Of hate speech and national integration

Th e recent potential threat on national unity posed by hate speeches emanating from various parts of the country has created anxiety and doubts on whether or not Nigeria will still remain a sovereign entity.

An undiscerning mind can easily draw the conclusion that these threats posed real and potential danger, especially when viewed against the backdrop that those who expected to speak against such threats in order to douse the tension it generated are either keeping quiet or reacting a bit too late.

Such situation gives an incline and suspicion that the elite, who are expected to condemn the hate speeches, are either in support of the utterances or are sponsoring such activities because of incompatible group interests.

Another obvious temptation is the possibility to conclude that most Nigerian elite are pursuing sectional interests rather than national interest.

As Nigerians and foreigners alike pondered on what will become the fate of Nigeria when the hate speeches were taking its toll on the country, a glimmer of hope that it was not bad after all manifested when leaders and stakeholders from the Southeast met with Acting President Yemi Osinbajo.

At the meeting the Southeast leaders insisted that the unity of Nigeria is not negotiable and this signifi ed that all hope is not lost and that the situation is still redeemable.

Osinbajo’s engagement with Northern leaders and their counterparts from other geopolitical zones produced similar results.

Th e engagements and the unifying words showed the power of persuasion and responsiveness of the Federal Government and the roles in could play in dousing tension in the country.

Th e outcome of all the engagements showed that the Nigerian State has come to stay.

However, the only observed challenge is how the diff erent ethnic, religious and cultural entities that make up Nigeria will be accommodated in such a way that no group will feel alienated or marginalized in resource allocation, welfare, security of lives and property.

Based on recent developments, it behooves that the propagation of the negative sides of the nation’s history should not be the point of focus in national discourse rather, the collective eff orts of its past and present eff orts should be upheld and propagated in the spirit of oneness and collective development.

It is important to underscore the fact that no African nation, split through referendum or by civil war has really achieved high level of security and development.

Most of the countries that experienced wars or civil strife still spend scarce resources to processes and purchase arms to fi ght against insurgencies.

Nigeria should avoid such situation considering that fact that the nation survived a civil war that lasted three years.

Inferences could be drawn from Libya and South-Sudan.

Both countries depict the gloomy picture of divided nations torn apart by strife.

Any move to cause war or civil strife in Nigeria should be avoided because of its negative impact on the growth and development of the nation.

Leave a Reply