransom. Believe me, all the above were put in place to guarantee the north's eternal, free and unlimited  access to the resources of the south. Believe me, without all the above in place, it would have been very difficult or practically impossible for the north not only to force all the respective ethnic groups in the south to remain within the border lines drawn by the British as far back as 1884, but to continue having free and unlimited access to their resources. If a robber comes to your house unarmed, all things being equal, you try to over power him, you just don't sit down, fold your hands and watch him taking away your properties or money. But, if they are many and armed to the teeth, you are powerless. That's the only situation when they can rob you of your properties and  rape your daughters and wives in your presence.

IT HAS NEVER BEEN A PARTNERSHIP RELATIONSHIP, BUT A TYPICAL COLONIAL RELATIONSHIP.

 The north has been holding the south hostage since October 1st 1960! The north has been raping the south since October 1st, 1960! It has never been a 'sincere' and 'equal' partnership relationship. Because in a sincere and equal partnership relationship, you negotiate with your partners about the terms of using their resources. In a sincere and equal partnership relationship, you try to persuade your partners to go along with you on different issues that are of mutual benefits. In a sincere and equal partnership, you take into consideration the economic, political and military interests of your partners. In a sincere and equal partnership, you seek the consent of your partners before taking their resources; you just don't grab it and  assume that it belongs to you automatically and that you are free to take as much as you want and use it anyhow you like. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't fill up the army and state security service mainly with your own people in order to coerce or threaten them. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't grab the resources of your partners to build a new capital from scratch for yourself while they wallow in abject poverty. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't allow only your own people to be the security adviser, Senate president and ministers of FCT. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't insist on becoming the president again at any cost despite the fact that your partners have never for once had the privilege of becoming the president. In a sincere and equal partnership, after ruling the country for almost 40 years, you just don't threaten your partners that heaven will fall if you are not allowed to be the president again; you give them too the chance. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't ignore the request of your partners to make information about your health available to them.  In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't take unilateral decisions that satisfy only your own economic, political and military interests at the expense of your partners; you involve them in decision making. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't allow multinational oil companies to pollute the territories of your partners; and if they do, you don't allow them to go scott free, you punish them severely. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't falsify census results in order to get economic and political advantage over them. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't rig yourself into power. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't dictate to your partners how much of their own resources they are entitled to; you negotiate with them and respect whatever decisions they make. In a sincere and equal partnership, you involve your partners 'fully' in negotiations with multinationals on the terms or conditions that their resources will be explored, and give them veto power and the right to take the final decision. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't hang your partner for protesting against the pollution of his land by multinational oil companies and for demanding that you stop stealing his resources. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't hold your partners as political hostages. In a sincere and equal partnership you just don't start massacring your partners as you did in 1967-1970 because they wanted to end the lopsided and unprofitable relationship the British roped them into; you try to negotiate and persuade instead. In a sincere and equal partnership, you give your partners comprehensive account on how their money is spent. In a sincere and equal partnership, you just don't tell your partners that some topics are 'no go' areas; you discuss all problems with them in order to have a 'complete' mutual understanding. In a sincere and equal partnership, you allow the best of the best among you to become the president for the good of everybody or the country. In a sincere and equal partnership, you don't deceive your partners by first promising them to convey a sovereign national conference immediately you become the president in order to get their votes, and then  renege later on becoming the president.

 But, in a colonial relationship, the coloniser does not have to worry about sincere and equal relationship with his partners. In a colonial relationship, the coloniser does not have to  worry about all  of the above.  In a colonial relationship, the coloniser pursues only his own economic, political and military interests at the expense of the colonised. In a colonial relationship, the coloniser takes unilateral decisions that meet his own interests to the detriment of the colonised. It's only a colonial relationship, and not a sincere and equal partnership, that can guarantee the legalised robbery of the colonised. It's only in a colonial relationship, that the north, the coloniser can take take the resources of the south as much as possible without their consent and any compensation. It's only in a colonial relationship that the resources of the south are free without any opportunity cost. It's only in a colonial relationship that the coloniser can spend hundreds of billions of dollars, belonging to the colonised on building a new capital completely from from scratch for himself while the colonised wallow in abject poverty. It's only in a colonial relationship that the colonial master can negotiate directly with multinational oil companies about the terms of exploring oil and other mineral resources located on the territory of the colonised without involving him. It's only in a colonial relationship that the coloniser will go to war and start massacering the colonised for wanting to form a seperate country where they can rule themselves and concentrate their 'own' resources and not the resources of the coloniser, on their own development. It's only in a colonial relationship, and not in a sincere and equal partnership, that the coloniser can hold the leaders of militant groups incommunicado and torture them for agitating for the freedom of their people from the coloniser.

