Pa Anthony Enahoro
22nd July 1923 – 15th December 2010
For the record, “You will recall that Chief Anthony Enahoro is the first Nigeria to moved a motion for 'self rule in the Federal House in 1953 at the age of 30 years old which proposed that we should have our independence in 1956. Unfortunately, it was rejected by Parliament and it therefore failed.”
Read the full story
Motion for Self Government.
Written by CHIEF ANTHONY ENAHORO
22nd July 1923 – 15th December 2010
Mr. President, sir, I rise to move the
motion standing in my name, “that this House accepts as a primary political
objective the attainment of self-government for Nigeria in 1956”.
‘Sir, this motion is an invitation to the
Honourable Members of this House to associate the highest legislature of our
land with the expressed desire of the peoples of this country, whose views we
all represent, for political autonomy in 1956. It seeks to provide
representatives from all parts of the country with an opportunity to exchange
views on the most burning question of our time. It is an invitation to
this House to make a declaration of objective with regard to Nigerian freedom.
‘I do not propose, sir, to go into the
arguments for self-government because I am satisfied that it is generally
accepted on all sides of the House that self-government for this country at
some future date is a desirability. Therefore I propose to deal with this
motion in two main parts and very briefly –namely, of what significance is such
a declaration of objective and secondly, why should the objective be 1956?
‘Sir, I believe that a declaration of
objective by this House has become a matter of supreme importance in our march
towards self-government. For the time being, this Legislature is the
supreme voice of the people of this country, although not all majority
decisions which have been taken in this House in the past could hope to survive
the test of a referendum. It is essential, in my view, to assess why a
formal motion of this nature the honest feelings of various sections of the
House and to discover to what extent these feelings may truly reflect the
aspirations of the politically conscious citizens of this country.
‘Self-government is after all, sir, a subject
on which it is of the first importance that people should believe rightly, and
I cannot overstress the great inspiration and succour which various political
parties in this country would derive therefrom if the demand for
self-government in 1956 were to enjoy the full force of the backing of the
highest legislature of the country.
‘Some Honourable Members may feel that the
issue of self-government is not one for these House to decide. It may be
argued that it has very little to do with the present administration of this
country, but speaking for this side of the House, sir, we have always felt that
the House of Representatives should serve a dual purpose in our political progress.
Firstly, that it is our duty to utilize the powers which we now enjoy in this
House to further the expansion of our economy and of our social services and to
remove obstacles on the road to freedom; but secondly, and perhaps even more
important, we must use this House Representatives itself to continue the
fundamental struggle for national freedom. One of the basic moves in the
furtherance of that struggle –and even though we carry it on with less violent
methods than the people of Kenya have found it necessary to employ, it
is nevertheless a struggle –is a statement of our goal and that is why, in
my view, it is necessary for this House to express an opinion on this subject.
‘A declaration of objective, sir, is
important in other respects. We and our people can be likened to
builders. We have set out to build a new state. From the multitude
of tribes in this country we are striving to build a new and modern
structure. Self-government is merely the foundation of that structure.
This work of construction is a romantic idea to me, and I am sure that
Honourable Members will agree with me that we are all proud and honoured to be
the architects and that we should be grateful to Providence that this task has
fallen upon our generation. But among the responsibilities which
accompany this great honour and privilege is the important decision which none
but ourselves can make, as to when we shall strike the first sod in this new
edifice.
‘Many Honourable members, sir, have had
houses built for them. Others like myself may only have seen them
built. In the North I have seen peasants construct their own
hamlets. For many years these poor peasants must have planned and dreamed
of their own little homes. They did not just sit by and hope that
Providence would create a new home for them. They did not say to
themselves, “I shall lay the foundations of my new home as soon as
practicable.” That is not planning. On the contrary, I am sure that
they must have examined their own earnings and their business prospects over a
period, then considered their commitments and found out where savings might be
made here and there, and then they could say to themselves, “By the grace of
Allah, I shall lay my foundation in three or five years’ time”
‘Now, the builders of a nation, as we are,
are no different from these poor peasants. That is why in places like
Russia, England, India and other countries, the Government sets out a
declaration of objectives embodied in five-year plans, and all that this motion
asks of this Legislature is to follow in the footsteps of these great and wiser
nations and to establish a political objective towards the attainment of which
we can bend the energies of our own people.
‘Many years ago, sir, when I was a young man
and I entered public life, the popular slogan was “Self-government in our
life-time”. But as the country advance, this slogan went out of vogue and
the new catch-phrase was “Self-government as soon as practicable”. That
is many years back. As I have said, I do not wish to deal with the
arguments for self-government and how the desire for freedom grew, but anybody
who has kept pace with political advancement or with the trends of political
thought in this country in the last seven years will agree that the bare idea
of self-government is no longer attractive, is no longer enough.
