The Nation Newspaper

Category: Friday

  • There was a country: Blockade, starvation and a requiem for Biafra

    There was a country: Blockade, starvation and a requiem for Biafra

    “ Until now efforts to relieve the Biafran have been thwarted by  the desire of the central government of Nigeria to pursue total and unconditional victory and by fear of the Ibo people that surrender means wholesale atrocities and genocide. But genocide is what is taking place right now – and starvation is the grim reaper. This is not the time to stand on ceremony, or go through channels, or to observe the diplomatic niceties. The destruction of an entire people is an immoral objective even in the most moral of wars. It can never be justified; it can never be condoned.” U.S. President Richard Nixon’s campaign speech on September 10, 1968

    The Nigeria-Biafra war which was (under) estimated by Gowon and his top officers to last not more than three months, had lasted more than two years by July 1969. By an inexplicably suicidal instinct, Biafra had held on to the frustration of the Nigerian side. All the brutalities of an overwhelming force and the air bombardments overtly aided by British fire power had still not totally subdued the ‘rebels’. The economic blockade of the ‘rebels’ was thus reinforced and the noose tightened. All the seaports to Biafra had been closed at the beginning of hostilities with the creation of Mid-West, Rivers and South Eastern states which isolated the Biafra state of East Central State. Biafra had also been isolated from the major oil wells by this singular action.

    Further economic and food blockades had been devised as state policy and were being strictly implemented. No agreement could be reached between the two warring parties as to the modus of shipping essential supplies to the ‘rebel’ enclave. Ojukwu insisted on air routes, fearing food poisoning if supplies come through Nigeria moderated channels but the Nigerian government would not hear of it, worried that arms may be smuggled in via that method. In his writing for the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees’ series, New Issues, Professor Nathaniel H Goetz of Pepperdine University thus captures the complexity of the standoff: “Politically, the possibility of a land corridor seemed impossible. One of the many disagreements between the warring parties was simple, yet it illustrates both the mistrust and complexity of what was occurring: Ojukwu forbade the necessary food to reach the country through the neutral corridor for fear Nigerian troops would poison it… on June 5 (1968), an ICRC DC-7 aircraft was shot down by the Federal air force over Biafra, killing the three aid workers on board. Because of this incident, serious disputes over the conduct of relief operations arose and the airlift was again suspended.”

    While the diplomatic face-off went on, the scourges of hunger, diseases and deaths raged on in war-ravaged Biafra eliciting uproar across the world. Dan Jacobs, author of the book, “The Brutality of Nations” wrote about the lamentations of Pope Paul VI over this situation: “The war seems to be reaching its conclusion, with the terror of possible reprisals and massacre against defenseless people worn out by deprivations, by hunger and by the loss of all they possess… there are those who actually fear a kind of genocide.”

    Jacobs also quoted the editorial of the Washington Post of July 2, 1969: “One word now describes the policy of the Nigerian military government towards secessionist Biafra: genocide. It is ugly and extreme but it is the only word which fits Nigeria’s decision to stop the International Committee of the Red Cross(ICRC), and other relief agencies from flying food to Biafra.”

    The International Committee in the Investigation of Crimes of Genocide led by a Ghanaian, Dr. Mensah after its investigation of the conflict, reported thus: “I am of the opinion that in many of the cases cited to me, hatred of the Biafrans (mainly Igbos) and a wish to exterminate them was a foremost motivational factor.”

    Let us take a final quote on the international outcry against the Federal Government’s handling of Biafra from no less a personage than Arthur Schlesinger, American historian and scholar of note: “The terrible tragedy of the people of Biafra has now assumed catastrophic dimensions. Starvation is daily claiming the lives of estimated 6,000 Igbo tribesmen, most of them children. If adequate food is not delivered to the people in the immediate future, hundreds of thousands of human beings will die of hunger.”

    It is from the foregoing, from the gloomy umbra of this genocidal turn of events that Achebe concludes that the highly respected Yoruba leader, Chief Obafemi Awolowo could not be watching this gory Biafran drama happen, not to talk of being part of it and worse, being the master mind. “All is fair in war, and starvation is one of the weapons of war. I don’t see why we should feed our enemies fat in order for them to fight harder.” This is the alleged refrain from Chief Awolowo and reechoed by people like Chief Allison Ayida, says Achebe. This pogrom by hunger was steadfastly reinforced with such grim policies as state creation, secret currency change, the 20 pounds punishment, the ban on importation of certain commodities and the Indigenisation Act. All this orchestrated war of attrition to what end than to asphyxiate Ndigbo?

