Politically, the independence of a country can be viewed from two angles: the corporate and the individual angle. A country is said to be free only when it has unqualified control over its internal affairs. On the other hand, a citizen of an independent country enjoys individual freedom when he is free to say and do what he likes, subject only to laws enacted by the freely elected parliament or the popular legislative assembly of the land.
The dependency of a country and the subjection of its citizens to alien rule are conterminous. But the independence of a country does not necessarily mean the freedom of its individual citizens. It all depends on the form of government. If, for instance, the form of government is oligarchical, authoritarian, or totalitarian, individual freedom will almost invariably be denied to the masses of the people. The point must be made, however, that in times of national crisis or emergency, it is legitimate for the Government to call upon the citizens to surrender, for the duration, some measure of their individual freedom, in order that the freedom of the country and its citizens may be preserved from violation.
In a democracy, therefore, and in normal circumstances, the freedom of a country connotes the freedom of its individual citizens.
Furthermore, when the freedom of a country is looked at in its complete functional embodiment, it exhibits two conspicuous and inseparable facets. They are the political and economic facets. A country can only be said to be truly free and independent which has these two functional facets co-existing and cohering in their inseparable absoluteness.
I have emphasised the inseparable nature of these two facets in order to focus attention to the point that, for a subject people, political freedom is not the end of the journey or struggle: it is nothing more than a most potent means to the acquisition and consolidation of the economic and other facets of the country's freedom.
It is, I believe, generally agreed that political freedom is meaningless unless it goes hand-in-hand with economic freedom. Anyone who cares to read his history aright will readily concur that the prime and sole motivation for imperialist predations, conquests, and rule is economic in character. If the imperialist powers can accomplish their economic exploitation of the weaker nations without political control they will much prefer to do it that way. As a matter of historical fact, colonial expansion began with the division of the territories of the weaker peoples into economic spheres of influence. It was when it became clear to the imperialists that economic control would become precarious unless there was political control as well, that the latter was imposed. In other words, it is erroneous and dangerous to assume that the subjection of a country is at an end, simply because it is politically free.
In these modern times, the economic subjugation of a country does take several, but not easily perceptible, forms, with the result that many free nations are only ostensibly so. The economic shackles they wear are heavy and extremely depressing, but are visible only to the discerning eye.
The influence which a nation exerts, the respect which it enjoys, and the prestige accorded to it on the world scene, depend on two important factors: the size of its wealth and the calibre of its leadership. Granting an incorruptible, courageous, public-spirited, enlightened and dynamic leadership, the wealth of a nation is the fountain of its strength. The bigger the wealth, and the more equitable its distribution among the factors and agencies which have helped to produce it, the greater the out-flow of the nation's influence and power.
There are two intangible essentials for the attainment as well as the preservation of freedom (whether national or individual) which must be mentioned. They are the will on the part of a people to be and remain free, and a recognition that the subjection or suppression of other peoples is a standing peril to freedom wherever it may exist.
Again, in these modern days the functions of a Government are multifarious. But the primal ones can conveniently be classified under two headings:
i) its duty to the State to preserve its corporate existence against internal disorder and external aggression, and
ii) its duty to the citizens to cater for their welfare and promote their happiness.
The general well-being of the citizen depends on objective and subjective factors. He needs a healthy body which can be reared only on good food, adequate shelter, decent clothing, a reasonable measure of comfort and luxury, and a whole-some environment. He needs a sound and cultivated mind which is free to know and meditate upon the things of its choice. He has natural, conventional, and legal rights which must be protected and upheld, with impartiality and inflexible justice, mainly by the appropriate organs of Government, and partly by the society in which he lives. But, of course, the citizen owes enormous duties to the State and to his fellow-citizens, which are regulated and enjoined by customary usages and the laws of the land.
No Government, however, can hope to discharge its duties to the State and to the citizens satisfactorily or effectively, unless it is, or at the very least strives continually to be, on good terms with its immediate neighbours and the rest of the world. At the same time, it must ensure at home as near a state of equilibrium as possible among all the citizens, in their legitimate demand for equitable shares of the national products.
