By Sam Onimisi
One need not be a soothsayer to predict a looming battle which will be fought on geo-political basis as soon as the combatants are done with their preparation-and it is going to be a three-pronged battle. The issues, causes, and reasons for the ‘war’ are strewn in the streets and only the very lackadaisical among Nigerians would by now be oblivious of it. Let us quickly make an outline of the issues, the forces behind the clamor and the possible beneficiaries and victims of what promises to be an obstreperous mayhem. First, the National Assembly is currently engaged in a cantankerous debate over the huge allocation of funds for projects in the South-South geo-political zone as against other zones, especially the three Northern geo-political zones. Second, a group of concerned Northerners has opted for the controversial ‘Sovereign’ National Conference as a way or means of re-positioning the North to regain its pre-eminent or controlling position in the political economy of the country; and to resolve the security challenge posed by the Boko Haram terrorists. And third, the Northern Governors’ Forum is calling for a new revenue formula to replace the current one which is perceived as unfavorable to the North.
Given the zeal and glee with which the Northern Caucus of the National Assembly rolled out statistical data to back up their claims, one would be tempted to accuse or dub them as surrealists. The immediate problem I see in their approach is the very complex econometrics they employed in making out their case which, as it is, will require a large number of econometricians or econometrists to sort out and make simple for the common man to understand or support.
My pain is that national debates such as this were always conducted in such an obstreperous manner and at the end; the real issues and the desirable benefits would be lost without gains, and making no one wiser than hitherto. For this singular reason, one is forced to join this debate or battle without the facts available to the distinguished and honorable members of the National Assembly, the ubiquitous Northern Governors Forum, or even the fledging coalition of Concerned Northerners. While the three Northern groups are ready to quote copiously from the large quantum of statistical data at their disposal, one is free to contribute to the debate using a commonsensical approach. I beg of you, is there any offence in this?
The issues the three Northern Groups are championing are basically the same and could be reduced to one: a better or more appropriate political economy for Nigeria. The Northern Caucus of the National Assembly was accused by a colleague and friend of mine of insincerity and opined that they are fighting for selfish interests and not for the poor people of the North. He questioned their legitimacy in terms of their numerical strength in the legislature-a number which he said is derived from the dubious population censuses of the past and the equally questionable creation of more states and Local Government Councils in the North upon which representation in the National Assembly and the revenue allocation and sharing formula were based. Take special note of the issues he has questioned as they are not only germane but central to the legitimacy of the Nigerian nation-state. Before I could caution this Pontius Pilate against his seemingly incendiary opinion, he rushed ahead to assert that the very resources from which revenue are derived-petroleum and gas-constitutes about 90% of Nigeria’s foreign income earner and that it is derived from the soil of the Niger Delta. He sought to know the contribution of the North to the national purse or treasury from which they share what they see as inadequate. He questioned the North’s sense of fairness in comparing the flat desert terrain of the North compared to the swampy and tortuous topography of the South, especially of the Niger Delta, in the area of costs of construction of roads and houses. He said that civil engineering costs in the South-South are at least 8 times more than similar projects in the North.
In what turned out to be a monologue instead of a dialogue, our friend went on memory lane to recall those who rule Nigeria from independence and that majority of them were Northerners who formulated and implemented or supervised the implementation of economic, political and socio-cultural policies-all of which he claimed were slanted and skewed in favour of the North. Of a truth, my mind quickly remembered Tafawa Balewa, 1960 to 1966, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, July 1966 – July 1975, Alh. Shehu Shagari, 1979 – 1983, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, 1983 – 1985; Gen. Ibrahim Babamasi Babangida, 1985 – 1993; Gen. Sani Abacha, 1993 to 1998; Gen. Abubakar Abdulsalam, 1998 – 1999 and Alh. Umaru Musa Yar’Adua, 2007 – 2010. This represents about 37 years of Nigeria’s 52 years of independence! The tenure of Gen. Aguiyi Ironsi is cancelled out by that of Gen. Murtala Muhammad both of who served for six months each. Earnest Shonekan’s two months was everything but a Shenanigan!
Now my friend asked: if there is poverty and illiteracy in the North, who created or nurtured them? He sought to know why the North is still complaining in spite of 35 years of Quota System of admission to tertiary institutions which gave the North a lower pass-mark as against that of the South. He also asked if it was anyone from outside the North who forbids them from going to school-a development which he said is, as old as the Lugardian era which has since metamorphosed into a terrorist organization called the Boko Haram.