    How, when and why did Igbo brothers and sisters suddenly become mortal ‘enemies’ to be strafed, starved to death and exterminated so that the rest of Nigeria would have peace? Why was the reprisal coup not stopped at killing Aguiyi-Ironsi and Igbo officers; why did over 30,000 defenceless civilians have to be slaughtered with no questions asked? What manner of leader would fold his hands and watch while his people are killed like rats in a senseless pogrom without putting up a fight no matter how feeble?

    Achebe is saying that Chief Awolowo providing the intellectual prowess behind these sinister policies means that we still did not know at which point the rain started to beat us. He is saying that Igbo is not the problem of Nigeria. Achebe is asking: who jailed Awolowo on trumped up charges; who killed Adekunle Fajuyi, then governor of Western Region in cold blood, for no reason; who chased away the most senior military officer (Brigadier Ogundipe) and installed a stooge as head of state; who made sure Awo never became president of Nigeria; who killed Ken Saro-Wiwa, who made sure M.K.O. Abiola never became president and eventually killed him, his wife and damaged his businesses; who jailed Obasanjo; who always insists that he always must rule or determine who rules?

    Achebe expected Chief Awolowo, as the Yoruba leader of that era, who had just been freed from an unjust imprisonment to stand up against the injustice of the pogrom against Igbo in the north; he expected him to speak up against the raging genocide unleashed on Ndigbo the way others like Wole Soyinka, Victor Banjo and a few other Yoruba spoke against it, instead of aiding and abetting it.

    EPILOGUE: REQUIEM FOR BIAFRA; QUO VADIS NIGERIA? On January 15, 1970, the Biafran delegation, which was led by Major-General Philip Effiong and included Sir Louis Mbanefo, M.T. Mbu, Col. David Ogunewe and other Biafran military officers, formally surrendered at Dodan Barracks to the troops of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

    Forty-two years ago, the rest of Nigeria teamed up seeking to exterminate the Igbo race in Nigeria, putting down more than two million and leaving the rest deprived, wretched and psychologically traumatised for no just cause. Forty two years after, all the rehabilitation and reconstruction promised was never to be. A trip through Igbo land today is enough proof of an ongoing ‘war’ by other means. Today, Igbo that was a pillar of the land, one of the majority tribes has been deliberately reduced to sub- minority. The people now are the least in population! It has the least number of states, local government areas and consequently, the least share of the federal revenue allocation. All these wars of attrition notwithstanding, the current attitude is: we dare you to talk about it. But Achebe insists: “My aim is not to provide all the answers but to raise questions, and perhaps to cause a few headaches in the process.”

    Sadly, Igbo land, the wretched remains of Biafra still bears the ugly marks of that near-annihilation, both physically and in the mind. For over four decades, Igbo still cannot dare to produce the President of Nigeria. For forty years, it remains tattered, disheveled and unkempt like an old hag. And because we have backed up the wrong tree, Nigeria generally has not fared much better either. The contorted creature sits pitiably today at a precipice staring down her deep, dark doom. Quo Vadis Nigeria?

  • ‘There was a country’: Ogbunigwe, Abagana ambush; Achebe, Okigbo and Ifeajuna

    THE OGBUNIGWE BOMB: commonly known as Ogbunigwe during the Biafran war, its fame and mystique traveled wide on both sides of the divide. Considered a technological breakthrough of Igbos during the war, the bomb, which may well be a higher version of today’s I.E.Ds (improved explosive device) was deployed to great effect by the Biafran army.

    With the economic blockade of Biafra having a telling effect, the people turned inwards, devising survival strategies and apparatuses. Apart from extracting and refining their own petrol; they also had improvised armoured tanks and piloted their planes. The renowned Professor Godian Ezekwe led a team of scientists in what was known as the Biafran Research and Production Unit, RAP. This think-tank group is said to have developed rockets, bombs and telecommunications gadgets.