In other words, the internal affairs of a State must be ordered by the Government in such a manner as to guarantee social justice and personal security to all, and the external affairs conducted in such a manner as to promote world peace, and undiscriminating respects for human dignity in all parts of the world.
I have made these fundamental and, I dare say, self-evident propositions, because I consider them essential (1) to a proper understanding of the doings and happenings in Nigeria since October 1, 1960, and (2) to a critical assessment of any proposals which I may make in the course of this lecture.
A good many things have happened in Nigeria since October 1, 1960. The first major act of the Government took place on the very day of our independence. It is an act which in my considered judgement detracts very seriously from the sovereignty which was that day conferred upon us. On October 1, 1960, the British High Commissioner in Nigeria (Viscount Head) and the Prime Minister (Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa) exchanged correspondence, by means of which an agreement was concluded on that day between Britain and Nigeria. Under this agreement, Nigeria assumes and undertakes all the rights and obligations of Britain under any valid international instruments in so far as they were applicable to Nigeria before the latter's attainment of independence.
These rights and obligations were not spelt out in the correspondence; and in spite of repeated demands by my colleagues and myself, the Federal Government has refused to inform the country of these rights and obligations of Britain which our country assumed and undertook on the day of her independence. Viscount Head, who by the way is generally regarded as the ruler of Nigeria, did once volunteer a public explanation of the agreement in reply to my criticism of it. He said that the agreement was harmless, and that some of the rights and obligations assumed and undertaken by Nigeria under it were those under The Geneva Convention. My own view is that if we would be party to the Geneva Convention, we must do so in our own right as a sovereign state, not as Britain's underling or foster child.
I have consistently held the view that this agreement is much more dangerous than the Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact. Under the Pact (with which I will be dealing briefly later), we know exactly what rights and obligations we have assumed and undertaken. Besides, Nigeria as a nation is directly a party to it. Under the agreement, the obligations which we have undertaken are omnibus and undefined, and what is more, they are all, without exception, Britain's obligations under any valid international instruments, in so far as they were applicable to us in the days of our subjection.
Now, who is there in the Federal Government, or among Nigerian politicians and intelligentsia as a whole, to tell us with candour and unimpeachable accuracy the number and contents of valid international instruments -both open and secret - to which, in the days before October 1, 1960, Britain had, on behalf of herself and of her territories overseas,committed herself?
The Monrovia Conference has been given a good deal of boosting by the Western Press, and Sir Abubakar has been specially patted on the back for the part he played in it. This is only to be expected. This Conference is known to have been inspired and completely financed by the more important countries of the Western Bloc. Undoubtedly, the Monrovia Conference had been brought into being as a counter-poise to the Casablanca Powers which do not appear to find favour with the Western Powers and their Press.
But whatever attitude the Western Powers and their Press hold, there are outstanding attributes which the Casablanca Powers possess, but which the Monrovia Powers are still to demonstrate.
First, the freedom of each of the countries which constitute the Casablanca Powers is not only legally in existence, but also is being made to be seen in all the country's doings at home and abroad.
Second, the resolutions passed at the Casablanca Conference are positively constructive, and bear the radical stamp of contemporary African nationalism at its best. In order to clinch this second point, I would like to refresh your memories by giving you a summary of some of the resolutions of each of the two groups of Powers. The resolutions of the Casablanca Powers include:
1. The setting up of an African High Command.
2. The liquidation of colonial regimes through the liberation of territories still colonised.
3. The elimination of all forms of racial segregation in African States.
4. The consolidation and defence of the sovereignty of New African States.
5. The acceptance of the objective of a political union of Africa, and the taking of such steps as will lead to the early attainment of this objective.
