By Sam Onimisi
Nigeria as a geographical expression or political entity has changed size once and in 1961, when the Southern part of the then United Nations Trust Territory elected via plebiscite to join the Republic of Cameroon. Its Northern part later known as the Sardauna Province chose to remain a part of Nigeria through the same plebiscite after a promise by the late Sardauna of Sokoto and Premier of Northern Region of Nigeria that they will be accorded the status of a Province. In effect, the Nigerian map has to be redrawn to reflect the reality of the loss of the Southern part of the trust Territory to Cameroon.
Ironically, and in 2005, Nigeria again lost the Bakassi Peninsula to Cameroon in the aftermath of a judicial decision by the International Court of Justice at The Hague. One is not sure if the Nigerian map has been adjusted to reflect current realities even as Cameroon was said to have lost some villages to Nigeria, courtesy of the same court rulings. What these implies is that the territorial integrity of Nigeria have twice been assailed albeit, peacefully.
Once when a violent method was adopted to interfere with the country’s territorial map, a bloody civil war ensued and was fought for nearly three years with the loss of over One Million precious lives. Experience has shown that the territorial integrity of Nigeria and indeed any other country could remain inviolate only through internal mutual understanding and agreement. When and where deliberate actions are taken to hold down a people and their territory by force of arms against the wishes of the people (Ethiopia, Yugoslavia, Soviet Union and the Sudan are contemporary examples), what results is either violent or peaceful disintegration.
Through several painstaking constitutional conferences in Lagos and London between 1957 and 1959, Nigeria’s leaders agreed to a federal structure and system of government, which resulted into the three initial regions of pre-1960 independence, until the fourth was created in 1963. Meaning that, the four regions of the first republic were products of dialogue, bargaining, discussion, disagreements ending in agreement! And because the regions reflected to a certain extent, the true wishes of the people and fitted the multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nature of the heterogeneity of Nigeria, the country remained in a healthy competition until in 1962 when the federal government embarked on meddlesomeness in regional affairs.
The map of Nigeria has changed internally about seven times since 1960; first in 1961, second in 1963, third in 1967, then followed by the 1976 states creation exercises carried out by fiat of the autocratic military regimes of Generals Yakubu Gowon, Murtala Muhammed, Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha respectively. In effect, the 36 states structure and the unitary system of government which exists today are reflections of the military potentates who arrogated to themselves a monopoly of wisdom, understanding and patriotism of how Nigeria should be.
The peculiar wisdom which the various military regimes pretended they had, which informed the arbitrary creation of the 36 states geopolitical structure and, the entrenchment of a unitary system of government that grants a near absolute power to the individual head of government (either at the national, state or local council level) has been identified as the single most destructive factor that corroded the internal autonomy of the ethnic peoples of Nigeria. No miltary leader has ever admitted to his infallibility in this regard, and none is now expected to so agree. For one thing, their empty pride of phoney valour will not allow them; for another, the beneficiaries of these phantom and arbitrary geopolitical creations will continue to justify their fraudulent gains.
Yet, the deep-seated mistrust among Nigerian ethnic nationalities which often expresses itself via coup detat, sabotage of impotant state policies, and which stifles creativity and invention, has its roots in the artificiality of the states created by fiat, and the monopoly of power (the authority to share resources and dispense patronage) bestowed on individuals by the presidential (executive) system of government. The result? Ethno-religious riots, religious bigotry and unreasoned fundamentalism, economic and public utilities sabotage for personal gains and systemic failure etc.
The only set of people who enjoy the present system of government and the prevailing geo-political structures are: those powers-that-be feasting on the common-wealth of Nigeria without corresponding contribution or productivity. Of course, the system is oiled by consortia of individual vassals and ethno-regional vassalages who, as clients of their self-chosen masters, also desire that the rotten system continues. Without doubt, the percentage of these leeches on the political economy has not been properly estimated. Again without doubt, they are in minute minority!
What is also not in doubt is that the structure and the system cannot propel or sustain a progressively productive Nigeria. It is infact glaring that it has dragged the country beyond stagnation into retrogression. The evidence? When routine and pedestrain role or duty by government is performed and such is hailed as a miracle. Some 25 years ago, Nigeria was the leading frontline state that helped South Africa defeats the aparthied system. Today, Nigeria lags behind her in democratic and economic progress. Ghana is another hitherto beneficiary of Nigeria’s economic largesse but which today, shines brighter than Nigeria in indices of a stable and progressive polity and economy.
The unwillingness of our ex-military rulers to accept blame or admit their mistakes makes them blame their civillian collaborators fo the woes they brought upon their country. One would have thought that the first thing is to agree to your crime, and then you may begin to point fingers at your accomplices. Those who are parading themselves as statesmen today ought to be languishing in jail for their heinous crime against the country. But here is a country where all laws seems designed to work in reverse order and so, those who should stand condemned are celebrated!.
In all autocratic and treason-infected governments, the first casualty is the truth, after which facts are stood on their heads, at which reasons takes flight and whims cum caprices takes full control. In these circumstances, all talks of patriotism is sheer bunkum and all decisions supposedly taken in the interest of the public is a smokescreen, as the benefit of such decisions ends in the tummy and private purses of the decision makers. If this is patriotism, what then is high treason?
Admittedly,our military rulers are Nigerians and would remain so inspite of their crimes against us. Therefore, we cannot continue recrimination over their past criminality and infinitium if we genuinely want to move forward away from the rot. This is with the hope that they too will not obstruct our quest for forward march. However, is their past mistakes and misrule not impediments to our progress today?
The necessary lessons to be learnt from all these are many but two appear to be germane at the moment: one is that if the map of Nigeria has to change in 1961 and after the loss of Bakassi, and if the internal structure had changed five times since 1963, then there is nothing sacrosanct about the map of Nigeria that could not accommodate a new internal restructuring. The second lesson is that the proposed restructuring will come against deeply entrenched interests and privileges from where resistance should naturally be expected. No problem has ever been overcome, until it is confronted. But what is the attitude of the average Nigerian to confrontation? Acquiescence! Is that how to solve problems and overcome challenges? You may ask again!!
(This article was first published in 2008 by Our VISION magazine and is republished with a few additions)
Thursday, October 13, 2011
Thursday, September 29, 2011
Nigeria: Will it break?
By Sam Onimisi
This is the continuation of the debate on the future of Nigeria by those concerned by the lack of peace and progress of the most populous country in the African continent. Members of the board of governors of the Nigeria Ethnic Nationalities Movement (NENAM) decided to join issues with Mr. President and the Movement for a New Nigeria (MNN) on the possibility or otherwise of disintegration of the country. Five members of the board has last week, aired their opinion sitting various occurrences and incidences militating against the country’s unity. In this edition, other members have their say, and hereunder are excerpts.
Convener: A few months back, I wrote on the reasons and causes of the fall of fourteen nation-states in about four continents in contemporary history and concluded by asking if Nigeria should not make amends in order to escape similar fate. Then the UN building bombing by the Boko Haram terrorist group happened and President Goodluck Jonathan seized the occasion to reassure the people that Nigeria will not break up. In the last week debate, many reasons were adduced on why the President’s optimism was misplaced. However, two members are yet to have their say.
Sarah Lami Raji: The unity of Nigeria is questionable not only for the reasons adduced by earlier speakers but for other reasons that has to do with core family values. The fact is that if the nuclear family is not at peace, the community and the nation cannot have peace. Here in Nigeria, we treat women as if they do not matter in the affairs of state. The men folk are allowed to mess up the polity and the resultant crisis consumes the women and their children the most vulnerable members of society in crisis. Take for instance the June 12, 1993 crisis. For God’s sake, someone was cleared by security agencies to run for an election. On his way to victory, the same government whose security arms declared the contestant fit to run has his election halted and annulled. The injury done to Chief M.K.O. Abiola as an individual was enough to make him and his family disavows the country. The crisis generated by that silly action nearly tore the country apart. The psyche of the Yoruba people was badly battered and their reaction was loud enough to raise serious ripples in the polity. And then the man died in controversial circumstances which suggested a state murder. Up till now, no enquiry was officially held to determine who and what was responsible for the assassination. The case of Gen. Shehu Musa Yar’adua often used to counterbalance Abiola’s murder was completely different. General Yar’adua was injected to death in 1996 to terminate his perceived threat to Abacha’s regime. He was killed by a fellow Northern Muslim General and so, the grief was mitigated by that ethno-religious factor. But who killed Abiola, even after the usurper of his mandate had died? There are three deaths whose blood is on the neck of the leadership of Nigeria: Shehu Musa Yar’adua, Chief M.K.O Abiola and Sani Abacha. Their wives were made widows prematurely and their children orphans; the effects of their traumatic death on their children, their families and friends cannot be quantified. The damage done to political faith and espirit-de-corps in the army are incalculable. These harms helped to destroy mutual trust between and among the various ethnic groups in Nigeria which also divided us along religious and regional lines. How do you boast of indivisibility when the blood of criminality is crying to heavens for revenge or redress? Now, we are adding more blood to our already bloodied hands via the Boko Haram lunacy. What the MEND is doing to our economy, the Haramites are inflicting on our lives and no government has the moral authority to do justice. Is the break of the country not imminent? If not, what is the government doing to stem the tide? Is unity a talking or doing matter?
Isaac Umar: It grieves me each time I hear some people say that the carnage being perpetrated across the country through bomb throwing is not a religious war. What else is it if not a Jihad? Some of us from the North who are non-Muslims have become endangered species simply because we choose a different religion from our parents. We are grouped along Middle betters for extermination and yet, when we are found to be of Hausa or Fulani stock, we are treated with suspicion and distrust. So, we suffer double rejection by both sides, yet we find accommodation more with the Middle belters who merely suspect us than our ethnic kith and kin who will kill us on religious ground. The objective of the Boko Haram like their predecessors are two: they want Sharia law applied to all states in Nigeria and they want only Muslims to rule the country. Many of us were frustrated from the Northern States civil service on account of religion. The Jihad which flushed us out was a subtle one and so Jihad has many methods and phases. For this reason, we are more interested in the unity of a secular Nigeria than her break-up. A Kano or Sokoto republic will certainly be an Islamic enclave that will render some of us as non-citizens or stateless people. However, what type of a republic do we have at the moment which covers up crimes against society? Can a polity or country remain united amidst pretense and lies? Some four years ago during the regime of President Umar Musa Yar’Adua, the SSS arrested and arraigned suspected members of Al-Queida and the Taliban. About ten of them were arrested across Yobe, Borno and Kano States. At about the same time, the Kano State Ministry of Justice charged five persons to court for terrorism. They were accused of having travelled to Algeria to train at a terrorist camp. It was also the same time that security agencies of the United States and the Western world averred that there were active cells of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Nigeria. What happened thereafter was anybody’s guess. The Sultan of Sokoto and head of the Muslim community went to the United States at the Institute of Peace in Washington to declare that “there is no Al-Qaeda cell or the Taliban in Nigeria.” His spokesman at that event was Danladi Boko, a member of the Sultan’s entourage. If three years later, the same associates of Al-Qaeda and Taliban are throwing bombs in Nigeria, who should be invited for questioning? So, when a colleague said that there are jihadists who pretend to be peacemakers, we know whom he was referring to. Our laws are respecters of persons and law enforcers recognize sacred cows. What is a rule elsewhere is an exception in Nigeria as no big man ever plays by the rules, and yet the law never catches up with them. The question of choice in religious faith is as fundamental as the question of ethnic feelings and affiliation. It is for the individual to choose for which of the two he or she could die. The Boko Haram has choosen to kill and die for their religion and if others elect to defend themselves by the same means where the unity or indissolubility of Nigeria lies?