This friend of mine appeared to be so possessed of the issues that he didn’t allow me a moment to respond. He said that he knew of no one in the South-South who prevented the North from industrialization out of the trillions of Naira they allocated to themselves during their years in power. He went as far as reeling out figures of the investment portfolio of former Heads of State of Northern extraction in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Bahrain, Dubai, and Doha, not to mention those in Britain, United States, France and Switzerland. To make matters worse, he accused them of looting the nation’s treasury only to use it to purchase public enterprises which they sold to themselves at very cheap prices. He went on and on until I got exasperated and reminded him of the criminality of the Niger Delta boys which forced late President Umaru Yar’Adua to take military action against them. I also reminded him of the magnanimity of the late President who instituted an amnesty programme for the rehabilitation of the South-South ex-militants.
He interjected again to mention the statement credited to Sanusi Lamido Sanusi who claimed that the Boko Haram rebellion is a protest against the lopsided revenue formula which deprived Northern States of their fair share of the national cake. He asserted that Sanusi was either being economical with the truth or he was being mischievous. He said Yar’Adua acted in self and group interest by unleashing soldiers against the Niger Delta militants and that the amnesty was to pacify the militants to stop disrupting the flow of oil from the oil blocks and fields allocated to Northerners by northern heads of government.
If all my friend said are true, then three issues came out in bold relief and they are: that there is no agreement in all fundamental areas of nationhood as the real population of the federating units, the basis of revenue generation and sharing formula, the administrative units or geo-political structures are in dispute and are being questioned. The fact that the Boko Haram has taken up arms against the state constitutes even a more serious challenge to Nigeria’s nationhood. Unless we all want to join the Boko Haram war to answer the question once and for all, the sensible alternative is to engage in national dialogue for the sole purpose of negotiating new terms of co-habitation as one nation-state, though with a caveat: since the existing institutions of governance are the products of impunity of the past which has failed woefully but which still tilts towards maintaining the status quo, a new body must be constituted to convoke an Ethnic Nationalities Conference, the outcome of which will produce a new Constitution for the country. And the earlier, the better!
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Thursday, March 8, 2012
Between Fiefdoms & States Creation
By Sam Onimisi
In a recent public lecture by the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu organized by the Otu Oka’ Iwu in Lagos, it was made known that there are presently about 45 requests for the creation of new states before the National Assembly. Before going into the merit or demerits of creation of more states, we should have an idea of how the new requests are made. The South South Geo-political zone made 13 requests as against 10 from the South West. The South East has 8 requests compared to the North West’s 6 requests while the North Central and the North East has 5 and 3 requests respectively. If wishes were hoses, the 45 requests would be as good as created and that will bring the number of states to 81, apart from the Federal Capital Territory. There is no guarantee that people will not have reasons to request for even more states and before we know it, we could have as many as 100 states by the year 2015! But why are people demanding for more states?
There are as many reasons as could be adduced or invented by agitators for creation of more states. At the moment, the reasons are: fear of marginalization, the need for equity and fairness, the fear of ethnic and religious minorities and to bring government closer to the people for the purpose of development. In other words, there is injustice and inequity in the current Geo-political structure which needs to be redressed, and some people believe that the only way to achieve them is to create more states. If anything, I have sympathy for the agitators of creation of more states because I feel for them and do understand the trauma and deprivation they have had to endure so far. While the reasons they adduced in favour of more states appear plausible, their demand is not and can never be the required panacea for equity and fairness in the polity. Why do I say so?
First, Nigeria is not a nation to which all Nigerian ethnic nations subscribed by voluntary choice. Second, there is no basis, no terms and therefore no reason why Nigeria should have been merged or should still exist as one country. Third, there is no subsistence pact, agreement or terms to which the people subscribed as the basis of our Union as one compatible nation-state. Therefore, the creation and subsequent merger of the so-called Protectorate of Northern and Southern Provinces were by foreign do-gooders and mercantile colonizers, without the input and consent of the various people of the geographical space known today as Nigeria. The fad called unity-in-diversity which was often given as the beauty or basis of our togetherness is a lie of the highest order. Really? Yes! If our diversity is so good as to erect bonds of unity, why do we go to great length to conceal them and pretend they do not exist?