6. The reaffirmation of Africa's non-alignment to any of the two East and West Blocs.
7. The evacuation of all occupation troops from Africa.
8. The barring of Africa to all nuclear experiments.
Those of the Monrovia Powers include:
1. The recognition of absolute equality of sovereignty of all African States irrespective of size and population.
2. Each African state has the right to exist and no African state should try to annex another for any reason.
3. Should any African State desire freely and voluntarily to join with another State no other African State should stand in its way.
4. All States should respect the principle of non-interference in the internal and domestic affairs of any African state.
5. Each State should respect the territorial integrity of another State and should not harbour, within its boundaries, any dissident elements from another State who might wish to use that State as a base for carrying out subversive activities against their own State.
6. Any conception of unity entailing the surrender of sovereignty of any African State to another is totally unrealistic.
It will be seen that, apart from the fact that the Monrovia Powers lack the attributes of the Casablanca Powers, the Monrovia resolution are actuated by fear, and place much, too much, emphasis on the minor differences between some African nations.
Before independence, our economy was dominated by Britain and her fellow-members of the N.A.T.O. Since independence, we have made no effort to relax this imperialist stranglehold on our economy.
On the contrary, we now throw the doors of our country wide open to indiscriminate foreign exploitation. Every conceivable inducement is being given to foreign investors of the Western Bloc to come to Nigeria to exploit our natural resources in whatever way they choose. The type of venture, its financial structure, and its location, are left entirely in the hands of intending foreign investors. The assumption appears to be that foreign businessmen are so altruistic and philanthropic that their main concern would be to help the masses of Nigerian people, and not to enrich themselves at our expense. In seeking foreign aid for our development, our Government has allowed itself to be led into a blind alley by its Western masters and mentors.
`Money has no earmark,' so says an old adage which is as true as ever. But our present Government has so imbibed the prejudices of Britain that it appears to see the very Devil himself in any foreign currency other than British or American.
It is now eleven months after independence, and yet our Government has not succeeded in producing a bold development programme for the prosperity and happiness of our people, with the result that, economically, we just drift, and become more and more dependent on foreign aid of a kind that is not likely to be in the long-term interest of Nigeria.
I understand - or more precisely the country has been promised by the Government - that a five-year development programme is in preparation. The architects of this programme are a Mr. Prasad from the International Bank Mission and an American from the Ford Foundation. The United States has promised substantial aid towards the execution of the programme, but 90 per cent of such aid, I understand, will be in the form of American goods.
As a matter of interest, it may be mentioned in passing that while Nigeria's proposed five-year programme is already being studied in Britain and America, for the past five months or so, even an outline of its contents has not yet been made known to the Nigerian people or their parliament. In other words, Sir Abubakar wants to clear the programme with Britain and America first, before his Government can ever have the courage to lay it before his fellow-citizens whose lives and fortunes are going to be affected for good or for evil by the proposed programme.
The Government has also slavishly committed itself to British economic and political ideals and prejudices. Words like nationalisation, public ownership of the means of production, or socialism, are to the Government what the rag is to a bull. The advocacy of the Opposition for nationalisation
(a) of the Plateau Tin Mines where foreign companies declare as much as 150 per cent yearly dividend
(b) of the entire mercantile marine operating in Nigeria, and
(c) of insurance businesses, as an interim step, has been roundly condemned by the Government as heretical and mad. Instead, the Federal Government has declared that industries shall not be nationalised in Nigeria beyond the extent to which public utilities are already public-owned.
Before independence the Government of the Federation was not so scared by the demand for nationalisation as it is at present. Indeed in a Government publication, first issued in 1956 and reissued in 1958, it was made clear that in the event of any industry being nationalised, fair compensation would be paid. It would appear, therefore, that on the issue of nationalisation, which conflicts with the basic economic ideal of the Western Powers, our present Government has shown less courage in freedom than its predecessor had done in bondage.