Convener: The task of keeping Nigeria one is a task for all and not just for those in government. However, the difference is: those in government are especially mandated to use the common wealth to ensure our welfare and unity, so they have special responsibility for which they are paid. Those outside can only support genuine efforts of government in that direction; the problem is that there is nothing visible or ongoing to which can be pointed as a programme to allay our fears or assure us that our welfare and safety are of concern to those in government. Occasional declaration of opinion such as ‘Nigeria will not break’ in the wake of a real threat to the contrary is not expected to be taken seriously which is what triggered off this debate. No informed citizen believes that the so-called inter-religious council is a forum for religious peace when some of its leaders are perceived to be the patron-saint of bombers. It is only the security agencies that are licensed to check individuals suspected to be of criminal bent. I have no ability to sniff from a royal turban what may turn out to be an improvised explosive device, that job belongs to the security agencies who, unfortunately are wont to treat such suspects as untouchable deities. Whoever has journeyed abroad to declare or deny that there is no Al-Qaeda or Taliban cell in Nigeria owe us an explanation as to the difference between Boko Haram and either of the two Islamist terrorist groups. In all, we ought to begin to see that the geo-political structure and centralist system of government in place has proved inappropriate for our welfare or security. They only nurture and nourish individual potentates who plays chess with the lives and destiny of us all. A peaceful and positive action is better than a negative and violent reaction.
This is the continuation of the debate on the future of Nigeria by those concerned by the lack of peace and progress of the most populous country in the African continent. Members of the board of governors of the Nigeria Ethnic Nationalities Movement (NENAM) decided to join issues with Mr. President and the Movement for a New Nigeria (MNN) on the possibility or otherwise of disintegration of the country. Five members of the board has last week, aired their opinion sitting various occurrences and incidences militating against the country’s unity. In this edition, other members have their say, and hereunder are excerpts.
Convener: A few months back, I wrote on the reasons and causes of the fall of fourteen nation-states in about four continents in contemporary history and concluded by asking if Nigeria should not make amends in order to escape similar fate. Then the UN building bombing by the Boko Haram terrorist group happened and President Goodluck Jonathan seized the occasion to reassure the people that Nigeria will not break up. In the last week debate, many reasons were adduced on why the President’s optimism was misplaced. However, two members are yet to have their say.
Sarah Lami Raji: The unity of Nigeria is questionable not only for the reasons adduced by earlier speakers but for other reasons that has to do with core family values. The fact is that if the nuclear family is not at peace, the community and the nation cannot have peace. Here in Nigeria, we treat women as if they do not matter in the affairs of state. The men folk are allowed to mess up the polity and the resultant crisis consumes the women and their children the most vulnerable members of society in crisis. Take for instance the June 12, 1993 crisis. For God’s sake, someone was cleared by security agencies to run for an election. On his way to victory, the same government whose security arms declared the contestant fit to run has his election halted and annulled. The injury done to Chief M.K.O. Abiola as an individual was enough to make him and his family disavows the country. The crisis generated by that silly action nearly tore the country apart. The psyche of the Yoruba people was badly battered and their reaction was loud enough to raise serious ripples in the polity. And then the man died in controversial circumstances which suggested a state murder. Up till now, no enquiry was officially held to determine who and what was responsible for the assassination. The case of Gen. Shehu Musa Yar’adua often used to counterbalance Abiola’s murder was completely different. General Yar’adua was injected to death in 1996 to terminate his perceived threat to Abacha’s regime. He was killed by a fellow Northern Muslim General and so, the grief was mitigated by that ethno-religious factor. But who killed Abiola, even after the usurper of his mandate had died? There are three deaths whose blood is on the neck of the leadership of Nigeria: Shehu Musa Yar’adua, Chief M.K.O Abiola and Sani Abacha. Their wives were made widows prematurely and their children orphans; the effects of their traumatic death on their children, their families and friends cannot be quantified. The damage done to political faith and espirit-de-corps in the army are incalculable. These harms helped to destroy mutual trust between and among the various ethnic groups in Nigeria which also divided us along religious and regional lines. How do you boast of indivisibility when the blood of criminality is crying to heavens for revenge or redress? Now, we are adding more blood to our already bloodied hands via the Boko Haram lunacy. What the MEND is doing to our economy, the Haramites are inflicting on our lives and no government has the moral authority to do justice. Is the break of the country not imminent? If not, what is the government doing to stem the tide? Is unity a talking or doing matter?
Isaac Umar: It grieves me each time I hear some people say that the carnage being perpetrated across the country through bomb throwing is not a religious war. What else is it if not a Jihad? Some of us from the North who are non-Muslims have become endangered species simply because we choose a different religion from our parents. We are grouped along Middle betters for extermination and yet, when we are found to be of Hausa or Fulani stock, we are treated with suspicion and distrust. So, we suffer double rejection by both sides, yet we find accommodation more with the Middle belters who merely suspect us than our ethnic kith and kin who will kill us on religious ground. The objective of the Boko Haram like their predecessors are two: they want Sharia law applied to all states in Nigeria and they want only Muslims to rule the country. Many of us were frustrated from the Northern States civil service on account of religion. The Jihad which flushed us out was a subtle one and so Jihad has many methods and phases. For this reason, we are more interested in the unity of a secular Nigeria than her break-up. A Kano or Sokoto republic will certainly be an Islamic enclave that will render some of us as non-citizens or stateless people. However, what type of a republic do we have at the moment which covers up crimes against society? Can a polity or country remain united amidst pretense and lies? Some four years ago during the regime of President Umar Musa Yar’Adua, the SSS arrested and arraigned suspected members of Al-Queida and the Taliban. About ten of them were arrested across Yobe, Borno and Kano States. At about the same time, the Kano State Ministry of Justice charged five persons to court for terrorism. They were accused of having travelled to Algeria to train at a terrorist camp. It was also the same time that security agencies of the United States and the Western world averred that there were active cells of Al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Nigeria. What happened thereafter was anybody’s guess. The Sultan of Sokoto and head of the Muslim community went to the United States at the Institute of Peace in Washington to declare that “there is no Al-Qaeda cell or the Taliban in Nigeria.” His spokesman at that event was Danladi Boko, a member of the Sultan’s entourage. If three years later, the same associates of Al-Qaeda and Taliban are throwing bombs in Nigeria, who should be invited for questioning? So, when a colleague said that there are jihadists who pretend to be peacemakers, we know whom he was referring to. Our laws are respecters of persons and law enforcers recognize sacred cows. What is a rule elsewhere is an exception in Nigeria as no big man ever plays by the rules, and yet the law never catches up with them. The question of choice in religious faith is as fundamental as the question of ethnic feelings and affiliation. It is for the individual to choose for which of the two he or she could die. The Boko Haram has choosen to kill and die for their religion and if others elect to defend themselves by the same means where the unity or indissolubility of Nigeria lies?
Convener: The task of keeping Nigeria one is a task for all and not just for those in government. However, the difference is: those in government are especially mandated to use the common wealth to ensure our welfare and unity, so they have special responsibility for which they are paid. Those outside can only support genuine efforts of government in that direction; the problem is that there is nothing visible or ongoing to which can be pointed as a programme to allay our fears or assure us that our welfare and safety are of concern to those in government. Occasional declaration of opinion such as ‘Nigeria will not break’ in the wake of a real threat to the contrary is not expected to be taken seriously which is what triggered off this debate. No informed citizen believes that the so-called inter-religious council is a forum for religious peace when some of its leaders are perceived to be the patron-saint of bombers. It is only the security agencies that are licensed to check individuals suspected to be of criminal bent. I have no ability to sniff from a royal turban what may turn out to be an improvised explosive device, that job belongs to the security agencies who, unfortunately are wont to treat such suspects as untouchable deities. Whoever has journeyed abroad to declare or deny that there is no Al-Qaeda or Taliban cell in Nigeria owe us an explanation as to the difference between Boko Haram and either of the two Islamist terrorist groups. In all, we ought to begin to see that the geo-political structure and centralist system of government in place has proved inappropriate for our welfare or security. They only nurture and nourish individual potentates who plays chess with the lives and destiny of us all. A peaceful and positive action is better than a negative and violent reaction.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
Will Nigeria Break Up?
Will Nigeria Break Up?
Sam Onimisi
(Following the bombing of the United Nations building in Abuja by the Boko Haram terrorist bandits, President Goodluck Jonathan reassured the nation that his government is on top of the situation and asserted that Nigeria will not break up by the threats of any terror group. The Movement for a New Nigeria (MNN) led by Barrister Tony Nnadi thought otherwise and canvassed their views via a TVC channels programme on Saturday 17 September, 2011. The board of Governors of the Nigeria Ethnic Nationalities Movement (NENAM) got interested in the debate and here is their own contributions which are anchored by yours sincerely as the Convener).
Convener: What do you think informed the confidence of President Goodluck Jonathan to assert that Nigeria will remain one nation in spite of the ongoing tenor attacks and threats against the country’s unity?
Mas Damisa: Having studied him over the last four years, I have come to believe that President Jonathan is a mainstream politician from the school of Chief Dappa Biriye. As privileged members of a ruling clique, they lack the ability to think or ponder over the multi-dimensioned challenges of the country, especially as they affect the interest and future of minority groups. It is the likes of late Isaac Adaka Boro and Ken Saro-Wiwa who feels for the down trodden and who had the courage to form the vanguard of the struggle to free the peoples of Nigeria, especially of the Niger – Delta from the shackles of neo-colonialism in Nigeria. Those who believe in the status quo cannot effect any radical changes and lacks the necessary vision to steer the ship of state on uncharted but more dynamic course. They are too smug to think of a radical route to emancipation.