Our ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural diversities are natural creations over which no Nigerian had a choice. As a result, any merger between one or more ethnic group with another in an administrative unit must be on the basis of a mutual agreement entered into by all parties to it, if the merger or the union is to endure. Unfortunately, none of the existing 36 states has such an agreement prior to their creation. None was subjected to a referendum to ascertain the desires of the people herded into these states. Any wonder that after several years of their interactions, they discovered that they are not compatible as to get along and so, agitation for a new state out of the old one becomes an answer? If majority rule is a fundamental requirement for a democracy, self-determination is a more fundamental human rights of all people, both of majority and of minorities. Many states in Nigeria has become the property of certain ethnic groups or religious groups on the basis of majority rule.
If a group is so major as to monopolize political power to the exclusion of other groups, it must not be to the extent of making the minorities into slaves. What is the value of a majority rule if they are being sustained by the resources in the soil of the minorities? Who donated the minorities to the majorities? Why must they remain together if the so-called majority group monopolize the resources of the minorities by stealth? If you look at states such as Kogi, Benue, Delta, Adamawa, Nassarawa, Kaduna and Kwara States, the reason for demands for new states emanated from the monopoly of power by either an ethnic group or a religious group. If power cannot be devolved, it can be separated so each group-whether major or minor-could be on their own on the basis of self-determination. No union can endure if it is sustained by force and that is why unity remains a mirage between and among different ethnic, religious and geographical groups in Nigeria. In order for the demand for more states to abate, our ethnic, religious, linguistic and geographical diversities must be configured into our Geo-political structures. How?
The present structure evolved by both an expediency and or vindictive actions of the powers-that-be at certain critical points of our history. The first state creation exercise was to severe Eastern minorities from the Igbo-dominated region with a view of isolating the Biafran Igbo people, either to avert the civil war or to disable the secessionists for ultimate defeat. Subsequent state creation exercises never really departed from the iniquitous reasons of the past colonial and military regimes. What we have as Geo-political structures today is like a foundation for a bungalow but now with a 20 storey building. Neither the foundation nor the building is safe as the one cannot carry the other. If it appears that I am for and against creation of more states at the same time, here are my reason.
No polity established on falsehood and presumptions can endure and Nigeria is one of such polities. We started by running a federal system and the military came and changed it into a unitary system but continue to lie and pretend that we are a Federal republic. Yet, succeeding civil governments continued to tinker with military imposed unitary Constitution in a multi-ethnic country, thinking erroneously that the unitary system will bring about unity, but that hope is built on false premises, which is why it failed to work. For States to be viable in a multi-national country, it must be created on the basis of ethnic nationalities, geographical contiguity, cultural and linguistic affiliation etc. However, because many ethnic groups are two small and economically weak to form a state, a group of them could come together to form a federated state-provided they are or belong to a region with which they are contiguous.
A return to new regionalism is the answer. New, because it is no longer three or four but about twenty or a little more. The regions should have the right to create their own states since the federating unit so recognized will be the regions. The so-called six geopolitical zones are injurious to the minority ethnic groups and therefore are unacceptable. The 36 states structure are too artificial and inorganic-which is why 45 new demands for state creation is oozing out of them. A group of patriotic Nigerians showed the way forward in 2005 when they convoked a Peoples National Conference out of which the PRONACO proposed federal constitution emerged. That document deserve more than a cursory glance by all Nigerians who wants the country to remain united. Unity in diversity should be one in which ethnic groups enjoy internal autonomy, not one in which some are ordained rulers while others are sentenced to a life of servitude. There is no value of a unity at all costs; the cost of our forced unity has been very exorbitant and now, too prohibitive to bear. Let us restructure Nigeria in peace rather than in pieces!
In a recent public lecture by the Deputy Senate President, Senator Ike Ekweremadu organized by the Otu Oka’ Iwu in Lagos, it was made known that there are presently about 45 requests for the creation of new states before the National Assembly. Before going into the merit or demerits of creation of more states, we should have an idea of how the new requests are made. The South South Geo-political zone made 13 requests as against 10 from the South West. The South East has 8 requests compared to the North West’s 6 requests while the North Central and the North East has 5 and 3 requests respectively. If wishes were hoses, the 45 requests would be as good as created and that will bring the number of states to 81, apart from the Federal Capital Territory. There is no guarantee that people will not have reasons to request for even more states and before we know it, we could have as many as 100 states by the year 2015! But why are people demanding for more states?
