Ethnic Cleansing: By Whom against Whom?
By Sam Onimisi
An innocuous news item drew my attention last week, not just because it emanated from a letter to the President of Nigeria but also because the subject matter is about wastage of human life, to the extent of annihilation. The sanctity of life is such that all humanity regardless of race, colour or language holds dear and precious and any threat or actual act of wastage is unacceptable anywhere in the world. Here then is the news. Alhaji Abdullahi Bello Badejo, National Chairman of Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, a Fulani socio-cultural group appealed to President Goodluck Jonathan to probe the gradual and brutal annihilation of the Fulani ethnic group from parts of this country. Said he: “This is aside from other negative attitudes of other Nigerians, such as denial of grazing routes for the cattle herds, attack on their person and their herds, as well as discrimination in many forms that signified total hatred for the Fulani race.” “…there is a clear case of hatred of Fulani people in most parts of this country, whereas they are contributing immensely to the socio-economic development of this country, as bonafide citizens.” Alhaji Badejo concluded that “I know that Nigeria is one united country, but it is unfortunate that the Fulani ethnic group is being maltreated and killed at the slightest provocation on the basis of their style of living.” As the leader of his association, Badejo is obviously saddled with the burdens of responsibility and it is his lot to help find a solution to the problems of Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore. Having petitioned the President, it is hoped that there would be an executive intervention in order to save the apparently endangered tribe. It is my belief that the state has the duty and responsibility to secure, protect and provide for the needs of her citizens, the Fulani inclusive. Therefore, such a grave allegation by one of the hundreds of ethnic groups in Nigeria should be thoroughly investigated so we can know the truth.
Hitherto, I had thought that the Fulani is the most privileged ethnic group in Nigeria and in fact, in the whole of West Africa sub-region, and I will tell you why; but this is without prejudice to whatever action is desirable to allay their fears. Like I said, let us count the blessings of the Fulani tribe and see if they should not be thanking God for their excellent fortunes in Nigeria. Beginning from Sokoto to Gusau, Birnin-Kebbi, Kontagora, Bauch, Kano, Katsina, Zaria, Dutse to Yola, Hadejia and Kazaure are Hausa towns. Bida is a Nupe land and Ilorin and Offa are Yoruba towns. But one thing is common to them: they all have Fulani as their Emirs! In other words, the people and wealth of the largest ethnic group in Northern Nigeria (the Hausa) is ruled and controlled by the Fulani!! They have ruled the Hausa land for as long as 200 years to the end that they have assimilated and a new tribe, the Hausa-Fulani evolved. Today, there is hardly any Hausa family without a Fulani blood. I suppose this is a great privilege or is it not? The present Emir of Ilorin and the immediate past Olofa of Offa Oba Olanipekun are Fulanis ruling the Yoruba people of the towns. Is this not an unqualified favour and privilege? The resourceful and ancient tribe of Nupe has Bida as their capital, but the Emir of Bida (also known as Estu Nupe) is a Fulani!!! What a honour and privilege!
All Nigerian ethnic groups are free to live, work and ply their trade at any town or state of their choice without hindrance or molestation. This right is enjoyed as bonafide citizens of Nigeria. However, the Fulani is the greatest beneficiary of this right in that they also enjoy country-wide grazing routes for their herds of cattle – their main occupation. There is hardly any fertile land in Nigeria where Fulani cattle herders are not present, plying the trade in which they enjoy near absolute monopoly! Fulani happens to be about the most learned Mullah in the West African sub-region and they more or less monopolize Arabic and Islamic teaching and priesthood in Nigeria. Could any tribe be more blessed and privileged anywhere?
It is the Fulani cattle herders who could disrupt and hold up traffic whether at Koton-Karfi River Niger bridge in Kogi State, at the River Niger Bridge in Jebba, Kwara State, at Eko bridge in Lagos, at Kaima Niger Bridge in Bayelsa State, the Benue River bridge in Makurdi, Onitsha bridge in Anambra State and else where in Nigeria – without a whimper by the law enforcement agencies. I suppose this is a rare privilege, is it not? Forget about the numerous road accidents caused by either the herds or the herders and the loss of lives, limbs and property arising from herders herding against traffic whether on the highway or along the double carriage-way of the metropolis. Who else but the Fulani who enjoys the honour, privilege and right to personal lethal weapon which they carry on their person anywhere without the obligation of a license? To me, there is no privilege as great as the knowledge that you could go on the attack or defend yourself any where anytime without having to go looking for a weapon!
In the chequered history of the multi-ethnic country known as Nigeria, it is only the Fulani who enjoyed the privilege of ruling this country in quick succession from Shehu Shagari to General Muhammadu Buhari. As a matter of fact, the Fulani is the only tribe who once rule Nigeria as number one and number two citizens in the same regime in the persons of Buhari and General Tunde Idiagbon (forget his Yoruba names)! Yet in terms of numerical strength, the Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Ijaw the Nupe and the Tiv are more and larger but are not enjoying these privileges and still not complaining. I have merely helped to count the blessings of the Fulani as ground or basis why they should be grateful to God and to Nigerians for being so honoured and blessed.
Perhaps we could now examine the factors or reasons for their misunderstanding with other Nigerians. The Fulani is a transnational race who are in Nigeria as much as they are in, neighboring Cameroon and who are original natives of Senegal and Mali. To most Nigerians, the Fulani has little or no ancestral land in Nigeria and the little they possess now is obtained by stealth or conquest. The crux of the matter is that the Fulani enjoys dual citizenship both of Nigeria and their countries of descent. They also enjoy dual nationality of Nigeria, the Cameroon, Niger, Senegal, Mali and the Gambia etc. The implication of double citizenship and nationality is that a Cameroonian, Senegalese or Malian can pass for a Nigerian so long as he is a Fulani and no other Nigerian can or do enjoy such privilege in those countries. Meaning that the Fulani cattle herder could be a citizen of Niger but who assumes, enjoys and exercise the rights of citizenship of Nigeria to the disadvantage of bona fide ethnic nationalities of Nigeria! The task before the President to whom the report has been lodged is neither easy nor impossible, and I cannot pretend to know all the solution to the Fulani complaints but may only suggest some ways out of the clash of interest between the Fulani and other Nigerians.
