Segun Gbadegesin
FAMILIAR. Not in the sense that everyone does it. But it is not unusual and there are copious examples in global and national history of individuals–tag them with any label–rebel, revolutionary, reformer, militant–taking up a cause larger than themselves. The cause of a battered people, a colonized people, an oppressed people.
Moses of Israel was one. Barabbas, the rebel was another. Even when the cause seemed insane and the outcome tragic, they persisted. Moses succeeded, though he himself didn’t get to the Promised Land. Barabbas failed but avoided a punishment of death. Jesus, the Messiah who preached peace and accommodation, was crucified in Barabbas’s place. Ironic!
Before Dr. King, there was John Brown, the militant abolitionist who, from Kansas to Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, rebelled violently against the enslavement of black people. He was easily defeated, arrested, and condemned to death by hanging. Even at the point of death, Brown was unrepentant. Assured of the justice of his cause, he predicted a more violent end to slavery. Shortly after his death, civil war to end slavery broke out.
At only 28, Dr. King was elected president of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLC), launching his nonviolent struggle for civil rights. He was denounced, not only by the government of the day and southern Whites, but also by White evangelical ministers of God, who were supposed to be his coworkers in the vineyard of a just God. He persisted; though like Moses, he never reached the Promised Land. But killed at only age 39, what he accomplished can only be a dream for some who lived beyond 100.
Closer to home, this republic that we guide so jealously against disintegration would not have been freed from the bondage of imperialism but for the nationalists, men and women of various backgrounds, who refused to be silenced as they fought oppression and colonial racism. Herbert Macaulay, the father of Nigerian nationalism, didn’t live to see his dream of an independent Nigeria fulfilled. But with his resistance and suffering, he laid the groundwork which inspired a new generation of nationalists and freedom fighters, including Nnamdi Azikwe, Obafemi Awolowo, Aminu Kano, Anthony Enahoro, Funmilayo Ransome Kuti, Margaret Ekpo, among others.
Military adventurism in Nigeria punctuated her journey as a democratic republic in 1966. Welcomed as a corrective regime by many at the time, it quickly turned out to be a monster that had to be caged if the country was not to be denied its destiny. Conscientious patriots stood up to be counted. They spoke out, without minding their own security, against the elongation of military rule. Many, such as Baba Adesanya, Bola Ige, Gani Fawehinmi, the Kuti Brothers, Frederick Fasehun, Kudirat Abiola and M.K.O. Abiola are no longer with us. But the memories of their heroism linger.
The point of the foregoing excursion into history is to make a crucial point. For whatever reason, from whatever motivation, individuals or groups of individuals, have always risen to the occasion to confront societal problems and crises. They may not have had any special training. They may not even have thought deeply about their mission. They may not even have considered the outcome for themselves or for society. Sunday Igboho is not an aberration.
Fanon observed that “each generation must out of relative obscurity, discover its mission, fulfill it, or betray it.” This observation appears to speak to generational mission, not to individual members of the generation. However, the sentence that follows that remark makes clear that Fanon is self-referencing: “As for we who have decided to break the back of colonialism, our historic mission is to sanction all revolts, all desperate actions, all those abortive attempts drowned in rivers of blood.” In other words, end colonialism by all means necessary.
Reformers, revolutionaries, and activists with a conscience may not get it right. They may lack the intellect that others proudly assert a claim to. They may be loathed by the society they try to help. Indeed, they may be self-conceited. This is all possible. What they lay claim to is a stubborn determination to right what they perceive to be a wrong.
Predictable. In view of the historical anecdotes above, the emergence of radical reformers in our midst shouldn’t be a surprise. What is surprising is that we didn’t see it coming. More specifically, in light of the tension in our national life in the past four to five years, with tales of woe about kidnapping, banditry and clashes between farmers and herders across the land, shouldn’t we have seen it coming that a “savior” (or saviors) would emerge as a Messiah to save his/her/their people from their powerful oppressors?
The stories have been heart wrenching. Who knows if they are all true! But they have mostly gone unchallenged by the authorities. A young woman and her fiancé were ambushed as they drove home from the farm. The fiancé was short dead. The woman was whisked to the bush. They knew her fiancé was dead, yet they demanded a ransom from her and didn’t release her until it was paid. A man received the PhD from abroad, returned to his homeland, and set up a thriving farm. He was ambushed and murdered. Hardly a week goes by without a story of kidnap for ransom.
In the height of this gloom and doom, governors of the southwest established the Amotekun security network. It is still too early to determine its effectiveness. But the stories of bloodshed have not diminished. Communities are consumed with grief and restlessness with no answers coming from the authorities. When will it end?
Avoidable. There are three layers to this. First, an adequate national policy on grazing that seeks a fair balance between the right of herders and the right of farming communities is a prerequisite for a peaceful coexistence. Hitherto, this has been elusive and it is a huge failure on the part of government. It should be clear by now that open grazing is an unsustainable practice. It is neither good for the cattle nor for the herders. It has certainly proved to be a disaster for farmers.
Fulani herdsmen have always been part of the fabric of the life of many communities in the southwest and across the nation. They coexisted peacefully with their host communities. There were intermarriages and the cultural mix was a rare blessing. The problem is the new breed of foreign herders who have also been hostile to the domestic herders. This suggests that both farmers and domestic herders have a common foe who should be confronted. Is government ready to assist them with effective policies?
Second, the complaints have been too numerous to ignore. But if the authorities had been doing anything about them, the communities weren’t aware. In some cases, they even felt that the authorities were in cahoots with the criminals tormenting them. Leveling with the people and carrying them along the phases of investigation would have prevented the turn of events leading to January 22.
The real boss in a democracy is the citizen. We recognize the boss by letting them know what we are doing on their behalf. We let them know that we are investigating a case that affects them. We hold regular press briefings. And in case of horrific events, we get out in front and commiserate with the nation. Then we would avoid the boss thinking that we have abandoned them. Or worse, that we are on the side of their oppressors.
Third, Sunday Igboho took up the matter of Igangan at least two weeks before Friday 22nd of January. On Friday, January 15, he and his group issued an ultimatum. For a week, nothing appeared to happen. Then, on Friday, January 22, he led a protest rally to Igangan. The video circulating after the rally showed a huge crowd of mostly youths. There was no presence of security forces. He left the place without any incidents. It was later after he and his group left that the arson occurred. This could have been avoided were there adequate security presence during and after the rally.
A box-load of blames to share!
-
For comments, send SMS to 08111813080
