By Sam Onimisi
The appointed of Mrs. Farida Waziri in 2008 as Chairman of the Economic & Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) was parachuted in a haze of geo-political balancing, with a tinge of gender condescension. With the admission of the President that the election that made him a year earlier was flawed, the physical beauty of Farida and her choice was a deliberate ploy to soothe the nerves of the Nigerian public that were smarting from the clumsy ouster of the populist Mal. Nuhu Ribadu. Co-incidentally or by the usual Nigerian ‘arrangee’ administrative system, the recommending authority was the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice Mr. Michael Aandokaa, who was also a Tiv like Farida, thereby producing an ethno-centric hue. The choice of Farida was thus smeared, apart from the real qualities of the beautiful woman. Her sack was no less controversial, given the brusque manner with which many public officers are routinely dismissed.
Farida’s tenure at the EFCC was tinted with these sideswipes such that her real achievements went, almost un-noticed and unappreciated. Before going too far, there is the need to revisit one of her patrons. Michael Aandokaa, the surly looking fellow who depicts the picture of an irredeemable village champion happened on the national scene from his Gboko base ahead of more well known lawyers from Benue State.
Aandokaa courted public disfavour by his various controversial stance and pronouncements which were mostly against the grains of public opinion. One of his associates once claimed that the manner in which he pushed the case for the replacement of Dora Akunliyi at NAFDAC – again with a candidate from his village – was entirely untidy. During the illness of our beloved late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, Aandokaa was at his controversial best as he opined that the sick president could rule from his sick-bed in Saudi. According to this archaic Aandokaanian law, it was possible to extract directives from a living-corpse and so, he joined the Katsina Clique to ensure that Yar’Adua lives, and rules forever, inspite of his lifeless body.
As if his middle name is controversy, for the first time ever, Aandokaa saddled Nigeria with two Chief Justices all at the same time when he caused to be sworn in at night, Justice Allolious Katsina-Alu before the expiration of the tenure of his predecessor. Do not ask me if he would have done this if Katsina-Alu was not a Tiv, since I have no means of knowing. The man got a just deserved dismissal as soon as President Goodluck Jonathan got his bearing right as acting President. The Legal Privileges Commission (pardon me if I don’t get this right) moved in fast to disrobe Aandokaa as Senior Advocate of Nigeria, SAN. Well, how he got it in the first place is a wonder and his deregistration was something of a good riddance to a bad rubbish. Not being a lawyer, I confess that I am not in any way qualified to judge gentleman Aandokaa although; I enjoyed the liberty of his sack. The focus on the person of Aandokaa here is for the distractive influence he had on Farida if he was so close to her as people claimed. The value of her output and achievement are bound to be badly perceived and this was stacked against Lady Farida.
The facts of Farida’s exploits at the EFCC cannot be obviated by the seemingly official smear campaign against her; for if statistics are anything to go by, she did far better than her predecessor. A woman who inherited 10 high profile cases in 2008 now has about 65 in court for persecution. She also secured over 400 convictions within her three years tenure. Farida made over $9 billion recoveries during the same period in addition to shutting down over 5000 fraudulent email addresses through which 419 criminals transacted their trades. In fact, over 80 suspects are currently under trial for such cases; this is apart from about 1500 cases pending in the courts. What all these add up to is that regardless of how Farida got into the EFCC, she has more than prove her mettle and deserved a better treatment than she got from her employers.
She was also very careful about her public pronouncements, unlike her predecessor who was always singing like a bird. Even when she was unjustly criticized, her responses were always measured to suit the occasion, and never was there any occasion (at least to my knowledge) did she over-reacted. Therefore, it was a commendable feat for a woman holding such a sensitive position to have subjected her emotion under strict control. Her personal demeanor could not have been responsible for her sack as she behaved in many ways, a decent person. Why then was she so shamelessly treated? Could it have been on the account of the company she keeps? And how was that injurious to her job or the government?
The sack of Lady Farida was made easy by the unitary system of government in place which emphasizes winner-takes-all. In such a unitary administration, the form is the only goal to be pursued with vigor, but the substance must be severely given a wide berth by all those who want to remain in the good books of the authorities, especially if they desire to keep their jobs. The issue here is not about competence, output and input which translate to achievements. This is because any achievement, no matter how excellent if perceived as against the interests of the powers-that-be, would be seen as a demonic incursion that must be exorcised with electric alacrity. Has this been the case with Mrs. Farida Waziri of the EFCC? We shall find out soon if we dig deeper than the surface.
Governance, according to Daniel Kaufmann, “governance is the traditions and institutions by which authority in a country is exercised for the common good. This includes the process by which those in authority are selected, monitored and replaced; the government’s capacity to effectively manage its resources and implement sound policies (economic dimension); and the respect of citizens and the state for the country’s institutions (the institutional respect dimension).” In Nigeria, we have no native traditions of governance even though every ethnic nationality in Nigeria has one; but they have not been aggregated to form a Nigerian traditions and institutions of governance. What obtains here is a combination of British and American practice of law and judiciary as well as political and administrative traditions and institutions which tend to produce gangsterism instead of governance.
Unknown to us, the two cannot work together without breeding corruption, given our multi-ethnic and multi-religious society. In other words, our unitary system of amalgamated traditions and institutions could only spin corruption because they are centrally controlled without regard to our plurality and diversity. It is a trial and error system whose best hope is hit-and-miss by luck or ill-luck. It is such that good things happen on their own or by accident and not by any plan of any government. Therefore, whenever a person is appointed by whatever consideration, he/she must put a ceiling to his/her performance index or else s/he gets a dismissal for upsetting the apple-cart of happenstance. But how come that a person got sacked by doing the very best possible, what he/she was employed to do?
