A supporter campaigns for Peter Obi in Lagos (PIUS UTOMI EKPEI/AFP via Getty Images)
While there is no indisputably powerful black nation on the global stage today, there is a country striving to become one. Nigeria has the economic potential to become a major world player, and is also projected to become the third-largest nation before 2050, by which point Africans will represent a quarter of humanity. Here in Britain, the reality of this demographic transformation has not quite registered yet. Discussions about the next century of geopolitics focus on regions with dwindling birth rates — Europe, North America and China — even though our future will increasingly be African.
As the most populous black state, Nigeria’s prospects are crucial to the future of global race dynamics, a reality often forgotten in the exasperatingly parochial race debate here in the Anglosphere. Black people worldwide yearn for a black nation that can compete with Western powers — a yearning embodied by the make-believe state of Wakanda in the enormously popular Black Panther movies. So, as Nigerians head to the polls tomorrow to choose their president in a highly unpredictable election, it is worth remembering that the result will have implications far beyond West Africa.
Contrary to expectations at the beginning of the campaign, the poll is now a three-way contest between two establishment figures and a popular third contender promising to upturn the status quo. Eight months ago, the odds-on favourite was the candidate of the ruling All Progressives Congress, Bola Tinubu. A 70-year-old long-time politician, Tinubu is widely considered to be one of Nigeria’s chief “godfathers” — very wealthy political actors who engage in industrial-scale vote-buying, paying poor citizens cash to support their candidates. Tinubu openly brags about how many politicians owe him their positions, including current president Muhammadu Buhari.
His critics cite his corruption, increasingly visible ill-health, and numerous campaign gaffes as reasons he is unfit for the job. Tinubu once suggested the Nigerian army should recruit “50 million youths” to tackle the country’s staggering 33% unemployment rate (arguing that the policy would not be costly because they could be fed on locally-grown corn). In one attempt to laud the achievements of a governor from his party, he described him as having “turned a rotten situation to a bad one”. Perhaps unsurprisingly, then, Tinubu did not agree to live one-on-one media interviews during the campaign and refused to attend presidential debates. At an event at Chatham House, here in the UK, he instructed colleagues to answer audience questions directed at him. His hands have been observed shaking in public and speculation is rife he may be suffering from Parkinson’s, a suggestion his campaign team stoutly refutes. They insist the gaffes are mere slips of the tongue, and tout his record of overseeing significant growth of Lagos’s economy during his 1999-2007 stint as governor, as proof that he is the can-do leader the nation needs.
The other establishment candidate is Atiku Abubakar, a 76-year-old former vice-president running on the platform of the opposition, the People’s Democratic Party. Atiku is likewise wealthy, considered corrupt, and part of the old guard in Nigerian politics. He is even more economically liberal than Tinubu and vows to privatise many state-held assets if elected. “In every great nation in this world, you find out that it is the private sector that is driving the economy, they provide the jobs, they provide the prosperity, and they do everything,” he stated in a 2022 interview. He admires Margaret Thatcher.
Though there are often a dozen or more candidates, Nigerian presidential elections are virtually always a de facto two-horse race between establishment candidates. Nigerian voters are therefore usually faced with weighing up the “lesser evil”. Many Nigerians are dissatisfied with this status quo, but don’t see it changing. But during this latest campaign, sometime in the second half of last year, a third contender started setting Nigerian social media alight, provoking excitement among voters seeking a new order.
The insurgent candidate is the 61-year-old Peter Obi who, while a former state governor and thus no newbie to politics, is running on the platform of the hitherto marginal Labour Party. Once a banker and entrepreneur, Obi is wealthy, very pro-business and sees economic development as Nigeria’s chief priority. One of his main campaign slogans was “From Consumption to Production”, highlighting the need for the nation to boost its manufacturing prowess, as Asia’s leading economies have in recent decades.
However, while all three frontrunners are on the same page in terms of what Nigeria needs most — economic growth and job creation — what sets Obi apart is that he is not considered corrupt. His attitudes are evidently very different from the average Nigerian politician’s. For one, he shuns the ostentatious displays of wealth and Big Man behaviour commonly associated with the nation’s elites. Videos of him carrying his own luggage at airports excite Nigerian voters tired of arrogant politicians who consider such things beneath them, travelling with entourages of briefcase-carriers and yes-men to limit their contact with the public.