There is the need to know and identify the bona fide Nigerian Fulani cattle herder as different from the Cameroonian Fulani cattle herder in order to know which of them has the right to grazing land and routes in Nigeria, I suppose. No farmer enjoys the pain and loss of his food crops being destroyed or eaten up by the Fulani-owned herds of cattle, be they Nigerian or foreigners. Therefore, the Fulani cattle herders urgently needs the techniques of how to keep their herds away from the cultivated farmland of the Hausa, Tiv, Yoruba and other Nigerian farmers to avoid clash of interest. More-over, ethnic nationalities owned lands which is their ancestral inheritance and to which they have a right to use as they wish, and without infringement from any other group regardless of which tribe is transnational or of dual citizenship. There is no doubt that there are some other Nigerian ethnic groups that are bi-national such as the Hausa who may be Nigerians and Nigeriens, or the Yoruba who are in Nigeria and Benin but they do not pose the same challenges as the transnational Fulani. Of course, all bi-national ethnic groups in Nigeria pose one problem or the other and constitute some threat to the well-being of the Nigerian citizen. But is the Nigerian citizenship not already compromised by dual nationality and double citizenship? The Nationality question remains unanswered!!
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Nigeria’s National Interest: What is it?
By Sam Onimisi
One cannot watch the on-going demonstrations in the Arabian Peninsula without the evocation of nationalism as the people poured into the streets to protest against regimes that are perceived as bankrupt, corrupt and which has outlived their usefulness. The people in one accord are rejecting what they believe is against their nations interest or that could compromise their future prosperity. Against all odds and in the face of brutally repressive weapons of coercion, the people kept marching on inspite of hundreds of fatal casualties. One wonders what is their sustaining inspiration or power. To say that they are patriotic is to stir up a big argument as to your definition of patriotism. Even then, is patriotism all there is to their mass action?
To me, the public action by the Arabian people has poignantly redefined their understanding of patriotism. They have shown that patriotism must be to the nation – the people – rather than to a regime whose tenure is at best, tenuous. Although, sovereignty is held in trust by the ruling authorities, it is the property of the people and not that of government. Ruminating on this issue, it occurs to me that the Arabian demonstrators are defending their nations – their common heritage. As a nation, they share many things in common: language (with its varying dialects), culture, the Islamic religion, in addition to their shared territory¬ – all of which are the ingredients for nationalism. However, without these common properties of a nation, there is no way the people could agree to a common policy, programme or mass action. In other words, the reason why mass action has failed thus far in Nigeria is that the country is only a vast mass of territory inhabited by divergent and mutually suspicious nationalities without common interest. Their common poverty which should have united them does so temporarily whenever the Nigerian Labour Congress or the Trade Union Congress succeeded in wrestling a few more naira into the pockets of the Nigerian worker. Therefore, poverty is not in the class of forces that unites a people, if also because a people of one nationality holds the people of the other nationality as responsible for their economic woes. We have also seen that Nigerians are only momentarily united by soccer when the Golden or Flying Eagles are playing against a foreign team, but this are flashes of rudimentary nationalism which is inadequate to sustain a country.
Nationalism precedes patriotism in the sense that there must be a substance to which one could be patriotic. Other than the colonial period when most Nigerians were against colonial rule and wanted self-rule, there has been little or no nationalism ever since we achieved independence. Those who were truly nationalistic were viewed or cast in their ethnic garb by those who are suspicious of their nationalism. Which is why we have not been able to articulate a cohorent national interest? If nationalism connotes ‘the consciousness of the nation-state and of belonging to that entity,’ it means that we have not had and still do not have a nation that could evoke the spirit of nationalism in us. Robert Coles, in ‘Political Life of Children’ said: “As soon as we are born, in most places on this earth, we acquire a nationality, a membership in a community. A royal doll, a flag to wave in a parade, coins with their engraved messages – these are sources of instruction and connect a young person to a country. The attachment can be strong, indeed even among children yet to attend school, wherever the flag is saluted, the national anthem sung. The attachment is as parental as the words imply – homeland, motherland, and fatherland---. Nationalism works its way into just about every corner of the minds’ life.”
With due respect to a few individuals whose nationalism to Nigeria is unquestionable, most Nigerians are Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba or Igbo nationalists – and they are right. Until we define Nigeria’s national interest with which all nationalities could identify with and cultivate strong attachment to, we cannot have many Nigerian nationalists. We only irritate and antagonize ourselves when we elevate sectional interest, or when we exhibit Igbo nationalism, for example, and hold it out as Nigerian nationalism. And I wonder if we have not lost the chance of making a nation out of the hundreds of nationalities of the country. Of all the properties of nationhood, language appears to be the most unifying, but we all speak English and we are neither Britons nor Englishmen or women and yet we cannot unite around English! Unlike our neighbour and brother West African, Ghana, who at independence adopted the language of a minority ethnic group as a Lingua – Franca and a medium of instruction and communication. Today, most Ghanaians speak Twi and this has helped to define their nationhood and solidify their unity as a nation.