    According to Achebe, quoting another great author, Professor Chukwuemeka Ike, the ogbunigwe was put to so much devastating effect against the federal troops that the fear of the explosive was the beginning of wisdom for them; to the extent that the Biafrans succeeded more with it than any imported weapons. Ike in his book, Sunset at Dawn: A Novel about Biafra, captures it thus: “You must have heard that the Nigerians are now so mortally afraid of Ogbunigwe that each advancing battalion is now preceded by a herd of cattle.”

    Boasting about this feat in what is regarded his last official wartime speech, Ojukwu said: “ in three years of war, necessity gave birth to invention… we built bombs, rockets, and we designed and built our own refinery, and our own delivery systems and guided them far. For three years, blockaded without hope of import, we maintained all our vehicles.

    “The state extracted and refined petrol, individuals refined petrol in their back gardens. We built and maintained our airports, we maintained them under heavy bombardment… we spoke to the world through a telecommunications system engineered by local ingenuity.

    “In three years, we had broken the technological barrier, became the most advanced black people on earth.”

    THE ABAGANA AMBUSH: March 25, 1968 probably remains one of the most memorable days in the Nigeria –Biafra war. It was the day the Nigerian side suffered the heaviest single loss in the war. Known as the Abagana Ambush, the Second Division of the Nigerian Army led by Col. Murtala Muhammed had finally crossed the Niger Bridge after failing in the first attempt (having been repelled by the Col. Joe Achuzia’s guerrilla army and suffering heavy casualties). Having crossed into Biafra, the plan was to link up with the First Division led by Col. Shuwa penetrating the Igbo heartland through the north from Nsukka. As Achebe notes: “The amalgamation of these two forces, the Nigerian Army hoped, would then serve as a formidable force that would ‘smash the Biafrans’”. Col. Muhammed was said to have assembled and deployed, a convoy of 96 vehicles and four armoured cars to facilitate this plan on March 31, 1968.

    However, Biafran intelligence was said to have got wind of the move and a Major Jonathan Uchendu was charged with working out a counter-attack strategy. With a 700-man team, a counter- attack plan was hatched that essentially sealed up the Abagana Road while the troops lie in ambush in a nearby bush waiting patiently for the advancing Nigerians and their reinforcements.

    Achebe writes that “Major Uchendu’s strategy proved to be highly successful. His troops destroyed Muhammed’s entire convoy within one and half hours. All told, the Nigerians suffered about 500 casualties. There was minimal loss on the Biafran side.” It was probably the most resounding battle ever won by the Biafrans in the entire war.

    ACHEBE, OKIGBO AND MAJOR IFEAJUNA: Christopher Okigbo, the cerebral poet and Achebe had known from their Government College, Umuahia days. Though Okigbo was two years junior to Achebe in class, they struck up friendship very quickly and maintained the closeness till Okigbo’s tragic end in the war front. After Umuahia, they were to meet again at the University College, Ibadan, and while Achebe was in the Nigerian Broadcasting Service in Ikoyi , Lagos, Okigbo was West Africa manager for Cambridge University Press. Their friendship was such that Okigbo was godfather to one of Achebe’s sons and on many occasions during the ensuing tumult in Igboland, Okigbo played ‘father ‘ role to the Achebe house- hold.

    When the war was in full force and all the Igbo personalities had returned, Enugu was the natural settlement for most of the elite returnees in the early days before the ancient town was bombed into submission by the federal forces. It was in Enugu; precisely on Michael Okpara Avenue, that Achebe and Okigbo set up their publishing outfit called Citadel Press. It was indeed the idea of Okigbo who thought out and even worked out the whole project before getting Achebe to come on board. The crux of it all was to publish educational materials, including children’s books and books that would capture the ongoing crisis.

    The first book Citadel Press worked on was, “How the Dog Became a Domesticated Animal,” by John Iroaganachi. Achebe and Okigbo chose to rework the folktale and turn it around to become, “How the Leopard got its Claws.” This book never got to see the light of the day before the shelling of Enugu became unbearable and most people had to scamper and relocate further into the hinterland.

    While Citadel still functioned, Okigbo had brought a manuscript from Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna, one of the five majors who plotted the January 1966 coup. The twain were thoroughly disappointed with Ifeajuna’s account of that critical event of Nigeria’s life. Hear Achebe: “I read the treatise through quickly and became more and more disappointed as I went along. Ifeajuna’s account showcased a writer trying to pass himself off as something that he wasn’t. For one, the manuscript claimed that the entire coup d’etat was his show, that he was the chief strategist, complete master mind, and executer, not just one of several. He recognized the presence of his coconspirators but did not elevate their involvement to any level of importance.”