A people used to politicians striving to be as inaccessible and aloof as possible have been pleasantly surprised by a candidate who doesn’t place himself on a pedestal. Obi is known to shun patronage politics — his party has explicitly stated that it will not pay people to vote for him — which makes his promises to manage public finances prudently and honestly sound credible. His down-to-earth persona also lends an air of sincerity to his vows to make Nigeria a fairer and more meritocratic society. In the end, pretty much all politicians say the same thing — that they want to improve our lives. What matters is who we believe means it. Obi has been very successful in convincing young voters that he is genuine — which, given that 60% of Nigerians are under-25, has given him an edge.
But this is not a simple old versus young scenario. It is, at heart, a contest between those who believe Nigeria can be transformed into a fairer, more inclusive society, and those who consider such beliefs naïvely unrealistic. The fruits of economic growth, and the country’s natural resources, have long been gobbled up by the nation’s tiny but overbearing elite, while the vast majority remain ruinously poor. There are hardly any Nigerians who would not like to see the kind of fairer society Obi promises — the question is whether they believe it is possible.
Persuading people that it is constitutes no small task in an extremely low-trust society. Just 7% of Nigerians believe “most people can be trusted”, while 93% believe “you must be very careful” in dealing with people. (In comparison, 67% of Brits believe most people can be trusted.) These low trust levels help Nigeria’s corrupt political class. Since the popular assumption is that pretty much everyone will help themselves to the till once in power, many conclude that you may as well stick with the devils you know, or at least those from your own ethnic group. There are those who like Obi’s message (and even him as a candidate) but doubt he would be able to reform Nigeria or even get elected, despite all the social media attention and the spate of voter surveys that have shown him in the lead.
One major issue sceptics raise is that Obi is from the Igbo ethnic group concentrated in the south-east of Nigeria; they say group-level antipathies between Igbos and northern Nigerians mean the latter would never vote for him in significant numbers — a problem, considering a slight majority of the country’s 93 million registered voters live in the North. His supporters counter that adults under the age of 35, who now constitute 40% of all registered voters, are far less ethnocentric than older generations, and will turn out for Obi in large numbers.
The undyingly aspirational nature of Nigerianness means that many simply refuse to give up on the idea of the nation becoming a great one. So Obi might be the right man at the right time: an overwhelming 89% of Nigerians currently believe the country is headed “in the wrong direction”. Additionally, 79% of Nigerians think the Buhari government has done a poor job when it comes to security — which now ranks at the top of Nigerian concerns, just ahead of the economy. As a result, trust in the ruling APC party is at an all-time low of 26%. The main opposition party, PDP — which governed the country from 1999 to 2015 — is likewise quite unpopular, and is seen as essentially a carbon copy of the current ruling party. Many want fundamental change from outside of the establishment.
The mood is not helped by the ongoing cash crisis. In October 2022, Nigeria’s central bank announced that redesigned naira notes would be introduced, and the existing ones phased out. The professed aim was to tackle counterfeiting and inflation, but some saw the move as designed to scupper the plans of politicians hoarding cash to buy votes in this year’s various elections. More than a few welcomed the idea, at first.
However, since the new notes were introduced, many Nigerians have been unable to get them from ATMs; the central bank appears to be struggling to print enough to meet demand. Meanwhile, many businesses no longer accept the old notes. In an economy where 40% of the population don’t have bank accounts and conduct their everyday transactions in cash, this leaves many unable to pay for basic goods, including food — which has sparked riots across the country.
The stakes in tomorrow’s election are high, then. A win for Tinubu or Atiku would mean business-as-usual for the next four years. Economic growth might pick up from the currently sluggish 3% rate: either candidate’s pro-business policies would be an improvement on President Buhari’s statist inclinations. But the elite-dominated, nepotistic and corrupt status quo would hold, hampering the creative potential of Nigeria’s growing population.
A win for Obi, on the other hand, would be the Nigerian equivalent of Barack Obama’s 2008 election victory, a feat considered impossible at the start of the campaign for reasons including the candidate’s ethnic origins. It would open a new chapter in Nigerian politics, encouraging the belief that the nation can be organised into a well-run, economically successful and fair society. A successful Nigeria would be the pride and power of not only Africa but of blackness as a whole; it would also provide a backyard role model for other African nations hoping to clean up their politics. A real-life Wakanda for the 21st century and beyond.