In the absence of an abiding and well-defined national interest; not having a political ideology with which to guide the people, confounded by a polyglot of languages without a native lingua franca around which to converge, disorganized by two opposing faiths of religions – with one looking west and the other east-Nigeria is riddled by challenges that are both self-imposed and thrust on her by foreign impostors. These void created vacuums which nature abhors and which were then filled with inequities as much as iniquities. The entrance and enthronement of corruption stems from this void. The choice of religious fanaticism with fatalistic fervour (devoid of the fear of God) emanated out of this void. Out of the void emerged political gluttony wracked by false starts, intervention of selfish ‘patriots’ and formation of cultic clubs masquerading as national political parties etc. There is no policy continuity as projects are conceived as monuments to the glory of the incumbent ruler instead of the country, and so our land is littered with abandoned or uncompleted projects. Noble endeavours such as population census and revenue generation which assists in good and adequate planning for growth and development are enveloped in bedevilment such that, all we get out of them are pains, rancour, international ridicule and a few millionaires with unearned wealth.
Nigerians are more united when they share loots than in nobler pursuits. There is no discernible Nigerian character that is elevating except her ‘potentials’ which are largely wasted in collaboration with foreign exploiters. With four petroleum refineries, we import every litre of fuel we consume to the extent that we are now set to import fuel from Niger Republic, yet our national leaders fail to see nothing wrong with this as long as they have so much to share. After supervising the wreckage of our refineries, they will soon award import license to themselves and their cronies to bring fuel from Niger in a short-circuited deal without benefit to the country. So susceptible to flattery are we that we bask in self but empty adulation when international businessmen (more of swindlers than otherwise) come here to eulogize our potentialities – which amount to nothing if not developed and prudently utilized. Our seeming self-sufficiency in gas and petroleum resources have been erased by the killing of our refineries and so, we are gross exporters of crude oil and at the same time, net importers of refined oil – the most glaring evidence of our national prolificacy, rank corruption and crass inefficiency!
We have been at sea trying to develop our steel industry for three decades without anything reasonable to show for it, except unbridle kleptomania by successive regimes through their various stealing Steel ministers who often, uses their ministries to amass wealth with which to fight gubernatorial races. Do we have any assurance that President Jonathan’s steel minister will be different? Just before being ruined by my rumination over the non-existence of a Nigerian national interest, it occurred to me that a country that has no agreed basis of existence can never be a nation and may remain only as a nation-state. It dawned on me that we have never really sat down as a people to discuss, agree and approve any binding rules or formula for our existence even as a country. This country has remained one thus far as a happenstance or by the grace of God as the potentials for great conflicts are as many as her economic and mineral resources potential. Until we restructure, how can we formulate a national interest?
One cannot watch the on-going demonstrations in the Arabian Peninsula without the evocation of nationalism as the people poured into the streets to protest against regimes that are perceived as bankrupt, corrupt and which has outlived their usefulness. The people in one accord are rejecting what they believe is against their nations interest or that could compromise their future prosperity. Against all odds and in the face of brutally repressive weapons of coercion, the people kept marching on inspite of hundreds of fatal casualties. One wonders what is their sustaining inspiration or power. To say that they are patriotic is to stir up a big argument as to your definition of patriotism. Even then, is patriotism all there is to their mass action?
To me, the public action by the Arabian people has poignantly redefined their understanding of patriotism. They have shown that patriotism must be to the nation – the people – rather than to a regime whose tenure is at best, tenuous. Although, sovereignty is held in trust by the ruling authorities, it is the property of the people and not that of government. Ruminating on this issue, it occurs to me that the Arabian demonstrators are defending their nations – their common heritage. As a nation, they share many things in common: language (with its varying dialects), culture, the Islamic religion, in addition to their shared territory¬ – all of which are the ingredients for nationalism. However, without these common properties of a nation, there is no way the people could agree to a common policy, programme or mass action. In other words, the reason why mass action has failed thus far in Nigeria is that the country is only a vast mass of territory inhabited by divergent and mutually suspicious nationalities without common interest. Their common poverty which should have united them does so temporarily whenever the Nigerian Labour Congress or the Trade Union Congress succeeded in wrestling a few more naira into the pockets of the Nigerian worker. Therefore, poverty is not in the class of forces that unites a people, if also because a people of one nationality holds the people of the other nationality as responsible for their economic woes. We have also seen that Nigerians are only momentarily united by soccer when the Golden or Flying Eagles are playing against a foreign team, but this are flashes of rudimentary nationalism which is inadequate to sustain a country.
Nationalism precedes patriotism in the sense that there must be a substance to which one could be patriotic. Other than the colonial period when most Nigerians were against colonial rule and wanted self-rule, there has been little or no nationalism ever since we achieved independence. Those who were truly nationalistic were viewed or cast in their ethnic garb by those who are suspicious of their nationalism. Which is why we have not been able to articulate a cohorent national interest? If nationalism connotes ‘the consciousness of the nation-state and of belonging to that entity,’ it means that we have not had and still do not have a nation that could evoke the spirit of nationalism in us. Robert Coles, in ‘Political Life of Children’ said: “As soon as we are born, in most places on this earth, we acquire a nationality, a membership in a community. A royal doll, a flag to wave in a parade, coins with their engraved messages – these are sources of instruction and connect a young person to a country. The attachment can be strong, indeed even among children yet to attend school, wherever the flag is saluted, the national anthem sung. The attachment is as parental as the words imply – homeland, motherland, and fatherland---. Nationalism works its way into just about every corner of the minds’ life.”
With due respect to a few individuals whose nationalism to Nigeria is unquestionable, most Nigerians are Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba or Igbo nationalists – and they are right. Until we define Nigeria’s national interest with which all nationalities could identify with and cultivate strong attachment to, we cannot have many Nigerian nationalists. We only irritate and antagonize ourselves when we elevate sectional interest, or when we exhibit Igbo nationalism, for example, and hold it out as Nigerian nationalism. And I wonder if we have not lost the chance of making a nation out of the hundreds of nationalities of the country. Of all the properties of nationhood, language appears to be the most unifying, but we all speak English and we are neither Britons nor Englishmen or women and yet we cannot unite around English! Unlike our neighbour and brother West African, Ghana, who at independence adopted the language of a minority ethnic group as a Lingua – Franca and a medium of instruction and communication. Today, most Ghanaians speak Twi and this has helped to define their nationhood and solidify their unity as a nation.