 From whatever angle one examines the loopside economic, political and military relationships between the north and the south, and the Niger delta in particular, if one is objective, one will still come to the 

sad  but correct conclusion that we are indeed a colony of the north. The north is the colonial master of the south! It's just as simple as A, B, C. Calling it something else will tantamount to self-deceit on our part.

  What is a sovereign country? A sovereign country, first and foremost, to me, means 'full' control over your resources; land, human, economic and mineral resources. Full control over how they are explored or used. Full control over how the revenues from your resources are spent. Full control over the drafting of a constitution, that best meets the political, military and economic interests of your people, without any compromise. Full control to choose or decide the best of the best among your own people that will lead you. Sovereignty means veto power. Power to veto, or walk away from deals that are not in your favour or interests. Sovereignty means freedom. Freedom to choose or decide whom you want to partner with in exploring your mineral resources. Freedom to negotiate favourable deals as regards to the terms which your mineral resources will be explored. Freedom to decide your economic, political and military priorities. A colony does not have all the above privilege or right. Only her colonial master does. Her colonial master takes all economic, political and military decisions on her behalf. The whole essence of fighting for freedom, independence or sovereignty is to have the above privileges; freedom to rule yourself and take military, political and economic decisions that meet your interests, without any compromise. Neither the Niger deltans nor the south as a whole enjoy all of the above. In contrast, the north has this freedom; all of the above.

 If after October 1st, 1960, we still are not free to decide by ourselves whom to live, or form a country with, then, the bitter truth is that dejure, we may be free, but defacto, we are not. If after October 1st, 1960, after gaining our independence from the British, who invaded Africa, the respective ethnic groups that make up Nigeria still can not determine or redraw their own respective boundaries, but compelled to live within the old boundary drawn by the British as far back as 1884, what this means is that Nigeria is still a colony of Britain and the north respectively! Otherwise, how else can  one explain the fact that almost 50 years after the official  departure of the British from Nigeria, we are being compelled by some forces to exist within these artificial lines drawn by our former(?) colonial master at all cost? Why can't we, for example, go back to our previous status before the greedy Europeans invaded Africa? Why is it that the north is so much worried  even about a mere discussion of these issues? If Chad, Cameroon, Niger and Benin republics respectively, Nigeria’s neighbouring countries, were to be included in Nigeria in 1884 by the British, would the north also go to war in order to keep these countries in Nigeria? Would the north demand or insist that these 4 countries should remain inside Nigeria? So, what's the difference then? If Chad, Cameroon, Niger and Benin republics, Togo, Ghana, Guinea, Liberia, Sierra-Leone,  and even tiny Equitorial Guinea and Gambia could be sovereign countries, why can't the Ndigbos with a population of at least 36 million people; the Yorubas with a population of at least 40 million people; the Ijaws, the  fourth largest ethnic group in Nigeria become sovereign countries? What is the logic or justification behind the north insistence that the south must remain in Nigeria just the way the British created it?  Why is the north not waging war in order to annex Cameroon, Chad, Niger and Benin republics respectively into Nigeria? Why is it that only the north, the Hausas and the Fulanis, are the only people who are ready to pick up arms again without any hesitation, and go to war in order to keep Nigeria the way the British created and left it? Is the north afraid or worried that they won't be able to sustain themselves without the south, most especially her rich resources? If you are sure that you can take care of yourself without the south, then what is the need of conducting pogroms or massacring innocent and armless southerners who are not asking you to give them  anything, but just want to live separately from you? Is it a crime for an ethnic group or a group of ethnic groups to decide to end their unsubscribed membership in Nigeria? If the north is sure that they are not parasites, burden or liability to the south, why go to the extent of intimidating and murdering southerners so that they will abandon their desire to be free from you in order to use their own resources for their own development? Should membership in Niggeria be by force or voluntary? Definitely, there should be something in it!

