ETHNO-LINGUISTIC REGIONAL AUTONOMY OR NOTHING
Emeka Emekesiri Reports on the Abuja Restructuring Conference.
By Ndubuisi Anaenugwu | BVI Channel 1 Online.
ABUJA — The debate over the restructuring of Nigeria took a fresh turn in Abuja as representatives of various ethnic and regional interests gathered for a Conference of Concerned Citizens Assembly (CCA) on the restructuring of Nigeria through Regional Autonomy.
The conference, held from 17th to 20th August 2026, was convened by the Citizens Rebirth and Awareness Initiative (C-RAIN) under the leadership of Deacon Owolabi Oladejo and his team.
According to a report presented by Barrister Emeka Emekesiri, Coordinator of the Forum for Igbo Position on Restructuring (FIPOR), the conference was attended by representatives of several regions, although the Ijaw delegation reportedly had grievances with the organisers and did not make its presentation.
Federal Government Participation.
Emekesiri said the Igbo delegation initially insisted that the Federal Government must be formally invited to participate in the conference because of what he described as the legal and constitutional implications of discussing the restructuring of the Nigerian state without formally notifying the Federal Government.
He reportedly likened the situation to an engineer attempting to restructure a building without informing its owner.
Following discussions with the organisers, the Federal Government was invited. The Attorney-General of the Federation (AGF) was said to have delegated Mrs. Doris Lar of the Federal Ministry of Justice to deliver the Federal Government’s opening speech and goodwill message.
The participation of a Federal Government representative, according to the report, gave the conference an important official dimension.
Ohanaeze Ndigbo Position.
The President-General of Ohanaeze Ndigbo Worldwide, Senator John Azuta Mbata, was invited as a Special Guest of Honour. He delegated Barr Emekesiri to represent him and deliver his goodwill message.
The message reportedly reaffirmed the position that Ndigbo support a Nigeria based on Regional Autonomy, democracy, equity, justice and shared prosperity.
The position envisages a federation in which the regions control their resources, secure their people and compete peacefully for development, while the Federal Government retains responsibility for areas such as defence, foreign affairs and currency.
Igbo Position: Ethno-Linguistic Regions.
The Igbo delegation was led by Prof. Obasi Igwe, with Dr. Katchi Ononuju serving as deputy leader.
According to Emekesiri’s report, the central argument of the Igbo delegation was that restructuring should be based on indigenous ethno-linguistic regions or groups of consenting indigenous ethno-linguistic nationalities.
The delegation opposed what it described as the balkanisation of ethnic nationalities through political boundaries created over the years.
A particularly contentious issue was the status of present-day Rivers State and the question of the Igbo people’s historical access to the Atlantic coast.
The Igbo delegation reportedly presented historical maps and documents which, in its interpretation, demonstrated that parts of present-day Rivers State had historically been connected to Igboland.
It consequently argued for the restoration of what it described as the historical territorial integrity of the Igbo Region.
Rivers State Controversy.
The question of Rivers State generated significant disagreement at the conference.
While the Igbo delegation argued for the inclusion of Igbo-speaking communities in the proposed Igbo Region, some representatives from Rivers State reportedly rejected the position and argued for a separate Rivers Region.
Emekesiri’s report particularly referenced the Ikwerre question.
According to the report, some Ikwerre delegates affirmed their Igbo identity and expressed a preference for remaining within the proposed Igbo Region, possibly as a province rather than a separate federating region.
The report also referred to the Willink Commission Report of 1958, particularly its observations concerning Port Harcourt and the surrounding communities.
The historical interpretation of these territories remains a deeply contested political and identity issue, and the conference did not resolve the disagreement.
The Question of King Jaja and Opobo.
The report also made historical claims concerning King Jaja of Opobo, identifying him as an Igbo from Amaigbo and presenting the history of the Opobo Kingdom as part of the broader Igbo historical narrative.
It similarly argued that communities including Ogba, Egbema, Ndoni, Etche and Ekpeye have significant historical and linguistic connections with Igbo society.
These claims form part of the wider argument advanced by the Igbo delegation for an ethno-linguistically defined Igbo Region.
14, 15 or 17 Regions?
The conference reportedly considered different proposals for the number and composition of federating regions.