‘Whether it is expressed as “Self-government
in our life-time” or “Self-government in the shortest possible time” or
“Self-government as soon as practicable”, it has ceased to be a progressive view,
because Nigerian nationalism has moved forward from that position. The
question in the public mind since the end of the war has been,
“Self-government, when? What time, what date?” That is the question which
this motion now invites Honourable Members, who should be true representatives,
representatives of that same public which is demanding an answer, to answer.
‘There is a third reason, sir, why a
declaration of objective is important. We do not want to part with the
British people with rancour. For may years have they ruled us. We
are not an unreasonable people, and like a good house servant, it is only fair
that we should give our masters notice of our intention to quit, so that they
can effect arrangement either to employ new servants or to serve
themselves. We do not wish to take them by surprise. On the
contrary, we wish to invite them to co-operate with us in the attainment of our
objectives.
‘Honourable Members may remember that the
Indian cause alienated a lot of sympathy in the United Kingdom because of what
was regarded as the indecent hast with which the British evacuated or withdrew
from India. The British mind, essentially a conservative mind, does not
like things thrust upon it all of a sudden. We all know that. This
motion is designed therefore to acquaint the British public with what we are
thinking, with what we are feeling, so that our agitation in 1956 for self
government will not come to them as a surprise. This motion will also
afford the British Government sufficient time within which to arrange gradual
withdrawal and progressive transfer of power to Nigerians.
‘Sir, a declaration of objective, such as
this, is essential for a fourth reason. It is now accepted by the highest
international bodies that there should be a time limit for self-government for
Colonial territories. I may mention here, without giving anything away,
that one of the questions which the recent British Labour Party Delegation to
West Africa asked my party was what the House of Representatives thought about
self-government for Nigeria in 1956. The Trusteeship Council of the
United Nations Organization has requested governments administering Trust
Territories to fix target dates when such territories will attain
self-government. The International Confederation of Free Trade Unions has
also declared its acceptance of the principle that a time limit should be set
by occupying powers and Imperialist Governments for self-government for their
dependencies.
‘Even in Britain itself, a large body of
opinion is growing in support of this principle. I well recall, sir,
that when I was in England last year, Mr. Fenner Brockway, the well-known
Socialist M.P., said in the course of a Colonial affairs debate in the House of
Commons: “I should like to urge upon the House and particularly upon the
Secretary of State for the Colonies that if we are to secure the confidence,
trust and co-operation of peoples in the Colonial Territories, the best way to
do it would be in discussion, consultation and agreement with them to fix a
target date when in each respective Colony the goal of self-government would be
secured. And I believe that if it were possible to pursue such a policy,
we would change the psychology of the Colonial peoples.”
‘I myself think that was a very correct
assessment of our psychology. It is clear that such international
organizations as I have mentioned and men like Mr. Brockway are thinking along
the lines of this motion and I think it is up to this Legislature, representing
the peoples of this country, to strengthen their hands.
‘That, sir, is very briefly the first part of
my argument explaining the significance of a declaration of political
objective.
‘Now, sir, if it is agreed that an objective
should be declared, what should it be? It may be asked, “Why pick on 1956? Is
not 1956 an arbitrary date?” What considerations have led to the decision
on this date?
‘Mr. President, tow of the many factors which
have influenced our selection of this date are the factor of convenience and
the factor of previous commitment. 1956 is convenient, sir, because it is
the year which will see the end of the present constitution. The
Constitution Order-in-Council is dated 1951 and is supposed to expire in five
years It is public knowledge that all true nationalist have made up their
minds that this is the last constitution prescribing a dependent status which
the people of this country can tolerate.
‘To recommend a date earlier than 1956 would
be to put premature end to the life of this constitution, and although I myself
can contemplate such a course with pleasure, we know too well how strenuously
some sections of the country would resist it. In addition, most of the
programmes and policies of the Regional Governments to educate and prepare our
people for freedom are based on five-year plans, and I think it would be
unwise, to say the least, to interrupt the process of maturity of these
programmes with the upheaval that constitutional changes might occasion.
‘To settle on a later date would mean a
further period in national slavery, a prospect which I do not think any
Honourable Member would welcome. We might, if we settled on a later date,
have to draw up yet another interim constitution and waste time and public
funds to arrange new elections, still as a subject people, at a time when our
sister colony on the Gold Coast and our kinsmen in the West Indies and places
like Malaya will most assuredly be free independent nations. It seems to
me, therefore, that we cannot afford to put the date forward and it will be
inadvisable to set it back. Convenience therefore dictates 1956.
