Dayo Ogungbenro, the Chairman of the People Democratic Party (PDP), loyal to Governor Seyi Makinde, has described Nigeria’s 1914 amalgamation as a “curse” and a historical mistake, warning that the country may continue to struggle unless its constituent parts return to the negotiating table to redefine their relationship.
Speaking during an exclusive interview with PrimeStar News Online, Ogungbenro argued that Nigeria has failed to evolve into a true federation and questioned the viability of the current political structure.
According to him, the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates by the British created a country that has yet to function as a genuine nation-state.
“Yes, it was a curse. The amalgamation of the North and South was indeed a curse and a mistake,” he said, while citing the views of the late nationalist leader, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who famously described Nigeria as a mere geographical expression.
Ogungbenro maintained that the country’s persistent political and governance challenges stem from its inability to practise federalism in its true form.
Asked whether he supported calls for the breakup of Nigeria, he stopped short of endorsing secession but insisted that a national dialogue was necessary.
“I don’t want to sound like a prophet of doom, but there is a need for Nigeria to return to the conference table and renegotiate the so-called association called Nigeria,” he said.
He expressed pessimism about the country’s current trajectory, arguing that successive administrations have failed to address deep-rooted structural problems.
“We are not getting it right at all, and we are not likely to get it right anytime soon,” he stated.
On the future of the country, Ogungbenro painted a bleak picture if current governance practices continue unchanged.
“There is no hope for Nigeria if we continue like this,” he said.
He criticised the quality of leadership in the country, lamenting that a nation of more than 200 million people has struggled to produce leaders selected primarily on competence and capacity.
He argued that leadership should not be based on political entitlement or personal ambition but on merit, vision and the ability to govern effectively.