There are as many reasons as could be adduced or invented by agitators for creation of more states. At the moment, the reasons are: fear of marginalization, the need for equity and fairness, the fear of ethnic and religious minorities and to bring government closer to the people for the purpose of development. In other words, there is injustice and inequity in the current Geo-political structure which needs to be redressed, and some people believe that the only way to achieve them is to create more states. If anything, I have sympathy for the agitators of creation of more states because I feel for them and do understand the trauma and deprivation they have had to endure so far. While the reasons they adduced in favour of more states appear plausible, their demand is not and can never be the required panacea for equity and fairness in the polity. Why do I say so?
First, Nigeria is not a nation to which all Nigerian ethnic nations subscribed by voluntary choice. Second, there is no basis, no terms and therefore no reason why Nigeria should have been merged or should still exist as one country. Third, there is no subsistence pact, agreement or terms to which the people subscribed as the basis of our Union as one compatible nation-state. Therefore, the creation and subsequent merger of the so-called Protectorate of Northern and Southern Provinces were by foreign do-gooders and mercantile colonizers, without the input and consent of the various people of the geographical space known today as Nigeria. The fad called unity-in-diversity which was often given as the beauty or basis of our togetherness is a lie of the highest order. Really? Yes! If our diversity is so good as to erect bonds of unity, why do we go to great length to conceal them and pretend they do not exist?
Our ethnic, religious, linguistic and cultural diversities are natural creations over which no Nigerian had a choice. As a result, any merger between one or more ethnic group with another in an administrative unit must be on the basis of a mutual agreement entered into by all parties to it, if the merger or the union is to endure. Unfortunately, none of the existing 36 states has such an agreement prior to their creation. None was subjected to a referendum to ascertain the desires of the people herded into these states. Any wonder that after several years of their interactions, they discovered that they are not compatible as to get along and so, agitation for a new state out of the old one becomes an answer? If majority rule is a fundamental requirement for a democracy, self-determination is a more fundamental human rights of all people, both of majority and of minorities. Many states in Nigeria has become the property of certain ethnic groups or religious groups on the basis of majority rule.
If a group is so major as to monopolize political power to the exclusion of other groups, it must not be to the extent of making the minorities into slaves. What is the value of a majority rule if they are being sustained by the resources in the soil of the minorities? Who donated the minorities to the majorities? Why must they remain together if the so-called majority group monopolize the resources of the minorities by stealth? If you look at states such as Kogi, Benue, Delta, Adamawa, Nassarawa, Kaduna and Kwara States, the reason for demands for new states emanated from the monopoly of power by either an ethnic group or a religious group. If power cannot be devolved, it can be separated so each group-whether major or minor-could be on their own on the basis of self-determination. No union can endure if it is sustained by force and that is why unity remains a mirage between and among different ethnic, religious and geographical groups in Nigeria. In order for the demand for more states to abate, our ethnic, religious, linguistic and geographical diversities must be configured into our Geo-political structures. How?
The present structure evolved by both an expediency and or vindictive actions of the powers-that-be at certain critical points of our history. The first state creation exercise was to severe Eastern minorities from the Igbo-dominated region with a view of isolating the Biafran Igbo people, either to avert the civil war or to disable the secessionists for ultimate defeat. Subsequent state creation exercises never really departed from the iniquitous reasons of the past colonial and military regimes. What we have as Geo-political structures today is like a foundation for a bungalow but now with a 20 storey building. Neither the foundation nor the building is safe as the one cannot carry the other. If it appears that I am for and against creation of more states at the same time, here are my reason.
No polity established on falsehood and presumptions can endure and Nigeria is one of such polities. We started by running a federal system and the military came and changed it into a unitary system but continue to lie and pretend that we are a Federal republic. Yet, succeeding civil governments continued to tinker with military imposed unitary Constitution in a multi-ethnic country, thinking erroneously that the unitary system will bring about unity, but that hope is built on false premises, which is why it failed to work. For States to be viable in a multi-national country, it must be created on the basis of ethnic nationalities, geographical contiguity, cultural and linguistic affiliation etc. However, because many ethnic groups are two small and economically weak to form a state, a group of them could come together to form a federated state-provided they are or belong to a region with which they are contiguous.