Dr Remi Adekoya is a Polish-Nigerian writer and political scientist. His book Biracial Britain: A Different Way of Looking at Race, is available now.
RemiAdekoya1 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeIt seems odd to talk about the “need” for a powerful black nation.
How can such a nation hope to be powerful when it isn’t diverse and its competitors are? The lack of diversity by the absence of whites and Asians will make them weaker, right?
And in the diverse Western world where the last but one President of the USA was black, what makes the USA a not-black power?
Anyone who suggests that racism is a concept inherent in any group other than “whites” is, as the public in the US and UK have been educated to know, is racist. That should end any further discussion on the matter.
Anyone who suggests that racism is a concept inherent in any group other than “whites” is, as the public in the US and UK have been educated to know, is racist. That should end any further discussion on the matter.
It seems odd to talk about the “need” for a powerful black nation.
How can such a nation hope to be powerful when it isn’t diverse and its competitors are? The lack of diversity by the absence of whites and Asians will make them weaker, right?
And in the diverse Western world where the last but one President of the USA was black, what makes the USA a not-black power?
The key thing about Obi is that he is Igbo. Nigeria is a multi-national state but dominated demographically by three of them – Hausa (North), Yoruba (SouthWest) and Igbo (SouthEast). It’s the Yoruba and the Hausa who have dominated politics since the civil war, when the Igbo tried to break away as Biafra. The three nations have very different cultures and traditions, reflected in lots of Nigerian jokes that play up to the stereotypes about the three nations (Hausa brave and martial but not very bright, Yoruba cunning and charming, Igbo hard working and thrifty). If he wins it will not only mean that the Igbo tradition has reasserted itself but that he has managed to get support outside the Southeast particularly in Lagos and the West. That would break a stable but ultimately destructive deadlock between North and South that has held since the 1970s – it would offer real opportunities for that reason.
The key thing about Obi is that he is Igbo. Nigeria is a multi-national state but dominated demographically by three of them – Hausa (North), Yoruba (SouthWest) and Igbo (SouthEast). It’s the Yoruba and the Hausa who have dominated politics since the civil war, when the Igbo tried to break away as Biafra. The three nations have very different cultures and traditions, reflected in lots of Nigerian jokes that play up to the stereotypes about the three nations (Hausa brave and martial but not very bright, Yoruba cunning and charming, Igbo hard working and thrifty). If he wins it will not only mean that the Igbo tradition has reasserted itself but that he has managed to get support outside the Southeast particularly in Lagos and the West. That would break a stable but ultimately destructive deadlock between North and South that has held since the 1970s – it would offer real opportunities for that reason.
“A win for Obi, on the other hand, would be the Nigerian equivalent of Barack Obama’s 2008 election victory”.
And until that point I thought Obi might be a good President.
“A win for Obi, on the other hand, would be the Nigerian equivalent of Barack Obama’s 2008 election victory”.
And until that point I thought Obi might be a good President.
Thanks did this article. Very informative about a country I know little about. Good luck Obi!!
Thanks did this article. Very informative about a country I know little about. Good luck Obi!!
“he turned a rotten situation into a bad one”
Would this Governor consider standing for office in the UK at all? We could do with a boost.
The quoted comment seems admirably realistic rather than a gaff. But then journalistically any display of honesty tends to be regarded as a gaff.
The quoted comment seems admirably realistic rather than a gaff. But then journalistically any display of honesty tends to be regarded as a gaff.
“he turned a rotten situation into a bad one”
Would this Governor consider standing for office in the UK at all? We could do with a boost.
“Considered impossible”??? Barack Obama was elected because he is mixed race. It was his major advantage as a candidate, which is why the Democrats threw over the presumptive first woman president, Hillary Clinton. His skin color made him bullet-proof: any criticism of his policies to “fundamentally transform” the United States was decried as “racist”, which is far worse than “sexist” would have been for Clinton. Very early in his first campaign, TV stars like Janeanne Garafalo (sp?) were trotted out to claim that objection to Obama’s stated plan was “straight up hatin’ on a black man”. As soon as I saw that, I knew that was the scheme.
Surely even the Obama person, tanned as he is, was preferable to the Hillary Gorgon?