In the absence of an abiding and well-defined national interest; not having a political ideology with which to guide the people, confounded by a polyglot of languages without a native lingua franca around which to converge, disorganized by two opposing faiths of religions – with one looking west and the other east-Nigeria is riddled by challenges that are both self-imposed and thrust on her by foreign impostors. These void created vacuums which nature abhors and which were then filled with inequities as much as iniquities. The entrance and enthronement of corruption stems from this void. The choice of religious fanaticism with fatalistic fervour (devoid of the fear of God) emanated out of this void. Out of the void emerged political gluttony wracked by false starts, intervention of selfish ‘patriots’ and formation of cultic clubs masquerading as national political parties etc. There is no policy continuity as projects are conceived as monuments to the glory of the incumbent ruler instead of the country, and so our land is littered with abandoned or uncompleted projects. Noble endeavours such as population census and revenue generation which assists in good and adequate planning for growth and development are enveloped in bedevilment such that, all we get out of them are pains, rancour, international ridicule and a few millionaires with unearned wealth.
Nigerians are more united when they share loots than in nobler pursuits. There is no discernible Nigerian character that is elevating except her ‘potentials’ which are largely wasted in collaboration with foreign exploiters. With four petroleum refineries, we import every litre of fuel we consume to the extent that we are now set to import fuel from Niger Republic, yet our national leaders fail to see nothing wrong with this as long as they have so much to share. After supervising the wreckage of our refineries, they will soon award import license to themselves and their cronies to bring fuel from Niger in a short-circuited deal without benefit to the country. So susceptible to flattery are we that we bask in self but empty adulation when international businessmen (more of swindlers than otherwise) come here to eulogize our potentialities – which amount to nothing if not developed and prudently utilized. Our seeming self-sufficiency in gas and petroleum resources have been erased by the killing of our refineries and so, we are gross exporters of crude oil and at the same time, net importers of refined oil – the most glaring evidence of our national prolificacy, rank corruption and crass inefficiency!
We have been at sea trying to develop our steel industry for three decades without anything reasonable to show for it, except unbridle kleptomania by successive regimes through their various stealing Steel ministers who often, uses their ministries to amass wealth with which to fight gubernatorial races. Do we have any assurance that President Jonathan’s steel minister will be different? Just before being ruined by my rumination over the non-existence of a Nigerian national interest, it occurred to me that a country that has no agreed basis of existence can never be a nation and may remain only as a nation-state. It dawned on me that we have never really sat down as a people to discuss, agree and approve any binding rules or formula for our existence even as a country. This country has remained one thus far as a happenstance or by the grace of God as the potentials for great conflicts are as many as her economic and mineral resources potential. Until we restructure, how can we formulate a national interest?
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Sanusi: A Demand for Ogugureba Banking
Sanusi: A Demand for Ogugureba Banking
By Sam Onimisi
When my article titled Sanusi and Sharia @ CBN.com was published on February 27, 2011, I received several text messages from many readers who reacted based on their religious beliefs and ethnic nationality and a few on what may be described as neutral ground. My intention was to draw the attention of Sanusi to the fact that he was the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, and as such, that his policies and innovations must reflect the secular or multi-religious nature of Nigeria. In other words, I wanted him to know that a husband of two or more wives cannot afford to be biased or patently partisan unless he wants to set the whole house on fire.
Since the publication some five months ago, there has been an avalanche of reaction from other readers and writers for or against Sanusi’s brand of non – interest banking which to all intents and purposes, has been turned into Islamic Banking. A sponsored reaction sought to lay the blame on Prof. Charles Soludo, Sanusi’s precedessor at the Central Bank as the author of Islamic Banking. No one can vouch for Soludo because he has kept quiet in the face of the accusation or insinuation. Who knows, it was not impossible for Soludo to have attempted to secure a second term in office, by packaging or re-packaging non-interest banking as Islamic banking as a bait to win President Umaru Yar’adua heart. But even if it was so, the gambit failed just as it was not made public by Soludo. The appointment of Sanusi was an opportunity to turn non-interest banking to Islamic banking. To say that this was President Yar’adua’s intention is untenable if only because the late President cannot now defend himself. However, the zeal and speed with which Sanusi is pursuing and implementing the Islamic banking project is suggestive of a planned programme of action by an interested hierarchy of a religious group. This is because all cries of objection or calls for moderation has fell on Sanusi’s death ears, as he remain heady and unyielding. Unless he has been quietly advised by his Muslim brothers, no public evidence is available to prove that any substantial Islamic leader has tried to dissuade Sanusi from his perilious course. On that basis, it may be assumed that Lamido Sanusi’s courage is derived from the backing of most Muslims – which is not illegitimate since he is one of their own. However, it must here be restated that I am not and I believe no Christian or Animist is against Islamic banking.
What non-Muslim Nigerians are saying is that if there is a mortal need for Islamic banking, it must be left to Muslims to establish one for themselves and at their own cost. It is the contention of non-Mulisms that if the Government of the Federation must establish an Islamic Banking, there must also be an Ecclesiastical Banking and a Shango or Ogugureba Banking for both Christians and Animists. In addition, if a Sharia Council is needed at the Central Bank of Nigeria, there must also be its equivalent for non-Muslims. For the avoidance of doubt, this country is not a Muslim, a Christian or Animist country. It is a multi-religious secular one, and any one who ignores this fact has a sinister agenda for the country. This fact is what appears to be lost on Sanusi and his ilks, and which is the bone of contention. Is it a wonder that there are people in this country who pretends not to know that Nigeria is a multi-religious polity?