It's not only ridiculous, but equally outrageous when Hausas or Fulanis try Ndigbos or/and Ijaws for treason. Why is the north accusing people who don't want to live with them, for one reason or the other, of treason? Treason against who? Against the country that was formed by the British? Treason against a country which they never gave their consent to when it was formed? Treason against a country that you were forced to be part of? Imagine the descendants of Othman Dan Fodio accusing Ndigbos and Ijaws of secession! Secession from Kano empire, I guess. Don't you find this funny? I don't know about you, but personally, I do. Perhaps, Enugu, Warri, Port-Harcourt, Owerri, Calaber, etc, were all part of Kano empire before the invasion of Nigeria by the British.  Who gave the north the mandate to protect the integrity of a country that was formed by our former(?) colonial master without our consent? To the best of my knowledge, neither the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws nor other ethnic groups in the south south asked the north to help them protect the integrity of Nigeria. It's only the Hausas, Fulanis and their brothers up in the north, who are not capable of taking care of themselves,  that need the integrity of Nigeria. It's only the north, that is not capable of fending for herself, that needs the integrity of Nigeria so that she can continue stealing the resources of the south, without any hindrance, in the name of building One Nigeria. It's only the lazy and  unproductive north, that has become a perpetual parasite, burden and liability to the south, that needs the integrity of Nigeria. It's only people who don't have the resources to develop that need the integrity of Nigeria. Nobody else needs the integrity of Nigeria. Only the north!  But if the north that has been ruling Nigeria since independence, is really sincere about protecting the integrity of Nigeria, wouldn't it be fair on their part to at least first of all get a 'mandate' from the people that they claim that they are serving through a national referendum? If Yaradua and his Othman Dan Fodion brothers want to protect the integrity of Nigeria, then let them give their intention a legal backing by organising a national referendum where we can voice our opinion. It's only after asking us: the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws, Ibiobios, Efiks, Ogonis and other ethnic groups in the south, through a national referendum that any exercise to protect the integrity of Nigeria can have credibility.

  Ladies and gentlemen, if some people have been deceiving us by claiming that they are defending the integrity of Nigeria in order to justify  numerous crimes they have committed, and are still committing, then, it's high time we understood that their actions are not about protecting the integrity of Nigeria, but about protecting the selfish economic, military and political interests of the north at our expense. They don't have our legal backing or mandate to act on our behalf to protect the integrity of Nigeria. If we have been sleeping or have been hypnotised since October 1st, 1960, it's high time we woke up from our slumber and get the message now! This is 2008, almost 50 years after our independence(?)! The north before spending billions of dollars of the south's money in buying up ammunitions, training and maintaining hundreds of thousands of redundant and unproductive northern soldiers and security officers ought to have conducted a referendum among all the ethnic groups in the south. We need to be asked just one question: "Given the parasitic and lopsided economic, political and military relationships between the south and the north, are you in support of your ethnic group remaining in  one country with the north? Yes or No? If an overwhelming or even a simple majority answer yes to this question, then the north is free to use any means to protect the integrity of Nigeria. Without the mandate of the south, these people should understand that their actions tantamount to treason, colonialism, robbery and holding the south hostage since October 1st, 1960. If you want to describe the economic, military and political relationship between the north and the south, you can use different words like 'unfair,' 'injustice,' 'cheating,' etc, however if you are looking for the most appropriate word(s) to use, then they are 'colonialism' and 'legalised robbery'. If you use other words apart from these, then, you are not calling a spade a spade.

 Do we have the right to ask these legitimate questions? Or is it 'colonial mentality' that is preventing us from asking these questions? If the north does not have any skeleton in their cupboards, then these fundamental questions should not be swept under the carpet. It's high time we discussed them openly! They must be discussed everywhere - in the Senate, House of Representatives, our homes, offices, in the streets, on the internet, in the newspapers, on the radio, tv, in the beer parlour, at conferences, summits, meetings, gatherings, universities, etc. We must tackle these questions bravely. As I have said earlier, in a sincere and equal partnership, you don't tell your partners that some topics or issues are 'no go' areas; you discuss all problems with them 'extensively' in order to have a complete mutual understanding and trust. If the north is sincere and believes that the relationship between her and the south is not a colonial relationship, why is she reluctant to convey a Sovereign National Conference where all these 'burning' issues could be ironed out? The Sovereign National Conference is the 'litmus test' for the north. By doing so, you show that you are sincere and care about the welfare and concern of your partners. There is just no other way about it. Why is the north manipulating the south with the Niger Delta Development Fund and  Constitution Amendment which are not really meant, and can not provide the answers nor solutions to these questions and problems? If the whole problem is about the oil, the north should be bold enough to come out openly and tell us, so that we can start negotiating the terms and price for our freedom. Membership in Nigeria should not be by force but voluntary!