Okechukwu Oha: I have no doubt in my mind that Nigeria cannot continue on her sleepy drive on a narrow and dangerous path way and not come to grief in time to come. Having had various threats of disintegration in the past, it is amazing that our leaders are still satisfied with lip service to the question of the unity of Nigeria. The first serious threat was the 1966 ‘Araba’ riot when the North embarked upon mass murder of the Igbo. ‘Araba’ means ‘let it be divided’. This was the reason and cause of the three-year Civil War during which over one million of lives were lost. The rest of Nigeria joined hands to defeat Biafra and thought that they did the country some good unknown to them that they only prolonged our collective suffering. The Boko Haramites of today were the same people who went on riot in 1953 just because Chief Enahoro had the courage to move a motion for Nigeria’s independence. They said they were not ready for freedom and so, we must all remain in bondage with them. Now, they are saying they never liked to be educated and so, are killing those who love education. Even when the Igbo decided again through the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), the whole Nigerian security system were sent against the civil rights activists whom they hounded into detention. The message is that the Nigerian State respects only those who show violent strength and I suppose MASSOB should by now get the message.
Yemi Lawson: No nation here on earth is indissoluble and so, no one should be deceiving himself that our unity is iron cast. The Yoruba nation fell as a result of the Yoruba civil war, the aftermath of which was disunity, and this paved way for Jihadists and empire-builders to penetrate into Yoruba land. Today, they rule over us in Ilorin and we are not happy about that. I suppose the first threat to Nigeria’s corporate unity was the Western Nigeria crisis of 1962 to 1965. It was caused by the federal government of Tafawa Balewa by meddling in the affairs of Western Region, breaching the Independence Constitution. They supported, encouraged and financed the rebellion in the Action Group of Nigeria against the hierarchy of the Party. This led to the January 1966 coup which also led to the Araba riot. However, it will be incorrect to blame the Hausa/Fulani alone for the Western Nigeria crisis. It was the joint project of Sardauna and Azikiwe which their parties adopted; but it boomeranged and exploded on their faces. The fact that the Northern and Eastern accord of 1959 and 1979 ended in fiasco is a proof that they were only united by their common hatred and envy of the Yoruba. The situation remain more or less the same today; So when the President was upbeat about Nigeria’s unity, I wondered what informed his confidence.
Ochekwu Anyebe: It is doubtful if the totality of the lives lost in the Araba riots of 1966 and the civil war of 1967 to 1970 is up to the ones lost to the hundreds of religiously induced and ethnically sponsored riots in Central Nigeria between 1999 up till today. The so-called empire builders are the same people who are sponsoring the ethnocide against Middle belters. They believe in a monolithic religion and also believe that they are the only pure practitioners of their faith. All others are pretenders and other religions deserve only death, thus their tireless Jihads. You need to know how they kill and burn people and houses in Southern Bauchi at rainy and harvest seasons just to exterminate Christians and Animists. The Kaduna situation was the same, the climax of which was the Sharia war of year 2000 and the Miss World riot of 2001. Gombe is noted for selective murder of uncompromising native Christians. And you know since when they focused their murderous attention on Plateau State which is still bleeding as at now. They have made Nasarawa State into a semi-caliphate and staging post for attacks against Plateau and Benue States with their Chadian and Nigerien mercenary imports. The Tiv are currently groaning from Fulani raids and in all, the federal government looks the other way, probably afraid of the empire builders. So, how can you talk of unity when most of the people are tired of the union of duress?
Ahmed el-Salam: When people talk of the North, I always ask; which North? The notion that every Muslim in the defunct Northern region is a Northerner is false. The fact is that apart from a few renegades, when some people beat their chests proclaiming to be Northerners, we know they are not; they are just positioning themselves for patronage or to be hired. And so, the religious murderers do not represent what other Nigerians know as the North. The Boko Haram has no northern agenda and is not fighting for the North, even though they operate from the North. The fact is that only Hausa, Fulani and Kanuri can lay claim to genuine Northerners. They are also the pioneers or reformers of Islam in Nigeria; in fact the Kanuri’s Borno Empire predates the Fulani-led Hausa Caliphate in the Islamic faith. Until the advent of Boko Haram, Maiduguri was a peaceful cosmopolitan city and home to Kanuris. We are still surprised how the town became home to terrorists as Kanuris are not known for compulsion in religious matters. If proper investigation is conducted, I will be surprised if the sponsors of Boko Haram are found to be Kanuris. We know those who instigate religious problems but who would be the first to call for cease-fire as if they are peace makers. Kanuris don’t have such pretence in their blood. Honestly, I feel that Maiduguri was chosen for Boko Haram just like Jos was chosen as headquarters of Abubakar Gurmi’s extremists group to divert security attention away from the real spinners of religious insecurity threatening Nigeria’s unity.
Convener: Well, most of you have spoken except two and I wonder if the question has been adequately answered. The debate is: will Nigeria break up? The issues canvassed by respondents are quite weighty and capable of doing irreparable harm to the unity of Nigeria if remedial action is not taken. From all angles of opinion, there is no one single cause of disunity as those in the Nigerian union has their own opinion as to whom, what and why the country appears to be disintegrating fast. However, from most accounts, religious differences and forceful co-habitation or subjugation of some ethnic groups by or under certain other groups are the main differences. In other words, many ethnic nationalities want and desire internal autonomy – call it self determination – which they are not getting by the present geo-political structure and unitary system of government. This is what appears lost on past and current governments whose functionaries are the biggest beneficiaries of the perceived imbalances – which makes them unable to see why those outside government wants power devolution or more freedom. The debate continues.
Sam Onimisi
(Following the bombing of the United Nations building in Abuja by the Boko Haram terrorist bandits, President Goodluck Jonathan reassured the nation that his government is on top of the situation and asserted that Nigeria will not break up by the threats of any terror group. The Movement for a New Nigeria (MNN) led by Barrister Tony Nnadi thought otherwise and canvassed their views via a TVC channels programme on Saturday 17 September, 2011. The board of Governors of the Nigeria Ethnic Nationalities Movement (NENAM) got interested in the debate and here is their own contributions which are anchored by yours sincerely as the Convener).
Convener: What do you think informed the confidence of President Goodluck Jonathan to assert that Nigeria will remain one nation in spite of the ongoing tenor attacks and threats against the country’s unity?
Mas Damisa: Having studied him over the last four years, I have come to believe that President Jonathan is a mainstream politician from the school of Chief Dappa Biriye. As privileged members of a ruling clique, they lack the ability to think or ponder over the multi-dimensioned challenges of the country, especially as they affect the interest and future of minority groups. It is the likes of late Isaac Adaka Boro and Ken Saro-Wiwa who feels for the down trodden and who had the courage to form the vanguard of the struggle to free the peoples of Nigeria, especially of the Niger – Delta from the shackles of neo-colonialism in Nigeria. Those who believe in the status quo cannot effect any radical changes and lacks the necessary vision to steer the ship of state on uncharted but more dynamic course. They are too smug to think of a radical route to emancipation.
Okechukwu Oha: I have no doubt in my mind that Nigeria cannot continue on her sleepy drive on a narrow and dangerous path way and not come to grief in time to come. Having had various threats of disintegration in the past, it is amazing that our leaders are still satisfied with lip service to the question of the unity of Nigeria. The first serious threat was the 1966 ‘Araba’ riot when the North embarked upon mass murder of the Igbo. ‘Araba’ means ‘let it be divided’. This was the reason and cause of the three-year Civil War during which over one million of lives were lost. The rest of Nigeria joined hands to defeat Biafra and thought that they did the country some good unknown to them that they only prolonged our collective suffering. The Boko Haramites of today were the same people who went on riot in 1953 just because Chief Enahoro had the courage to move a motion for Nigeria’s independence. They said they were not ready for freedom and so, we must all remain in bondage with them. Now, they are saying they never liked to be educated and so, are killing those who love education. Even when the Igbo decided again through the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra (MASSOB), the whole Nigerian security system were sent against the civil rights activists whom they hounded into detention. The message is that the Nigerian State respects only those who show violent strength and I suppose MASSOB should by now get the message.
Yemi Lawson: No nation here on earth is indissoluble and so, no one should be deceiving himself that our unity is iron cast. The Yoruba nation fell as a result of the Yoruba civil war, the aftermath of which was disunity, and this paved way for Jihadists and empire-builders to penetrate into Yoruba land. Today, they rule over us in Ilorin and we are not happy about that. I suppose the first threat to Nigeria’s corporate unity was the Western Nigeria crisis of 1962 to 1965. It was caused by the federal government of Tafawa Balewa by meddling in the affairs of Western Region, breaching the Independence Constitution. They supported, encouraged and financed the rebellion in the Action Group of Nigeria against the hierarchy of the Party. This led to the January 1966 coup which also led to the Araba riot. However, it will be incorrect to blame the Hausa/Fulani alone for the Western Nigeria crisis. It was the joint project of Sardauna and Azikiwe which their parties adopted; but it boomeranged and exploded on their faces. The fact that the Northern and Eastern accord of 1959 and 1979 ended in fiasco is a proof that they were only united by their common hatred and envy of the Yoruba. The situation remain more or less the same today; So when the President was upbeat about Nigeria’s unity, I wondered what informed his confidence.
Ochekwu Anyebe: It is doubtful if the totality of the lives lost in the Araba riots of 1966 and the civil war of 1967 to 1970 is up to the ones lost to the hundreds of religiously induced and ethnically sponsored riots in Central Nigeria between 1999 up till today. The so-called empire builders are the same people who are sponsoring the ethnocide against Middle belters. They believe in a monolithic religion and also believe that they are the only pure practitioners of their faith. All others are pretenders and other religions deserve only death, thus their tireless Jihads. You need to know how they kill and burn people and houses in Southern Bauchi at rainy and harvest seasons just to exterminate Christians and Animists. The Kaduna situation was the same, the climax of which was the Sharia war of year 2000 and the Miss World riot of 2001. Gombe is noted for selective murder of uncompromising native Christians. And you know since when they focused their murderous attention on Plateau State which is still bleeding as at now. They have made Nasarawa State into a semi-caliphate and staging post for attacks against Plateau and Benue States with their Chadian and Nigerien mercenary imports. The Tiv are currently groaning from Fulani raids and in all, the federal government looks the other way, probably afraid of the empire builders. So, how can you talk of unity when most of the people are tired of the union of duress?
Ahmed el-Salam: When people talk of the North, I always ask; which North? The notion that every Muslim in the defunct Northern region is a Northerner is false. The fact is that apart from a few renegades, when some people beat their chests proclaiming to be Northerners, we know they are not; they are just positioning themselves for patronage or to be hired. And so, the religious murderers do not represent what other Nigerians know as the North. The Boko Haram has no northern agenda and is not fighting for the North, even though they operate from the North. The fact is that only Hausa, Fulani and Kanuri can lay claim to genuine Northerners. They are also the pioneers or reformers of Islam in Nigeria; in fact the Kanuri’s Borno Empire predates the Fulani-led Hausa Caliphate in the Islamic faith. Until the advent of Boko Haram, Maiduguri was a peaceful cosmopolitan city and home to Kanuris. We are still surprised how the town became home to terrorists as Kanuris are not known for compulsion in religious matters. If proper investigation is conducted, I will be surprised if the sponsors of Boko Haram are found to be Kanuris. We know those who instigate religious problems but who would be the first to call for cease-fire as if they are peace makers. Kanuris don’t have such pretence in their blood. Honestly, I feel that Maiduguri was chosen for Boko Haram just like Jos was chosen as headquarters of Abubakar Gurmi’s extremists group to divert security attention away from the real spinners of religious insecurity threatening Nigeria’s unity.