In emulating British political ideals, the Government has even gone much farther than the Tories of the deepest dye would approve here in Britain. Up till today, Communist literature is banned from entering Nigeria. Even though the public has been told, after pressure from the Opposition, that permission has been given for the opening of a Russian Embassy in Nigeria, every obstacle is actually being placed in the way of the Embassy being opened. The representative of the Russian Government, who has been in Nigeria for some months now, stays in the Federal Palace Hotel. Every effort of the Soviet Government to secure accommodation for its Embassy is being secretly foiled by some countries of the Western Bloc with Embassies in Nigeria. I know a Nigerian businessman who has been threatened with reprisals by a Federal Minister for daring to offer suitable premises to the Russian Government.
In keeping with the fashion obtaining among newly emergent Asian and African nations, our Government has put the label of `Neutrality' on its foreign policy. But our brand of `neutrality' is, to all intents and purposes, sui generis. In our `neutrality', we are already militarily aligned to Britain, and hence indirectly to N.A.T.O. In our `neutrality, we do everything to prevent the opening of a Russian Embassy in Nigeria and we do nothing to open one in Moscow ourselves. We proclaim `neutrality', and yet Chief Okotie-Eboh, Federal Minister of Finance, on his way to Soviet Russia as the head of our Economic Mission, went to very great pains to assure an audience of British businessmen and politicians here in London that though he was going behind the Iron Curtain, they could rest assured that he was going to return from there with his natural colour intact and untarnished.
We proclaim `neutrality' and yet the Sardauna of Sokoto, with the express consent of Balewa, is moving heaven and earth to drag Nigeria into a Commonwealth of Moslem States. He has done more. As if the Northern Region is not just an integral part of the Federation of Nigeria, and as if he is entitled under the Constitution to pursue a separate foreign policy for the North, he has, with the open acquiescence of Sir Abubakar, committed the Northern Region to the Arab side in the Arab-Israeli dispute. We proclaim`neutrality', and yet we refrain from participating in the Belgrade Conference of `non-aligned nations'. Our Government's `neutrality' in foreign affairs must, in the light of events, be said to have been conceived in deceit and born in hypocrisy.
Before I pass on to deal with matters of purely domestic character, I would like to make one or two observations. The emergence of Nigeria as an independent nation was hailed as an event of exceedingly favourable portent for Africa. In size, population, and natural resources, Nigeria is indisputably a giant in Africa. Those African nationalists who, since our independence, have come to Nigeria for succor and added inspiration, have gone back to their homes disillusioned and frustrated. The high hopes which were cherished in Nigeria as an unassailable bastion in the last phase of Africa's struggle against colonialism and neo-colonialism of whatever nature and guise, are fast receding. Among true African nationalists, Nigeria, as at present led by our Government, is thoroughly suspect, and does not enjoy the respect and confidence to which she is entitled by virtue of her natural potentialities.
At home, our pressing problems not only remain unsolved, but are also not even being tackled with vision and vigour, nor with the correct ideological orientation.
Education is still in its inchoate stages. The masses hunger after education but are not being satisfied. In regard to primary education, the position in the South is good. All children of school-going age are now in school in the South. But it is very far from being so in the North. A little over 250,000 children are now receiving primary education in the North, as against 1.3 million in the East and 1.2 million in the West. Secondary education ought to be free, but only the well-to-do can afford to send their children to any post-primary schools. The award of scholarships tenable in Institutions of Higher Learning, and for technical and vocational studies, now lags very much behind the present needs of the country, with the result that many a lustrous talent is wasting and rotting away either in a soul-depressing job or in an asylum.
The finances of the Federation are being very badly managed. We are now right on the brink of a balance of payments crisis. Yet, according to the latest pronouncement by the Federal Minister of Finance, our imports of consumer goods have increased appreciably; but as far as is known no visible effort is being made for a big export drive. I have told the Federal Government, on a number of occasions, that unless the present adverse trends which have continued for four years are checked, Nigeria will, figuratively speaking, one day find herself in a debtor's prison!
Bribery and corruption, especially in high places, are alarmingly on the increase. A large percentage of monies which are voted for expenditure on public projects find their way into the pockets of certain individuals.