SOUTHERN NIGERIA: STILL A BRITISH COLONY, BUT IN CUSTODY OF THE NORTH.

 Based on the above analysis, one can equally conclude that the south, though dejure, may be independent from October 1st 1960, but in actual fact, defacto, is still a colony of Britain! In other words, the British handed over the south to the north in order to guarantee the continuous exploitation of the former. A perfect example of 'indirect rule!' Isn't it?

 Asserting that the British purposely put the south in the custody of the north in order to continue the exploitation of the former is in no way an exaggeration too. There are more than enough facts to back up this claim about a 'secret' alliance between the north and the British as regards to the south; of course unknown to southerners.

 First, as has already been stated earlier, how does one explain the fact that after October 1st, 1960, the north will not allow neither the Yorubas, Ndigbos, Ijaws, Ibiobios and other ethnic groups in the south south go their seperate way(s) and end their unsubscribed membership in Nigeria? How does one explain the fact that the north went to war and massacred more than 3 million Ndigbos, Ijaws and other ethnic groups in the south south when they decided to break away from the north, with whom they have nothing absolutely in common with, and form their own separate country? What is the crime in an ethnic group or groups deciding to put an end to their unsubscribed membership in a country that was formed by Britain, their former (?) colonial master and  a European country, without their consent or approval, after October 1st, 1960? What is the crime in an ethnic or groups deciding to concentrate their 'own resources, and NOT the resources of the north, exclusively on their own development? 

 Second, in the historical and 'unprecedented' interview given by Harold Smith in 2007, it has now being revealed that the British purposely rigged the 1959 census result and parliamentary election in order for Tafawa Balewa to emerge as the Prime Minister and form the government. This compels us to ask another legitimate question. Why would the British, who claim so much to believe in democracy, the rule of law and flaunt it as one of her achievements rig the census result and parliamentary election in favour of the north? Did the British rig the census and parliamentary election for the north out of altruism? The answers to these questions are obvious.

 Third, during the civil war, Britain was 'solidly' behind the north, and watched with 'pleasure' how the north massacred 3 million Ndigbos and other ethnic groups in the south south. Issues concerning human rights, right to self-determination or self-rule  were never raised neither by the British nor the United Nations. Fourth, At a point during the war, when the heat was getting too much for Gowon and wanted to succumb to the independence agitation of the Biafrans, the British put so much pressure on him that eventually he had to change his mind. This compells us to ask another legitimate question. Why was Britain, our former (?) colonial master, so keen in keeping Nigeria one? After October 1st 1960, why was Britain bent on keeping the Ndigbos and other ethnic groups in the sout south within the artificial boundries or lines that she drew as far back as  1884?  Did Britain support the north in her persecution of the Ndigbos, Ijaws, Ibiobios, Ogonis  and others out of love for Niggerians, most especially the Biafrans or because of the north's and her own selfish economic interests?   Definitely, we will be right to assume that the north was acting on the instruction of the British because 'only' the north and the British have a lot to gain from keeping Niggeria one.

 Fifth, Despite the well documented evidence that Murtala Muhammad and other northern military officers went on a 'killing spree' of armless and innocent Ndigbos after the war had been declared officially over, nevertheless, neither Britain nor the United Nations raised any issue about 'war crimes.' It's worth mentioning that Slobodan Milosovich, the late Serbian leader, who died in detention while on trial for crime against humanity and genocide during the bloody former Yugoslavia's civil war, and Charles Taylor, the former Liberian dictator, presently on trial for war crimes, together did not commit a 'fraction' of the crimes that Murtala Muhammad, Danjuma and other northern military officers committed during the brutal civil war, all in the name of keeping Niggeria one. Instead of being apprehended and tried for crime against humanity, Murtala Muhammad, Danjuma and other northern military officers were made war heroes and decorated with medals and stars for bravery and keeping Niggeria one. An international airport in Lagos was even named after him after he was murdered by his own 'blood thirsty' and 'power hungry' brethrens! No wonder planes are always falling!

 More and more evidence are unfolding to back up the claim that Britain has always been a 'behind the curtain' consultant, adviser or assistant to the north on strategic political, military and economic issues concerning Nigeria, most especially, on how the north can keep holding on to power.