Convener: Well, most of you have spoken except two and I wonder if the question has been adequately answered. The debate is: will Nigeria break up? The issues canvassed by respondents are quite weighty and capable of doing irreparable harm to the unity of Nigeria if remedial action is not taken. From all angles of opinion, there is no one single cause of disunity as those in the Nigerian union has their own opinion as to whom, what and why the country appears to be disintegrating fast. However, from most accounts, religious differences and forceful co-habitation or subjugation of some ethnic groups by or under certain other groups are the main differences. In other words, many ethnic nationalities want and desire internal autonomy – call it self determination – which they are not getting by the present geo-political structure and unitary system of government. This is what appears lost on past and current governments whose functionaries are the biggest beneficiaries of the perceived imbalances – which makes them unable to see why those outside government wants power devolution or more freedom. The debate continues.
Wednesday, August 31, 2011
Ethnic Cleansing: By Whom against Whom?
Ethnic Cleansing: By Whom against Whom?
By Sam Onimisi
An innocuous news item drew my attention last week, not just because it emanated from a letter to the President of Nigeria but also because the subject matter is about wastage of human life, to the extent of annihilation. The sanctity of life is such that all humanity regardless of race, colour or language holds dear and precious and any threat or actual act of wastage is unacceptable anywhere in the world. Here then is the news. Alhaji Abdullahi Bello Badejo, National Chairman of Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, a Fulani socio-cultural group appealed to President Goodluck Jonathan to probe the gradual and brutal annihilation of the Fulani ethnic group from parts of this country. Said he: “This is aside from other negative attitudes of other Nigerians, such as denial of grazing routes for the cattle herds, attack on their person and their herds, as well as discrimination in many forms that signified total hatred for the Fulani race.” “…there is a clear case of hatred of Fulani people in most parts of this country, whereas they are contributing immensely to the socio-economic development of this country, as bonafide citizens.” Alhaji Badejo concluded that “I know that Nigeria is one united country, but it is unfortunate that the Fulani ethnic group is being maltreated and killed at the slightest provocation on the basis of their style of living.” As the leader of his association, Badejo is obviously saddled with the burdens of responsibility and it is his lot to help find a solution to the problems of Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore. Having petitioned the President, it is hoped that there would be an executive intervention in order to save the apparently endangered tribe. It is my belief that the state has the duty and responsibility to secure, protect and provide for the needs of her citizens, the Fulani inclusive. Therefore, such a grave allegation by one of the hundreds of ethnic groups in Nigeria should be thoroughly investigated so we can know the truth.
Hitherto, I had thought that the Fulani is the most privileged ethnic group in Nigeria and in fact, in the whole of West Africa sub-region, and I will tell you why; but this is without prejudice to whatever action is desirable to allay their fears. Like I said, let us count the blessings of the Fulani tribe and see if they should not be thanking God for their excellent fortunes in Nigeria. Beginning from Sokoto to Gusau, Birnin-Kebbi, Kontagora, Bauch, Kano, Katsina, Zaria, Dutse to Yola, Hadejia and Kazaure are Hausa towns. Bida is a Nupe land and Ilorin and Offa are Yoruba towns. But one thing is common to them: they all have Fulani as their Emirs! In other words, the people and wealth of the largest ethnic group in Northern Nigeria (the Hausa) is ruled and controlled by the Fulani!! They have ruled the Hausa land for as long as 200 years to the end that they have assimilated and a new tribe, the Hausa-Fulani evolved. Today, there is hardly any Hausa family without a Fulani blood. I suppose this is a great privilege or is it not? The present Emir of Ilorin and the immediate past Olofa of Offa Oba Olanipekun are Fulanis ruling the Yoruba people of the towns. Is this not an unqualified favour and privilege? The resourceful and ancient tribe of Nupe has Bida as their capital, but the Emir of Bida (also known as Estu Nupe) is a Fulani!!! What a honour and privilege!
All Nigerian ethnic groups are free to live, work and ply their trade at any town or state of their choice without hindrance or molestation. This right is enjoyed as bonafide citizens of Nigeria. However, the Fulani is the greatest beneficiary of this right in that they also enjoy country-wide grazing routes for their herds of cattle – their main occupation. There is hardly any fertile land in Nigeria where Fulani cattle herders are not present, plying the trade in which they enjoy near absolute monopoly! Fulani happens to be about the most learned Mullah in the West African sub-region and they more or less monopolize Arabic and Islamic teaching and priesthood in Nigeria. Could any tribe be more blessed and privileged anywhere?
It is the Fulani cattle herders who could disrupt and hold up traffic whether at Koton-Karfi River Niger bridge in Kogi State, at the River Niger Bridge in Jebba, Kwara State, at Eko bridge in Lagos, at Kaima Niger Bridge in Bayelsa State, the Benue River bridge in Makurdi, Onitsha bridge in Anambra State and else where in Nigeria – without a whimper by the law enforcement agencies. I suppose this is a rare privilege, is it not? Forget about the numerous road accidents caused by either the herds or the herders and the loss of lives, limbs and property arising from herders herding against traffic whether on the highway or along the double carriage-way of the metropolis. Who else but the Fulani who enjoys the honour, privilege and right to personal lethal weapon which they carry on their person anywhere without the obligation of a license? To me, there is no privilege as great as the knowledge that you could go on the attack or defend yourself any where anytime without having to go looking for a weapon!
In the chequered history of the multi-ethnic country known as Nigeria, it is only the Fulani who enjoyed the privilege of ruling this country in quick succession from Shehu Shagari to General Muhammadu Buhari. As a matter of fact, the Fulani is the only tribe who once rule Nigeria as number one and number two citizens in the same regime in the persons of Buhari and General Tunde Idiagbon (forget his Yoruba names)! Yet in terms of numerical strength, the Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Ijaw the Nupe and the Tiv are more and larger but are not enjoying these privileges and still not complaining. I have merely helped to count the blessings of the Fulani as ground or basis why they should be grateful to God and to Nigerians for being so honoured and blessed.
Perhaps we could now examine the factors or reasons for their misunderstanding with other Nigerians. The Fulani is a transnational race who are in Nigeria as much as they are in, neighboring Cameroon and who are original natives of Senegal and Mali. To most Nigerians, the Fulani has little or no ancestral land in Nigeria and the little they possess now is obtained by stealth or conquest. The crux of the matter is that the Fulani enjoys dual citizenship both of Nigeria and their countries of descent. They also enjoy dual nationality of Nigeria, the Cameroon, Niger, Senegal, Mali and the Gambia etc. The implication of double citizenship and nationality is that a Cameroonian, Senegalese or Malian can pass for a Nigerian so long as he is a Fulani and no other Nigerian can or do enjoy such privilege in those countries. Meaning that the Fulani cattle herder could be a citizen of Niger but who assumes, enjoys and exercise the rights of citizenship of Nigeria to the disadvantage of bona fide ethnic nationalities of Nigeria! The task before the President to whom the report has been lodged is neither easy nor impossible, and I cannot pretend to know all the solution to the Fulani complaints but may only suggest some ways out of the clash of interest between the Fulani and other Nigerians.
There is the need to know and identify the bona fide Nigerian Fulani cattle herder as different from the Cameroonian Fulani cattle herder in order to know which of them has the right to grazing land and routes in Nigeria, I suppose. No farmer enjoys the pain and loss of his food crops being destroyed or eaten up by the Fulani-owned herds of cattle, be they Nigerian or foreigners. Therefore, the Fulani cattle herders urgently needs the techniques of how to keep their herds away from the cultivated farmland of the Hausa, Tiv, Yoruba and other Nigerian farmers to avoid clash of interest. More-over, ethnic nationalities owned lands which is their ancestral inheritance and to which they have a right to use as they wish, and without infringement from any other group regardless of which tribe is transnational or of dual citizenship. There is no doubt that there are some other Nigerian ethnic groups that are bi-national such as the Hausa who may be Nigerians and Nigeriens, or the Yoruba who are in Nigeria and Benin but they do not pose the same challenges as the transnational Fulani. Of course, all bi-national ethnic groups in Nigeria pose one problem or the other and constitute some threat to the well-being of the Nigerian citizen. But is the Nigerian citizenship not already compromised by dual nationality and double citizenship? The Nationality question remains unanswered!!
By Sam Onimisi
An innocuous news item drew my attention last week, not just because it emanated from a letter to the President of Nigeria but also because the subject matter is about wastage of human life, to the extent of annihilation. The sanctity of life is such that all humanity regardless of race, colour or language holds dear and precious and any threat or actual act of wastage is unacceptable anywhere in the world. Here then is the news. Alhaji Abdullahi Bello Badejo, National Chairman of Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, a Fulani socio-cultural group appealed to President Goodluck Jonathan to probe the gradual and brutal annihilation of the Fulani ethnic group from parts of this country. Said he: “This is aside from other negative attitudes of other Nigerians, such as denial of grazing routes for the cattle herds, attack on their person and their herds, as well as discrimination in many forms that signified total hatred for the Fulani race.” “…there is a clear case of hatred of Fulani people in most parts of this country, whereas they are contributing immensely to the socio-economic development of this country, as bonafide citizens.” Alhaji Badejo concluded that “I know that Nigeria is one united country, but it is unfortunate that the Fulani ethnic group is being maltreated and killed at the slightest provocation on the basis of their style of living.” As the leader of his association, Badejo is obviously saddled with the burdens of responsibility and it is his lot to help find a solution to the problems of Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore. Having petitioned the President, it is hoped that there would be an executive intervention in order to save the apparently endangered tribe. It is my belief that the state has the duty and responsibility to secure, protect and provide for the needs of her citizens, the Fulani inclusive. Therefore, such a grave allegation by one of the hundreds of ethnic groups in Nigeria should be thoroughly investigated so we can know the truth.
Hitherto, I had thought that the Fulani is the most privileged ethnic group in Nigeria and in fact, in the whole of West Africa sub-region, and I will tell you why; but this is without prejudice to whatever action is desirable to allay their fears. Like I said, let us count the blessings of the Fulani tribe and see if they should not be thanking God for their excellent fortunes in Nigeria. Beginning from Sokoto to Gusau, Birnin-Kebbi, Kontagora, Bauch, Kano, Katsina, Zaria, Dutse to Yola, Hadejia and Kazaure are Hausa towns. Bida is a Nupe land and Ilorin and Offa are Yoruba towns. But one thing is common to them: they all have Fulani as their Emirs! In other words, the people and wealth of the largest ethnic group in Northern Nigeria (the Hausa) is ruled and controlled by the Fulani!! They have ruled the Hausa land for as long as 200 years to the end that they have assimilated and a new tribe, the Hausa-Fulani evolved. Today, there is hardly any Hausa family without a Fulani blood. I suppose this is a great privilege or is it not? The present Emir of Ilorin and the immediate past Olofa of Offa Oba Olanipekun are Fulanis ruling the Yoruba people of the towns. Is this not an unqualified favour and privilege? The resourceful and ancient tribe of Nupe has Bida as their capital, but the Emir of Bida (also known as Estu Nupe) is a Fulani!!! What a honour and privilege!