It was General Ibrahim Babangida who took Nigeria into the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), but it is the same man who later enacted the Banking and other Financial Institution Act, (BOFIA)1991 and he ensured that religious or secterian terms are avoided. If the OIC was an attempt to Islamize Nigeria via the backdoor, it failed although at the cost of many lives and the job of Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe in 1987. In 1997, a conference of Muslim intellectuals was held in Zaria during which the virtues of Sharia law were propounded not only as an excellent divine law, but also as a desirable basis of governance. Little wonder that when some participants of that conference became governors two years later in 1999, the first thing they did was to institute political Sharia system of government – which triggered violent riots in many parts of the North. If the Sharia law was also to Islamize Nigeria, the attempt failed woefully at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of naira in lost property.
It is not enough to claim that Islamic Banking is being practiced in Britain or some other Christian countries. Those countries have different cultures and motive and are at a higher level of governance than Nigeria. Besides, it is yet to be proved the quality or quantity of what value the system has added to the economy of those countries. More importantly, the most Islamic country on earth is Saudi Arabia, the home of Prophet Muhammed and of Mecca and Medina, but the economy of that country is not based on Islamic banking but on normal and universal banking system – even if there is a trickle of religious banking practice. So, what is the motive of the likes of Sanusi in foisting religious banking on Nigeria? In answering this question, we must permit Sanusi Lamido Sanusi to speak for himself. In doing so, and in addition to the numerous speeches he has made in defense of Sharia Banking, he should be made to speak on the basis of his beliefs and his preferences or his background and values. Now, hear Lamido Sanusi “The solution to the problem of Nigeria, it would seem, lies not in the attempt to further isolate the Fulbe… but in their incorporation and appropriation as key elements of governance. If anything at all is learnt from the state of this nation since Babangida, it is that Nigerians have proven themselves incapable of managing their affairs without the guiding hand of the much-hated “Fulani Oligarchy”. What this implies is that Fulanis like Sanusi are the guidian angels needed by Nigeria as the other ethnic groups in Nigeria are incapable of ruling themselves. In the same breath, Sanusi denied the Fulani’s claim to divine right of leadership of Nigeria when he said: “The Fulanis do not hold that they have a ‘birth right’ to rule Nigeria. They do not believe that leadership or politics are in their genes. However, it is in their culture. They have been culturally programmmed, generation after generation, to imbibe the best spirits of what makes good leadership, to a far greater extent than competing cultures.” The question we need to ask Mallam Sanusi is: when did we request for the guiding hands of the Fulani, and why must it be foisted on us? Unless, of course, it is assumed or believed by the ilks of Sanusi that Nigeria belongs to the Fulani only.
However, let us allow Sanusi to conclude his treatise on the excellence of Fulani culture as against the inferiority of other competing cultures. “With due respect to other nationalities in Nigeria, the evidence of history confirms that the Sokoto Caliphate…… represented the model of the highest level of civilisation found in what is now called Nigeria”. Finally, Sanusi said that “it is evidently convenient to ignore one hundred years of history before colonial victory, the establishment of a Caliphate, a governmental structure worthy of respect and an administration with clear division of responsibilities, grassroots control, economic programme, a judiciary, universal Islamic culture, diplomatic links and proliferation of Arabic as the language of scholarship and public policy.”
Mark you, Sanusi said what he said some eleven years ago when he was a relative young manager at the United Bank of Africa. Now that he is the governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, he is eminently placed to impose Sharia law on Nigeria through Islamic Banking.We can now discern why Sanusi changed the Nigerian languages he met on our currencies to that of Arabic and why he considers Islamic Banking as superior to all others. The jihadist and the indecent haste with which Sanusi is implementing the Islamic Banking is a source of fear to non-Muslims. The fear is that since it is going to be an exclusive religious affairs, it could be used as a channel of funding the Boko Haram, the Tala Kato and similar groups – using public funds to achieve Islamization and political control of the country - through the back door. This is the real fear, given the Islamic fundamentalist inclination of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi - the quintessential Fulbe Muslim. With Sharia Council at the Central Bank, there must be an Ecclesiastical and Ajinidivi Councils at Sanusi’s Central Bank, period!
By Sam Onimisi
When my article titled Sanusi and Sharia @ CBN.com was published on February 27, 2011, I received several text messages from many readers who reacted based on their religious beliefs and ethnic nationality and a few on what may be described as neutral ground. My intention was to draw the attention of Sanusi to the fact that he was the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, and as such, that his policies and innovations must reflect the secular or multi-religious nature of Nigeria. In other words, I wanted him to know that a husband of two or more wives cannot afford to be biased or patently partisan unless he wants to set the whole house on fire.
Since the publication some five months ago, there has been an avalanche of reaction from other readers and writers for or against Sanusi’s brand of non – interest banking which to all intents and purposes, has been turned into Islamic Banking. A sponsored reaction sought to lay the blame on Prof. Charles Soludo, Sanusi’s precedessor at the Central Bank as the author of Islamic Banking. No one can vouch for Soludo because he has kept quiet in the face of the accusation or insinuation. Who knows, it was not impossible for Soludo to have attempted to secure a second term in office, by packaging or re-packaging non-interest banking as Islamic banking as a bait to win President Umaru Yar’adua heart. But even if it was so, the gambit failed just as it was not made public by Soludo. The appointment of Sanusi was an opportunity to turn non-interest banking to Islamic banking. To say that this was President Yar’adua’s intention is untenable if only because the late President cannot now defend himself. However, the zeal and speed with which Sanusi is pursuing and implementing the Islamic banking project is suggestive of a planned programme of action by an interested hierarchy of a religious group. This is because all cries of objection or calls for moderation has fell on Sanusi’s death ears, as he remain heady and unyielding. Unless he has been quietly advised by his Muslim brothers, no public evidence is available to prove that any substantial Islamic leader has tried to dissuade Sanusi from his perilious course. On that basis, it may be assumed that Lamido Sanusi’s courage is derived from the backing of most Muslims – which is not illegitimate since he is one of their own. However, it must here be restated that I am not and I believe no Christian or Animist is against Islamic banking.