Corruption is the impairment of integrity, virtue and moral principle even as Daniel Kaufmann defined it that “corruption is the abuse of public office for private gain.” If Farida Waziri was a member or supporter of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which controls the government of over two-third of the 36 states in addition to the Federal Government in the last 12years; it also means that the party would have produced over 2/3 of the Politically Exposed Persons (PEP) of corruption who ought to be arrested and prosecuted by agencies like EFCC. And Lady Farida was doing just that – oblivious of her membership of or sympathy for the PDP, which has now been provoked and made angry to the point of fighting back – and the victim, unfortunately is, Lady Farida? No, the victim is Nigeria whose corrupt foundation corrodes its super-structure for an ultimate crash or collapse in a moment or someday. Is government still fighting corruption? I think it is the turn of corruption to fight government, or what is your take?
Wednesday, November 30, 2011
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
Why we cannot all be Kanawas
By Sam Onimisi
A self-imposed task I gave to myself early in life is to ruminate over a challenge or a problem with a view of understanding the cause or finding a solution to it. It does not matter if I am directly concerned or not, so long as it is a human problem. That is why it looks as if one is fixated over the Jos, or betters still, the Plateau crisis that seems to have defied solution. It cannot be said that the indigenes of Jos has an identity problem because they do not behave or appear to have any such problem. But there is no doubt that some residents of the town have an identity problem, and in an effort to resolve it, banded themselves into an association called the Jasawa – meaning the people of Jos. However, the concept of Jasawa is as misleading as it is confusing in the sense that membership is restricted to a particular ethnic group with a specified religion. If all Nigerians resident in Jos were to come together and christened themselves as Jasawas, there would have been no crisis in Jos and none would be laying particular claims to Jos North.
The situation in Jos as common knowledge reveals and attests to is that there are indigenes of Jos and there are residents of Jos, one is both of Jos and Plateau State, the others are residents of Jos but from other states. For easy classification or identity, one is described as an indigene while the other is a settler. This classification is not peculiar to Jos or Plateau but a phenomenon throughout the states of Nigeria. Both categories of people are also citizens of Nigeria and this should not be a cause for quarrel or for riot. This is because if I am from Kano or Katsina, I will assert the fact that I am a Kanawa or Katsinawa but if I am resident in Jos or Shagamu, I am not by any stretch of the imagination, a Jasawa or Shagamawa but a Nigerian resident in those towns. Again, this is because one cannot be a Jasawa and a Kanawa at the same time, nor can one be a Katsinawa and a Shagamawa at the same time.
To claim dual rights or double indigeneship is either a symptom of identity crisis, or a deliberate effort at causing confusion or trouble. It is like being an indigene as well as a settler in one go. Or better still, it is an attempt to be at home and abroad at the same time. Who can be a host as well as a guest in one fell swoop? If these are not possible, what makes the ‘Jasawas’ think that they can force the indigenes of Jos to become settlers in their own land? Or is it possible for the indigenes of Jos resident in Sokoto or Enugu to form an association of Sakwatawa or Enugawas for the purpose of wrestling the towns from their indigenes? Why don’t we learn to abide by the dictum of doing to others what you would like done to you?
From all accounts, the tribe which baptized themselves as Jasawas or even the hybrid by which they are known is an important, respected and renowned ethnic group in Nigeria. How come would a few of such an important nationality choose to be known, called or identified as Jasawas? Do they love their residences more than their places of origin? Could they be Birom, Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani at the same time? What kind of country shall we have if a particular ethnic group is allowed to indulge in demonizing themselves as Jasawas, Shagamawas, Onitshawa, Owerriwa, Warriwa, Yenegoawa or even Port-Harcattawa? If two or more ethnic nationalities emulates them and elect to be so-called, then we shall be saddled with a babel of Jasawa-Hausawa, Jasawa-Urhobo, Jasawa-Edo, Jasawa-Idoma, Jasawa-Ebira, Jasawa-Igbo and perhaps Jasawa-Yorubawa ad-infini-tum.
The governments of the country must embark on civil awareness campaigns to inform Nigerians of their citizenship rights and obligations. It is not only misinformation but mis-education to claim that because you are a Nigerian, you are an indigene of wherever you choose to reside. Citizenship rights do not extend to indigenes inheritance. It is like the various languages we speak. No matter how large the number of speakers of one language, it cannot replace or cancel another language, no matter how small or few the speakers are. Again, like culture. All cultures are equally important and the superiority of one over the other is only in the mind of those who feels so. Religions are of equal importance and those who feel their own is more important are entitled to their views, except that their views does not change the facts. In the same vein, no ethnic group is superior enough to usurp the rights and make slaves of another ethnic group in a Republic running a democracy. We live in peace when we respect each other’s rights and values. Crisis ensues when we trample on the rights and inheritance of others, disregard their values, appropriate or confiscate their portion of the common wealth. Those who are no slaves should not try to make slaves out of others; for it is better to live an inter-dependent life with mutual reciprocity than to seek to live as kings in the midst of crawling subjects. Medieval times are far gone-bye and over for ever, are they not?
The tenancy relationship between house-owners and tenants gives each side some rights which all parties are bound to respect. The fact that one is a tenant does not diminish his/her humanity; this is more so as the tenant could become a landlord some day. However, the landlord remains the owner of his house no matter how far away he is. The fact that he is a short man does not detract from his ownership or his rights over his property. When the landlord requires the personal use of his house, the tenant is bound to leave. If and when the tenant decides to relocate, no landlord can hold him down. No matter how long a tenant lives in a house, he cannot become the landlord except his purchase the house. Unless he kills the owner of the house and destroy all evidence or proof of ownership, the house will still remain the property of the owner. These are hard facts of life which are known to every informed adult. If these were so for a house, are they not much more so for a land or a town inhabited by indigenes?