All Nigerian ethnic groups are free to live, work and ply their trade at any town or state of their choice without hindrance or molestation. This right is enjoyed as bonafide citizens of Nigeria. However, the Fulani is the greatest beneficiary of this right in that they also enjoy country-wide grazing routes for their herds of cattle – their main occupation. There is hardly any fertile land in Nigeria where Fulani cattle herders are not present, plying the trade in which they enjoy near absolute monopoly! Fulani happens to be about the most learned Mullah in the West African sub-region and they more or less monopolize Arabic and Islamic teaching and priesthood in Nigeria. Could any tribe be more blessed and privileged anywhere?
It is the Fulani cattle herders who could disrupt and hold up traffic whether at Koton-Karfi River Niger bridge in Kogi State, at the River Niger Bridge in Jebba, Kwara State, at Eko bridge in Lagos, at Kaima Niger Bridge in Bayelsa State, the Benue River bridge in Makurdi, Onitsha bridge in Anambra State and else where in Nigeria – without a whimper by the law enforcement agencies. I suppose this is a rare privilege, is it not? Forget about the numerous road accidents caused by either the herds or the herders and the loss of lives, limbs and property arising from herders herding against traffic whether on the highway or along the double carriage-way of the metropolis. Who else but the Fulani who enjoys the honour, privilege and right to personal lethal weapon which they carry on their person anywhere without the obligation of a license? To me, there is no privilege as great as the knowledge that you could go on the attack or defend yourself any where anytime without having to go looking for a weapon!
In the chequered history of the multi-ethnic country known as Nigeria, it is only the Fulani who enjoyed the privilege of ruling this country in quick succession from Shehu Shagari to General Muhammadu Buhari. As a matter of fact, the Fulani is the only tribe who once rule Nigeria as number one and number two citizens in the same regime in the persons of Buhari and General Tunde Idiagbon (forget his Yoruba names)! Yet in terms of numerical strength, the Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Ijaw the Nupe and the Tiv are more and larger but are not enjoying these privileges and still not complaining. I have merely helped to count the blessings of the Fulani as ground or basis why they should be grateful to God and to Nigerians for being so honoured and blessed.
Perhaps we could now examine the factors or reasons for their misunderstanding with other Nigerians. The Fulani is a transnational race who are in Nigeria as much as they are in, neighboring Cameroon and who are original natives of Senegal and Mali. To most Nigerians, the Fulani has little or no ancestral land in Nigeria and the little they possess now is obtained by stealth or conquest. The crux of the matter is that the Fulani enjoys dual citizenship both of Nigeria and their countries of descent. They also enjoy dual nationality of Nigeria, the Cameroon, Niger, Senegal, Mali and the Gambia etc. The implication of double citizenship and nationality is that a Cameroonian, Senegalese or Malian can pass for a Nigerian so long as he is a Fulani and no other Nigerian can or do enjoy such privilege in those countries. Meaning that the Fulani cattle herder could be a citizen of Niger but who assumes, enjoys and exercise the rights of citizenship of Nigeria to the disadvantage of bona fide ethnic nationalities of Nigeria! The task before the President to whom the report has been lodged is neither easy nor impossible, and I cannot pretend to know all the solution to the Fulani complaints but may only suggest some ways out of the clash of interest between the Fulani and other Nigerians.
There is the need to know and identify the bona fide Nigerian Fulani cattle herder as different from the Cameroonian Fulani cattle herder in order to know which of them has the right to grazing land and routes in Nigeria, I suppose. No farmer enjoys the pain and loss of his food crops being destroyed or eaten up by the Fulani-owned herds of cattle, be they Nigerian or foreigners. Therefore, the Fulani cattle herders urgently needs the techniques of how to keep their herds away from the cultivated farmland of the Hausa, Tiv, Yoruba and other Nigerian farmers to avoid clash of interest. More-over, ethnic nationalities owned lands which is their ancestral inheritance and to which they have a right to use as they wish, and without infringement from any other group regardless of which tribe is transnational or of dual citizenship. There is no doubt that there are some other Nigerian ethnic groups that are bi-national such as the Hausa who may be Nigerians and Nigeriens, or the Yoruba who are in Nigeria and Benin but they do not pose the same challenges as the transnational Fulani. Of course, all bi-national ethnic groups in Nigeria pose one problem or the other and constitute some threat to the well-being of the Nigerian citizen. But is the Nigerian citizenship not already compromised by dual nationality and double citizenship? The Nationality question remains unanswered!!
Wednesday, August 17, 2011
Nigeria’s National Interest: What is it?
By Sam Onimisi
One cannot watch the on-going demonstrations in the Arabian Peninsula without the evocation of nationalism as the people poured into the streets to protest against regimes that are perceived as bankrupt, corrupt and which has outlived their usefulness. The people in one accord are rejecting what they believe is against their nations interest or that could compromise their future prosperity. Against all odds and in the face of brutally repressive weapons of coercion, the people kept marching on inspite of hundreds of fatal casualties. One wonders what is their sustaining inspiration or power. To say that they are patriotic is to stir up a big argument as to your definition of patriotism. Even then, is patriotism all there is to their mass action?
To me, the public action by the Arabian people has poignantly redefined their understanding of patriotism. They have shown that patriotism must be to the nation – the people – rather than to a regime whose tenure is at best, tenuous. Although, sovereignty is held in trust by the ruling authorities, it is the property of the people and not that of government. Ruminating on this issue, it occurs to me that the Arabian demonstrators are defending their nations – their common heritage. As a nation, they share many things in common: language (with its varying dialects), culture, the Islamic religion, in addition to their shared territory¬ – all of which are the ingredients for nationalism. However, without these common properties of a nation, there is no way the people could agree to a common policy, programme or mass action. In other words, the reason why mass action has failed thus far in Nigeria is that the country is only a vast mass of territory inhabited by divergent and mutually suspicious nationalities without common interest. Their common poverty which should have united them does so temporarily whenever the Nigerian Labour Congress or the Trade Union Congress succeeded in wrestling a few more naira into the pockets of the Nigerian worker. Therefore, poverty is not in the class of forces that unites a people, if also because a people of one nationality holds the people of the other nationality as responsible for their economic woes. We have also seen that Nigerians are only momentarily united by soccer when the Golden or Flying Eagles are playing against a foreign team, but this are flashes of rudimentary nationalism which is inadequate to sustain a country.
Nationalism precedes patriotism in the sense that there must be a substance to which one could be patriotic. Other than the colonial period when most Nigerians were against colonial rule and wanted self-rule, there has been little or no nationalism ever since we achieved independence. Those who were truly nationalistic were viewed or cast in their ethnic garb by those who are suspicious of their nationalism. Which is why we have not been able to articulate a cohorent national interest? If nationalism connotes ‘the consciousness of the nation-state and of belonging to that entity,’ it means that we have not had and still do not have a nation that could evoke the spirit of nationalism in us. Robert Coles, in ‘Political Life of Children’ said: “As soon as we are born, in most places on this earth, we acquire a nationality, a membership in a community. A royal doll, a flag to wave in a parade, coins with their engraved messages – these are sources of instruction and connect a young person to a country. The attachment can be strong, indeed even among children yet to attend school, wherever the flag is saluted, the national anthem sung. The attachment is as parental as the words imply – homeland, motherland, and fatherland---. Nationalism works its way into just about every corner of the minds’ life.”
With due respect to a few individuals whose nationalism to Nigeria is unquestionable, most Nigerians are Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba or Igbo nationalists – and they are right. Until we define Nigeria’s national interest with which all nationalities could identify with and cultivate strong attachment to, we cannot have many Nigerian nationalists. We only irritate and antagonize ourselves when we elevate sectional interest, or when we exhibit Igbo nationalism, for example, and hold it out as Nigerian nationalism. And I wonder if we have not lost the chance of making a nation out of the hundreds of nationalities of the country. Of all the properties of nationhood, language appears to be the most unifying, but we all speak English and we are neither Britons nor Englishmen or women and yet we cannot unite around English! Unlike our neighbour and brother West African, Ghana, who at independence adopted the language of a minority ethnic group as a Lingua – Franca and a medium of instruction and communication. Today, most Ghanaians speak Twi and this has helped to define their nationhood and solidify their unity as a nation.
In the absence of an abiding and well-defined national interest; not having a political ideology with which to guide the people, confounded by a polyglot of languages without a native lingua franca around which to converge, disorganized by two opposing faiths of religions – with one looking west and the other east-Nigeria is riddled by challenges that are both self-imposed and thrust on her by foreign impostors. These void created vacuums which nature abhors and which were then filled with inequities as much as iniquities. The entrance and enthronement of corruption stems from this void. The choice of religious fanaticism with fatalistic fervour (devoid of the fear of God) emanated out of this void. Out of the void emerged political gluttony wracked by false starts, intervention of selfish ‘patriots’ and formation of cultic clubs masquerading as national political parties etc. There is no policy continuity as projects are conceived as monuments to the glory of the incumbent ruler instead of the country, and so our land is littered with abandoned or uncompleted projects. Noble endeavours such as population census and revenue generation which assists in good and adequate planning for growth and development are enveloped in bedevilment such that, all we get out of them are pains, rancour, international ridicule and a few millionaires with unearned wealth.
Nigerians are more united when they share loots than in nobler pursuits. There is no discernible Nigerian character that is elevating except her ‘potentials’ which are largely wasted in collaboration with foreign exploiters. With four petroleum refineries, we import every litre of fuel we consume to the extent that we are now set to import fuel from Niger Republic, yet our national leaders fail to see nothing wrong with this as long as they have so much to share. After supervising the wreckage of our refineries, they will soon award import license to themselves and their cronies to bring fuel from Niger in a short-circuited deal without benefit to the country. So susceptible to flattery are we that we bask in self but empty adulation when international businessmen (more of swindlers than otherwise) come here to eulogize our potentialities – which amount to nothing if not developed and prudently utilized. Our seeming self-sufficiency in gas and petroleum resources have been erased by the killing of our refineries and so, we are gross exporters of crude oil and at the same time, net importers of refined oil – the most glaring evidence of our national prolificacy, rank corruption and crass inefficiency!
We have been at sea trying to develop our steel industry for three decades without anything reasonable to show for it, except unbridle kleptomania by successive regimes through their various stealing Steel ministers who often, uses their ministries to amass wealth with which to fight gubernatorial races. Do we have any assurance that President Jonathan’s steel minister will be different? Just before being ruined by my rumination over the non-existence of a Nigerian national interest, it occurred to me that a country that has no agreed basis of existence can never be a nation and may remain only as a nation-state. It dawned on me that we have never really sat down as a people to discuss, agree and approve any binding rules or formula for our existence even as a country. This country has remained one thus far as a happenstance or by the grace of God as the potentials for great conflicts are as many as her economic and mineral resources potential. Until we restructure, how can we formulate a national interest?
