Nigeria consistently claims the indivisibility of its territory, as enshrined in Section 2(1) of the Nigerian Constitution, which declares Nigeria to be “one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state.” However, while the federal government holds fast to this principle, it raises a critical question: Has Nigeria truly observed and complied with international legal standards, including the 1970 Declaration of Friendly Relations and UN General Assembly Resolution 2625? These international instruments clearly state that self-determination should not disrupt the territorial integrity of states that comply with the principle of equal rights. Thus, the legitimacy of Nigeria’s claim to indivisibility depends on whether it has fulfilled its obligations to uphold equality, fairness, and human rights for all citizens of which the answer is emphatic no.
Violation of Equal Rights and Introduction of a Parallel Legal System
While asserting its indivisibility, Nigeria has allowed a significant legal contradiction to exist within its borders—most notably, the adoption of Sharia law in the Northern part of the country. The Northern states operate a legal system that runs parallel to the constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. This has created a dual legal structure in which the laws applicable to citizens in the North are drastically different from those governing other regions, particularly in the South-East, where no such religious legal framework exists.
This institutionalised disparity contradicts the principle of equality upon which Nigeria’s claim to indivisibility rests. International law, particularly UN General Assembly Resolution 2625, asserts that the territorial integrity of a state must be respected only when that state adheres to the principles of equal rights and non-discrimination. By allowing the Northern part of the country to operate under Sharia law, Nigeria has effectively violated the principles of equal governance and created a system of legal segregation. The existence of a parallel legal order, which disproportionately affects non-Muslim populations and non-Northern citizens, demonstrates a failure to provide equal legal protection and equal rights under the law, as is constitutionally mandated.
Implications for the South-East (Igbo-Biafra) Region
The South-East region (Igbo-Biafra), predominantly Christian and governed by secular laws, has not been afforded the same latitude to develop its economic, legal, cultural and political autonomy. This legal disparity exacerbates the sense of marginalisation in the South-East, further highlighting the federal government’s unequal treatment of its diverse populations. The implementation of Sharia law in the North, while denying the South-East similar legal autonomy or economic autonomy, signifies an imbalance that the federal government has not sought to rectify.
This imbalance strengthens the South-East region’s argument for remedial secession. If one part of Nigeria (the North) can operate under its own religious legal system that contradicts federal laws, while other regions (like the South-East) are forced to adhere strictly to the federal constitution without equivalent legal or cultural flexibility, the claim of national unity and indivisibility becomes increasingly untenable. By failing to uphold the principles of equal rights for all regions and peoples, Nigeria has undermined the very foundation upon which its territorial integrity is claimed.
Uche Mefor is the Convenor of the Igbo-Biafra Nationalists and the Indigenous People of Igbo Nation for Self-Determination
