And there were those of us who also drafted the PDP constitution, incorporated rotation and that power will rotate between the North and the South. There was no issue of geo-political zone at all; it was just rotation between the North and South.The next argument was where would this rotation start? People argued that the North had been leading for years and so on, including military leaders. This was not democratic, but all the same we accepted it since many former military leaders were our own people. Then the element that weighed the most was the annulment of Chief MKO Abiola’s election .That was used as a strong element of argument that the North should concede to the South to begin the rotation of power. That’s how it started. I was one of those who conceded and say yes, let’s go along. We were encouraged by the military people who really worked with Obasanjo.

Then it was decided that the rotation could start from somebody with a military background but who was seen to be neutral and would come and galvanise the country because he had no political history that could have been associated with the Action Group, AG, NCNC, NPC and others. That’s how they argued and rationalised that a neutral person but with a lot of experience both in the military and in governance of the country should be given the leadership. Obasanjo was then, of course, in prison and we rationalised and argued that he should be brought out of prison and pardoned of all the convictions. That’s how we started, and that’s how Obasanjo took the first term under this rotation arrangement to run for president and it was overwhelming. You could see it, and there was an attempt by Abubakar Rimi and Barnabas Gemade to run against him. But Rimi got almost zero in Kano. How could he have made that zero if not rotation in Kano?

How could Gemade get nothing in Benue but for an agreement that the North would come fully to support this southern candidate. So that’s how Obasanjo got the first four years but under the constitution of the country, he was entitled to go for two terms. And then he asked for an extension of the zoning arrangement to enable him utilise the second term allowed by the constitution.

An expanded caucus was called, go to Audu Ogbeh, you will find a record of that discussion there, where additional concession was made for another four years for Obasanjo under the zoning arrangement and it was there conclusively stated that he would run and South then would have run for eight years and it would be the turn of the North to run for eight years after Obasanjo. So, you can see that those of us who had been part of this arrangement felt that something was going wrong in terms of fairness, trust and keeping agreement. When Umaru died midway through his first term, what we would have expected under gentlemanly agreement, written or unwritten, is that the vice-president under the Constitution of Nigeria should finish those remaining two years of the first term.

And then gentlemanly behaviour, honour and trust we lead those people from the South to say under this arrangement in this party the North if it did not have eight years in full should have at least six years, the first two years Umaru ran and the four years that would follow, from 2011 to 2015. That’s all that was expected. And those of us who sat and were part of it felt angered that there was failure of trust between people that should be seen as leaders and trustworthy, but they came out with all sorts of arguments that Jonathan should be the legitimate candidate to run in 2011. This is part of our disagreement. It is not an issue that the North must rule but the issue that there has been a failed trust.

At the Paris conference on Boko Haram, one of the resolutions was to set up a committee to raise funds for reconstruction of the North-East. Should leaders in the North who mismanaged money not be called to vomit some money too? 

No. What about the leaders of Nigeria that have stolen Nigerian money? This is the money we are looking for. I mean, it’s absolute nonsense to my mind that the responsibility of correcting the socio-economic condition of the North-East should rest on the people of the zone; it should rest squarely on the people of Nigeria. If you rehabilitate the North-East, the Igbo man can go and trade there and make his millions. The Yoruba man, like yourself, very enterprising, could go there and make your millions. So you are not rehabilitating North-East for the people of that zone but you’re doing so for the entire Nigerian state. Because for now, you cannot go and find viable Igbo businesses there. The Igbo man is always in every village in the North and so on. If he didn’t feel secured he cannot be there. And his livelihood is threatened, just like the livelihood of anybody else including those who are living in the North-East.

The responsibility for developing Nigeria is clearly stated in the constitution of the country that there should be even development in Nigeria and that no section of the country would monopolise the resources of Nigeria to the detriment of other sections. But it is stupidity to say that it is the money stolen by politicians in the North-East that should be brought to develop the zone. Absolute rubbish! What about North-East’s share of the resources of the country that have been stolen in Abuja, Ibadan, Lagos and the Niger-Delta?

You were once reported as wishing that zoning be killed, yet you advocate that power must return to the North. Is there no contradiction here? 

No, it’s not a contradiction. I initially trusted zoning. I was part of it. In fact I was castigated for supporting it by fellow northerners who feel that Nigerian democracy should be on basis of one man one vote. If you win an election on the basis of one man one vote, so be it, whether you’re from Ogoja, Kano, Sokoto, Ilorin or Lagos. But for us to introduce a caveat which says that it is no more one man one vote that will determine who becomes the president of the country by introducing zoning, this is what it is. But we thought that, that sacrifice is worth making, given the diversity of this country and its history.

Obasanjo was the first person to deny that there was zoning; that he came to be the president of Nigeria under zoning.

Obasanjo said so and he was followed by the various pronouncements that Jonathan himself made, that he’s not aware of zoning despite all the flying evidence. This is why I came to the conclusion that zoning is no more worthwhile and if it is so, it should die. Whether PDP wants to keep it on paper, it’s their business. Given the experience we’ve been through, the kind of discriminatory treatment that the North suffered in the hands of those people it trusted under the zoning arrangement, we are saying that we should go for it and we’re not going to behave the way they behaved, because our history is very clear. The leadership of northerners in the history of Nigeria is very clear.

Abubakar Tafawa Balewa didn’t discriminate against any section of this country. Gen. Yakubu Gowon didn’t discriminate against any section of this country; in fact he did far more particularly for those areas that were affected by the war than the area of the North he came from. And when he finished somebody had to build a house for him. Shagari, go to his village now and see if he has anything called wealth apart from his farm he’s running. Sardauna left no house in Kaduna or Sokoto. So you see, the tradition of northern leadership of Nigeria has been one of selfless service and it has been for equity and justice for all. This is why we feel that Nigeria will be much safer under this kind of leadership of equity and justice, not equity of win and take everything for yourself, as we see today.

You claimed that Jonathan’s refusal to comply with the zoning arrangement of the PDP was something he learnt from former president Olusegun Obasanjo. Could you please throw more light on that?