    Chukwuma Nzeogwu, one of the chief protagonists of the January 1966 coup called the manuscript a lie while Achebe and Okigbo thought it too irresponsible to deserve publication. The manuscript was later to vanish to the regret of Achebe who thought it could have been preserved at least as a version of what transpired on that fateful January of 1966. Christopher Okigbo who had become a Major in the Biafran army was to be felled in the war front in August 1967, in Ekwegbe, close to Nsukka.

    Achebe who had fled from Enugu under the hale of shelling returned to Citadel Press after the war to find the small building reduced to ruble. It was instructive that a number of buildings in the vicinity had been unscathed by the conflict, but this one was pummeled to the ground. It was the work of someone or some people with an ax to grind, he thinks. TOMORROW: THE ECONOMIC BLOCKADE AND STARVATION; EPILOGUE

  • There was a country: Biafra was ego fight between Ojukwu and Gowon

    There was a country: Biafra was ego fight between Ojukwu and Gowon

    As leadership failed Nigeria at the most critical time, just before Biafra was declared, Chinua Achebe suggests that the gruesome conflict would have been avoided, were it not for the seeming clash of egos between the two protagonists – Colonels Emeka Ojukwu and Yakubu Gowon. The one was 33-years old while the other was 32. While Ojukwu rose from an aristocratic background, attended the best schools in Nigeria and the United Kingdom (University of Oxford) before enlisting in the Nigerian Army at the officer cadre, Gowon’s trajectory was almost the reverse, though he also trained at the best British military schools.

    From this background, there was, therefore, a suspicion that an unspoken rivalry brewed between the twain, which came to the fore when they gained commanding positions and faced each other down across opposing divides.

    After General Aguiyi-Ironsi was killed in the reprisal coup of July 1966, Col. Gowon emerged as Head of State. He was, of course, a favourite of the British colonial establishment which still had strong influence in Nigeria’s politics. And being a northern Christian, he was the perfect gambit of the Hausa–Fulani oligarchy, which used him to assuage the fears of the other tribes already grumbling about domination.

    Ojukwu rejected Gowon’s ascendancy on the grounds that he was not the most senior in the Nigeria Army’s hierarchy to lead the country. He said he would not subordinate himself to Gowon. This was one of the points of disagreement at the summit in Aburi, Ghana.

    On the part of the new Head of State, his headship was not negotiable; not with Ojukwu, for that matter. At the least opportunity they both had, they took hard stands, writes Achebe. It is instructive that Ojukwu and Gowon only met once (at Aburi) from the time Gowon became head of state till the end of the war. Achebe captures their rivalry thus: “There are a number who believe that neither Gowon nor Ojukwu was the right leader for that desperate time, because they were blinded by ego, hindered by a lack of administrative experience, and obsessed with interpersonal competitions and petty rivalries. As a consequence, according to this school of thought, these two men failed to make appropriate and wise decisions throughout the conflict and missed several opportunities when compromise could have saved the day.”

    Achebe says there was an obsessive tendency by both belligerents – Gowon and Ojukwu – to seek positions of strength and avoid looking weak throughout the conflict.

    Ojukwu’s Mid-West misadventure and folly

    To correct what has remained a contentious record, the Nigerian side, according to Achebe, fired the first shot in the war when Gowon decided to use the federal Army’s First Command in what he termed “police action,” in an attempt to “restore Federal Government authority in Lagos and the breakaway Eastern Region.” That move to capture the Biafran border towns of Ogoja and Nsukka proved to be a declaration of war, says Achebe. Thereafter, in July 1967, Nigerian troops attempted to cross the Niger Bridge into Biafra. According to Madiebo’s account, quoted by Achebe, the Biafran army was able to halt this advance and disperse the federal troops.