There is unemployment everywhere. The standard of living in the country as a whole is very low, and in most parts of the country the peasantry and the working class wallow in abject poverty and misery. The cost of living is more or less the same throughout the country. The fact reflects itself in identical salaries, in different parts of the Federation, for Ministries and Parliamentarians; for Government, Mercantile and other employees in the so called upper brackets and the established grades. But this is unfortunately not the case with the daily-paid workers and the peasantry who are in the vast majority. The territorial disparity in their income is extremely and senselessly wide, constitutes a social injustice of the worst kind, and is an eloquent evidence of a complete absence of national approach to the country's problems.
Nigerianisation of the different sectors of our public service moves at an unpatriotically slow pace. But as if this is not damning enough, the situation is aggravated by the Federal Government when, as it often does, it applies criteria which have no regard at all for merit, in the advancement of some Nigerians. The present dispensation is that, provided your Region of origin is in the privileged category, and your connections in Government circles are strong, mediocrity and want of requisite qualifications are no bar to any high post, even though a number of other Nigerians who are infinitely better qualified in all respects may be unjustly superseded.
Our federal structure remains unbalanced. The Northern Region bestrides the rest of the country like a Colossus. As long as this Region remains a unit, the party in power there, even in a free and fair election, will always have an electoral advantage over other political parties. But elections in the North are neither free nor fair. Various iniquitous devices were used at the 1959 Federal Elections as well as in this year's Northern Region Elections to ensure victory for the N.P.C.
To this end, murders, arsons and other forms of violence to the person and damage to property were committed, and ballot papers were illegally distributed to N.P.C. party faithfuls. I have three books of such ballot papers here with me as exhibits. On the eve of any elections, opposition parties are precluded from holding public meetings; mass arrests and imprisonment, with or without trial, of their members are made; and leaders of such parties are harassed and sometimes dragged to court on trumped-up charges. I believe you have all heard of what happened to Messrs Tarka and Olawoyin, and that you are aware that the Action Group Leader of the Opposition in the Northern House of Assembly has not, because of open threat of violence to his person, and the utter destruction of his house and property, been to his home in Maiduguri since August last year.
Today the N.P.C. rules both the North and the Federation; and yet its leaders refuse to change the name of the organisation to permit the admission of Southerners into its membership. But of course the Sardauna has declared, in his characteristically pompous manner, that `N.P.C. is Nigeria and Nigeria is N.P.C.' Besides, he has never made any bones about the fact that the Federation is being run by his loyal lieutenants who must look to him, from time to time, for direction on major issues. In actual fact, therefore, the centre of gravity of the Federation is Kaduna not Lagos; and this degrading state of affairs will continue so long as the present unbalanced and unusual structure of our Federation persists.
Many irresistible conclusions flow from what I have so far said. Only some of them need be mentioned. In the first place, de jure Nigeria is now free from alien rule, yet through the activities of our Government she is de facto utterly subservient to British control, direction and undue influence. Secondly, though fundamental human rights are enshrined in our Constitution, yet the rights of the commonality count for nought in the Northern Region. Thirdly, democratic practices and processes are being rapidly discredited in the Northern Region of Nigeria, simply because the leaders of the N.P.C. who also rule Nigeria have never believed in a democratic form of Government.
Fourthly, because of the error of omission of our Government, Nigeria is already beginning to slide in Africa. African nationalists now look upon our Government as a tool and a stooge of Western Imperial-ism. Fifthly, the actions of our Government do not measure up to some of its pronouncements, and its conduct is far from being guided or influenced by the ideals which today animate and rule the hearts of the people of Nigeria. Sixthly, our Government appears to find itself helplessly and hopelessly on an uncharted sea, in the face of the country's problems.
These questions are now relevant. What do we do to accelerate our progress on the road to modern development, to arrest the deteriorating situation with which we are beset, and to retrieve the integrity, honour and self-respect which true national sovereignty ought to confer on our country? And, knowing what and what to do, how do we go about accomplishing them?