The Igbo delegation initially supported a 14-region structure, while the demand for a separate Rivers Region would increase the number to 15.
Other proposals emerged from different parts of the country, including separate regions for Hausa, Fulani/Caliphate, Igala, Savannah, Cross River and Akwa Ibom interests.
According to Emekesiri, the organisers were considering a 17-region structure, although he stated that the final position had not been conclusively established at the time of his report.
The proposed inclusion of a separate Rivers Region remains one of the principal objections of the Igbo delegation.
Hausa and Fulani Positions.
The report stated that representatives identifying with the Hausa position expressed a desire for a separate Hausa Region, while representatives associated with the Fulani proposed what they described as a Caliphate Region.
During the discussions, Emekesiri reportedly questioned representatives of the proposed Caliphate Region over insecurity, including kidnapping, banditry and killings attributed to some Fulani groups.
According to the report, the response was that some of those responsible were foreign Fulani who had entered Nigeria from neighbouring countries.
This prompted a further question from Emekesiri concerning who facilitated or enabled their entry into Nigeria.
The Disputed Communiqué.
Another major controversy arose over the conference communiqué.
According to Emekesiri, Prof. Obasi Igwe and Dr. Katchi Ononuju subsequently granted interviews to Arise TV in which they alleged that a communiqué had been produced without the participation or approval of the Igbo delegation.
The Igbo representatives consequently rejected the communiqué and described the conference outcome as unacceptable to the Igbo position.
Emekesiri maintained that Ndigbo could not accept any restructuring arrangement that, in his view, would permanently divide Igbo communities among different federating regions.
Regional Autonomy and the Right of Exit
One of the most significant disagreements at the conference concerned the proposed Articles of Federation, particularly the provision dealing with withdrawal from the proposed federation.
Emekesiri said the draft contained an Exit Clause, which would allow a federating region to withdraw from the union after satisfying stipulated conditions.
He supported retaining the clause, arguing that a voluntary federation should recognise the right of its constituent units to exercise self-determination under agreed legal procedures.
However, another delegate reportedly argued that the exit provision was too loose and could encourage the disintegration of Nigeria.
A proposal was consequently made that withdrawal should require approval by all 17 regional parliaments.
Emekesiri rejected the proposal, arguing that such a provision could leave one region permanently trapped in the federation if the other regions refused to approve its withdrawal.
He reportedly cited the United Kingdom as an example of a multinational state in which questions concerning self-determination and withdrawal have been addressed through constitutional and political processes.
The disagreement became so serious that Emekesiri said he walked out of the review process and advised Igbo leaders not to sign any Articles of Federation requiring the approval of all 17 regional parliaments as a precondition for withdrawal.
“Regional Autonomy or Nothing”
The central message of the Igbo delegation, as contained in Emekesiri’s report, is that restructuring must produce a genuinely decentralised Nigerian federation based on ethno-linguistic nationalities and consenting groups.
The report insists that Ndigbo will not accept what it considers a restructuring arrangement designed to permanently divide Igbo communities or deny the proposed Igbo Region access to the sea.
Emekesiri further argued that the proposed Federated Regions of Nigeria (FRN) should be a voluntary union, with constitutional safeguards for self-determination and an agreed legal mechanism for withdrawal.
He described the Igbo position as a commitment to pursuing freedom and justice through law, constitutional methods and political diplomacy.
What Lies Ahead?
The Abuja conference has exposed the complexity of restructuring Nigeria along regional and ethno-linguistic lines.
While there appears to be broad interest across several groups in greater regional autonomy, fundamental disagreements remain over territorial boundaries, resource control, ethnic identity, access to the sea, security responsibilities and the constitutional right of a region to withdraw from the federation.
For the Igbo delegation, however, the position presented by Emekesiri is unequivocal: regional autonomy must be based on ethno-linguistic identity and consent, and Ndigbo will not accept a structure that, in its view, balkanises the Igbo nation.
The debate over the future structure of Nigeria is therefore far from concluded.
As the various groups continue consultations, the most important question may no longer be whether Nigeria should be restructured, but what kind of restructuring can guarantee justice, equity, security, economic freedom and a sense of belonging for all of Nigeria’s constituent peoples.
BVI Channel 1 Online will continue to follow the restructuring debate and bring readers developments from the various regional and national stakeholders.