Another instance of inter-personal relationship is that of husband and wife. For both to live in peace, certain basic conditions must be in place. There must be mutual love, respect and submission. Not only these, there must also be mutual faithfulness and the man being the head, must be able to fulfill his responsibilities. If these conditions are fulfilled, the marriage would be a near-perfect union. Trouble comes when one side begin to take the other for granted and when unfaithfulness sets in and either party neglects his/her responsibilities. However, it is well known that the offspring of the marriage remains the children of the husband whose name they bear. In fact, it was into that name the woman changed after her marriage to him. Women who insist on bethrowing her maiden name to her children is not prepared to be a wife and yet, she cannot be a mother and father at the same time; neither can she be a wife and husband all at a go. Her insistence on this matter is the highest form of non-submission and divorce could only be the end-result.
In similar vein, once you leave your native town of origin and migrate to another town, you are not only a stranger; you are a non-indigene and a mere resident. You are obligated to respect your hosts just as you would be a respected host back in your home town. To insist that you carry your rights about and recognize no authority in your new place of domicile, and to go ahead to foist your values on your host is to court disaster or disgrace. The sum total is that a Nigerian should live as a citizen anywhere he resides in Nigeria; and every Nigerian ought to know that because it is not possible to carry about his house or his father’s house, or his land and or his father’s land, he is bound to be a tenant or a resident somewhere and therefore, that he has a landlord or a host. No citizenship I know of that grants everyone absolute right of movement, freedom and liberty to do just anything without consideration for his hosts. When citizenship rights become a menace to others, indigeneship rights surface to check the usurpers. Please, let’s have more civic education so as to stop making wawas of ourselves!
A self-imposed task I gave to myself early in life is to ruminate over a challenge or a problem with a view of understanding the cause or finding a solution to it. It does not matter if I am directly concerned or not, so long as it is a human problem. That is why it looks as if one is fixated over the Jos, or betters still, the Plateau crisis that seems to have defied solution. It cannot be said that the indigenes of Jos has an identity problem because they do not behave or appear to have any such problem. But there is no doubt that some residents of the town have an identity problem, and in an effort to resolve it, banded themselves into an association called the Jasawa – meaning the people of Jos. However, the concept of Jasawa is as misleading as it is confusing in the sense that membership is restricted to a particular ethnic group with a specified religion. If all Nigerians resident in Jos were to come together and christened themselves as Jasawas, there would have been no crisis in Jos and none would be laying particular claims to Jos North.
The situation in Jos as common knowledge reveals and attests to is that there are indigenes of Jos and there are residents of Jos, one is both of Jos and Plateau State, the others are residents of Jos but from other states. For easy classification or identity, one is described as an indigene while the other is a settler. This classification is not peculiar to Jos or Plateau but a phenomenon throughout the states of Nigeria. Both categories of people are also citizens of Nigeria and this should not be a cause for quarrel or for riot. This is because if I am from Kano or Katsina, I will assert the fact that I am a Kanawa or Katsinawa but if I am resident in Jos or Shagamu, I am not by any stretch of the imagination, a Jasawa or Shagamawa but a Nigerian resident in those towns. Again, this is because one cannot be a Jasawa and a Kanawa at the same time, nor can one be a Katsinawa and a Shagamawa at the same time.
To claim dual rights or double indigeneship is either a symptom of identity crisis, or a deliberate effort at causing confusion or trouble. It is like being an indigene as well as a settler in one go. Or better still, it is an attempt to be at home and abroad at the same time. Who can be a host as well as a guest in one fell swoop? If these are not possible, what makes the ‘Jasawas’ think that they can force the indigenes of Jos to become settlers in their own land? Or is it possible for the indigenes of Jos resident in Sokoto or Enugu to form an association of Sakwatawa or Enugawas for the purpose of wrestling the towns from their indigenes? Why don’t we learn to abide by the dictum of doing to others what you would like done to you?
From all accounts, the tribe which baptized themselves as Jasawas or even the hybrid by which they are known is an important, respected and renowned ethnic group in Nigeria. How come would a few of such an important nationality choose to be known, called or identified as Jasawas? Do they love their residences more than their places of origin? Could they be Birom, Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani at the same time? What kind of country shall we have if a particular ethnic group is allowed to indulge in demonizing themselves as Jasawas, Shagamawas, Onitshawa, Owerriwa, Warriwa, Yenegoawa or even Port-Harcattawa? If two or more ethnic nationalities emulates them and elect to be so-called, then we shall be saddled with a babel of Jasawa-Hausawa, Jasawa-Urhobo, Jasawa-Edo, Jasawa-Idoma, Jasawa-Ebira, Jasawa-Igbo and perhaps Jasawa-Yorubawa ad-infini-tum.
The governments of the country must embark on civil awareness campaigns to inform Nigerians of their citizenship rights and obligations. It is not only misinformation but mis-education to claim that because you are a Nigerian, you are an indigene of wherever you choose to reside. Citizenship rights do not extend to indigenes inheritance. It is like the various languages we speak. No matter how large the number of speakers of one language, it cannot replace or cancel another language, no matter how small or few the speakers are. Again, like culture. All cultures are equally important and the superiority of one over the other is only in the mind of those who feels so. Religions are of equal importance and those who feel their own is more important are entitled to their views, except that their views does not change the facts. In the same vein, no ethnic group is superior enough to usurp the rights and make slaves of another ethnic group in a Republic running a democracy. We live in peace when we respect each other’s rights and values. Crisis ensues when we trample on the rights and inheritance of others, disregard their values, appropriate or confiscate their portion of the common wealth. Those who are no slaves should not try to make slaves out of others; for it is better to live an inter-dependent life with mutual reciprocity than to seek to live as kings in the midst of crawling subjects. Medieval times are far gone-bye and over for ever, are they not?
