The project needs to be viewed from two standpoints - its legitimacy and feasibility. No Igbo man or woman and hardly any right-thinking other Nigerians would dispute the legitimacy of the project in terms of the size of the Igbo population in Nigeria, the contribution of Ndigbo to the political, economic and social development of the country.

The Igbos, the Yorubas and the Hausa/Fulanis are the three major ethnic groups in Nigeria, but I venture to say that, upon an authentic population census, the Igbos will emerge as the largest single ethic group. The Arewa group has held the office for roughly 34 years out of Nigeria's 42 years life as an independent country. The Yorubas would have held it for roughly 8 years by May 29, 2003 and the Igbos for barely six months, the ill-fated six months tenure of the late General Aguiyi Ironsi.

The ethnic groups in the South-South geo-political zone have not held it at all. But between the Southeast and the South-South, to which the office should, in justice and good conscience, go in 2003, the Southeast seems to me to have a legitimate claim to priority by reason of its overwhelming numerical superiority. It must be borne in mind that there is a large Igbo population indigenous to the South-South zone - in Delta and Rivers states. The Igbo presidency project does not differentiate between Igbos in the Southeast and those in the South-South zones. Both are acceptable to us. If the other ethnic groups in the South-South zone will support a candidate of Igbo extraction from the zone, that may well provide a compromise solution to the rival claims of the two zones. While we are trying to cultivate and nurture a partnership between the two zones, we would not accept that the Igbos in the South-South zone should simply be relegated as an appendage of the other ethic groups in that zone to be used merely to bolster their claim.

The legitimacy of the Igbo presidency project must be considered from the standpoint of the degrading effect inflicted on the personality and psyche of Ndigbo by their exclusion from the office for so long. The degradation cannot be made good by the provision of more roads and other social amenities in Igboland. The matter lies far deeper than that. It involves issues of psychology and the perception of Ndigbo that they really belong in the Nigerian nation, that they are not mere onlookers. A president of Igbo extraction may well not be able to do much to redress the years of neglect and marginalisation of Ndigbo. Yet, his presence in that office will go a long way to lift the degraded and depressed personality, psyche and morale of Ndigbo in Nigeria, especially their youth and coming generations.

Viewed in terms of Igbo contribution to the political, economic and social development of Nigeria, the legitimacy of the Igbo presidency project can scarcely be denied. The Igbos were in the vanguard of the struggle against colonial rule; the names of Zik, Mbonu Ojike, K.O. Mbadiwe, M. I. Okpara, among others, stand out prominently as among the great architects of Nigerian independence. There can be no moral justification for their exclusion from sharing in the fruits of their joint labour with other compatriots.

More than any other ethnic group, the Igbos are spread in incomparably larger numbers across the length and breadth of Nigeria outside Igboland, and have contributed immeasurably in the economic and social development of their adopted places of residence. In the heights of the Mambila Plateau in the Middle Belt, the Sahel regions in the North West and North Central zones, the low lands of the Yoruba country, and everywhere else in Nigeria outside their home land, the Igbos have settled in large numbers; confronting the harsh conditions of life in their undaunted efforts to earn a living and to contribute to the economic and social development of the areas, but inevitably exciting in the process the jealousy and hostility of the indigenous communities. It is grossly unfair that they should be excluded from sharing in the highest office in the land, notwithstanding their attempt to secede from the federation and the resulting civil war which was forced upon them by wanton destruction of lives and property and other manifold atrocities.

It is to be expected that Ndigbo should entertain differing ideas on the feasibility of a project whose success or failure depends upon so many variables. These include political party interests and affiliation, adequate funding, mercenary tendencies on the part of some Igbos, the support or lack of it by other ethnic groups, etc. Divisions may well be more intensified among the Igbos but they are not peculiar to them; the other groups too experience them in varying degrees. The excessive lust for money among the Igbos is, I believe, largely a legacy from their defeat in the civil war, which has instilled in them the culture of self-survival even at the expense of the survival of the group itself.