A return to new regionalism is the answer. New, because it is no longer three or four but about twenty or a little more. The regions should have the right to create their own states since the federating unit so recognized will be the regions. The so-called six geopolitical zones are injurious to the minority ethnic groups and therefore are unacceptable. The 36 states structure are too artificial and inorganic-which is why 45 new demands for state creation is oozing out of them. A group of patriotic Nigerians showed the way forward in 2005 when they convoked a Peoples National Conference out of which the PRONACO proposed federal constitution emerged. That document deserve more than a cursory glance by all Nigerians who wants the country to remain united. Unity in diversity should be one in which ethnic groups enjoy internal autonomy, not one in which some are ordained rulers while others are sentenced to a life of servitude. There is no value of a unity at all costs; the cost of our forced unity has been very exorbitant and now, too prohibitive to bear. Let us restructure Nigeria in peace rather than in pieces!
Thursday, March 1, 2012
The Day Tinubu Goofed
By Sam Onimisi
It is no doubt a painful exercise to have to oppose someone who is perceived as an icon and who in the past, has demonstrated some attributes of a great leader. If anything, it is a proof of the truism that no man is infallible and so, when they fall, it should be duly reported and the individual has to be put in his proper place. Former Lagos State Governor and national leader of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Asiwaju Bola Tinubu missed the mark last week when he accused President Goodluck Jonathan of dividing the country along ethnic and religious lines without producing a shred of evidence. As the foremost opposition leader in the country today, his views on all issues especially, on emotive subjects, such as religion carries a lot of weight. But this time and on this occasion, Asiwaju Tinubu goofed badly.
First, his insistence on a genuinely organized national conference, in the face of serious threat to Nigeria’s sovereignty is correct. If he attacks Mr. President on this issue for rejecting the call for a national conference, that is as it should be; for only the wilfully blind would kick against the need for a national dialogue at this point in time or at any other point for that matter. I join Asiwaju Tinubu and other well-meaning Nigerians in calling on Mr. President to see the need for and embrace the call for a national conference to decide on centrifugal forces militating against the oneness of Nigeria. This is because the existing institutions of state has proved incapable of doing so on the basis of moral illegitimacy. This is a matter for another day. Now back to Tinubu’s attack. “Mr. President should stop dividing the country on the basis of religion and ethnicity. Don’t divide Nigeria between Christians and Muslims. We need religious tolerance and inter-faith harmony in this country.… We want unity in diversity for economic prosperity and not divide-and-rule for political adversity,” he said.
Asiwaju Tinubu said these on an occasion when his friends and associates were gathered at Ilesha, Osun State to celebrate a new Chieftaincy title, the Agba-Akin Adinni of Ijesha. His dress for the occasion was that of an Islamic Mujahid, not different from what the Boko Haram sponsors puts on daily. He failed to adduce reason or evidence of the President’s divisive religious antics which could be interpreted to mean a divide-and-rule move. For a man whose words are wont to be taken seriously, it was a gaffe too loose to be responsible. Tinubu may have some mementos to show for his neutral stance on ethnic sentiment, given the fact that he appointed or allowed to be appointed some Igbo residents in Lagos as commissioners in charge of some innocuous portfolios. However, the same thing cannot be said of his religious tolerance-the very high ground on which he attacked Jonathan.
Truly as he admitted: “… born a Muslim as a politician I secure votes from Christians, Muslims and traditionalists”; it can be said that he woo non-Muslims only for electoral purposes, and here are the proofs. Since he became governor in 1999, Tinubu appointed Muslims in larger number into his cabinet and gave them juicy port-folios. When it was time to leave in 2007, he did all he could to ensure that another Muslim succeeded him. If Fashola turned out to be an excellent choice, it is not because he is a Muslim by faith but because he is a fine mind. Governor Rauf Aregbesola was the commissioner for works under governor Tinubu whose support made the former governor of Osun State. Tinubu has literally confined Lagos Christians to the deputy governors position – something of a second fiddle. He is on record to have caused his deputy to be removed twice during his tenure (remember Femi Pedro?) if he perceived they could pose a threat to his electoral maneuvers.
As the kingmaker in 2007, he ensured that a woman was picked by Fashola as running mate who, was also dropped in 2011 for another woman – to avoid a situation when a Christian woman would be strong enough to challenge or bid for the office of the governor. If Tinubu ought to be commended for reserving the deputy governor’s office for gender equity, it is not a proof that he didn’t do so for religious reasons. Yes, the Asiwaju of Lagos and Jagaba of Borgu is married to a Christian woman and often attend church ceremonies along with her. But those who knows him enough vowed that it is all a cosmetics and not a proof of religious tolerance. “He wanted a fine lady at all cost and found one in Oluremi who gave one strong condition. That she be left alone with her Christian faith, to which Bola concurred.” In other words, if and whenever he needs support, he is ready to drop his religious fundamentalism and pick it up again after he has had his way! Talk of a clever politician!!