    Now that minor Biafran victory became “an advance, leading to the taking of a large swath of the Mid-Western Region in a surprise manoeuver that the Nigerian federal troops had not anticipated.” Of course, Ojukwu got euphoric by this small victory and was quoted in a speech at the time as saying: “Our motive was not territorial ambition or the desire of conquest. We went into the Midwest (later declared the Republic of Benin) purely in an effort to seize the serpent by the head; every other activity in that Republic was subordinated to that single aim. We were going to Lagos to seize the villain Gowon, and we took necessary military precaution.” Those who accuse Ojukwu and the Igbo leaders of not applying wisdom in proclaiming a Republic of Biafra may well base their arguments on this singular Ojukwu misadventure and folly in the Midwest.

    As it turned out, Ojukwu’s incursion into the Midwest territory, en route Lagos and delegating the then ‘fugitive’ South westerner, Col. Victor Banjo, was not only an exercise in extreme youthful exuberance, it also turned out a costly, if not mortal error. Here was a leader who had neither army nor ammunition; not even a war strategy. The Observer reporter, John de St. Jorre captured Ojukwu’s folly thus: “The Biafrans ‘stormed’ through the Mid-West, not in the usual massive impedimenta of modern warfare but in bizarre collection of private cars, “mammy” wagons, cattle and vegetable trucks. The command vehicle was a Peugeot 404 estate car. The whole operation was not carried out by an “army” or even a “brigade”… but by at most 1,000 men, the majority poorly trained and armed, and many wearing civilian clothes because they had not been issued with uniforms.”

    Of course, this rag-tag “army” got nowhere near Lagos. In fact, it turned out a suicide, mission having pricked the ire of the federal side by their action, pushing them to unleash what may be described as blind horror on Biafra subsequently.

    The four murderous generals

    Following from what was considered the Mid-West humiliation, Gowon regrouped his troops and they plotted a three-pronged onslaught that was meant to “crush the Biafrans” in a few weeks. Mohammed Shuwa who was in charge of the First Division of the federal army was to advance against Biafra from the north to take the Biafran towns of Nsukka and Ogoja. Col. Murtala Muhammed who was in charge of Division Two was charged with retaking Benin and other parts of the Mid-West occupied by the Biafran army, as well as storm Onitsha crossing the Niger Bridge. Lastly, Benjamin Adekunle, known as the ‘black scorpion’, leading Division Three of the Nigeria Army, led the southern offensive.

    In just three months, the federal troops, armed to the teeth now with British weapons, had staged a successful counter-offensive and the Biafran troops were in full flight. Since resistance by the Biafran soldiers was almost non-existent on all fronts, it would have been enough for the federal troops to have captured the entire Biafra with minimum casualties on all sides. But that was not to be. Most of the federal officers were unrestrained and unprofessional; they were blood-thirsty and murderous in their operation.

    Thus in Asaba, Onitsha, Nsukka, Enugu, Owerri, Aba and Calabar, they killed Igbo civilians in cold blood, according to Achebe. The example of the Asaba massacre will suffice: Murtala Muhammed and his lieutenants, including Col. IBM Haruna, apparently smarting from Biafra’s Mid-West humiliation, had rounded up no fewer than 500 Igbo men of Mid-West stock, young and old, and executed them summarily in cold blood. This particular atrocity which attracted worldwide attention, prompting Pope Paul VI to send an emissary has remained unaddressed and unquestioned till today.

    It was 35 years later, in 2002 precisely during the Oputa Panel (the ill-fated Truth and Reconciliation Commission) that the matter came up again. While Gowon claimed ignorance of the massacre and apologised profusely, here is the response of IBM Haruna, then retired as a Major-General: “As the commanding officer and leader of the troops that massacred 500 men in Asaba, I have no apology for those massacred in Asaba, Owerri, Ameke-Item. I acted as a soldier maintaining the peace and unity of Nigeria… If Yakubu Gowon apologized, he did it in his own capacity. As for me, I have no apology.”

    Tuesday: Ogbunigwe, Abagana Ambush; Achebe, Okigbo and Ifeajuna

  • What Ondo people must do tomorrow

    What Ondo people must do tomorrow

    Tomorrow is Ondo’s day of destiny. The great people of Ondo in Southwest Nigeria must seize the day tomorrow and engrave it into the history books of great elections. Tomorrow is Ondo’s day of reckoning, a day they owe a duty to themselves and indeed the rest of us Nigerians to make us proud at the poll. Every voter-card carrying Ondo man must have made up his mind how to vote tomorrow therefore no preachment or suggestive promptings might change anything or sway the voter. But one thing he must not fail to do is to allow democracy to reign supreme. He must not only vote he must guard his vote.