The tenancy relationship between house-owners and tenants gives each side some rights which all parties are bound to respect. The fact that one is a tenant does not diminish his/her humanity; this is more so as the tenant could become a landlord some day. However, the landlord remains the owner of his house no matter how far away he is. The fact that he is a short man does not detract from his ownership or his rights over his property. When the landlord requires the personal use of his house, the tenant is bound to leave. If and when the tenant decides to relocate, no landlord can hold him down. No matter how long a tenant lives in a house, he cannot become the landlord except his purchase the house. Unless he kills the owner of the house and destroy all evidence or proof of ownership, the house will still remain the property of the owner. These are hard facts of life which are known to every informed adult. If these were so for a house, are they not much more so for a land or a town inhabited by indigenes?
Another instance of inter-personal relationship is that of husband and wife. For both to live in peace, certain basic conditions must be in place. There must be mutual love, respect and submission. Not only these, there must also be mutual faithfulness and the man being the head, must be able to fulfill his responsibilities. If these conditions are fulfilled, the marriage would be a near-perfect union. Trouble comes when one side begin to take the other for granted and when unfaithfulness sets in and either party neglects his/her responsibilities. However, it is well known that the offspring of the marriage remains the children of the husband whose name they bear. In fact, it was into that name the woman changed after her marriage to him. Women who insist on bethrowing her maiden name to her children is not prepared to be a wife and yet, she cannot be a mother and father at the same time; neither can she be a wife and husband all at a go. Her insistence on this matter is the highest form of non-submission and divorce could only be the end-result.
In similar vein, once you leave your native town of origin and migrate to another town, you are not only a stranger; you are a non-indigene and a mere resident. You are obligated to respect your hosts just as you would be a respected host back in your home town. To insist that you carry your rights about and recognize no authority in your new place of domicile, and to go ahead to foist your values on your host is to court disaster or disgrace. The sum total is that a Nigerian should live as a citizen anywhere he resides in Nigeria; and every Nigerian ought to know that because it is not possible to carry about his house or his father’s house, or his land and or his father’s land, he is bound to be a tenant or a resident somewhere and therefore, that he has a landlord or a host. No citizenship I know of that grants everyone absolute right of movement, freedom and liberty to do just anything without consideration for his hosts. When citizenship rights become a menace to others, indigeneship rights surface to check the usurpers. Please, let’s have more civic education so as to stop making wawas of ourselves!
Why are cannot all be Kanawas
By Sam Onimisi
A self-imposed task I gave to myself early in life is to ruminate over a challenge or a problem with a view of understanding the cause or finding a solution to it. It does not matter if I am directly concerned or not, so long as it is a human problem. That is why it looks as if one is fixated over the Jos, or betters still, the Plateau crisis that seems to have defied solution. It cannot be said that the indigenes of Jos has an identity problem because they do not behave or appear to have any such problem. But there is no doubt that some residents of the town have an identity problem, and in an effort to resolve it, banded themselves into an association called the Jasawa – meaning the people of Jos. However, the concept of Jasawa is as misleading as it is confusing in the sense that membership is restricted to a particular ethnic group with a specified religion. If all Nigerians resident in Jos were to come together and christened themselves as Jasawas, there would have been no crisis in Jos and none would be laying particular claims to Jos North.
The situation in Jos as common knowledge reveals and attests to is that there are indigenes of Jos and there are residents of Jos, one is both of Jos and Plateau State, the others are residents of Jos but from other states. For easy classification or identity, one is described as an indigene while the other is a settler. This classification is not peculiar to Jos or Plateau but a phenomenon throughout the states of Nigeria. Both categories of people are also citizens of Nigeria and this should not be a cause for quarrel or for riot. This is because if I am from Kano or Katsina, I will assert the fact that I am a Kanawa or Katsinawa but if I am resident in Jos or Shagamu, I am not by any stretch of the imagination, a Jasawa or Shagamawa but a Nigerian resident in those towns. Again, this is because one cannot be a Jasawa and a Kanawa at the same time, nor can one be a Katsinawa and a Shagamawa at the same time.
To claim dual rights or double indigeneship is either a symptom of identity crisis, or a deliberate effort at causing confusion or trouble. It is like being an indigene as well as a settler in one go. Or better still, it is an attempt to be at home and abroad at the same time. Who can be a host as well as a guest in one fell swoop? If these are not possible, what makes the ‘Jasawas’ think that they can force the indigenes of Jos to become settlers in their own land? Or is it possible for the indigenes of Jos resident in Sokoto or Enugu to form an association of Sakwatawa or Enugawas for the purpose of wrestling the towns from their indigenes? Why don’t we learn to abide by the dictum of doing to others what you would like done to you?
From all accounts, the tribe which baptized themselves as Jasawas or even the hybrid by which they are known is an important, respected and renowned ethnic group in Nigeria. How come would a few of such an important nationality choose to be known, called or identified as Jasawas? Do they love their residences more than their places of origin? Could they be Birom, Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani at the same time? What kind of country shall we have if a particular ethnic group is allowed to indulge in demonizing themselves as Jasawas, Shagamawas, Onitshawa, Owerriwa, Warriwa, Yenegoawa or even Port-Harcattawa? If two or more ethnic nationalities emulates them and elect to be so-called, then we shall be saddled with a babel of Jasawa-Hausawa, Jasawa-Urhobo, Jasawa-Edo, Jasawa-Idoma, Jasawa-Ebira, Jasawa-Igbo and perhaps Jasawa-Yorubawa ad-infini-tum.
