Yoruba Group demands Oduduwa Republic, restrictions on non-indigenes

IBADAN — The Yoruba Self Determination Movement (YSDM) has renewed its call for an independent Oduduwa Republic, proposing restrictions on non-indigenes’ political participation, land ownership and access to commercial spaces in parts of the South-West.

The group made the demands on Wednesday at a press conference organised by the Yoruba Action Group at the Nigeria Union of Journalists (NUJ) Press Centre, Iyaganku, Ibadan.

Its Deputy Leader (Homeland), Architect George Akinola, said Nigeria’s worsening security challenges, political tensions and disagreements over ethnic identity and territorial ownership had strengthened the movement’s position that the country should be dissolved rather than restructured.

Akinola said the group had warned between 2017 and 2022 that Nigeria was “tottering on the brink of disaster”, arguing that restructuring, resource control and a return to regionalism would not resolve the country’s fundamental problems.

“We added, among other things, that it is too late for restructuring, resource control or regionalism in Nigeria,” he said.

He maintained that an independent Oduduwa Republic remained the movement’s preferred solution to what he described as threats to Yoruba political, economic and cultural interests.

The group’s proposals also included restrictions on non-indigenes’ participation in markets, land leases and elections, as well as tighter migration controls in Yoruba urban centres.

Akinola accused armed groups operating in parts of the South-West of kidnapping, killing and attacking farmers and other residents. He also alleged that disputes over commercial activities and claims concerning the historical ownership of Lagos had heightened tensions between Yoruba and Igbo communities.

“The Yoruba people are angry and fed up with Nigeria. What we desire most, at this time, is to become a sovereign nation, separate from dysfunctional Nigeria and its many encumbrances on Yoruba potential,” he said.

Seeks restrictions on political participation

The movement rejected claims that Lagos was “No Man’s Land” or that Igbo residents had played a decisive role in developing the state, insisting that Lagos was historically and culturally part of Yorubaland.

It identified the Awori, Ijebu, Egba, Egbado, Remo, Ilaje and Egun communities, alongside Yoruba returnees from Sierra Leone, as populations associated with the historical development of Lagos.

Citing historical accounts attributed to Sola Ebiseni, the group argued that Yoruba lineages had shaped Lagos’ traditional institutions, including the succession of its monarchs and the composition of prominent royal families.

It also disputed claims of historical Bini sovereignty over Lagos, arguing that the traditional succession system on Lagos Island reflected Yoruba ruling-house arrangements.

The group’s position forms part of wider disputes over history, indigeneity and political representation in Lagos, a commercial centre whose population includes Nigerians from different ethnic backgrounds.

Akinola alleged that the administration of former Lagos State governor Bola Tinubu between 1999 and 2007 had allowed Igbo residents to expand their political representation and property ownership in the state, developments he said contributed to current disagreements.

The movement subsequently declared that no Igbo candidate should contest elections in Yorubaland during the 2027 general elections, arguing that political participation should be restricted on the basis of indigeneity.

“No vacancy for any Igbo candidate in Yorubaland,” Akinola said, insisting that those interested in contesting elections should return to their ancestral states.

Such proposals raise questions about the constitutional rights of Nigerian citizens to live, work, own property and participate in political activities outside their states and communities of origin.

Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution prohibits discrimination against citizens on grounds including ethnic group and place of origin, while Section 43 provides for the right of every Nigerian citizen to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in the country, subject to the Constitution.

Section 15 also promotes national integration and the protection of citizens’ rights to reside in any part of the federation.

Proposes 20 per cent market-space limit

The YSDM called on governors, senators, members of the House of Representatives and state lawmakers across the South-West and other areas it identifies as Yorubaland to enact laws protecting what it described as indigenous interests.

Among its proposals was a demand that non-indigenes should occupy or control no more than 20 per cent of shops and commercial spaces in any market.

It specifically named Alaba, Ladipo and the Trade Fair Complex markets in Lagos, alleging that Yoruba traders had faced intimidation and exclusion in some commercial spaces because of their ethnic background.

The group called for the criminalisation of harassment against indigenous traders and urged state authorities to investigate allegations of discriminatory market practices.

It also proposed limiting land leases available to non-indigenes to 20 years or less, compared with the 99-year leasehold arrangement it cited, and urged lawmakers to introduce policies regulating property ownership in areas it considers Yoruba territory.

The movement further called for the identification of non-Yoruba residents convicted of crimes and their return to their states of origin. It also advocated tighter migration controls in urban centres and the revocation of properties where, according to its allegations, hostile groups had congregated.

Akinola said the measures were necessary to prevent what he described as the concentration of commercial and political power in the hands of particular ethnic communities.

The group also demanded an end to open grazing by cattle in Yorubaland, arguing that non-Yoruba cattle owners should establish ranches in their states of origin instead of allowing their animals to graze freely in the South-West.

Links agitation to insecurity

The movement linked its agitation to insecurity in rural communities, alleging that farmers and other residents had suffered kidnapping, rape, killings and other attacks by armed groups operating in forests, villages and along highways.

It accused the Federal Government of failing to address what it described as threats to Yoruba communities and argued that the security situation had strengthened the case for an independent state.

The group also made historical claims about the origins of the Fulani and Igbo peoples, disputing aspects of their ancestry and historical development. The claims were presented as the movement’s position and were not independently established in the material provided.

Akinola warned that Yoruba people would respond to what he described as persistent provocations and attempts to challenge their territorial identity.

He cited historical conflicts involving Yoruba communities, including Fulani incursions in the 19th century, the political crisis in the former Western Region in 1963, the disputed 1983 Ondo State governorship election and the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election, widely believed to have been won by the late Chief Moshood Abiola.

The group argued that the episodes demonstrated what it considered the determination of Yoruba people to resist political domination and threats to their interests.

Akinola also invoked Chinua Achebe’s novel Things Fall Apart, citing a passage about responding forcefully when someone violates the sanctity of another person’s home. He used the passage to reinforce his warning to those he accused of disrespecting Yoruba history and culture.

Questions 1999 Constitution

The movement challenged the legitimacy of Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution, arguing that Yoruba representatives had not participated adequately in its drafting and that the document did not sufficiently reflect the consent of the country’s constituent ethnic nationalities.

It maintained that ethnic nationalities should be able to pursue self-determination and establish protections for their identities and indigenous rights.

Nigeria’s Constitution, however, describes the country as an indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state and does not provide a unilateral constitutional procedure for a state or ethnic group to secede from the federation.

The YSDM said it would continue to campaign for an independent Oduduwa Republic, insisting that restructuring and other constitutional reforms would not address what it considers Nigeria’s fundamental problems.

It urged political office-holders, traditional rulers and community leaders across the areas it identifies as Yorubaland to support its campaign for self-determination and proposed legislative restrictions.