|
Willink Report: Letter to Governor-General |
 |
|
Author: Editor
|
|
Wednesday, 27 August 1958 00:00 |
Letter from CG Eastwood to Sir J Robertson on the handling of the Willink Report at the forthcoming constitutional conference
27 Aug 1958
Letter from CG Eastwood to Sir J Robertson on the handling of the Willink Report at the forthcoming constitutional conference
[The welcome given by Northern political leaders to the Willink recommendations against the creation of new regions, was matched by the dissatisfaction expressed by minorities' representatives and above all by the AG, who saw the break-up of the Northern Region as essential to their ambition of becoming the largest party in the Federation. CO fears were that since the AG objections were likely to be exploited as a central plank in their campaign for the 1959 Federal elections, their dissatisfaction with Willink would distract the forthcoming constitutional conference.]
Now that we have had some further opportunity to consider the report of the Minorities Commission, I should like to follow up Emmanuel's letter to you of the 8th August with some general comments on particular points.
2. The agenda for the conference will, of course, be a matter for the Steering Committee, but it seems to us inevitable that the Minorities Commission Report should be the first item on the agenda. The Conference has been called primarily to consider the reports of the Minorities and Fiscal Commissions, and until the Minorities Report and in particular the demand for new States is finally disposed of, we cannot easily get on with many other items of business including the Report of the Fiscal Commission. I shall assume, then, that the Minorities Report is taken first.
3. Perhaps the most valuable aspect of this Report is its firm disposal, based on much evidence, of the various claims of new States. I think we felt from the beginning that this negative aspect of its work was likely to be one of the most fruitful contributions that the Commission could make, and so it seems to have proved. But we know that the Action Group at least, supported no doubt by some representatives of minority parties, will reaffirm their demand for new States, and this demand must clearly be discussed and disposed of. We suggest, therefore, that the best means of dealing with the Commission's Report might be to begin with a general Second Reading debate on the Report in which the general attitude of parties might emerge. The Secretary of State could affirm the considerable value of the Commission's careful analysis of many problems and proposals, and would stand firm for its disposal of claims for new States. He could say that it reinforced the view he expressed last year that any such States should be created only as a last resort.
The Action Group would no doubt fire all its guns, but at present seems unlikely to receive much support on this issue from any other major delegation.
4. If the air could be cleared in this way (still no doubt leaving hard feelings among the Action Group), the Conference could then proceed to consider the specific recommendations contained in the Report. Here we suggest that the Secretary of State should propose that at least two of the topics dealt with by the Minorities Commission-- Police and Fundamental Rights -- should be treated as seperate agenda items. I imagine, too, that the Commission's recommendations aboul Muslim law would not be taken substantively by the Conference until they had been discussed first with the North in the context of the proposals for Regional self-government there.
5. If these recommendations are dealt with separately from the Report as a whole, we are left mainly with the Ilorin/Kabba dispute and the recommendations for Special and Minority areas. Perhaps I could deal with the latter first.
We can see very clearly that the Commission's scheme for a Special Area Board for the Ijaws of East and West would create many difficulties with all the Governments concerned. But the Commission are emphatic that a real problem exists and we do not in these circumstances think that the Secretary of State can properly discharge his role as too difficult to work. Furthermore, we think there might be advantage in the Secretary of State presenting the Commission's report to the Conference as a package deal to be taken as a whole-- though no doubt modified in particulars-- with each party recognising that while some of the recommendations may seem hurtful to it, others are to its political or general advantage.
If the Secretary of State is to adopt such an approach, it would be desirable for him to be able to invite the Conference to: accept the Commission's conclusion that the land (or water!) of the Ijaws presents a particular problem which requires particular and fully co-ordinated administrative measures to tackle. If this could be agreed, then the Conference or a committee of it might get together to work out some means of helping the Ijaws, which would cause less difficulty to the Regional Governments concerned than seems likely from the Commission's existing recommendations.
If you think that this general approach might be fruitful, no doubt you will give some thought to how the Commission's scheme for Special Area Board might be amended to make it both more workable and, if possible, more palatable to the local Governments.
6. Much the same approach would apply to the proposals for Minority Areas.
7. I do not need to refer again here to the question of Fundamental Rights. The promised dispatch to the Nigerian Governments containing draft clauses for their consideration should be with you at much the same time as this letter.
Source: "Moving to Independence, Part II".
British Documents on the End of Empire, Nigeria. Series B Volume 7
Publisher: University of London for the Inst of CommonWealth Studies
Symbols:
AG - Actrion Group
CG Eastwood - Assistant Under-Secretary for West Africa(1955-1961)
Sir J Robertson - Governor-General of Nigeria (1955-1960)
Recommend this article... |
|
Last Updated ( Sunday, 07 September 2008 01:12 )
|
Resources