 Undoubtedly, the most convincing evidence about the secret alliance between Britain and the north is the obviously lopsided and unprecedented oil deals between Nigeria, Britain and other multinational oil companies. It's incredible, but nevertheless true that multinational oil companies pay Nigeria just 5% for the privilege to drill oil in the Niger delta! It's very difficult to imagine that even the most corrupt and incompetent country in the world can ever allow multinational oil companies to pay just 5% for the right to drill her oil! But, this is possible only in Nigeria, thanks to the 'cordial, strong' and secret relationship between the north and the British! The north has mortgaged the resources of the south to Britain and her allies in order to guarantee their support against the south in all political issues. In addition, multinational oil companies use different tax schemes, especially, offshore taxation to avoid paying Nigeria taxes that run into tens of billions of dollars every year! The north, well aware of this serious economic crime perpetuated by multinational oil companies, nevertheless, has always turned a blind eye, even till the time of writing. To add salt to injury, the scale of ecologic disaster in the Niger delta is alarming! It is unprecedented! Multinational oil companies pollute the environment at will, without any fear or repercussion from the government. Even the most despotic government in the world can not allow foreign oil companies to pollute their her environment to the extent that these multinational  have done in the Niger delta. It's only a coloniser or a government that hates her citizens, especially those that don't belong to the same ethnic group with the ruling northern cabal can tolerate or allow pollution by multinationals to that extent. Would the north fold her hands and look another way if it was her territory that was being polluted by multinational oil companies on such a large scale? Can Britain, Canada, France, Italy, Holland or the United States allow even 10,000th of the pollution they have emitted in the Niger delta on their own territories? What would be the reaction of Britain if a foreign oil company pollutes the north sea to the extent that multinationals oil companies, British Royal Dutch have polluted the Niger delta? The answers to these questions are obvious.

 Instead of the oil in the Niger delta bringing the desired prosperity to the bonafide, all it has brought is POVERTY and POLLUTION! All the numerous announcements by Yaradua to renegotiate Nigeria’s very lopsided oil contracts, fine the multinationals heavily for polluting the Niger delta  and compel them to clean up the Niger delta are nothing but mere 'noise' meant only for public relations and deceive the country, and not a real and sincere determination on the part of Yaradua to make a redress. After exactly a year in office, absolutely nothing  has been done by Yaradua as regards to oil pollution in the Niger delta and the lopsided oil contracts. Why should we even this self-imposed ruler from Katsina? After all, he has made so many statements in the past without concrete actions to back them up. How can you trust somebody who claims to believe in the rule of law but at the same time is holding the leaders of a militant group agitating for independence incommunicado and planning to conduct a secret trial? If Yaradua is sure that he has  water proof evidence against the leaders of the Niger delta militant group, why not make their trial open? This is just part of the deceit that we are talking about. How can you trust a leader that says or promises one thing but turns around to do the exact opposite? With time we are getting to know the rule of law man from Katsina.

NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE!

  While the Niger delta oil has made multinational oil companies to smile all the way to their respective banks, the Niger deltans live on less than one dollar a day. NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE! While the Niger delta oil has made multinational oil companies like Exxon Mobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Eni, Elf and others the richest and capitalised companies by assets in the world, the Niger deltans continue to die like flies from curable diseases like malaria, kwashiokor and diseases related to pollution like cancer. NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE! While the average salary of foreigners employed by multinationals to work in the Niger delta, from top managers to cooks, is in the range of $150,000-$180,000 per annum, the bonafide owners of the oil can hardly afford one square meal, talk less of 3 nutritious square meals. NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE!