I am of course aware of the pamphlets on the matter by Senator Arthur Nzeribe, entitled Ndigbo and Obasanjo and Ndigbo and Obasanjo: Matters Arising (One). The senator has in these pamphlets argued, quite ably as usual, a point of view, and he is entitled to it. I do not intend to personalise the issue. Whilst Nzeribe sometimes takes a position different from that of most us in Ohanaeze, he remains an Igboman to the core. This is not generally realised. With us in Ohanaeze, the issue is not really whether or not the project is feasible, realistic or realisable; we are staking what we believe to be a legitimate claim, and we are committed to go on with it whatever the outcome. We are not deterred by the possible risk of failure; success in life is often the result of risk-taking. Ohanaeze is working hard to ensure the success of the project. If it fails in spite of our efforts, we would at least have succeeded in compelling the nation and the international community to take cognisance of the legitimacy of our demand and the injustice of our exclusion from the office.

The visit of the Ohanaeze Youth Council to President Olusegun Obasanjo

As you are aware, both the Executive Committee of the Ohanaeze Youth Council and the entire council itself have been disbanded for their visit to Obasanjo. And some of their individual members who took part in the visit are prohibited from participating in any Ohanaeze activities for a period of one year. In addition, its leaders, Nnamdi Nwokocha, Chairman, and Chuks Ibegbu, Secretary, are forbidden to present or parade themselves as such, and the public is warned that anyone dealing with the two of them in any matter connected with Ohanaeze does so at their own risk.

There are three main reasons for Ohanaeze taking these obviously severe disciplinary sanctions against the Ohanaeze Youth Council and its erring individual members, viz.

First, the visit was entirely unauthorised by the parent body. Speaking for myself as Secretary-General of Ohanaeze, I had not the faintest inkling of the visit, which took place on June 25, 2002, until three days after, i.e. June 28. It is a mark of utter indiscipline that the Youth Wing of an organisation like Ohanaeze Ndigbo should go on a delegation to the president of the country on any matter whatsoever without clearance from the parent body. It depicts Ohanaeze as a body entirely incompetent to maintain its authority even over its own youth wing.

Secondly, the obsequiousness and servility of the address read during the visit is too demeaning as well as foreign to the character of Ndigbo. Every Igbo man or woman is demeaned and his or her personality is diminished by the obsequious language of the address, which leaves one wondering how such an address could have been written by a group of true Igbo youths. But we were told that the authorship was not theirs; it was written by someone else and simply handed down to them. Still, as adults, their offence is scarcely less grievous for allowing themselves to be used in that way.

Thirdly, the address contradicts in several parts of it the position and pronouncements of Ohanaeze on the issues raised, for example, the issue of marginalisation. The issue of an Igbo presidency is reduced to a secondary position, secondary, that is, to that of a national conference which, though supremely important to us, is posited as overriding the Igbo presidency project.

I leave out of consideration for the moment the mercenary motive for the visit. The actual amount given to them is disputed, but it is not in dispute that some amount of money was given. How it was shared may have been grossly unfair, but that makes no difference to the mercenary motive.

National Conference

In responding to the address presented to him by the visiting Ohanaeze Youth Council, Obasanjo was reported in the press to have said that he was no longer opposed to a national conference, as he was at the early stages of his administration. One of his aides, the respected Dr. Stanley Macebuh, has come out with a correction, saying the president had not at any time been opposed to the idea of a national conference as such, only to the brand of it called a Sovereign National Conference.

Obasanjo's opposition to a national conference of any type, sovereign or non-sovereign has never been in doubt. No doubt, double-talk is part of the game of politics, but none seems to me more unworthy of belief than Macebuh's affirmation of the president's consistent support for a non-sovereign national conference. There are some of us who have interacted with the president closely on the matter and who know his position on it much better than Macebuh.

