Referendum is an occasion when all the people of a country can vote on an important issue. Many democracies restrict their citizens’ involvement in the affairs of state to a vote that expresses their choice among potential political leaders. The state or country’s policies are then set by the elected leaders, without any direct input from the voters.
Some democracies, however, allow voters under some circumstances, to choose directly, in an election. Such an electoral choice or process is called referendum. Any important changes or decisions must be approved by referendum.
This is why I see the decision by the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) to call for a referendum on the way to liberate Biafra as a wise one.
IPOB reportedly advised all Biafran agitators at home and in the Diaspora to be prepared for a referendum to decide whether to be an independent sovereign entity from Nigeria or not.
According to a statement by IPOB’s Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, Biafrans have the right under international law to decide their fate through a referendum, the same way Britain exercised its right to leave the European Parliament or European Council.
In actual fact, the agitation for a Biafra independent nation is normal but the manner in which it was earlier approached is wrong. The path to independence is not easily achieved through war or series of protests but by mutual negotiation.
According to Nobel Laureate, Professor Wole Soyinka who declared his support for Biafran agitators, the Igbo people have been so wronged that they have no choice than to consider opting out of Nigeria.
“I am very much pro-Biafra because I recognize that the Igbo have been wronged desperately,” he said, adding “they have been brutalised in a way that justifies their feeling that they were not part of the nation.”
An issue such as self-determination must be decided under a referendum with the participation of all residents of the land and stakeholders so as to reach a careful consideration after careful examination of all issues involved. Referendum is very crucial at this period that the Igbos want independence. It is not a matter that would be handled by the government.
In well organized countries, matters of this magnitude are discussed through national referendum. For instance, the United States does not have any provision for national referendums, but many localities and states do provide for them. Outside the United States, a few democracies provide for the regular use of national referendums. France and Switzerland are examples of countries relying heavily on referendums.
When Spain initiated its new democratic constitution in 1978, it held a referendum so that the constitution could be ratified by the people. Similarly when the powers of the European Union were to be expanded in the 1993 Maastricht Treaty, France, Ireland and Denmark held referendums to allow their people to decide whether they should sign the treaty. At that time, France and Ireland voted yes; the Danes voted no, but the treaty as re-written to accommodate them, and on a second attempt, they voted yes.
So, for the fact that the Biafran agitation is a national question, which involves various ethnic groups of the country, there is the need for a national referendum. Although the agitators are not entirely innocent in this affairs, their demand is based on alleged injustice unleashed on them, which they feel is sufficient to justify their decision not to be part of Nigeria again.
It is the view of many Nigerians that the country should remain as one and indivisible entity but few others like the Igbos feel marginalised and want an independent state. Whatever the outcome of those feelings will be, time shall tell.
It is, however, important that Nigerians recognize the plurality of the country, how it came together and begins to devise and adopt a new method of governance which should centre around true federalism. As Professor Soyinka rightly said, if we continue to have a centralised government, the country might be heading for a brink.
Meanwhile, in a bid to achieve their aim, Biafran agitators should tread with caution by ensuring that the referendum is held peacefully and made acceptable to all.
The IPOB, in a statement, said the United Nations (UN) and the international community would monitor the referendum processes and ensure compliance with the will expressed.
That sounds like a good decision. But like I said earlier, the agitators must carry out their activities within the ambit of the laws of Nigeria which they currently belong to. In as much as they are still members of the Nigerian Federation, any of their actions that goes contrary to the constitutional provisions of the Federal Republic of Nigeria may be tantamount to a breach of the law.

Shedie Okpara