Obama presented himself to the American people as a Black person, and did not project his actual 50:50 mixed race inheritance. He promoted Black identity politics at a crucial time in USA history when he could have used his genuine mixed race credentials/identity to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate and might thereby have promoted racial harmony, rather than the deepened divisions and intersectional intolerance with which the world lives today, not just the USA.
Surely even the Obama person, tanned as he is, was preferable to the Hillary Gorgon?
Obama presented himself to the American people as a Black person, and did not project his actual 50:50 mixed race inheritance. He promoted Black identity politics at a crucial time in USA history when he could have used his genuine mixed race credentials/identity to appeal to a broad swathe of the electorate and might thereby have promoted racial harmony, rather than the deepened divisions and intersectional intolerance with which the world lives today, not just the USA.
“Considered impossible”??? Barack Obama was elected because he is mixed race. It was his major advantage as a candidate, which is why the Democrats threw over the presumptive first woman president, Hillary Clinton. His skin color made him bullet-proof: any criticism of his policies to “fundamentally transform” the United States was decried as “racist”, which is far worse than “sexist” would have been for Clinton. Very early in his first campaign, TV stars like Janeanne Garafalo (sp?) were trotted out to claim that objection to Obama’s stated plan was “straight up hatin’ on a black man”. As soon as I saw that, I knew that was the scheme.
When ‘we’*granted Nigeria Independence in 1960 the population was about 45 million, now it is close to 225 million.
No wonder they have a problem.
(* The British Empire.)
Actually, they don’t.
According to World Bank numbers (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST), at the time of Nigerian independence, Britain’s population density was 218/sq km. Nigeria’s density in 2020 was 229/sq km. (For comparison, the 2020 numbers were 277 for Britain and 518 for the Netherlands.) It’s hard to argue that overpopulation is a problem.
What has happened has been a revolution in health in Nigeria. Babies don’t die in droves any more, nor are people so prone to be incapacitated by disease. Hence the rise in population and the vibrant economy.
It is not hard at all to argue that overpopulation is the problem. Overpopulation is not about density of people per unit area, but the ability of a nation to feed those people. In that regard, most of Africa is overpopulated. Most of Africa is a net importer of food and, most of East Africa (in particular) has heavily degraded soils which will be further degraded as the populations of these places quadruple over the next 80 years.
Being a net importer of food is not a sign of overpopulation. Britain has been a net importer of food for nearly two centuries. The problem is too many people live by subsistence farming, which is horribly inefficient. They live this way because they are poor. So the solution is economic growth.
You are correct that the solution is economic growth. The solution is not, as you suggest, population growth.
Had Nigeria kept its population in check, and made sure its economic growth rate exceeded its population growth rate, it would be a far richer nation than it is now.
The aftermath of the plague in Britain produced huge increases in wages and quality of living (for those who survived) precisely because of skills shortages and labour scarcity, both of which were credited for realigning society for the better.
It is the mantra of the mad Ponzi scheme capitalists in the UK that an ever increasing population is an economic good. It is an economic good for a small elite, and an economic penalty to ordinary people.
The world is mechanising more and more. There are fewer jobs each year for low skilled labour. Rampant population growth will therefore simply produce very low wages and very low economic output, and this will increasingly be the case in countries in Africa as the world mechanises.
The China model, in my view, has been and gone and will not be repeated.
You are correct that the solution is economic growth. The solution is not, as you suggest, population growth.
Had Nigeria kept its population in check, and made sure its economic growth rate exceeded its population growth rate, it would be a far richer nation than it is now.
The aftermath of the plague in Britain produced huge increases in wages and quality of living (for those who survived) precisely because of skills shortages and labour scarcity, both of which were credited for realigning society for the better.
It is the mantra of the mad Ponzi scheme capitalists in the UK that an ever increasing population is an economic good. It is an economic good for a small elite, and an economic penalty to ordinary people.
The world is mechanising more and more. There are fewer jobs each year for low skilled labour. Rampant population growth will therefore simply produce very low wages and very low economic output, and this will increasingly be the case in countries in Africa as the world mechanises.
The China model, in my view, has been and gone and will not be repeated.