The president's opposition to a national conference, sovereign or non-sovereign, has been persistently manifested in the way he uncompromisely spurned and derided the letter and other approaches to him on the matter by the Patriots. The resolution on it by the leaders of thought from all the geo-political zones held in Abuja in May 2001 through the good offices of the most reverend traditional rulers in the country (both the Patriots and the leaders of thought emphatically repudiated the Sovereign National Conference). And more recently, the national conference and referendum bill prepared and sent to him and the National Assembly by the Patriots. All those demanding a national conference of any type were denounced as people wanting to dismember the country and endanger its peace and stability. The reasons and motives for his opposition are varied, and not always clearly stated:

Can it also be suggested that the Federal Government's new statement on the Sharia controversy, as recently announced by the Hon. Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, is "a re-affirmation of long-held position of the president." All this equivocation, reprobating and, when circumstances make it expedient, approbating, shows a lack of consistency and decisiveness in leadership - call it "an effort to shore up his political fortunes," if you will. It is part of the techniques of power manipulation by a leader not committed to democratic governance, part of the thing that has left the country prostrate on the ground and writhing in death pangs.

More instances of Obasanjo's opposition to a national conference, sovereign or non-sovereign, may be cited. But this is unnecessary. There is an Igbo saying that people should not argue and dispute about their skill and agility in wrestling when the ground is there to settle the matter. If Obasanjo now genuinely supports a national conference, he should demonstrate his sincerity by sending a bill on it to the National Assembly. That is the challenge thrown to him by Ohanaeze in its resolution adopted at Asaba, Delta State, on June 30, 2002.

Attempt to remove Senate President, Anyim Pius Anyim

Anyim may not be the best Senate President. He certainly has earned the scorn of many Igbos and other Nigerians for making himself so subservient to Obasanjo, thereby compromising the independence of the Senate and the National Assembly, which is among the pillars of the presidential system.

But Ohanaeze is totally against any attempt to remove him. His removal will be a terrible reflection on the entire Igbo people, coming after the earlier removals of Senator Evan Enwerem and Senator Chuba Okadigbo.

At the same time, Ohanaeze would not want to be misunderstood as condoning any wrongdoing, like the mess over the Electoral Act 2001. In a civilised democracy, that outrageous mess would have brought down the entire government. Ohanaeze's position in the matter is that if there is to be any sanction for the mess, as there should have been, all those actively involved in it must be made to face the music. Anyim must not be singled out and sacrificed as a scapegoat.

Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) as a ruling party

Whilst I do not want to meddle in the internal affairs of the PDP, yet, being the ruling party, its affairs are a matter of public interest. The affairs of the party have not been run on the basis of principles of democratic governance. There has been too much manipulation by Obasanjo, for example, manipulation in the election or rather selection of national chairman and national secretary. This manipulation, which is a carry-over from Obasanjo's autocratic past as former head of an autocratic Federal Military Government, lies at the root of the problem in the PDP. A ruling party in a democratic polity should not be run along such autocratic lines.

Obasanjo: an autocratic more than a democrat

We are supposed to have transited to constitutional democracy on May 29, 1999 but we are not practising it yet, for the simple reason that Obasanjo is not a true democrat. He has been ruling this country, not as a true democrat, but in the fashion of a military autocrat.

I think we Nigerians have not taken human nature fully into account to expect him to be other than a military autocrat. Here is a man who, until 1979, had been a military officer, a military commander, the supreme commander of the Nigerian armed forces and head of an autocratic Federal Military Government, and who, in all these capacities, had been used to giving orders and receiving obedience without question.

It is not in the nature of the human being that he should overnight abandon habits and styles acquired over a lifetime.

As I said in 1999, in a publication in The Guardian newspapers, after 28 years of military rule, Nigeria needed and deserved a fresh start on a clean slate. We denied ourselves such a start. We are in part to blame for what we are getting. But all former heads of the Federal Military Government should please allow Nigerians time and the opportunity to make this fresh start on a clean slate in 2003. They are ill fitted to practice constitutional democracy, even assuming that they are able to understand it in all its complexity.