There must be many and varied answers to these questions. A good many have occurred to me, and I now want to pass on to you the more important ones among them. I do so in tabular form.
1. The Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact, and the October 1 Agreement under which we assume and undertake all the rights and obligations of Britain under valid International instruments, should both be abrogated
forthwith.
2. Every vestige and every channel of the undue influence of Britain and her allies in and on Nigeria should be totally eradicated. This, in my view, can be done in three significant ways. First, by the widening of the circle of our international friendship, and in particular by the immediate establishment of diplomatic, cultural, trade and other mutually beneficial relations with Soviet Russia, China, and Eastern Germany; second, by the progressive but accelerated termination of our undue economic dependence on British and other Western Agencies and Business concerns; and third, by the translation or transformation of Nigeria into a Republic, and by the initiation, at an early date, of steps to this end.
3. The Federal Government should right now set before the nation well-defined economic objectives and development programmes which will be embodied in a successive series of five-year plans. The objectives and the programme should be sufficiently bold and expansive to fire the imagination and stimulate afresh the hopes of Nigerians and their fellow-Africans. To this end three important considerations must be borne in mind. One, our economic objectives and development programme must be rooted in and strictly guided by the socialist ideals of
(a) equal opportunity for all,
(b) equitable distribution of the national products,
(c) the liberty, dignity, and well being of the individual, and
(d) brotherhood among all mankind.
Two, the admission of foreign investment into the country should be carefully regulated, and channelled in the overall national interests. In the words of the Report of the Conference on Administrative Organisation for Economic Development - "To allow all foreign firms to enter indiscriminately may stifle nascent local enterprise and jeopardise the balance of economic expansion. It may also rob the country of valuable sources of income.. ." In this connection, a comprehensive list of categories of industries, specifying those that are in the present and in the near future reserved for the public sector, as well as those that are, in the short term, reserved for the private sector, should be prepared. Three the development of agriculture (its modernisation in every sense of the word) must go hand-in-hand with industrialisation. If agriculture stagnates, industries will either not grow, or become a bane to the people.
4. In order that our planned economy may be in the best interest of our people, a high-powered Economic Planning Commission should be set up forthwith. This Commission would consist only of qualified Nigerian economists and public men, and its membership should be full-time. The Commission, may, from time to time, avail itself of such expatriate expert advisers as appear to them to be sufficiently well-meaning, and detached from local business interests. It will be the duty of the Commission to produce a five-year plan for the Federal Government. It will assess and appraise the various surveys of our natural and man-power re-sources, establish priorities, determine the type and the location of industries, work out and supervise details of the development programme and the manner of its execution, and make a periodic review and any necessary modification of the programme.
5. In order to correct the imbalance in our federal structure, more States or Regions should first and foremost be carved out of the existing Northern Region. To ensure viability, the North should, as a first step, be broken into three States - the Middle Belt, the Bornu and the Northern States. The Mid-West and the C.O.R. States should also be created as already pro- posed.
6. To ensure the advent and growth of democracy and democratic practices in the North, the following re-forms should he introduced without delay:
a) Emirs, District heads, Village Heads and Ward Heads, and other Native Authority functionaries should, from now on, have nothing at all to do with the maintenance of law and order during election and on polling day, and should be present at polling stations and in the polling booths only to cast their votes.
b) During elections (Federal, Regional or Local) there should be no restraint whatsoever on public meetings. Political parties should be free to hold public meetings where and when they choose, unless in the interest of law and order the prescribed authority is of the opinion that meetings of rival political parties should be regulated by the issue of permits, or by agreement among local party leaders. For this purpose, the Nigerian Police Force should be the pre-scribed Authority, and should also be responsible for maintaining law and order during elections in the Northern Region as well as in the other parts of the Federation.
c) Where suitable buildings are not available, polling booths with permanent materials should be erected by the Federal Government. On no account should private dwelling houses, palaces, or official residences be used as polling booths or stations.
d) Symbols should be painted on all sides of the Ballot Box, and where this is not possible, they should be pasted on all sides of the Box by means of a transfer system. All ballot boxes should be made of steel.
e) All Native Authorities shoud be democratised as has for long been the case in the East and West. Those who operate the present feudal system in the North and are, from head to toe, steeped in un-abashed autocracy can never take kindly to the need for, and the practices of democracy and of a free and fair election.
