Insecurity Fuels Fresh Secession Call As Yoruba Group Proposes Political & Property Limits

By TINA TOLUTOPE

THE Yoruba Self-determination Movement (YSDM) has renewed its campaign to dissolve Nigeria and establish an independent Oduduwa Republic, arguing that insecurity and ethnic tensions have exposed the limits of restructuring and other constitutional reforms.

The movement announced its position on Wednesday at a press conference organised by the Yoruba Action Group at the NUJ Press Centre in Iyaganku, Ibadan. Alongside its demand for independence, it urged lawmakers across the South-West and territories it regards as Yorubaland to restrict non-indigenes’ access to political office, commercial spaces and land ownership.

Insecurity & Political Distrust Drive Renewed Agitation

Speaking for the movement, its Deputy Leader (Homeland), Architect George Akinola, said the group had repeatedly warned between 2017 and 2022 that Nigeria was heading towards a major crisis. He argued that resource control, regionalism and restructuring could no longer resolve what the movement considers deep-rooted national problems.

According to Akinola, an independent Oduduwa Republic remains the preferred option for protecting Yoruba political, economic and cultural interests. He also accused armed groups operating in parts of the South-West of attacking farmers, kidnapping residents and causing deaths.

The movement linked these security concerns to broader disputes about ethnic identity, political representation and territorial ownership. However, its claims about the activities of armed groups and the causes of inter-ethnic tensions were presented as the group’s allegations rather than independently verified findings.

Lagos Remains at the Centre of the Identity Dispute

Akinola rejected the description of Lagos as “No Man’s Land” and challenged claims about the historical ownership and development of the state. To support its position, the movement cited the Awori, Ijebu, Egba, Egbado, Remo, Ilaje and Egun communities, alongside Yoruba returnees from Sierra Leone.

It also disputed claims of historical Bini sovereignty over Lagos, arguing that the city’s traditional succession arrangements reflect Yoruba ruling-house traditions. These assertions form part of a wider dispute over the history of Lagos, a major commercial centre whose population includes Nigerians from numerous ethnic backgrounds.

The group further accused former Lagos State governor Bola Tinubu’s administration, which ran from 1999 to 2007, of allowing Igbo residents to increase their political representation and property ownership. Akinola linked these developments to present tensions, although the report supplied no independent evidence establishing that causal relationship.

Proposed Measures Target Elections & Commercial Activity

The movement called for legislation barring Igbo candidates from contesting elections in Yorubaland during the 2027 general elections. It also proposed limiting non-indigenes to 20 per cent of shops and commercial spaces in individual markets.

Among the locations it identified were Alaba, Ladipo and the Trade Fair Complex markets in Lagos. Akinola alleged that some Yoruba traders had faced intimidation and exclusion because of their ethnicity. In response, the group demanded investigations into such allegations and called for the criminalisation of harassment against indigenous traders.

On property ownership, the YSDM proposed limiting land leases for non-indigenes to 20 years or less, compared with the 99-year arrangements it cited. It also advocated tighter migration controls into Yoruba urban centres and the repatriation of non-Yoruba residents convicted of crimes to their states of origin.

In addition, the movement called for the revocation of properties where it alleged hostile groups had gathered. It also demanded an end to open cattle grazing across Yorubaland, urging cattle owners from outside the region to establish ranches in their home states.

Constitutional Protections Present a Major Challenge

The proposals raise questions about the relationship between the movement’s demands and existing constitutional protections. Section 42 of the 1999 Constitution prohibits discrimination against Nigerian citizens on grounds including ethnicity and place of origin. Meanwhile, Section 43 protects citizens’ right to acquire and own immovable property anywhere in Nigeria, subject to the Constitution.

Consequently, any proposed restrictions based solely on ethnic identity or state of origin would face serious constitutional questions. The enforceability of particular measures would depend on their precise wording, legal basis and application.

Section 2 of the Constitution also describes Nigeria as an indivisible and indissoluble sovereign state. Although the YSDM disputes the legitimacy of the constitutional arrangement, the existing Constitution does not provide a unilateral route to secession.

Historical Grievances Shape the Group’s Position

To explain its opposition to the current political structure, Akinola cited historical conflicts involving Yoruba communities, the political crisis in the former Western Region in 1963, the disputed 1983 Ondo State governorship election and the annulment of the 12th June 1993 presidential election, widely believed to have been won by the late Chief Moshood Abiola.

The movement interpreted these episodes as evidence of a longstanding pattern of political domination and threats to Yoruba interests. However, its historical interpretation remains the group’s position and should be distinguished from independently established historical facts.

Despite the constitutional and practical questions surrounding its proposals, the YSDM says it will continue campaigning for an independent Oduduwa Republic. Its latest demands have intensified a debate that now extends beyond secession to the rights of Nigerian citizens, ethnic relations, security, commercial participation and the limits of regional identity in a federal state.