There can be no true constitutional democracy unless the administration of government is based on:

(i) Equity and justice

(ii) Objective principles governing the exercise of political power, instead of sheer manipulation of power

(iii) Respect for constitutional limitations on power.

These three things are lamentably lacking in Nigeria since May 1999. The lack may be illustrated by a few concrete instances. The denial of the right of the eight littoral states to a special compensatory allocation of a percentage of revenue from off-shore oil by the decision of the Supreme Court in a suit instituted by Obasanjo, the President of the Federal Government is an act of grave injustice. The Supreme Court held that the territorial sea and its subsoil, defined by the statute law of Nigeria as extending to thirty nautical miles from low-water, is not part of the territory of the littoral state so as to entitle them to special allocation of a percentage of the revenue derived from oil located therein under Section 162(2) of the Constitution. What is even more difficult to understand or justify, the apex court also held that the territorial sea and its subsoil is not part of the territory of Nigeria either, and that its seaward boundary as well as the seaward boundary of the littoral states stops at low-water mark.

This decision flies in face of the UN Law of the Sea Convention 1987 (replacing the Geneva Territorial Sea Convention 1958) - recognised and applied in Nigeria by its local statute law - which extends the sovereignty of a country in its land territory to the territorial sea and its subsoil adjacent to the country. It also flies in the face of the decisions of the apex courts in the United States, Canada and Australia - cited with approval by our Supreme Court - which in explicit terms declared the territorial sea and its subsoil as part of the territory of the countries concerned.

The Nigerian Supreme Court did not follow and apply the decisions of these other courts, in spite of citing them with approval, because the inescapable logic of applying them would, by the operation of sections 2 and 3 of the 1999 Constitution, compel it to accept that the territorial sea and its subsoil is part of the territory to the littoral states. For, since under these sections of the constitution, Nigeria consists of 36 named states and the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, the country could have no other territory outside the territories named in sections 2 and 3 of the Constitution. To be part of the territory of Nigeria, as it unquestionably is, the territorial sea and subsoil has to be part of the territory of the littoral states exactly like their land territory. That must not be accepted in order that the littoral states should not get the special allocation of a percentage of revenue from offshore oil.

The erroneousness of the judgment as a matter of law is compounded by the inequity and injustice of denying the littoral states the special allocation of percentage of revenue from offshore. According to the Okigbo Presidential Commission on Revenue Allocation, "the production of minerals creates hazards to life and property in the areas concerned and causes a general degradation of the environment and of the ecology of the producing areas" which creates for the state governments concerned "the additional responsibility for the increased cost of the welfare, and the rehabilitation (and in some cases resettlement) of the people and areas concerned." It is for these same reasons that, whilst in international law "the sea is res nullius, and is, therefore, available for the enjoyment of all nations of the world, land-locked nations inclusive", and no state may validly purport to subject any part of it to its sovereignty. International law nevertheless recognises, "that by the vulnerability of their proximity to the sea, maritime nations are entitled to some privileges not available to others to protect their security" (p.14 of the judgment). It recognises in, and accords to them sovereignty over their territorial sea and its subsoil, and exclusive right of exploration and exploitation of natural resources over their continental shelf or exclusive economic zone.

If international law accords these special rights to coastal states because of the "vulnerability of their proximity to the sea," it smacks of meanness, insensitivity, injustice, unconscionableness and oppression for the Federal Government of Nigeria, as a beneficiary of the kind, indulgent concessions of international law, to deny to the country's littoral states a paltry 13 per cent of revenue derived from mineral resources located in the territorial sea, continental shelf or exclusive economic zone continguous to their territory. It might have been thought that their claim of such special compensatory allocation is so obvious and compelling as cannot be denied by any fair-minded person, least of all by a government whose right to the whole of the revenue in question arises by the generosity and concessions of international law. The whole thing seems so utterly unconscionable as to be unbelievable in a world where conscience, equity and fairness still have a place.

Prof. Nwabueze is the Secretary-General of the Ohanaeze Ndigbo, and a noteable Ogbaruan