As someone eying national political leadership, one would have thought that his party would be sensitive enough to ensure religious equity in his party staff structure. Does he not stand accused of religious sentiment if under his watch, the ACN has a Muslim National Chairman, national secretary, national publicity secretary etc? Yet, he is the National Leader of the party! Moreover, of the four states the ACN won in the last general election, three has Muslim governors as against one Christian (who, incidentally is running his 2007 stolen mandate). Perhaps if the Ekiti State governor had run under another party, Tinubu would not have been motivated to support his legal battles by which he reclaimed his mandate. If it has been proven that Tinubu’s religious bigotry is worse than his victim, his political or undemocratic records is not better either. What are the proofs?
The deluge of protests by ACN candidates or aspirants prior to the last general elections is an evidence of Asiwaju’s imposition of his choice boys as against the duly elected choice of the people. Given the performance of opposition parties in the gubernatorial election in Lagos State, the subsequent local government election won 100% by ACN is another proof that Tinubu and his party are not any more democratic than the PDP he was denigrating. The truth is, many probably loathe the PDP than Tinubu but as a participant and watcher of political practice in Nigeria, Tinubu neither represents an ideal opposition leader nor is his party any different from the ruling party at the centre.
Leadership demands more than guts and refined leadership ought to be transparent and exemplary. If as it has been alleged, that Asiwaju Tinubu is neither cleaner nor as liberal as he claims, it is time Asiwaju learn to be a true front line leader in political ethics and religious fidelity. The sum total is that Tinubu is not as excellent as he pretends to be. Being a product of political impurity and the whimsical process which gave birth to civil rule in 1999, Tinubu could not have beaten other candidates to emerge the governor of an urbane and cosmopolitan state like Lagos. The president may be guilty of sundry other accusations or even dereliction of responsibility, but to accuse him of trying to divide Nigerians on religious basis, especially by a person as vulnerable as Tinubu, is to stand truth on its head. An ostrich may bury its head on the sand, but its entire body is right outside and naked. The Agba-Akin Adinni is translated to mean Senior Commander of the faithful in Yoruba Islamic tradition. Step forward Asiwaju in front of the mirror, and let Bola Tinubu sees who is dividing Nigerians on religious lines!
It is no doubt a painful exercise to have to oppose someone who is perceived as an icon and who in the past, has demonstrated some attributes of a great leader. If anything, it is a proof of the truism that no man is infallible and so, when they fall, it should be duly reported and the individual has to be put in his proper place. Former Lagos State Governor and national leader of the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), Asiwaju Bola Tinubu missed the mark last week when he accused President Goodluck Jonathan of dividing the country along ethnic and religious lines without producing a shred of evidence. As the foremost opposition leader in the country today, his views on all issues especially, on emotive subjects, such as religion carries a lot of weight. But this time and on this occasion, Asiwaju Tinubu goofed badly.
First, his insistence on a genuinely organized national conference, in the face of serious threat to Nigeria’s sovereignty is correct. If he attacks Mr. President on this issue for rejecting the call for a national conference, that is as it should be; for only the wilfully blind would kick against the need for a national dialogue at this point in time or at any other point for that matter. I join Asiwaju Tinubu and other well-meaning Nigerians in calling on Mr. President to see the need for and embrace the call for a national conference to decide on centrifugal forces militating against the oneness of Nigeria. This is because the existing institutions of state has proved incapable of doing so on the basis of moral illegitimacy. This is a matter for another day. Now back to Tinubu’s attack. “Mr. President should stop dividing the country on the basis of religion and ethnicity. Don’t divide Nigeria between Christians and Muslims. We need religious tolerance and inter-faith harmony in this country.… We want unity in diversity for economic prosperity and not divide-and-rule for political adversity,” he said.
