A socio-political group, Think Yoruba First (TYF), has strongly opposed a proposed bill in the House of Representatives aimed at granting indigene rights to Nigerians based on residency or marriage. The controversial bill, which was introduced by Hon. Kalu Okezie, proposes that Nigerians who have lived in a particular area for 10 years or have been married to an indigenous person for the same period should be granted indigene status in that community. TYF’s rejection of the bill has sparked a debate about the potential consequences of such a measure on Nigeria’s multi-ethnic society.
In a statement signed by its executives—including Dr. Bukola Adeniji, Mr. Kayode Ọlọkọ, Dr. Mark Faleye, Engr. Kunle Faleti, and Mr. Bolarinwa Oladimeji—TYF expressed concerns that the bill would undermine the cultural and historical foundations of indigenous groups across Nigeria. The group warned that the proposed law could worsen ethnic tensions, ignite conflicts, and destabilize the country in the long term.
TYF’s statement stresses that the bill would pose a threat to the indigenous identity of Nigeria’s various ethnic groups. The group argued that granting indigene rights based solely on residency or marriage could erase the deep-rooted cultural, ancestral, and historical ties that indigenous communities have with their land. TYF compared this approach to global best practices, pointing out that countries like the United States, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand do not recognize indigenous status based on residency or marriage. Instead, these countries tie indigenous identity to ancestry, cultural heritage, and a historical connection to the land.
“No serious nation undermines the rights of its indigenous people by arbitrarily granting indigenous status to settlers,” the statement read. “History has shown that forceful alteration of indigenous identity is a precursor to ethnic violence and civil unrest, especially in multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nations.”
TYF also referred to examples of countries where ethnic manipulation led to violent conflicts, such as Rwanda, where the 1994 genocide was partly fueled by the manipulation of ethnic identity. Similar tensions in South Sudan, Yugoslavia, and even within Nigeria itself—such as in Jos, Southern Kaduna, Ife-Modakeke, and the clashes between farmers and herders—were also cited as evidence that disputes over land and identity can lead to devastating consequences. The group warned that legalizing the erasure of indigenous identity would only exacerbate these existing conflicts.
The Yoruba group urged lawmakers from all regions of Nigeria—South-West, South-South, North-Central, North-East, and North-West—to reject the bill in its entirety. TYF emphasized that protecting the rights of indigenous people is a fundamental duty that should not be compromised. The group further called for a focus on ethnolinguistic restructuring, in line with the ideas of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who advocated for the promotion of peaceful coexistence, economic empowerment, and equitable development among Nigeria’s diverse ethnic groups.
TYF believes that this approach would allow Nigeria to thrive without eroding the cultural and historical integrity of its indigenous populations. “The indigenous identity of Nigeria’s ethnic nationalities is a sacred heritage that must not be sacrificed on the altar of political expediency,” the statement stated.
TYF’s statement stressed the potential dangers that could arise if the bill is passed. The group argued that granting indigene rights based on residency and marriage could create a precedent that would ultimately distort Nigeria’s ethnic foundations, leading to deeper divisions and potential disintegration. The group warned that such a move could sow the seeds of ethnic fragmentation, weakening the already fragile unity of the country.
The fear is that recognizing individuals as indigenes based on a relatively short period of residence or marriage could open the door for political manipulation. Settlers could gain the rights to influence local governance, land ownership, and other resources, causing resentment and division between indigenous groups and those who are seen as outsiders. This could further fuel existing tensions, particularly in areas where competition for resources and political power is already high.
While rejecting the bill, TYF has put forward its vision for the future of Nigeria’s ethnic relations. The group advocates for ethnolinguistic restructuring, a model that would take into account the diverse ethnic and cultural backgrounds of Nigeria’s people while promoting unity, economic growth, and social harmony. By ensuring that each ethnic group has a say in the political and economic development of the country, TYF believes that Nigeria can achieve true peace and prosperity.
Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s advocacy for a federal structure that accommodates Nigeria’s ethnic diversity is seen as a key inspiration for this call. TYF argues that ethnic and cultural identity should be celebrated, and the recognition of indigenous rights must be carefully balanced with the need for unity and peaceful coexistence. This approach, according to the group, would help avoid the fragmentation that could arise from the proposed bill.
The debate over the bill is part of a broader conversation about Nigeria’s unity and the challenges of managing its ethnic diversity. Nigeria, with its hundreds of ethnic groups, faces ongoing challenges related to resource distribution, political representation, and identity. Over the years, various regions and groups have fought to assert their rights to land, resources, and political power. The issue of indigeneity is particularly sensitive, as it often carries implications for access to land, government benefits, and political influence.
The proposed bill has sparked debates not only among Yoruba groups but also among other ethnic communities that fear its passage could lead to further division. Indigenous groups across Nigeria are particularly wary of any attempt to dilute their status and rights through political or legal means. There is a widespread belief that allowing residency or marriage to determine indigeneity could lead to political manipulation and the erosion of local cultural traditions.