What non-Muslim Nigerians are saying is that if there is a mortal need for Islamic banking, it must be left to Muslims to establish one for themselves and at their own cost. It is the contention of non-Mulisms that if the Government of the Federation must establish an Islamic Banking, there must also be an Ecclesiastical Banking and a Shango or Ogugureba Banking for both Christians and Animists. In addition, if a Sharia Council is needed at the Central Bank of Nigeria, there must also be its equivalent for non-Muslims. For the avoidance of doubt, this country is not a Muslim, a Christian or Animist country. It is a multi-religious secular one, and any one who ignores this fact has a sinister agenda for the country. This fact is what appears to be lost on Sanusi and his ilks, and which is the bone of contention. Is it a wonder that there are people in this country who pretends not to know that Nigeria is a multi-religious polity?
It was General Ibrahim Babangida who took Nigeria into the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), but it is the same man who later enacted the Banking and other Financial Institution Act, (BOFIA)1991 and he ensured that religious or secterian terms are avoided. If the OIC was an attempt to Islamize Nigeria via the backdoor, it failed although at the cost of many lives and the job of Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe in 1987. In 1997, a conference of Muslim intellectuals was held in Zaria during which the virtues of Sharia law were propounded not only as an excellent divine law, but also as a desirable basis of governance. Little wonder that when some participants of that conference became governors two years later in 1999, the first thing they did was to institute political Sharia system of government – which triggered violent riots in many parts of the North. If the Sharia law was also to Islamize Nigeria, the attempt failed woefully at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of naira in lost property.
It is not enough to claim that Islamic Banking is being practiced in Britain or some other Christian countries. Those countries have different cultures and motive and are at a higher level of governance than Nigeria. Besides, it is yet to be proved the quality or quantity of what value the system has added to the economy of those countries. More importantly, the most Islamic country on earth is Saudi Arabia, the home of Prophet Muhammed and of Mecca and Medina, but the economy of that country is not based on Islamic banking but on normal and universal banking system – even if there is a trickle of religious banking practice. So, what is the motive of the likes of Sanusi in foisting religious banking on Nigeria? In answering this question, we must permit Sanusi Lamido Sanusi to speak for himself. In doing so, and in addition to the numerous speeches he has made in defense of Sharia Banking, he should be made to speak on the basis of his beliefs and his preferences or his background and values. Now, hear Lamido Sanusi “The solution to the problem of Nigeria, it would seem, lies not in the attempt to further isolate the Fulbe… but in their incorporation and appropriation as key elements of governance. If anything at all is learnt from the state of this nation since Babangida, it is that Nigerians have proven themselves incapable of managing their affairs without the guiding hand of the much-hated “Fulani Oligarchy”. What this implies is that Fulanis like Sanusi are the guidian angels needed by Nigeria as the other ethnic groups in Nigeria are incapable of ruling themselves. In the same breath, Sanusi denied the Fulani’s claim to divine right of leadership of Nigeria when he said: “The Fulanis do not hold that they have a ‘birth right’ to rule Nigeria. They do not believe that leadership or politics are in their genes. However, it is in their culture. They have been culturally programmmed, generation after generation, to imbibe the best spirits of what makes good leadership, to a far greater extent than competing cultures.” The question we need to ask Mallam Sanusi is: when did we request for the guiding hands of the Fulani, and why must it be foisted on us? Unless, of course, it is assumed or believed by the ilks of Sanusi that Nigeria belongs to the Fulani only.
However, let us allow Sanusi to conclude his treatise on the excellence of Fulani culture as against the inferiority of other competing cultures. “With due respect to other nationalities in Nigeria, the evidence of history confirms that the Sokoto Caliphate…… represented the model of the highest level of civilisation found in what is now called Nigeria”. Finally, Sanusi said that “it is evidently convenient to ignore one hundred years of history before colonial victory, the establishment of a Caliphate, a governmental structure worthy of respect and an administration with clear division of responsibilities, grassroots control, economic programme, a judiciary, universal Islamic culture, diplomatic links and proliferation of Arabic as the language of scholarship and public policy.”
Mark you, Sanusi said what he said some eleven years ago when he was a relative young manager at the United Bank of Africa. Now that he is the governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, he is eminently placed to impose Sharia law on Nigeria through Islamic Banking.We can now discern why Sanusi changed the Nigerian languages he met on our currencies to that of Arabic and why he considers Islamic Banking as superior to all others. The jihadist and the indecent haste with which Sanusi is implementing the Islamic Banking is a source of fear to non-Muslims. The fear is that since it is going to be an exclusive religious affairs, it could be used as a channel of funding the Boko Haram, the Tala Kato and similar groups – using public funds to achieve Islamization and political control of the country - through the back door. This is the real fear, given the Islamic fundamentalist inclination of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi - the quintessential Fulbe Muslim. With Sharia Council at the Central Bank, there must be an Ecclesiastical and Ajinidivi Councils at Sanusi’s Central Bank, period!
The Single Term Makossa Dance
The Single Term Makossa Dance
By Sam Onimisi
Going by the catch-phrase campaign slogan of President Goodluck Jonathan, the expectation of majority of Nigerians was that their newly elected leader will hit the ground running like mad. What he told us was to ‘give us fresh air’ and to ‘never, never disappoint us.’ What the average citizen understood by these campaign slogans is that no business of government will be run like before and that the new administration will be committed to programmes that will uplift the standard of living and security of the people. When therefore they learnt that a bill was on its way to the National Assembly to amend Section 135 and Sub-section 2 of the Constitution to make way for a single Six-year term instead of the four-year renewable term, it came as a rude shock. This was so because the proposal was not part of the campaign issues and more so because there are more urgent life-threatening challenges such as failing infrastructures, the debilitating economy, the centrifugal political forces, and the frightening security problems confronting the nation.