One cannot watch the on-going demonstrations in the Arabian Peninsula without the evocation of nationalism as the people poured into the streets to protest against regimes that are perceived as bankrupt, corrupt and which has outlived their usefulness. The people in one accord are rejecting what they believe is against their nations interest or that could compromise their future prosperity. Against all odds and in the face of brutally repressive weapons of coercion, the people kept marching on inspite of hundreds of fatal casualties. One wonders what is their sustaining inspiration or power. To say that they are patriotic is to stir up a big argument as to your definition of patriotism. Even then, is patriotism all there is to their mass action?
To me, the public action by the Arabian people has poignantly redefined their understanding of patriotism. They have shown that patriotism must be to the nation – the people – rather than to a regime whose tenure is at best, tenuous. Although, sovereignty is held in trust by the ruling authorities, it is the property of the people and not that of government. Ruminating on this issue, it occurs to me that the Arabian demonstrators are defending their nations – their common heritage. As a nation, they share many things in common: language (with its varying dialects), culture, the Islamic religion, in addition to their shared territory¬ – all of which are the ingredients for nationalism. However, without these common properties of a nation, there is no way the people could agree to a common policy, programme or mass action. In other words, the reason why mass action has failed thus far in Nigeria is that the country is only a vast mass of territory inhabited by divergent and mutually suspicious nationalities without common interest. Their common poverty which should have united them does so temporarily whenever the Nigerian Labour Congress or the Trade Union Congress succeeded in wrestling a few more naira into the pockets of the Nigerian worker. Therefore, poverty is not in the class of forces that unites a people, if also because a people of one nationality holds the people of the other nationality as responsible for their economic woes. We have also seen that Nigerians are only momentarily united by soccer when the Golden or Flying Eagles are playing against a foreign team, but this are flashes of rudimentary nationalism which is inadequate to sustain a country.
Nationalism precedes patriotism in the sense that there must be a substance to which one could be patriotic. Other than the colonial period when most Nigerians were against colonial rule and wanted self-rule, there has been little or no nationalism ever since we achieved independence. Those who were truly nationalistic were viewed or cast in their ethnic garb by those who are suspicious of their nationalism. Which is why we have not been able to articulate a cohorent national interest? If nationalism connotes ‘the consciousness of the nation-state and of belonging to that entity,’ it means that we have not had and still do not have a nation that could evoke the spirit of nationalism in us. Robert Coles, in ‘Political Life of Children’ said: “As soon as we are born, in most places on this earth, we acquire a nationality, a membership in a community. A royal doll, a flag to wave in a parade, coins with their engraved messages – these are sources of instruction and connect a young person to a country. The attachment can be strong, indeed even among children yet to attend school, wherever the flag is saluted, the national anthem sung. The attachment is as parental as the words imply – homeland, motherland, and fatherland---. Nationalism works its way into just about every corner of the minds’ life.”
With due respect to a few individuals whose nationalism to Nigeria is unquestionable, most Nigerians are Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba or Igbo nationalists – and they are right. Until we define Nigeria’s national interest with which all nationalities could identify with and cultivate strong attachment to, we cannot have many Nigerian nationalists. We only irritate and antagonize ourselves when we elevate sectional interest, or when we exhibit Igbo nationalism, for example, and hold it out as Nigerian nationalism. And I wonder if we have not lost the chance of making a nation out of the hundreds of nationalities of the country. Of all the properties of nationhood, language appears to be the most unifying, but we all speak English and we are neither Britons nor Englishmen or women and yet we cannot unite around English! Unlike our neighbour and brother West African, Ghana, who at independence adopted the language of a minority ethnic group as a Lingua – Franca and a medium of instruction and communication. Today, most Ghanaians speak Twi and this has helped to define their nationhood and solidify their unity as a nation.
In the absence of an abiding and well-defined national interest; not having a political ideology with which to guide the people, confounded by a polyglot of languages without a native lingua franca around which to converge, disorganized by two opposing faiths of religions – with one looking west and the other east-Nigeria is riddled by challenges that are both self-imposed and thrust on her by foreign impostors. These void created vacuums which nature abhors and which were then filled with inequities as much as iniquities. The entrance and enthronement of corruption stems from this void. The choice of religious fanaticism with fatalistic fervour (devoid of the fear of God) emanated out of this void. Out of the void emerged political gluttony wracked by false starts, intervention of selfish ‘patriots’ and formation of cultic clubs masquerading as national political parties etc. There is no policy continuity as projects are conceived as monuments to the glory of the incumbent ruler instead of the country, and so our land is littered with abandoned or uncompleted projects. Noble endeavours such as population census and revenue generation which assists in good and adequate planning for growth and development are enveloped in bedevilment such that, all we get out of them are pains, rancour, international ridicule and a few millionaires with unearned wealth.
Nigerians are more united when they share loots than in nobler pursuits. There is no discernible Nigerian character that is elevating except her ‘potentials’ which are largely wasted in collaboration with foreign exploiters. With four petroleum refineries, we import every litre of fuel we consume to the extent that we are now set to import fuel from Niger Republic, yet our national leaders fail to see nothing wrong with this as long as they have so much to share. After supervising the wreckage of our refineries, they will soon award import license to themselves and their cronies to bring fuel from Niger in a short-circuited deal without benefit to the country. So susceptible to flattery are we that we bask in self but empty adulation when international businessmen (more of swindlers than otherwise) come here to eulogize our potentialities – which amount to nothing if not developed and prudently utilized. Our seeming self-sufficiency in gas and petroleum resources have been erased by the killing of our refineries and so, we are gross exporters of crude oil and at the same time, net importers of refined oil – the most glaring evidence of our national prolificacy, rank corruption and crass inefficiency!
We have been at sea trying to develop our steel industry for three decades without anything reasonable to show for it, except unbridle kleptomania by successive regimes through their various stealing Steel ministers who often, uses their ministries to amass wealth with which to fight gubernatorial races. Do we have any assurance that President Jonathan’s steel minister will be different? Just before being ruined by my rumination over the non-existence of a Nigerian national interest, it occurred to me that a country that has no agreed basis of existence can never be a nation and may remain only as a nation-state. It dawned on me that we have never really sat down as a people to discuss, agree and approve any binding rules or formula for our existence even as a country. This country has remained one thus far as a happenstance or by the grace of God as the potentials for great conflicts are as many as her economic and mineral resources potential. Until we restructure, how can we formulate a national interest?
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Sanusi: A Demand for Ogugureba Banking
Sanusi: A Demand for Ogugureba Banking
By Sam Onimisi
When my article titled Sanusi and Sharia @ CBN.com was published on February 27, 2011, I received several text messages from many readers who reacted based on their religious beliefs and ethnic nationality and a few on what may be described as neutral ground. My intention was to draw the attention of Sanusi to the fact that he was the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, and as such, that his policies and innovations must reflect the secular or multi-religious nature of Nigeria. In other words, I wanted him to know that a husband of two or more wives cannot afford to be biased or patently partisan unless he wants to set the whole house on fire.
Since the publication some five months ago, there has been an avalanche of reaction from other readers and writers for or against Sanusi’s brand of non – interest banking which to all intents and purposes, has been turned into Islamic Banking. A sponsored reaction sought to lay the blame on Prof. Charles Soludo, Sanusi’s precedessor at the Central Bank as the author of Islamic Banking. No one can vouch for Soludo because he has kept quiet in the face of the accusation or insinuation. Who knows, it was not impossible for Soludo to have attempted to secure a second term in office, by packaging or re-packaging non-interest banking as Islamic banking as a bait to win President Umaru Yar’adua heart. But even if it was so, the gambit failed just as it was not made public by Soludo. The appointment of Sanusi was an opportunity to turn non-interest banking to Islamic banking. To say that this was President Yar’adua’s intention is untenable if only because the late President cannot now defend himself. However, the zeal and speed with which Sanusi is pursuing and implementing the Islamic banking project is suggestive of a planned programme of action by an interested hierarchy of a religious group. This is because all cries of objection or calls for moderation has fell on Sanusi’s death ears, as he remain heady and unyielding. Unless he has been quietly advised by his Muslim brothers, no public evidence is available to prove that any substantial Islamic leader has tried to dissuade Sanusi from his perilious course. On that basis, it may be assumed that Lamido Sanusi’s courage is derived from the backing of most Muslims – which is not illegitimate since he is one of their own. However, it must here be restated that I am not and I believe no Christian or Animist is against Islamic banking.
What non-Muslim Nigerians are saying is that if there is a mortal need for Islamic banking, it must be left to Muslims to establish one for themselves and at their own cost. It is the contention of non-Mulisms that if the Government of the Federation must establish an Islamic Banking, there must also be an Ecclesiastical Banking and a Shango or Ogugureba Banking for both Christians and Animists. In addition, if a Sharia Council is needed at the Central Bank of Nigeria, there must also be its equivalent for non-Muslims. For the avoidance of doubt, this country is not a Muslim, a Christian or Animist country. It is a multi-religious secular one, and any one who ignores this fact has a sinister agenda for the country. This fact is what appears to be lost on Sanusi and his ilks, and which is the bone of contention. Is it a wonder that there are people in this country who pretends not to know that Nigeria is a multi-religious polity?
It was General Ibrahim Babangida who took Nigeria into the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), but it is the same man who later enacted the Banking and other Financial Institution Act, (BOFIA)1991 and he ensured that religious or secterian terms are avoided. If the OIC was an attempt to Islamize Nigeria via the backdoor, it failed although at the cost of many lives and the job of Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe in 1987. In 1997, a conference of Muslim intellectuals was held in Zaria during which the virtues of Sharia law were propounded not only as an excellent divine law, but also as a desirable basis of governance. Little wonder that when some participants of that conference became governors two years later in 1999, the first thing they did was to institute political Sharia system of government – which triggered violent riots in many parts of the North. If the Sharia law was also to Islamize Nigeria, the attempt failed woefully at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of naira in lost property.