Asiwaju Tinubu said these on an occasion when his friends and associates were gathered at Ilesha, Osun State to celebrate a new Chieftaincy title, the Agba-Akin Adinni of Ijesha. His dress for the occasion was that of an Islamic Mujahid, not different from what the Boko Haram sponsors puts on daily. He failed to adduce reason or evidence of the President’s divisive religious antics which could be interpreted to mean a divide-and-rule move. For a man whose words are wont to be taken seriously, it was a gaffe too loose to be responsible. Tinubu may have some mementos to show for his neutral stance on ethnic sentiment, given the fact that he appointed or allowed to be appointed some Igbo residents in Lagos as commissioners in charge of some innocuous portfolios. However, the same thing cannot be said of his religious tolerance-the very high ground on which he attacked Jonathan.
Truly as he admitted: “… born a Muslim as a politician I secure votes from Christians, Muslims and traditionalists”; it can be said that he woo non-Muslims only for electoral purposes, and here are the proofs. Since he became governor in 1999, Tinubu appointed Muslims in larger number into his cabinet and gave them juicy port-folios. When it was time to leave in 2007, he did all he could to ensure that another Muslim succeeded him. If Fashola turned out to be an excellent choice, it is not because he is a Muslim by faith but because he is a fine mind. Governor Rauf Aregbesola was the commissioner for works under governor Tinubu whose support made the former governor of Osun State. Tinubu has literally confined Lagos Christians to the deputy governors position – something of a second fiddle. He is on record to have caused his deputy to be removed twice during his tenure (remember Femi Pedro?) if he perceived they could pose a threat to his electoral maneuvers.
As the kingmaker in 2007, he ensured that a woman was picked by Fashola as running mate who, was also dropped in 2011 for another woman – to avoid a situation when a Christian woman would be strong enough to challenge or bid for the office of the governor. If Tinubu ought to be commended for reserving the deputy governor’s office for gender equity, it is not a proof that he didn’t do so for religious reasons. Yes, the Asiwaju of Lagos and Jagaba of Borgu is married to a Christian woman and often attend church ceremonies along with her. But those who knows him enough vowed that it is all a cosmetics and not a proof of religious tolerance. “He wanted a fine lady at all cost and found one in Oluremi who gave one strong condition. That she be left alone with her Christian faith, to which Bola concurred.” In other words, if and whenever he needs support, he is ready to drop his religious fundamentalism and pick it up again after he has had his way! Talk of a clever politician!!
As someone eying national political leadership, one would have thought that his party would be sensitive enough to ensure religious equity in his party staff structure. Does he not stand accused of religious sentiment if under his watch, the ACN has a Muslim National Chairman, national secretary, national publicity secretary etc? Yet, he is the National Leader of the party! Moreover, of the four states the ACN won in the last general election, three has Muslim governors as against one Christian (who, incidentally is running his 2007 stolen mandate). Perhaps if the Ekiti State governor had run under another party, Tinubu would not have been motivated to support his legal battles by which he reclaimed his mandate. If it has been proven that Tinubu’s religious bigotry is worse than his victim, his political or undemocratic records is not better either. What are the proofs?
The deluge of protests by ACN candidates or aspirants prior to the last general elections is an evidence of Asiwaju’s imposition of his choice boys as against the duly elected choice of the people. Given the performance of opposition parties in the gubernatorial election in Lagos State, the subsequent local government election won 100% by ACN is another proof that Tinubu and his party are not any more democratic than the PDP he was denigrating. The truth is, many probably loathe the PDP than Tinubu but as a participant and watcher of political practice in Nigeria, Tinubu neither represents an ideal opposition leader nor is his party any different from the ruling party at the centre.
Leadership demands more than guts and refined leadership ought to be transparent and exemplary. If as it has been alleged, that Asiwaju Tinubu is neither cleaner nor as liberal as he claims, it is time Asiwaju learn to be a true front line leader in political ethics and religious fidelity. The sum total is that Tinubu is not as excellent as he pretends to be. Being a product of political impurity and the whimsical process which gave birth to civil rule in 1999, Tinubu could not have beaten other candidates to emerge the governor of an urbane and cosmopolitan state like Lagos. The president may be guilty of sundry other accusations or even dereliction of responsibility, but to accuse him of trying to divide Nigerians on religious basis, especially by a person as vulnerable as Tinubu, is to stand truth on its head. An ostrich may bury its head on the sand, but its entire body is right outside and naked. The Agba-Akin Adinni is translated to mean Senior Commander of the faithful in Yoruba Islamic tradition. Step forward Asiwaju in front of the mirror, and let Bola Tinubu sees who is dividing Nigerians on religious lines!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