If any organ of government should be more concerned with these challenges, it should be the executive arm of government. Now, there appeared to be a correlation between President Jonathan’s pre-election solemn promise to do a single term of four years if elected and the proposal for a six-year single term. Although the Presidency was quick to debunk the notion that he was seeking to extend his tenure by reiterating 2015 as the terminus of his government, it was a political blunder to have enmeshed his government in what looks remotely connected with tenure elongation.
If the new six-year term is to take effect from 2015 as they claimed, bringing it to the fore so early in his regime raps the proposal in a dubiously suspicious garb. If this was not to serve as a distraction, what else could do it better?
When the zoning war was fiercely raging and there was the need to win many people to his side, it was expedient to vow or promise not to serve beyond a term of four years. His co-contestants such as Abubakar Atiku and Ibrahim Babangida made similar vows. Is the President already thinking that he ought not to have made that promise? If so, the answer lies not in tenure distortion, does it? A promise is a moral burden of the individual for which no jail-term or penalty is attached in the event of failure, except personal honour and integrity. However, a constitutional provision is a hallowed and guaranteed legal right from which nothing can be taken away in whatever guise or disguise. The one is an individual’s cross but the other a collective curse.
In a political context and environment laden with deception and chicanery on all sides, a moral somersault is a lesser evil because it ruins only an individual who somersaulted. However, a constitutional breach has a wider repercussion and destructive effect on the unity of the people and could become a curse from which it is hard to recover. Already, the opposition parties in the National Assembly have vowed to shoot down the proposal if ever presented as a bill. The President is already defending himself over what should not have been proposed. Even when the reasons adduced for the tenure change is examined, the temptation to pick quarrel with the President and his party will soar higher.
We are told that, among other reasons, the unduly high cost of party primaries and the acrimonies of second-term election politicking, informed the proposal. However, when the party in government dominated National Assembly amended the Electoral Act to make it compulsory for political parties to conduct congresses and convention from the ward level up to the top, opposition parties cried wolf and complained that only the party (ies) in government could afford such an expensive system, and at that, from the public coffers. They were shouted down and ignored with the claim that the motive or intention was to infuse intra-party democracy and diffuse the strangle-hold of godfathers. This was only a year ago – some eight months to the general election. Now, four months after the election, internal party democracy and the menace of godfathers are no longer such a bad idea – compared to the exorbitant cost of primaries and second-term election palaver! Again, here is either a policy summersault or an expedient chess-game in which the public good is sacrificed to the gods of selfish interests. One example may suffice to amplify this point.
The Electoral Act 2010 Sections 140 and 141 ousted the powers of the Election Tribunals from declaring a winner if the election was marred by irregulaties but to order a re-election. This is a negation of Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution and a self-serving, narrow-minded amendment which, mercifully, was nullified by a Federal High Court in a recent decision. The party in government preferred a re-election regardless of the huge cost to the tax-payers, if only they will be opportune to rig the election again –instead of declaring the candidate with the second highest votes as the winner. Does this government need to be reminded of the history of tenure elongation or distortion in Nigeria and its devastating effects and consequences?
General Yakubu Gowon failed his promise to hand over power in 1974 and was overthrown, tried and sentenced to death six months after, but reprieved by God’s intervention. General Ibrahim Babangida mesmerized the country for eight years during which his maradonic prowess was displayed to the full. He ended scoring an own goal and was disgraced out of power in 1993 for reasons of tenure elongation or failure to keep promises. General Sani Abacha expired mysteriously after jailing the presumed winner of the 1993 Presidential election Chief M. K. O. Abiola, and proceeded to transmute from Khaki to Agbada in 1998. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo cleverly sought for a third term in 2005, an event which diminished his status as an elder statesman today. Does it mean that there is no lesson taught or learnt from this number of attempts at tenure elongation of the past?
If you ask me, I will say that no reason has been adduced – or let me say no convincing reason has yet been given for the proposal. Having shot down the question of cost of primaries, which of second-term acrimony by incumbent governors and president remains the only issue which should be tackled. There is no doubt that incumbents of the office of the President and Governors seeking re-election spend public funds for the nomination and re-election. While it is illegal to do so, no audit and investigation has been carried out to verify how much was spent, from which head or subhead and by whom? What would have been helpful is a probe of Shagari and Obasanjo’s re-election in 1983 and 2003, in addition to Jonathan’s election of 2011. The result of such a probe would have answered the above question and inform the need or otherwise of substituting the four-year renewable term with the proposed six-year single term.
One of the greatest services President Jonathan could render to this Country is the second-term re-election probe of past executive presidents and governors. The purpose would be to determine the sources of their campaign funds, the total costs and whether illegal funds and public funds were involved and if fixed election ceilings have been exceeded. The facts produced by such a probe may very well be so convincing that almost everyone will support single term tenure for president and governors. If this probe is deemed impracticable or unnecessary, then we have no reason to seek to change the four-year renewable term as presently obtained. If the PDP or President Jonathan is inclined to change his mind and recontest in 2015, he is free to do so without distorting the Constitution. If a six-year single tenure is envisaged to help the PDP rule in perpetuity, I don’t see who could stop them, except God - not when all parties in government at whatever tier has proved to be as undemocratic and ruthless as the PDP. Other reasons given for the about – 50 proposed Constitutional amendments shall be examined in due course. Meanwhile, I don’t know who is entertained by his single six-year Makossa dance.