It is not enough to claim that Islamic Banking is being practiced in Britain or some other Christian countries. Those countries have different cultures and motive and are at a higher level of governance than Nigeria. Besides, it is yet to be proved the quality or quantity of what value the system has added to the economy of those countries. More importantly, the most Islamic country on earth is Saudi Arabia, the home of Prophet Muhammed and of Mecca and Medina, but the economy of that country is not based on Islamic banking but on normal and universal banking system – even if there is a trickle of religious banking practice. So, what is the motive of the likes of Sanusi in foisting religious banking on Nigeria? In answering this question, we must permit Sanusi Lamido Sanusi to speak for himself. In doing so, and in addition to the numerous speeches he has made in defense of Sharia Banking, he should be made to speak on the basis of his beliefs and his preferences or his background and values. Now, hear Lamido Sanusi “The solution to the problem of Nigeria, it would seem, lies not in the attempt to further isolate the Fulbe… but in their incorporation and appropriation as key elements of governance. If anything at all is learnt from the state of this nation since Babangida, it is that Nigerians have proven themselves incapable of managing their affairs without the guiding hand of the much-hated “Fulani Oligarchy”. What this implies is that Fulanis like Sanusi are the guidian angels needed by Nigeria as the other ethnic groups in Nigeria are incapable of ruling themselves. In the same breath, Sanusi denied the Fulani’s claim to divine right of leadership of Nigeria when he said: “The Fulanis do not hold that they have a ‘birth right’ to rule Nigeria. They do not believe that leadership or politics are in their genes. However, it is in their culture. They have been culturally programmmed, generation after generation, to imbibe the best spirits of what makes good leadership, to a far greater extent than competing cultures.” The question we need to ask Mallam Sanusi is: when did we request for the guiding hands of the Fulani, and why must it be foisted on us? Unless, of course, it is assumed or believed by the ilks of Sanusi that Nigeria belongs to the Fulani only.
However, let us allow Sanusi to conclude his treatise on the excellence of Fulani culture as against the inferiority of other competing cultures. “With due respect to other nationalities in Nigeria, the evidence of history confirms that the Sokoto Caliphate…… represented the model of the highest level of civilisation found in what is now called Nigeria”. Finally, Sanusi said that “it is evidently convenient to ignore one hundred years of history before colonial victory, the establishment of a Caliphate, a governmental structure worthy of respect and an administration with clear division of responsibilities, grassroots control, economic programme, a judiciary, universal Islamic culture, diplomatic links and proliferation of Arabic as the language of scholarship and public policy.”
Mark you, Sanusi said what he said some eleven years ago when he was a relative young manager at the United Bank of Africa. Now that he is the governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, he is eminently placed to impose Sharia law on Nigeria through Islamic Banking.We can now discern why Sanusi changed the Nigerian languages he met on our currencies to that of Arabic and why he considers Islamic Banking as superior to all others. The jihadist and the indecent haste with which Sanusi is implementing the Islamic Banking is a source of fear to non-Muslims. The fear is that since it is going to be an exclusive religious affairs, it could be used as a channel of funding the Boko Haram, the Tala Kato and similar groups – using public funds to achieve Islamization and political control of the country - through the back door. This is the real fear, given the Islamic fundamentalist inclination of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi - the quintessential Fulbe Muslim. With Sharia Council at the Central Bank, there must be an Ecclesiastical and Ajinidivi Councils at Sanusi’s Central Bank, period!
By Sam Onimisi
When my article titled Sanusi and Sharia @ CBN.com was published on February 27, 2011, I received several text messages from many readers who reacted based on their religious beliefs and ethnic nationality and a few on what may be described as neutral ground. My intention was to draw the attention of Sanusi to the fact that he was the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria, and as such, that his policies and innovations must reflect the secular or multi-religious nature of Nigeria. In other words, I wanted him to know that a husband of two or more wives cannot afford to be biased or patently partisan unless he wants to set the whole house on fire.
Since the publication some five months ago, there has been an avalanche of reaction from other readers and writers for or against Sanusi’s brand of non – interest banking which to all intents and purposes, has been turned into Islamic Banking. A sponsored reaction sought to lay the blame on Prof. Charles Soludo, Sanusi’s precedessor at the Central Bank as the author of Islamic Banking. No one can vouch for Soludo because he has kept quiet in the face of the accusation or insinuation. Who knows, it was not impossible for Soludo to have attempted to secure a second term in office, by packaging or re-packaging non-interest banking as Islamic banking as a bait to win President Umaru Yar’adua heart. But even if it was so, the gambit failed just as it was not made public by Soludo. The appointment of Sanusi was an opportunity to turn non-interest banking to Islamic banking. To say that this was President Yar’adua’s intention is untenable if only because the late President cannot now defend himself. However, the zeal and speed with which Sanusi is pursuing and implementing the Islamic banking project is suggestive of a planned programme of action by an interested hierarchy of a religious group. This is because all cries of objection or calls for moderation has fell on Sanusi’s death ears, as he remain heady and unyielding. Unless he has been quietly advised by his Muslim brothers, no public evidence is available to prove that any substantial Islamic leader has tried to dissuade Sanusi from his perilious course. On that basis, it may be assumed that Lamido Sanusi’s courage is derived from the backing of most Muslims – which is not illegitimate since he is one of their own. However, it must here be restated that I am not and I believe no Christian or Animist is against Islamic banking.
What non-Muslim Nigerians are saying is that if there is a mortal need for Islamic banking, it must be left to Muslims to establish one for themselves and at their own cost. It is the contention of non-Mulisms that if the Government of the Federation must establish an Islamic Banking, there must also be an Ecclesiastical Banking and a Shango or Ogugureba Banking for both Christians and Animists. In addition, if a Sharia Council is needed at the Central Bank of Nigeria, there must also be its equivalent for non-Muslims. For the avoidance of doubt, this country is not a Muslim, a Christian or Animist country. It is a multi-religious secular one, and any one who ignores this fact has a sinister agenda for the country. This fact is what appears to be lost on Sanusi and his ilks, and which is the bone of contention. Is it a wonder that there are people in this country who pretends not to know that Nigeria is a multi-religious polity?
It was General Ibrahim Babangida who took Nigeria into the Organisation of Islamic Conference (OIC), but it is the same man who later enacted the Banking and other Financial Institution Act, (BOFIA)1991 and he ensured that religious or secterian terms are avoided. If the OIC was an attempt to Islamize Nigeria via the backdoor, it failed although at the cost of many lives and the job of Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe in 1987. In 1997, a conference of Muslim intellectuals was held in Zaria during which the virtues of Sharia law were propounded not only as an excellent divine law, but also as a desirable basis of governance. Little wonder that when some participants of that conference became governors two years later in 1999, the first thing they did was to institute political Sharia system of government – which triggered violent riots in many parts of the North. If the Sharia law was also to Islamize Nigeria, the attempt failed woefully at the cost of thousands of lives and billions of naira in lost property.
It is not enough to claim that Islamic Banking is being practiced in Britain or some other Christian countries. Those countries have different cultures and motive and are at a higher level of governance than Nigeria. Besides, it is yet to be proved the quality or quantity of what value the system has added to the economy of those countries. More importantly, the most Islamic country on earth is Saudi Arabia, the home of Prophet Muhammed and of Mecca and Medina, but the economy of that country is not based on Islamic banking but on normal and universal banking system – even if there is a trickle of religious banking practice. So, what is the motive of the likes of Sanusi in foisting religious banking on Nigeria? In answering this question, we must permit Sanusi Lamido Sanusi to speak for himself. In doing so, and in addition to the numerous speeches he has made in defense of Sharia Banking, he should be made to speak on the basis of his beliefs and his preferences or his background and values. Now, hear Lamido Sanusi “The solution to the problem of Nigeria, it would seem, lies not in the attempt to further isolate the Fulbe… but in their incorporation and appropriation as key elements of governance. If anything at all is learnt from the state of this nation since Babangida, it is that Nigerians have proven themselves incapable of managing their affairs without the guiding hand of the much-hated “Fulani Oligarchy”. What this implies is that Fulanis like Sanusi are the guidian angels needed by Nigeria as the other ethnic groups in Nigeria are incapable of ruling themselves. In the same breath, Sanusi denied the Fulani’s claim to divine right of leadership of Nigeria when he said: “The Fulanis do not hold that they have a ‘birth right’ to rule Nigeria. They do not believe that leadership or politics are in their genes. However, it is in their culture. They have been culturally programmmed, generation after generation, to imbibe the best spirits of what makes good leadership, to a far greater extent than competing cultures.” The question we need to ask Mallam Sanusi is: when did we request for the guiding hands of the Fulani, and why must it be foisted on us? Unless, of course, it is assumed or believed by the ilks of Sanusi that Nigeria belongs to the Fulani only.
However, let us allow Sanusi to conclude his treatise on the excellence of Fulani culture as against the inferiority of other competing cultures. “With due respect to other nationalities in Nigeria, the evidence of history confirms that the Sokoto Caliphate…… represented the model of the highest level of civilisation found in what is now called Nigeria”. Finally, Sanusi said that “it is evidently convenient to ignore one hundred years of history before colonial victory, the establishment of a Caliphate, a governmental structure worthy of respect and an administration with clear division of responsibilities, grassroots control, economic programme, a judiciary, universal Islamic culture, diplomatic links and proliferation of Arabic as the language of scholarship and public policy.”
Mark you, Sanusi said what he said some eleven years ago when he was a relative young manager at the United Bank of Africa. Now that he is the governor of Central Bank of Nigeria, he is eminently placed to impose Sharia law on Nigeria through Islamic Banking.We can now discern why Sanusi changed the Nigerian languages he met on our currencies to that of Arabic and why he considers Islamic Banking as superior to all others. The jihadist and the indecent haste with which Sanusi is implementing the Islamic Banking is a source of fear to non-Muslims. The fear is that since it is going to be an exclusive religious affairs, it could be used as a channel of funding the Boko Haram, the Tala Kato and similar groups – using public funds to achieve Islamization and political control of the country - through the back door. This is the real fear, given the Islamic fundamentalist inclination of Sanusi Lamido Sanusi - the quintessential Fulbe Muslim. With Sharia Council at the Central Bank, there must be an Ecclesiastical and Ajinidivi Councils at Sanusi’s Central Bank, period!
The Single Term Makossa Dance
The Single Term Makossa Dance
By Sam Onimisi
Going by the catch-phrase campaign slogan of President Goodluck Jonathan, the expectation of majority of Nigerians was that their newly elected leader will hit the ground running like mad. What he told us was to ‘give us fresh air’ and to ‘never, never disappoint us.’ What the average citizen understood by these campaign slogans is that no business of government will be run like before and that the new administration will be committed to programmes that will uplift the standard of living and security of the people. When therefore they learnt that a bill was on its way to the National Assembly to amend Section 135 and Sub-section 2 of the Constitution to make way for a single Six-year term instead of the four-year renewable term, it came as a rude shock. This was so because the proposal was not part of the campaign issues and more so because there are more urgent life-threatening challenges such as failing infrastructures, the debilitating economy, the centrifugal political forces, and the frightening security problems confronting the nation.
If any organ of government should be more concerned with these challenges, it should be the executive arm of government. Now, there appeared to be a correlation between President Jonathan’s pre-election solemn promise to do a single term of four years if elected and the proposal for a six-year single term. Although the Presidency was quick to debunk the notion that he was seeking to extend his tenure by reiterating 2015 as the terminus of his government, it was a political blunder to have enmeshed his government in what looks remotely connected with tenure elongation.