 Infact, the multinational oil companies are so insensitive to the plight of the locals to the extent that they even go as far as employing Malasians, Philiphines, Vietnamese, Laoses, Indians, Pakistanis, Lebanese and other foreigners as technicians, cooks, etc, despite the fact that the unemployment rate is one of the highest in the country. Multinationals outsource practically all contracts to foreign companies. The Niger deltans, the bonafide owners of the 8th largest reserve of oil in the world have to travel for thousands of kilometers through the bush in order to get to the nearest public hospital that serve more as consulting centers because there are practically no modern equipments, drugs and well trained medical personnel. NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE! The average life span in this region is even much shorter than the country's average of 42.2 years. NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE! The Niger delta with one of the largest reserves of gas in the world live in perpetual darkness and do all their cookings with fire woods and stoves. NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE! While foreigners employed by the multinationals live like kings, lords and queens in palaces, the bonafide owners of the oil live like slaves in huts and dilapidated houses without basic infrastructures like water, on their own land. NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE! In order to survive, the young girls and women have to sell their bodies for a few dollars to foreigners employed by multinationals to drill their oil. NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE! Others work as slaves round the clock also for a few dollars for foreigners employed by multinationals to drill their oil in order to make ends meet. NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE! Instead of bringing the desired prosperity, their oil has brought nothing but poverty and diseases. Their oil has been a curse than blessing, thanks to the north, the coloniser, and the One Nigeria project that have denied them access to the revenues from their own resources. The north, the coloniser, has used their money to build a 'garden of eden' for herself in Abuja while the Niger deltans still live like the stone age. NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE! It would have been much better if they didn't have the oil, at least their rivers, land and air will not be polluted. And they could have been doing their fishing and farming like their ancestors. Unfortunately, thanks to One Nigeria, that is no more possible. One Nigeria has taken everything from them and left them with nothing but sorrow, poverty, diseases. What a pity! Undoubtedly, it's only a heartless, morally bankrupt and ungrateful government that can treat her citizens the way the north, our coloniser, treat the Niger deltans and the south in general.

 The Niger delta and the south in general, have paid and still paying a very COSTLY PRICE for the One Nigeria project that the British and the north have roped them into.

IMAGINE IF THE NIGER DELTA WAS A SOVEREIGN COUNTRY

 Now, if you don't mind me asking you a couple of questions again; which I want you to answer sincerely? If the Niger delta was a sovereign country, and not a colony of the north, could they have allowed multinational oil companies to pay them just 5% for the privilege to drill their oil, as they (multinationals) do now? If the Niger delta was a sovereign country, and not a colony of the north, could they have allowed the multinational oil companies to pollute their land to such an extent and without any repercussion, as they (multinationals) do now? If the Niger delta was a sovereign country, and not a colony of the north, could they have allowed the multinationals to outsource 95% of contracts to foreign companies, as they do now? If the Niger delta was a sovereign country, and not a colony of the north, could they have allowed multinational oil companies to employ foreigners for jobs that their citizens are more than qualified to do, as they (multinationals) do now? If the Niger delta was a sovereign country, and not a colony of the north, would they be walking thousands of kilometers through the bush in order to get to the nearest badly equipped hospital, as they do now? If the Niger delta was a sovereign country, and not a colony of the north, would they have been dying like flies from curable diseases, as they do now? If the Niger delta was a sovereign country, and not a colony of the north, would they be living in huts and dilapidated houses, as they do now? If the Niger delta was a sovereign country, and not a colony of the north, would they be living in perpetual darkness, as they do now? If the Niger delta was a sovereign country, and not a colony of the north, would they be cooking with fire woods and stoves, as they do now? If the Niger delta was a sovereign country, and not a colony of the north, would they allow the north to have a free and unlimited access to their oil revenues, as the north has since 1960? If the Niger delta was a sovereign country, and not a colony of the north, wouldn't they have turned their swampy land to another Qatar, Bahrein, United Arab Emirates or just a heaven on earth?!  Unfortunately, the coloniser and the One Nigeria project have denied of all these! WHAT A PITY! Recently, I even read a news report that the region that sits on  the 8th largest reserve of oil in the world does not even have a common theatre. NIGERIA WE HAIL THEE!

 Now, please tell me what additional evidence do you need to convince you that the Niger delta and the south in general are a colony of the north? Do you understand what sovereignty is now? Do you understand what independence mean now? Do you understand now what it means to be a colony? I can understand that many people will really find it very difficult to come to terms with the fact that we are a colony of the north. But, this is just the bitter truth. Whether we like it or not, we must admit it, no matter how bitter or painful. Calling it something else will be 'self-deceit.' However, if you can diagnose your problem(s) correctly, you are already at least half way to solving them. And the earlier you do the correct diagnosis, the better for you.

 Now, please let me ask you another question. Do you want your ethnic group to remain a colony of the north? Do you want the legalised robbery of your ethnic group by the north in the name of building One Nigeria to continue? Do you want your children, grand and great great grand children to be born into One Nigeria, a colony of the north?

 Our fathers, grand fathers and great grand fathers got independence for us from the British, but the north recolonised us immediately before the British even lowered the Union Jack. Therefore, the battle for our independence is far from being over. It's now our turn to get our independence from the north, the 21st century coloniser. Tomorrow may be too late! 

TO BE CONTINUED...