The governments of the country must embark on civil awareness campaigns to inform Nigerians of their citizenship rights and obligations. It is not only misinformation but mis-education to claim that because you are a Nigerian, you are an indigene of wherever you choose to reside. Citizenship rights do not extend to indigenes inheritance. It is like the various languages we speak. No matter how large the number of speakers of one language, it cannot replace or cancel another language, no matter how small or few the speakers are. Again, like culture. All cultures are equally important and the superiority of one over the other is only in the mind of those who feels so. Religions are of equal importance and those who feel their own is more important are entitled to their views, except that their views does not change the facts. In the same vein, no ethnic group is superior enough to usurp the rights and make slaves of another ethnic group in a Republic running a democracy. We live in peace when we respect each other’s rights and values. Crisis ensues when we trample on the rights and inheritance of others, disregard their values, appropriate or confiscate their portion of the common wealth. Those who are no slaves should not try to make slaves out of others; for it is better to live an inter-dependent life with mutual reciprocity than to seek to live as kings in the midst of crawling subjects. Medieval times are far gone-bye and over for ever, are they not?
The tenancy relationship between house-owners and tenants gives each side some rights which all parties are bound to respect. The fact that one is a tenant does not diminish his/her humanity; this is more so as the tenant could become a landlord some day. However, the landlord remains the owner of his house no matter how far away he is. The fact that he is a short man does not detract from his ownership or his rights over his property. When the landlord requires the personal use of his house, the tenant is bound to leave. If and when the tenant decides to relocate, no landlord can hold him down. No matter how long a tenant lives in a house, he cannot become the landlord except his purchase the house. Unless he kills the owner of the house and destroy all evidence or proof of ownership, the house will still remain the property of the owner. These are hard facts of life which are known to every informed adult. If these were so for a house, are they not much more so for a land or a town inhabited by indigenes?
Another instance of inter-personal relationship is that of husband and wife. For both to live in peace, certain basic conditions must be in place. There must be mutual love, respect and submission. Not only these, there must also be mutual faithfulness and the man being the head, must be able to fulfill his responsibilities. If these conditions are fulfilled, the marriage would be a near-perfect union. Trouble comes when one side begin to take the other for granted and when unfaithfulness sets in and either party neglects his/her responsibilities. However, it is well known that the offspring of the marriage remains the children of the husband whose name they bear. In fact, it was into that name the woman changed after her marriage to him. Women who insist on bethrowing her maiden name to her children is not prepared to be a wife and yet, she cannot be a mother and father at the same time; neither can she be a wife and husband all at a go. Her insistence on this matter is the highest form of non-submission and divorce could only be the end-result.
In similar vein, once you leave your native town of origin and migrate to another town, you are not only a stranger; you are a non-indigene and a mere resident. You are obligated to respect your hosts just as you would be a respected host back in your home town. To insist that you carry your rights about and recognize no authority in your new place of domicile, and to go ahead to foist your values on your host is to court disaster or disgrace. The sum total is that a Nigerian should live as a citizen anywhere he resides in Nigeria; and every Nigerian ought to know that because it is not possible to carry about his house or his father’s house, or his land and or his father’s land, he is bound to be a tenant or a resident somewhere and therefore, that he has a landlord or a host. No citizenship I know of that grants everyone absolute right of movement, freedom and liberty to do just anything without consideration for his hosts. When citizenship rights become a menace to others, indigeneship rights surface to check the usurpers. Please, let’s have more civic education so as to stop making wawas of ourselves!
A self-imposed task I gave to myself early in life is to ruminate over a challenge or a problem with a view of understanding the cause or finding a solution to it. It does not matter if I am directly concerned or not, so long as it is a human problem. That is why it looks as if one is fixated over the Jos, or betters still, the Plateau crisis that seems to have defied solution. It cannot be said that the indigenes of Jos has an identity problem because they do not behave or appear to have any such problem. But there is no doubt that some residents of the town have an identity problem, and in an effort to resolve it, banded themselves into an association called the Jasawa – meaning the people of Jos. However, the concept of Jasawa is as misleading as it is confusing in the sense that membership is restricted to a particular ethnic group with a specified religion. If all Nigerians resident in Jos were to come together and christened themselves as Jasawas, there would have been no crisis in Jos and none would be laying particular claims to Jos North.
The situation in Jos as common knowledge reveals and attests to is that there are indigenes of Jos and there are residents of Jos, one is both of Jos and Plateau State, the others are residents of Jos but from other states. For easy classification or identity, one is described as an indigene while the other is a settler. This classification is not peculiar to Jos or Plateau but a phenomenon throughout the states of Nigeria. Both categories of people are also citizens of Nigeria and this should not be a cause for quarrel or for riot. This is because if I am from Kano or Katsina, I will assert the fact that I am a Kanawa or Katsinawa but if I am resident in Jos or Shagamu, I am not by any stretch of the imagination, a Jasawa or Shagamawa but a Nigerian resident in those towns. Again, this is because one cannot be a Jasawa and a Kanawa at the same time, nor can one be a Katsinawa and a Shagamawa at the same time.
To claim dual rights or double indigeneship is either a symptom of identity crisis, or a deliberate effort at causing confusion or trouble. It is like being an indigene as well as a settler in one go. Or better still, it is an attempt to be at home and abroad at the same time. Who can be a host as well as a guest in one fell swoop? If these are not possible, what makes the ‘Jasawas’ think that they can force the indigenes of Jos to become settlers in their own land? Or is it possible for the indigenes of Jos resident in Sokoto or Enugu to form an association of Sakwatawa or Enugawas for the purpose of wrestling the towns from their indigenes? Why don’t we learn to abide by the dictum of doing to others what you would like done to you?
From all accounts, the tribe which baptized themselves as Jasawas or even the hybrid by which they are known is an important, respected and renowned ethnic group in Nigeria. How come would a few of such an important nationality choose to be known, called or identified as Jasawas? Do they love their residences more than their places of origin? Could they be Birom, Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani at the same time? What kind of country shall we have if a particular ethnic group is allowed to indulge in demonizing themselves as Jasawas, Shagamawas, Onitshawa, Owerriwa, Warriwa, Yenegoawa or even Port-Harcattawa? If two or more ethnic nationalities emulates them and elect to be so-called, then we shall be saddled with a babel of Jasawa-Hausawa, Jasawa-Urhobo, Jasawa-Edo, Jasawa-Idoma, Jasawa-Ebira, Jasawa-Igbo and perhaps Jasawa-Yorubawa ad-infini-tum.