‘The arguments on the grounds of previous
commitment are even stronger. There may be some doubt as to whether any
particular political party is fully representative of the people, but there can
be no doubt whatsoever that any unanimous view approved by the majority of
political parties must represent the true feelings of the politically conscious
citizens of any country, and 1956 from this point of view enjoys the advantage
of unanimity. The Action Group, the N.C.N.C., the Northern Elements
Progressive Union, the Askianist Movement, the Convention People’s Party, have
all publicly declared for self-government in 1956, and I am confident that
today –on this historic day in the political annals of this country- I am
confident that the Northern People’s Congress will take the opportunity of this
debate to associate themselves with the declared objective of all other true
nationalists in this country.
‘Sir, the Action Group, the N.C.N.C., the
Northern Elements Progressive Union, and indeed all true nationalist who
interviewed the Labour Party delegation left them in no doubt that 1956 is
their irrevocable choice. I myself, in the course of my tour of the
United Kingdom last year, gave many interested organizations and our own
students over there to understand that we are deeply committed to 1956. I
am sure that Chief Bode Thomas, Chief Arthur Prest, Mr. Arikpo and Mr. Nwapa
who represented us abroad last year in their ministerial capacities, could not
have failed to make this claim. Chief Bode Thomas has even gone further
to publicize our ambitions in Canada and New York to world personalities.
All these great people and organizations are looking forward to the emergence
in 1956 of the largest and greatest Negro nation in the world as a free
independent country.
‘We have all at one time or another held out
high hopes for 1956 to our own people at mass meetings, at public lectures, in
the press and though other media. Our people are expectant. We
have, all of us, whether it is the Action Group or the N.C.N.C. or other
parties, promised at one time or another to lead them to the Promised Land in
1956. We cannot now go back on our plighted word. You will
understand, therefore, Mr. President, that on these three grounds of previous
commitments, 1956 is a position from which it is impossible to retreat, and
that is why this motion recommends it to this House for adoption.
‘Mr. President, there are one or two minor
points to answer on this subject, such as, “shall we in fact be able to rule
ourselves in 1956? Shall we have enough knowledgeable men and women? Are
there any grounds for the fear on the part of some Members from the North that
they will be dominated by the South?” I shall leave these questions, sir,
to be dealt with by my Honourable Friends who will speak after me. For
the moment, I hope I have said enough to show why it is of paramount importance
that this House should set target date for self-government and why that date
should be 1956.
‘One final observation I would like to make
is upon the attitude of the Special members of this House and of the Ex-officio
Members to this motion. I believe, sir, that the subject of
self-government is an issue between Nigerians and the British Government.
It is nothing whatever to do with my good and honourable friends, the Special
members and with my equally good and honourable friends, the Ex-officio
Members. I hold the view that no non-Nigerian has the right to express an
opinion in this House on this subject or seek to influence the course of this debate
on the time that we may choose to strike for freedom. We are the elected
representatives of our people –and that applies to all Nigerians here. We are
all elected by some process. We, as the elected representatives of our
people, do not require the assistance of any alien to help us to decide when we
should be free. I would, therefore, appeal to the Special Members to
refrain from speaking and from voting on this motion, whatever their private
feelings may be.
‘The Ex-officio Members, sir, are in a similar
position. Their functions in this House relate to the work of certain
specified departments of government. Perhaps they have the interest of
Nigeria at heart. Perhaps they have not. Their private feelings are
entirely their own concern and are of no consequence in this debate. The
subject of this motion is not covered by the portfolio of any Ex-officio
Member. I would like, therefore, to appeal to them in all sincerity to
stay out of this debate, sir, and to let us Nigerians argue our own
demands and desires and differences among ourselves. We will go into the
lobbies, sir, to decide the future of our own people and of our own
children. None of the officials has a stake in this country, and I mean
no offence at all when I describe them as mere birds of passage. They are
here today, sir, but being of the Colonial service, they may well be elsewhere
tomorrow, by transfer or by retirement. I beseech them, therefore, not to
take any course which might lead to an estrangement between us and them.
‘Mr. President, the whole country –I might
even say the whole world- is awaiting the verdict of this House on this
motion. News of what we say there today will travel far and wide. I
do not know how many honourable members read the English press. They may
have noticed in the Daily Telegraph an account of the debate which
took place here last week on nudity. I am sure that any Honourable member
looking back now and reading an account of that debate will feel thoroughly
ashamed of the decision of the House. I appeal, sir, to all sections of
this House not to let us repeat the mistake of underestimating the extent of
overseas interest in the proceedings of this House. Our minds are
irrevocably made up on the issue of self-government in 1956.
‘Sir, I beg to move.’