Nigeria’s population is projected to reach or even exceed 1 billion by the end of this century. By any reckoning that is over-population; especially if, as Hayden rightly points out, a nation is unable to feed its population. Add to that the problems of endemic corruption, poverty and violence, and things to not look that rosy for Nigeria by the turn of the next century.
Being a net importer of food is not a sign of overpopulation. Britain has been a net importer of food for nearly two centuries. The problem is too many people live by subsistence farming, which is horribly inefficient. They live this way because they are poor. So the solution is economic growth.
Nigeria’s population is projected to reach or even exceed 1 billion by the end of this century. By any reckoning that is over-population; especially if, as Hayden rightly points out, a nation is unable to feed its population. Add to that the problems of endemic corruption, poverty and violence, and things to not look that rosy for Nigeria by the turn of the next century.
But the problem is they all have Smart phones and want to be over here! Hence the Lilos in the Channel.
It is not hard at all to argue that overpopulation is the problem. Overpopulation is not about density of people per unit area, but the ability of a nation to feed those people. In that regard, most of Africa is overpopulated. Most of Africa is a net importer of food and, most of East Africa (in particular) has heavily degraded soils which will be further degraded as the populations of these places quadruple over the next 80 years.
But the problem is they all have Smart phones and want to be over here! Hence the Lilos in the Channel.
Actually, they don’t.
According to World Bank numbers (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/EN.POP.DNST), at the time of Nigerian independence, Britain’s population density was 218/sq km. Nigeria’s density in 2020 was 229/sq km. (For comparison, the 2020 numbers were 277 for Britain and 518 for the Netherlands.) It’s hard to argue that overpopulation is a problem.
What has happened has been a revolution in health in Nigeria. Babies don’t die in droves any more, nor are people so prone to be incapacitated by disease. Hence the rise in population and the vibrant economy.
When ‘we’*granted Nigeria Independence in 1960 the population was about 45 million, now it is close to 225 million.
No wonder they have a problem.
(* The British Empire.)
A year from now it is too likely that this article will join its fellows on the heap of essays that have predicted some kind of African turning point.
There has been no turning point. Nowhere, ever.
In its defense, it recognizes the insurmountable difficulties Nigeria faces: Big Man politics, rampant and justified distrust in everyone and everything, corruption as an aspiration. But the word is insurmountable. Not difficult, not challenging.
African politics is grownup king of the mountain. The goal is to throw down the man on top and be king yourself. That is the end, the only end. There is no other purpose.
A year from now it is too likely that this article will join its fellows on the heap of essays that have predicted some kind of African turning point.
There has been no turning point. Nowhere, ever.
In its defense, it recognizes the insurmountable difficulties Nigeria faces: Big Man politics, rampant and justified distrust in everyone and everything, corruption as an aspiration. But the word is insurmountable. Not difficult, not challenging.
African politics is grownup king of the mountain. The goal is to throw down the man on top and be king yourself. That is the end, the only end. There is no other purpose.
“A successful Nigeria would be the pride and power of not only Africa but of blackness as a whole…”
I was surprised to read this. So, an entire continent of different ethnic groups that exhibit ‘blackness’ will find common pride (and exert power!) because one group has success in one country? This pride could be the dawn of a new continental African unity based on ‘blackness’? I live in the US and am now classified as a person who exhibits ‘whiteness’ even though I ‘identify’ (I loathe that term) much more with many of my mid-western neighbors who exhibit ‘blackness’ than I do with people who live in San Francisco that exhibit ‘whiteness’. In the time before terms like ‘blackness’ and ‘whiteness’ showed up, how much did skin color matter as a unifying factor in the decades leading up to WW1 and WW2? Or, during the Bolshevik Revolution? Or, during the Holodomor? And that’s just the biggies in Europe during the twentieth century. If we were to include people of different skin tones, we could look at what happened in China during the cultural revolution. Again, just in the twentieth century. On and on.
What of Rwanda? I don’t recall any discussions of black people killing each other. It was Hutus killing Tutsis. Brutally. No matter the skin color, the Hutus knew exactly who the Tutsis were and vice versa. That was the first time I heard the word genocide being applied to something happening in my lifetime and it wasn’t that long ago. Then again, if they had had a common sense of ‘blackness’, perhaps the Hutus wouldn’t have slaughtered thousands and thousands Tutsis. You never know, eh?