The governments of the country must embark on civil awareness campaigns to inform Nigerians of their citizenship rights and obligations. It is not only misinformation but mis-education to claim that because you are a Nigerian, you are an indigene of wherever you choose to reside. Citizenship rights do not extend to indigenes inheritance. It is like the various languages we speak. No matter how large the number of speakers of one language, it cannot replace or cancel another language, no matter how small or few the speakers are. Again, like culture. All cultures are equally important and the superiority of one over the other is only in the mind of those who feels so. Religions are of equal importance and those who feel their own is more important are entitled to their views, except that their views does not change the facts. In the same vein, no ethnic group is superior enough to usurp the rights and make slaves of another ethnic group in a Republic running a democracy. We live in peace when we respect each other’s rights and values. Crisis ensues when we trample on the rights and inheritance of others, disregard their values, appropriate or confiscate their portion of the common wealth. Those who are no slaves should not try to make slaves out of others; for it is better to live an inter-dependent life with mutual reciprocity than to seek to live as kings in the midst of crawling subjects. Medieval times are far gone-bye and over for ever, are they not?
The tenancy relationship between house-owners and tenants gives each side some rights which all parties are bound to respect. The fact that one is a tenant does not diminish his/her humanity; this is more so as the tenant could become a landlord some day. However, the landlord remains the owner of his house no matter how far away he is. The fact that he is a short man does not detract from his ownership or his rights over his property. When the landlord requires the personal use of his house, the tenant is bound to leave. If and when the tenant decides to relocate, no landlord can hold him down. No matter how long a tenant lives in a house, he cannot become the landlord except his purchase the house. Unless he kills the owner of the house and destroy all evidence or proof of ownership, the house will still remain the property of the owner. These are hard facts of life which are known to every informed adult. If these were so for a house, are they not much more so for a land or a town inhabited by indigenes?
Another instance of inter-personal relationship is that of husband and wife. For both to live in peace, certain basic conditions must be in place. There must be mutual love, respect and submission. Not only these, there must also be mutual faithfulness and the man being the head, must be able to fulfill his responsibilities. If these conditions are fulfilled, the marriage would be a near-perfect union. Trouble comes when one side begin to take the other for granted and when unfaithfulness sets in and either party neglects his/her responsibilities. However, it is well known that the offspring of the marriage remains the children of the husband whose name they bear. In fact, it was into that name the woman changed after her marriage to him. Women who insist on bethrowing her maiden name to her children is not prepared to be a wife and yet, she cannot be a mother and father at the same time; neither can she be a wife and husband all at a go. Her insistence on this matter is the highest form of non-submission and divorce could only be the end-result.
In similar vein, once you leave your native town of origin and migrate to another town, you are not only a stranger; you are a non-indigene and a mere resident. You are obligated to respect your hosts just as you would be a respected host back in your home town. To insist that you carry your rights about and recognize no authority in your new place of domicile, and to go ahead to foist your values on your host is to court disaster or disgrace. The sum total is that a Nigerian should live as a citizen anywhere he resides in Nigeria; and every Nigerian ought to know that because it is not possible to carry about his house or his father’s house, or his land and or his father’s land, he is bound to be a tenant or a resident somewhere and therefore, that he has a landlord or a host. No citizenship I know of that grants everyone absolute right of movement, freedom and liberty to do just anything without consideration for his hosts. When citizenship rights become a menace to others, indigeneship rights surface to check the usurpers. Please, let’s have more civic education so as to stop making wawas of ourselves!
Friday, November 11, 2011
The Make-believe Majority Rule
By Sam Onimisi
There are two political doctrines which have prevailed so far in Nigeria, although in their perverted version but which is continually doing damage to the unity of Nigeria or some of its constituent states. They are the concept of majority rule and partisan party loyalty. For this write-up, we shall limit ourselves to a constituent part, using it as a case-study. But let us begin by defining what they mean. Majority rule is “a political principle providing that a majority, usually constituted by fifty percent plus one of an organized group will have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole.” The key point in this definition is: fifty one percent of the whole. Party partisanship or loyalty is “a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person, especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.” The definitions are not mine but that of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and this point is made to exonerate one from charges of bias or even prejudice by some of my readers.
An ‘organized group’ in this case means a political party and not an ethnic group, since the country’s constitution forbids the formation of parties on ethnic basis. It only means that political like-minds irrespective of ethnic affiliation attracted to a party’s manifestoes would vote the same way at all times for the party’s candidates or position. A majority is the largest number of the votes cast in an election, whether it is the nomination process of a party or a general election. Here is where population or numerical strength comes in; the number being that of people of voting age who choose to exercise their franchise.
Again, it should be noted that a group may constitute a majority only when they prove it by the exercise of their voting rights in a particular way. Therefore, there is no permanent ethnic majority in a plural political setting, except if a people choose to firmly adhere to a party or person, especially those ‘exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.’ Having set the template for this discourse, we can now reveal the specifics of the state in this case study.
Kogi state is made up of Ebira, Igala and Okun ethnic groups as the three major tribal groupings with about eight other smaller ethnic groups. In numerical strength, Igala comes first closely followed by the Ebira and Okun. The ruling party in the state is the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which has majority adherents in the three senatorial districts. The Igala has ruled the state since 1992 (except during the military regime of Abacha) and the PDP and five other leading parties has again fielded or has nominated their candidates from the Igala ethnic group of Kogi East Senatorial District. So also did about seven other parties, except the SDMP which nominated theirs from Kogi Central and the Convention Peoples Party with its candidate from Kogi West, but whose chances of victory is next to nil, given the relative weakness of their parties in the state. It needs to be recalled that Abubakar Audu ruled the state from 1992 to 1994 and from 1999 to 2003. His fellow Igala tribesman Ibrahim Idris took over in 2003, re-elected in 2007 and had a judicial extension of his tenure which terminates by 2012 – at which time, the Igala would have ruled Kogi State for 15 out of its 20 years in existence as a state.