By Sam Onimisi
Going by the catch-phrase campaign slogan of President Goodluck Jonathan, the expectation of majority of Nigerians was that their newly elected leader will hit the ground running like mad. What he told us was to ‘give us fresh air’ and to ‘never, never disappoint us.’ What the average citizen understood by these campaign slogans is that no business of government will be run like before and that the new administration will be committed to programmes that will uplift the standard of living and security of the people. When therefore they learnt that a bill was on its way to the National Assembly to amend Section 135 and Sub-section 2 of the Constitution to make way for a single Six-year term instead of the four-year renewable term, it came as a rude shock. This was so because the proposal was not part of the campaign issues and more so because there are more urgent life-threatening challenges such as failing infrastructures, the debilitating economy, the centrifugal political forces, and the frightening security problems confronting the nation.
If any organ of government should be more concerned with these challenges, it should be the executive arm of government. Now, there appeared to be a correlation between President Jonathan’s pre-election solemn promise to do a single term of four years if elected and the proposal for a six-year single term. Although the Presidency was quick to debunk the notion that he was seeking to extend his tenure by reiterating 2015 as the terminus of his government, it was a political blunder to have enmeshed his government in what looks remotely connected with tenure elongation.
If the new six-year term is to take effect from 2015 as they claimed, bringing it to the fore so early in his regime raps the proposal in a dubiously suspicious garb. If this was not to serve as a distraction, what else could do it better?
When the zoning war was fiercely raging and there was the need to win many people to his side, it was expedient to vow or promise not to serve beyond a term of four years. His co-contestants such as Abubakar Atiku and Ibrahim Babangida made similar vows. Is the President already thinking that he ought not to have made that promise? If so, the answer lies not in tenure distortion, does it? A promise is a moral burden of the individual for which no jail-term or penalty is attached in the event of failure, except personal honour and integrity. However, a constitutional provision is a hallowed and guaranteed legal right from which nothing can be taken away in whatever guise or disguise. The one is an individual’s cross but the other a collective curse.
In a political context and environment laden with deception and chicanery on all sides, a moral somersault is a lesser evil because it ruins only an individual who somersaulted. However, a constitutional breach has a wider repercussion and destructive effect on the unity of the people and could become a curse from which it is hard to recover. Already, the opposition parties in the National Assembly have vowed to shoot down the proposal if ever presented as a bill. The President is already defending himself over what should not have been proposed. Even when the reasons adduced for the tenure change is examined, the temptation to pick quarrel with the President and his party will soar higher.
We are told that, among other reasons, the unduly high cost of party primaries and the acrimonies of second-term election politicking, informed the proposal. However, when the party in government dominated National Assembly amended the Electoral Act to make it compulsory for political parties to conduct congresses and convention from the ward level up to the top, opposition parties cried wolf and complained that only the party (ies) in government could afford such an expensive system, and at that, from the public coffers. They were shouted down and ignored with the claim that the motive or intention was to infuse intra-party democracy and diffuse the strangle-hold of godfathers. This was only a year ago – some eight months to the general election. Now, four months after the election, internal party democracy and the menace of godfathers are no longer such a bad idea – compared to the exorbitant cost of primaries and second-term election palaver! Again, here is either a policy summersault or an expedient chess-game in which the public good is sacrificed to the gods of selfish interests. One example may suffice to amplify this point.
The Electoral Act 2010 Sections 140 and 141 ousted the powers of the Election Tribunals from declaring a winner if the election was marred by irregulaties but to order a re-election. This is a negation of Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution and a self-serving, narrow-minded amendment which, mercifully, was nullified by a Federal High Court in a recent decision. The party in government preferred a re-election regardless of the huge cost to the tax-payers, if only they will be opportune to rig the election again –instead of declaring the candidate with the second highest votes as the winner. Does this government need to be reminded of the history of tenure elongation or distortion in Nigeria and its devastating effects and consequences?
General Yakubu Gowon failed his promise to hand over power in 1974 and was overthrown, tried and sentenced to death six months after, but reprieved by God’s intervention. General Ibrahim Babangida mesmerized the country for eight years during which his maradonic prowess was displayed to the full. He ended scoring an own goal and was disgraced out of power in 1993 for reasons of tenure elongation or failure to keep promises. General Sani Abacha expired mysteriously after jailing the presumed winner of the 1993 Presidential election Chief M. K. O. Abiola, and proceeded to transmute from Khaki to Agbada in 1998. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo cleverly sought for a third term in 2005, an event which diminished his status as an elder statesman today. Does it mean that there is no lesson taught or learnt from this number of attempts at tenure elongation of the past?
If you ask me, I will say that no reason has been adduced – or let me say no convincing reason has yet been given for the proposal. Having shot down the question of cost of primaries, which of second-term acrimony by incumbent governors and president remains the only issue which should be tackled. There is no doubt that incumbents of the office of the President and Governors seeking re-election spend public funds for the nomination and re-election. While it is illegal to do so, no audit and investigation has been carried out to verify how much was spent, from which head or subhead and by whom? What would have been helpful is a probe of Shagari and Obasanjo’s re-election in 1983 and 2003, in addition to Jonathan’s election of 2011. The result of such a probe would have answered the above question and inform the need or otherwise of substituting the four-year renewable term with the proposed six-year single term.
One of the greatest services President Jonathan could render to this Country is the second-term re-election probe of past executive presidents and governors. The purpose would be to determine the sources of their campaign funds, the total costs and whether illegal funds and public funds were involved and if fixed election ceilings have been exceeded. The facts produced by such a probe may very well be so convincing that almost everyone will support single term tenure for president and governors. If this probe is deemed impracticable or unnecessary, then we have no reason to seek to change the four-year renewable term as presently obtained. If the PDP or President Jonathan is inclined to change his mind and recontest in 2015, he is free to do so without distorting the Constitution. If a six-year single tenure is envisaged to help the PDP rule in perpetuity, I don’t see who could stop them, except God - not when all parties in government at whatever tier has proved to be as undemocratic and ruthless as the PDP. Other reasons given for the about – 50 proposed Constitutional amendments shall be examined in due course. Meanwhile, I don’t know who is entertained by his single six-year Makossa dance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
