A Historical Milestone and Its Modern Implications
Seventy-three years ago, on March 31, 1953, the late Chief Anthony Enahoro, then a member of the federal House of Representatives in Lagos, moved a motion proposing ‘that this House accepts as a primary political objective the attainment of self-government for Nigeria in 1956’. This motion marked a pivotal moment in Nigeria’s journey towards independence. The story of that day is well known, but its implications continue to resonate today.
Enahoro’s motion accelerated Nigeria’s path to independence from Britain, which was eventually achieved on October 1, 1960. However, the proposed 1956 deadline faced opposition from the majority northern members of the House of Representatives, who substituted it with ‘as soon as practicable’. The events of that day quickly spiraled out of control, and in many ways, we are still dealing with the consequences.
Nigeria’s current leader, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, was just one year and two days old on the day Enahoro made his historic motion. Yet, the question remains: what have we done with our independence since then? President Tinubu’s foreign policy actions over the past three years raise concerns about the direction of the country. His policies seem to suggest a shift from post-colonial to pro-colonial, as he has handed back Nigeria’s independence to former colonial powers.
Chief Anthony Enahoro was a member of the Action Group, the political party founded and led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the first Premier of the Western Region. Enahoro’s motion for independence could not have been without Awolowo’s blessings. Awolowo, one of the finest thinkers of his generation, laid out an intellectual foundation for a future independent Nigeria.
In his book Path to Nigerian Freedom (1947), Awolowo argued that Nigeria, unlike metropolitan Britain, should be a federation of semi-autonomous units. He also emphasized that independence was not an end but the beginning of a more difficult task—building a viable, self-reliant, and welfare state. Nigeria, he believed, must rely on its own citizens, forged through free and quality education.
These arguments were echoed by Awolowo’s northern contemporaries, who recognized that independence was a natural eventuality but also a heavy responsibility requiring full preparation across the country. It is this legacy of self-awareness and self-governance that President Tinubu has seemingly abandoned in just three years.
President Tinubu’s foreign policy appears deliberately designed not to advance Nigeria’s interests but to hand over sovereignty to other countries. There is a sad irony here because Tinubu traces his political lineage directly to Awolowo.
When only months into office, Tinubu positioned himself not as Nigeria’s President reinventing the ECOWAS subregional body but as the Chief Defender of French interests in the region. He misread military coups in Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Mali as a seasonal flu and sought to reverse the coup in Niger Republic, even militarily succeeding in the case of the attempted coup in Benin Republic. All on behalf of France.
For his reward, Tinubu received a lavish state reception in Paris, while Nigeria gained nothing but platitudes and promises. Flattered by the reception, Tinubu handed over Nigeria’s tax administration reforms to France in a ceremony signed at the French Embassy in Abuja, on French soil in Nigeria. The indignity of an independent Nigeria signing any agreement in a foreign embassy would not have been lost on Awolowo.
Additionally, the government’s Nigeria-U.S. Security Cooperation Framework is the widest and most in-depth security cooperation Nigeria has ever entered into. The scope covers defense, intelligence, police, military hardware, and more. While Nigeria has always maintained friendly relations with the U.S., successive governments have not gone further for good reason. The U.S. is a superpower, and close security ties can be dangerous for a country like Nigeria.
The security agreement with the U.S. seems more like a moral and political capitulation than a solution to problems. Moreover, the government has been on a foreign borrowing spree since coming into office in 2023. While all Nigerian governments have borrowed money, this government removed fuel subsidies on its first day and was expected to borrow less, not more. At this rate, Nigeria’s debt stock to foreign creditors may become unpayable.
All of these actions raise the question: why? The answer is simple. President Tinubu appears to value external validation and legitimacy more than Nigerian public opinion. It is not too late to value Nigerian legitimacy more.