Can we attribute Igala’s dominance of governance to their numerical strength? My own humble answer is both yes and no, based on the fact that Igalas are found in all parties with some presence in the state, a fact which manifested in 13 out of the 15 parties participating in the next gubernatorial race picking their candidates from among the Igala. Other ethnic groups are also found in other parties as well. Therefore, ethnic numerical strength does not necessarily translate to a party’s political strength, especially where no ethnic group constitute up to 50% of the state. The Igala is known to be about 45% of the population and since their candidates are in 13 parties, their votes will be split and so their numerical strength has little advantage. Can we say that the Igala is more adept in governance than other ethnic groups in the state?
Since there is no basis for comparison, it is out of place to attribute their dominance of governance to adeptness. Until the Ebira, the Okun or any other ethnic group has ruled the state, there is no standard to measure the quality of governance in the state. However, if comparison is made between the Abubakar Audu and the Ibrahim Idris’s regimes, both could be described as a disaster in degrees. While Audu made efforts in infrastructural development, his high hubris and poor public relations was counter-productive and obstructive. As for Ibrahim Idris, we may need to wait for an eleventh hour miracle and since this can happen at anytime in the six months left to his regime, lets not be in hurry to judge him too early. What is obviously going on for the Igala is their power of incumbency which is often deployed to manipulate the primaries of the party in government to produce successors from among the Igala – a practice which some other parties has adopted in the hope and belief that the incumbent Igala governor would manipulate votes in their favour since their candidates are fellow Igala. This hope or belief has worked twice in the past: when there was disagreement within the SDP in 1992 and acrimony in PDP in 1999, the alternatives were the NRC and the ANPP who had Igala candidates and who won by protest votes. But except for blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance to a party, the other ethnic groups in the PDP could as well choose to vote against their own party who would always impose an Igala candidate on them by default or design. As it is at present, if the internal crisis in the PDP is not resolved before the election, Gov. Ibrahim Idris will have no option than allow or help manipulate any of the 13 Igala candidates into power come 2012.
The protest votes that produced Prince Abubakar Audu twice in 1992 and 1999 were not solely Igala votes but the votes of the entire electorate of Kogi State. If other ethnic groups could vote against their party in protest, couldn’t the Igala vote against their own tribesman in favour of candidates from other ethnic groups? From experience of history, political monopoly breeds hatred for the monopolist. A government formed on the basis of a make-belief majority cannot be a legitimate government and would therefore, lack authority to act on behalf of the people. The concept of majority rule in a multi-ethnic state is adherence of the majority to a party and its programmes as contained in its manifesto-not to a tribe. However, if a tribe is bent on monopolizing power and ethno-centric in governance, they should remember that self determination is a universal right of all ethnic nationalities and no one can be forced to remain a subservient citizen in a state that works to diminish their citizenship rights through make-belief majority rule. In other words, if Kogi State is conceived and run as an Igala State, then other ethnic nationalities has the option of opting out of the state, in the exercise of their rights of self-determination and freedom of association-which are even superior to the concept of majority rule. It is even better for the Igala to seek for a state of their own than to rule the multi-ethnic state in perpetuity.
On the other hand, it is not fair to blame the Igala for the inability of the Ebira, Okun and other ethnic groups to organize themselves for the challenges of political power. Except in Nigeria (and has it not failed?), power is not rotated; power is something to be fought for and won. At best, power is devolved so that there is no need for contention among the different nationalities and cultures in a polity. However, to blame other ethnic groups for their apparent weakness in power contest is to misunderstand the issue at stake and add insult to injury. There was no known agreement or terms for co-habitation for the diverse ethnic groups in Kogi State or even the entire country as a whole. Kogi State and Nigeria came into being by military fiat. A state that was created on the basis of presumptions can never be stable, just and fair, or progressive. The nature of politics and power demands that consenting peoples must have a written agreement spelling out the terms of co-habitation, the breach of which terminates the agreement or dissolves the union. The absence of a binding constitution on the state and the imposition of a constitution on Nigerians is one principal reason for the lack of equity and fairness in our affairs. If Kogi State or Nigeria proceeds or continues with the present presumptions, power monopoly through manipulations will continue to be our lot- and the outcome will remain a make-believe majority rule. Well, if this will water the seed of the quest for self-determination, why not?
There are two political doctrines which have prevailed so far in Nigeria, although in their perverted version but which is continually doing damage to the unity of Nigeria or some of its constituent states. They are the concept of majority rule and partisan party loyalty. For this write-up, we shall limit ourselves to a constituent part, using it as a case-study. But let us begin by defining what they mean. Majority rule is “a political principle providing that a majority, usually constituted by fifty percent plus one of an organized group will have the power to make decisions binding upon the whole.” The key point in this definition is: fifty one percent of the whole. Party partisanship or loyalty is “a firm adherent to a party, faction, cause, or person, especially one exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.” The definitions are not mine but that of Merriam Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary and this point is made to exonerate one from charges of bias or even prejudice by some of my readers.
An ‘organized group’ in this case means a political party and not an ethnic group, since the country’s constitution forbids the formation of parties on ethnic basis. It only means that political like-minds irrespective of ethnic affiliation attracted to a party’s manifestoes would vote the same way at all times for the party’s candidates or position. A majority is the largest number of the votes cast in an election, whether it is the nomination process of a party or a general election. Here is where population or numerical strength comes in; the number being that of people of voting age who choose to exercise their franchise.