7. The foreign policy of Nigeria should be independent, and should be guided by the following principles:
A. in respect to the world in general:
1. The promotion of economic relations with all nations of the world.
2. Co-operation with all nations of the world in so far as they respect the ideals for which we stand.
3. Respect for the sovereignty of nations and non-interference in their domestic affairs.
4. The settlement of international disputes by peaceful negotiations directly or through the agency of the U.N.O.
5. Attraction of foreign assistance (capital, technical skills and training opportunities for Nigerians) on the most advantageous terms.
6. Lasting world peace through non-involvement in military pacts, discontinuance of the armament race, and an end to the establishment of military bases on foreign soil.
7. Respect for the United Nations Charter.
B. In respect to Africa in particular:
1. The immediate and complete freedom and sovereignty of all those African States which are at present only nominally independent (a) by the abrogation of any military or defence pact or ties as well as of all rights and privileges appurtenant to such pact or ties and (b) by the elimination of undue economic or technical dependence on any single alien country.
2. The setting of a target date or dates in the very near future for the complete liberation of all colonial territories wherever they may be on the Continent of Africa.
3. The immediate termination of the existence of any military base in any part of Africa and the evacuation of all occupation troops on the Continent whether they are attached to specific military bases or not.
4. The mobilisation of all the forces at our command to assist in the immediate extermination of apartheid in South Africa and the restoration to the African in South Africa of his natural birth rights.
5. The outlawry of any form of discrimination or segregation against the black peoples in particular and Africans in general and in other parts of the world.
6. The maintenance and defence of the dignity of the African (particularly black African), and of the sovereignty of any independent African State against derogation or violation from any quarter whatsoever.
7. The promotion and establishment of a community of interests among all the peoples of Africa, and to this end to work assiduously for the realisation of the ideal of a political union or a confederacy (whichever is
practicable in the prevailing circumstances) among all African States.
8. As a first practical step towards the emergence of an All-Africa political union, the immediate division of the Continent into Zones.
9. The initiation of steps for the immediate introduction in Zones of a Customs and monetary union as well as economic, technical, cultural and other forms of essential co-operation, and the fostering of an early
emergence of a political union among the independent countries situate within each zone.
10. Non-involvement of all African countries in the present East-West power politics and struggles as well as non-partisanship in the Arab-Israeli dispute and conflict.
It is my considered view that our foreign policy should be bi-partisan, and should be taken out of the arena of party politics. I have repeatedly made suggestions to this effect both on the floor of the House of Representatives and privately to Sir Abubakar, but in vain.
There is only one answer to the second question. In the national interest, all the progressive elements in the country must come together now, and get themselves ready to take over the Government of the Federation at the earliest possible time. We do not have long to wait. Our chance will come in 1964 or earlier. The life of the present Parliament comes to an end by effluxion of time in 1964. But Balewa might choose to go to the country much earlier. And the likelihood cannot be completely ruled out that the present coalition, which is an enforced association of incompatibles, might break and collapse under the mounting pressure of public discontent and indignation.
Whatever happens, 1964 does not appear to me to be too far ahead. In the meantime, it is our duty to mobilise public opinion, and bring it to bear on the Government, to the end that it shall accept a philosophy of action which springs from and is broadly based on all the principles, objectives, and proposals which, within the compass of this lecture, I have sufficiently elaborated.
There are many who are beginning to despair about the future of our great country. May I reaffirm, in all humility and unshaken faith, that there is no cause for despair. For, it is to the progressive and radical elements in Nigeria, whose numbers are rapidly increasing, that the morrow of our illustrious country belongs