If the new six-year term is to take effect from 2015 as they claimed, bringing it to the fore so early in his regime raps the proposal in a dubiously suspicious garb. If this was not to serve as a distraction, what else could do it better?
When the zoning war was fiercely raging and there was the need to win many people to his side, it was expedient to vow or promise not to serve beyond a term of four years. His co-contestants such as Abubakar Atiku and Ibrahim Babangida made similar vows. Is the President already thinking that he ought not to have made that promise? If so, the answer lies not in tenure distortion, does it? A promise is a moral burden of the individual for which no jail-term or penalty is attached in the event of failure, except personal honour and integrity. However, a constitutional provision is a hallowed and guaranteed legal right from which nothing can be taken away in whatever guise or disguise. The one is an individual’s cross but the other a collective curse.
In a political context and environment laden with deception and chicanery on all sides, a moral somersault is a lesser evil because it ruins only an individual who somersaulted. However, a constitutional breach has a wider repercussion and destructive effect on the unity of the people and could become a curse from which it is hard to recover. Already, the opposition parties in the National Assembly have vowed to shoot down the proposal if ever presented as a bill. The President is already defending himself over what should not have been proposed. Even when the reasons adduced for the tenure change is examined, the temptation to pick quarrel with the President and his party will soar higher.
We are told that, among other reasons, the unduly high cost of party primaries and the acrimonies of second-term election politicking, informed the proposal. However, when the party in government dominated National Assembly amended the Electoral Act to make it compulsory for political parties to conduct congresses and convention from the ward level up to the top, opposition parties cried wolf and complained that only the party (ies) in government could afford such an expensive system, and at that, from the public coffers. They were shouted down and ignored with the claim that the motive or intention was to infuse intra-party democracy and diffuse the strangle-hold of godfathers. This was only a year ago – some eight months to the general election. Now, four months after the election, internal party democracy and the menace of godfathers are no longer such a bad idea – compared to the exorbitant cost of primaries and second-term election palaver! Again, here is either a policy summersault or an expedient chess-game in which the public good is sacrificed to the gods of selfish interests. One example may suffice to amplify this point.
The Electoral Act 2010 Sections 140 and 141 ousted the powers of the Election Tribunals from declaring a winner if the election was marred by irregulaties but to order a re-election. This is a negation of Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution and a self-serving, narrow-minded amendment which, mercifully, was nullified by a Federal High Court in a recent decision. The party in government preferred a re-election regardless of the huge cost to the tax-payers, if only they will be opportune to rig the election again –instead of declaring the candidate with the second highest votes as the winner. Does this government need to be reminded of the history of tenure elongation or distortion in Nigeria and its devastating effects and consequences?
General Yakubu Gowon failed his promise to hand over power in 1974 and was overthrown, tried and sentenced to death six months after, but reprieved by God’s intervention. General Ibrahim Babangida mesmerized the country for eight years during which his maradonic prowess was displayed to the full. He ended scoring an own goal and was disgraced out of power in 1993 for reasons of tenure elongation or failure to keep promises. General Sani Abacha expired mysteriously after jailing the presumed winner of the 1993 Presidential election Chief M. K. O. Abiola, and proceeded to transmute from Khaki to Agbada in 1998. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo cleverly sought for a third term in 2005, an event which diminished his status as an elder statesman today. Does it mean that there is no lesson taught or learnt from this number of attempts at tenure elongation of the past?
If you ask me, I will say that no reason has been adduced – or let me say no convincing reason has yet been given for the proposal. Having shot down the question of cost of primaries, which of second-term acrimony by incumbent governors and president remains the only issue which should be tackled. There is no doubt that incumbents of the office of the President and Governors seeking re-election spend public funds for the nomination and re-election. While it is illegal to do so, no audit and investigation has been carried out to verify how much was spent, from which head or subhead and by whom? What would have been helpful is a probe of Shagari and Obasanjo’s re-election in 1983 and 2003, in addition to Jonathan’s election of 2011. The result of such a probe would have answered the above question and inform the need or otherwise of substituting the four-year renewable term with the proposed six-year single term.
One of the greatest services President Jonathan could render to this Country is the second-term re-election probe of past executive presidents and governors. The purpose would be to determine the sources of their campaign funds, the total costs and whether illegal funds and public funds were involved and if fixed election ceilings have been exceeded. The facts produced by such a probe may very well be so convincing that almost everyone will support single term tenure for president and governors. If this probe is deemed impracticable or unnecessary, then we have no reason to seek to change the four-year renewable term as presently obtained. If the PDP or President Jonathan is inclined to change his mind and recontest in 2015, he is free to do so without distorting the Constitution. If a six-year single tenure is envisaged to help the PDP rule in perpetuity, I don’t see who could stop them, except God - not when all parties in government at whatever tier has proved to be as undemocratic and ruthless as the PDP. Other reasons given for the about – 50 proposed Constitutional amendments shall be examined in due course. Meanwhile, I don’t know who is entertained by his single six-year Makossa dance.
By Sam Onimisi
Going by the catch-phrase campaign slogan of President Goodluck Jonathan, the expectation of majority of Nigerians was that their newly elected leader will hit the ground running like mad. What he told us was to ‘give us fresh air’ and to ‘never, never disappoint us.’ What the average citizen understood by these campaign slogans is that no business of government will be run like before and that the new administration will be committed to programmes that will uplift the standard of living and security of the people. When therefore they learnt that a bill was on its way to the National Assembly to amend Section 135 and Sub-section 2 of the Constitution to make way for a single Six-year term instead of the four-year renewable term, it came as a rude shock. This was so because the proposal was not part of the campaign issues and more so because there are more urgent life-threatening challenges such as failing infrastructures, the debilitating economy, the centrifugal political forces, and the frightening security problems confronting the nation.
If any organ of government should be more concerned with these challenges, it should be the executive arm of government. Now, there appeared to be a correlation between President Jonathan’s pre-election solemn promise to do a single term of four years if elected and the proposal for a six-year single term. Although the Presidency was quick to debunk the notion that he was seeking to extend his tenure by reiterating 2015 as the terminus of his government, it was a political blunder to have enmeshed his government in what looks remotely connected with tenure elongation.
If the new six-year term is to take effect from 2015 as they claimed, bringing it to the fore so early in his regime raps the proposal in a dubiously suspicious garb. If this was not to serve as a distraction, what else could do it better?
When the zoning war was fiercely raging and there was the need to win many people to his side, it was expedient to vow or promise not to serve beyond a term of four years. His co-contestants such as Abubakar Atiku and Ibrahim Babangida made similar vows. Is the President already thinking that he ought not to have made that promise? If so, the answer lies not in tenure distortion, does it? A promise is a moral burden of the individual for which no jail-term or penalty is attached in the event of failure, except personal honour and integrity. However, a constitutional provision is a hallowed and guaranteed legal right from which nothing can be taken away in whatever guise or disguise. The one is an individual’s cross but the other a collective curse.
In a political context and environment laden with deception and chicanery on all sides, a moral somersault is a lesser evil because it ruins only an individual who somersaulted. However, a constitutional breach has a wider repercussion and destructive effect on the unity of the people and could become a curse from which it is hard to recover. Already, the opposition parties in the National Assembly have vowed to shoot down the proposal if ever presented as a bill. The President is already defending himself over what should not have been proposed. Even when the reasons adduced for the tenure change is examined, the temptation to pick quarrel with the President and his party will soar higher.
We are told that, among other reasons, the unduly high cost of party primaries and the acrimonies of second-term election politicking, informed the proposal. However, when the party in government dominated National Assembly amended the Electoral Act to make it compulsory for political parties to conduct congresses and convention from the ward level up to the top, opposition parties cried wolf and complained that only the party (ies) in government could afford such an expensive system, and at that, from the public coffers. They were shouted down and ignored with the claim that the motive or intention was to infuse intra-party democracy and diffuse the strangle-hold of godfathers. This was only a year ago – some eight months to the general election. Now, four months after the election, internal party democracy and the menace of godfathers are no longer such a bad idea – compared to the exorbitant cost of primaries and second-term election palaver! Again, here is either a policy summersault or an expedient chess-game in which the public good is sacrificed to the gods of selfish interests. One example may suffice to amplify this point.
The Electoral Act 2010 Sections 140 and 141 ousted the powers of the Election Tribunals from declaring a winner if the election was marred by irregulaties but to order a re-election. This is a negation of Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution and a self-serving, narrow-minded amendment which, mercifully, was nullified by a Federal High Court in a recent decision. The party in government preferred a re-election regardless of the huge cost to the tax-payers, if only they will be opportune to rig the election again –instead of declaring the candidate with the second highest votes as the winner. Does this government need to be reminded of the history of tenure elongation or distortion in Nigeria and its devastating effects and consequences?
General Yakubu Gowon failed his promise to hand over power in 1974 and was overthrown, tried and sentenced to death six months after, but reprieved by God’s intervention. General Ibrahim Babangida mesmerized the country for eight years during which his maradonic prowess was displayed to the full. He ended scoring an own goal and was disgraced out of power in 1993 for reasons of tenure elongation or failure to keep promises. General Sani Abacha expired mysteriously after jailing the presumed winner of the 1993 Presidential election Chief M. K. O. Abiola, and proceeded to transmute from Khaki to Agbada in 1998. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo cleverly sought for a third term in 2005, an event which diminished his status as an elder statesman today. Does it mean that there is no lesson taught or learnt from this number of attempts at tenure elongation of the past?
If you ask me, I will say that no reason has been adduced – or let me say no convincing reason has yet been given for the proposal. Having shot down the question of cost of primaries, which of second-term acrimony by incumbent governors and president remains the only issue which should be tackled. There is no doubt that incumbents of the office of the President and Governors seeking re-election spend public funds for the nomination and re-election. While it is illegal to do so, no audit and investigation has been carried out to verify how much was spent, from which head or subhead and by whom? What would have been helpful is a probe of Shagari and Obasanjo’s re-election in 1983 and 2003, in addition to Jonathan’s election of 2011. The result of such a probe would have answered the above question and inform the need or otherwise of substituting the four-year renewable term with the proposed six-year single term.
One of the greatest services President Jonathan could render to this Country is the second-term re-election probe of past executive presidents and governors. The purpose would be to determine the sources of their campaign funds, the total costs and whether illegal funds and public funds were involved and if fixed election ceilings have been exceeded. The facts produced by such a probe may very well be so convincing that almost everyone will support single term tenure for president and governors. If this probe is deemed impracticable or unnecessary, then we have no reason to seek to change the four-year renewable term as presently obtained. If the PDP or President Jonathan is inclined to change his mind and recontest in 2015, he is free to do so without distorting the Constitution. If a six-year single tenure is envisaged to help the PDP rule in perpetuity, I don’t see who could stop them, except God - not when all parties in government at whatever tier has proved to be as undemocratic and ruthless as the PDP. Other reasons given for the about – 50 proposed Constitutional amendments shall be examined in due course. Meanwhile, I don’t know who is entertained by his single six-year Makossa dance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