Can ‘blackness’ (whatever that is) unite an entire continent (or even a country)? Color me skeptical… But, let’s assume you’re right. Maybe there will be enough pride in ‘blackness’ across Africa one day to unite the millions and millions of people who belong to the numerous (hundreds? thousands?) of unique ethnic groups living in the large number of distinct nations. Let’s assume they all share the pride of ‘blackness’. I have one suggestion – pay close attention to the groups that hold the POWER you only briefly mentioned. If history is any indicator, skin color will matter little when the groups that have power decide to exercise it over the ones that don’t.
Finally, I can’t believe you referenced Wakanda – a fantasy land of make-believe superheroes created by Disney. Really? The again, when you wish upon a star, it doesn’t matter who you are, dreams may really come true!
“A successful Nigeria would be the pride and power of not only Africa but of blackness as a whole…”
I was surprised to read this. So, an entire continent of different ethnic groups that exhibit ‘blackness’ will find common pride (and exert power!) because one group has success in one country? This pride could be the dawn of a new continental African unity based on ‘blackness’? I live in the US and am now classified as a person who exhibits ‘whiteness’ even though I ‘identify’ (I loathe that term) much more with many of my mid-western neighbors who exhibit ‘blackness’ than I do with people who live in San Francisco that exhibit ‘whiteness’. In the time before terms like ‘blackness’ and ‘whiteness’ showed up, how much did skin color matter as a unifying factor in the decades leading up to WW1 and WW2? Or, during the Bolshevik Revolution? Or, during the Holodomor? And that’s just the biggies in Europe during the twentieth century. If we were to include people of different skin tones, we could look at what happened in China during the cultural revolution. Again, just in the twentieth century. On and on.
What of Rwanda? I don’t recall any discussions of black people killing each other. It was Hutus killing Tutsis. Brutally. No matter the skin color, the Hutus knew exactly who the Tutsis were and vice versa. That was the first time I heard the word genocide being applied to something happening in my lifetime and it wasn’t that long ago. Then again, if they had had a common sense of ‘blackness’, perhaps the Hutus wouldn’t have slaughtered thousands and thousands Tutsis. You never know, eh?
Can ‘blackness’ (whatever that is) unite an entire continent (or even a country)? Color me skeptical… But, let’s assume you’re right. Maybe there will be enough pride in ‘blackness’ across Africa one day to unite the millions and millions of people who belong to the numerous (hundreds? thousands?) of unique ethnic groups living in the large number of distinct nations. Let’s assume they all share the pride of ‘blackness’. I have one suggestion – pay close attention to the groups that hold the POWER you only briefly mentioned. If history is any indicator, skin color will matter little when the groups that have power decide to exercise it over the ones that don’t.
Finally, I can’t believe you referenced Wakanda – a fantasy land of make-believe superheroes created by Disney. Really? The again, when you wish upon a star, it doesn’t matter who you are, dreams may really come true!
Very interesting article, which chimes with my recall of having read somewhere that at some point in the not too distant future, Nigeria’s population will have grown to 750m, even as China’s shrinks towards a comparable figure.
And given that 50% of Nigerians plan on emigrating, you can imagine what that means for geopolitics both in the region and internationally.
And given that 50% of Nigerians plan on emigrating, you can imagine what that means for geopolitics both in the region and internationally.
Very interesting article, which chimes with my recall of having read somewhere that at some point in the not too distant future, Nigeria’s population will have grown to 750m, even as China’s shrinks towards a comparable figure.
Add to the genocide in Rwanda the genocides in Darfur, and the now rarely mentioned genocide of 1 million+ Igbos by other ethnic Nigerians between 1967 and 1970, and the case for a utopian unity of “blackness” in Nigeria, let alone the whole of the African continent, does suggest more of a Disney fantasy than reality.
It is a concept that plays rather better as a counterpoint in Western nations currently obsessed with their stain of “whiteness” than it does in Africa.
Add to the genocide in Rwanda the genocides in Darfur, and the now rarely mentioned genocide of 1 million+ Igbos by other ethnic Nigerians between 1967 and 1970, and the case for a utopian unity of “blackness” in Nigeria, let alone the whole of the African continent, does suggest more of a Disney fantasy than reality.
It is a concept that plays rather better as a counterpoint in Western nations currently obsessed with their stain of “whiteness” than it does in Africa.