Again, it should be noted that a group may constitute a majority only when they prove it by the exercise of their voting rights in a particular way. Therefore, there is no permanent ethnic majority in a plural political setting, except if a people choose to firmly adhere to a party or person, especially those ‘exhibiting blind, prejudiced, and unreasoning allegiance.’ Having set the template for this discourse, we can now reveal the specifics of the state in this case study.
Kogi state is made up of Ebira, Igala and Okun ethnic groups as the three major tribal groupings with about eight other smaller ethnic groups. In numerical strength, Igala comes first closely followed by the Ebira and Okun. The ruling party in the state is the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which has majority adherents in the three senatorial districts. The Igala has ruled the state since 1992 (except during the military regime of Abacha) and the PDP and five other leading parties has again fielded or has nominated their candidates from the Igala ethnic group of Kogi East Senatorial District. So also did about seven other parties, except the SDMP which nominated theirs from Kogi Central and the Convention Peoples Party with its candidate from Kogi West, but whose chances of victory is next to nil, given the relative weakness of their parties in the state. It needs to be recalled that Abubakar Audu ruled the state from 1992 to 1994 and from 1999 to 2003. His fellow Igala tribesman Ibrahim Idris took over in 2003, re-elected in 2007 and had a judicial extension of his tenure which terminates by 2012 – at which time, the Igala would have ruled Kogi State for 15 out of its 20 years in existence as a state.
Can we attribute Igala’s dominance of governance to their numerical strength? My own humble answer is both yes and no, based on the fact that Igalas are found in all parties with some presence in the state, a fact which manifested in 13 out of the 15 parties participating in the next gubernatorial race picking their candidates from among the Igala. Other ethnic groups are also found in other parties as well. Therefore, ethnic numerical strength does not necessarily translate to a party’s political strength, especially where no ethnic group constitute up to 50% of the state. The Igala is known to be about 45% of the population and since their candidates are in 13 parties, their votes will be split and so their numerical strength has little advantage. Can we say that the Igala is more adept in governance than other ethnic groups in the state?
Since there is no basis for comparison, it is out of place to attribute their dominance of governance to adeptness. Until the Ebira, the Okun or any other ethnic group has ruled the state, there is no standard to measure the quality of governance in the state. However, if comparison is made between the Abubakar Audu and the Ibrahim Idris’s regimes, both could be described as a disaster in degrees. While Audu made efforts in infrastructural development, his high hubris and poor public relations was counter-productive and obstructive. As for Ibrahim Idris, we may need to wait for an eleventh hour miracle and since this can happen at anytime in the six months left to his regime, lets not be in hurry to judge him too early. What is obviously going on for the Igala is their power of incumbency which is often deployed to manipulate the primaries of the party in government to produce successors from among the Igala – a practice which some other parties has adopted in the hope and belief that the incumbent Igala governor would manipulate votes in their favour since their candidates are fellow Igala. This hope or belief has worked twice in the past: when there was disagreement within the SDP in 1992 and acrimony in PDP in 1999, the alternatives were the NRC and the ANPP who had Igala candidates and who won by protest votes. But except for blind, prejudiced and unreasoning allegiance to a party, the other ethnic groups in the PDP could as well choose to vote against their own party who would always impose an Igala candidate on them by default or design. As it is at present, if the internal crisis in the PDP is not resolved before the election, Gov. Ibrahim Idris will have no option than allow or help manipulate any of the 13 Igala candidates into power come 2012.
The protest votes that produced Prince Abubakar Audu twice in 1992 and 1999 were not solely Igala votes but the votes of the entire electorate of Kogi State. If other ethnic groups could vote against their party in protest, couldn’t the Igala vote against their own tribesman in favour of candidates from other ethnic groups? From experience of history, political monopoly breeds hatred for the monopolist. A government formed on the basis of a make-belief majority cannot be a legitimate government and would therefore, lack authority to act on behalf of the people. The concept of majority rule in a multi-ethnic state is adherence of the majority to a party and its programmes as contained in its manifesto-not to a tribe. However, if a tribe is bent on monopolizing power and ethno-centric in governance, they should remember that self determination is a universal right of all ethnic nationalities and no one can be forced to remain a subservient citizen in a state that works to diminish their citizenship rights through make-belief majority rule. In other words, if Kogi State is conceived and run as an Igala State, then other ethnic nationalities has the option of opting out of the state, in the exercise of their rights of self-determination and freedom of association-which are even superior to the concept of majority rule. It is even better for the Igala to seek for a state of their own than to rule the multi-ethnic state in perpetuity.
On the other hand, it is not fair to blame the Igala for the inability of the Ebira, Okun and other ethnic groups to organize themselves for the challenges of political power. Except in Nigeria (and has it not failed?), power is not rotated; power is something to be fought for and won. At best, power is devolved so that there is no need for contention among the different nationalities and cultures in a polity. However, to blame other ethnic groups for their apparent weakness in power contest is to misunderstand the issue at stake and add insult to injury. There was no known agreement or terms for co-habitation for the diverse ethnic groups in Kogi State or even the entire country as a whole. Kogi State and Nigeria came into being by military fiat. A state that was created on the basis of presumptions can never be stable, just and fair, or progressive. The nature of politics and power demands that consenting peoples must have a written agreement spelling out the terms of co-habitation, the breach of which terminates the agreement or dissolves the union. The absence of a binding constitution on the state and the imposition of a constitution on Nigerians is one principal reason for the lack of equity and fairness in our affairs. If Kogi State or Nigeria proceeds or continues with the present presumptions, power monopoly through manipulations will continue to be our lot- and the outcome will remain a make-believe majority rule. Well, if this will water the seed of the quest for self-determination, why not?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