    How I envy the Ondo voter. Isn’t he spoilt for choice? Three great candidates to choose from (no offence intended to about a dozen others but honestly one cannot remember their names): the incumbent governor, Dr. Olusegun Mimiko, (Labour Party); Rotimi Akeredolu, (Action Congress of Nigeria); and Olusola Oke (Peoples Democratic Party). Three great men in every respect who have so much in common: they were all born in the mid-50s, they all attended the great University of Ife before it became OAU, they are all professionals with quality educational pedigree and have worked to the pinnacle of their callings. While Mimiko is a medical doctor, the twain of Akeredolu and Oke are lawyers of high standing. Akeredolu is indeed a Senior Advocate of Nigeria of about 15 years standing.

    I see a final two horse race by my own simple calculation. Without taking anything from Chief Olusola Oke, a man who practically hefted himself up by the boot straps and right up to great heights in legal practice, public service and administration, the odds seem stacked against him. A great analytical mind and a tenacious personality, Oke is sadly, encumbered by his party, PDP which has lost grounds and even face in the Southwest. In another season, on the platform of another party, Oke would be hard to beat by any but PDP has had its day in the Southwest and unfortunately, it made a meal of it much like it has been doing at the centre since 1999.

    Now Akeredolu versus Mimiko will prove to be one block-buster of an electoral battle. Mimiko, fondly called Iroko, is the incumbent and in battles like this, especially in places like ours, the man on the seat has all the advantage tilted to his favour at an angle of over 50 degrees. He has at his disposal, the State’s treasury, the machinery and all the power and glory of an imperious executive office. But as recently as last year, we have seen incumbents defeated ingloriously. Mimiko has more than incumbency going for him; he is a wily politician and a grassroots trooper. He is doughty, fearless and understands the dynamics of power; its uses and abuses in an impoverished enclave like Nigeria. This medical doctor-turn politician has all these and more going for him at tomorrow’s grand slam.

    Ondo is however, at the peculiar turning-point of its history. In ordinary times, Mimiko and his people would be doing victory party now. But it is a different ball game now and this is the fight of his life – the be all and end all fight for Mimiko. If he wins, he wins his place for good in the pantheon of Yoruba history and if he loses, he loses into oblivion. This is why it is a fight to finish; a deathly fight.

    Akeredolu, called Aketi by supporters, on his part, can rightly be described as a neophyte in the dark jungle of Nigeria’s politics. Surely his students union and Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) politics cannot compare to this epic battle he is locked in now. There is a lot going for Akeredolu though. There is the ACN machinery and war chest available to him. He also rides on the crest of the Southwest groundswell – the inexorable integration of Nigeria’s West undergirded by a rich political, intellectual and economic template. It is the new dawn, the new direction not only for the Yoruba but for every nationality under a nebulous country called Nigeria. If the song today is to return to the regions, then the Yoruba (of ACN) are a mile ahead of the pack and Ondo and her people had better join the train. It is in the long-term strategic interest of Ondo people to bond with their kin now.

    However, Akeredolu’s greatest strength, in my estimation, is his person, his carriage, his gravitas. He is the kind of person you would proudly show off as your governor. His visage adorned by a rich landscape of graceful gray hair cast the picture of Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt. He also made a damn good president of the NBA, bringing so much integrity and quality activism to bear on the most enlightened and most influential interest group in Nigeria. Akeredolu must have been so good a president that Nigerian lawyers named their new national secretariat after him. He initiated the complex and set it on motion after many hits and misses. He does not look like the run-of-the mill Nigerian politician; he seems sturdy both in physique and character.

    On the other hand, Mimiko from my observation has proven to be your average Nigerian politician. In the first place, if he had put up an extraordinary performance in the last three years, he would never struggle in campaign now. He had four years and State resources; his work ought to speak most eloquently for him now. It took the class of Lateef Jakande, Sam Mbakwe, Abubakar Rimi and Jim Nwobodo just four years to turn their huge states around those days. Obviously, Mimiko like the average state governor of today does not think out of the (federal allocation) box. I am of the opinion that what a governor cannot do in four years, he may not do in 40 years.

    Finally what particularly troubles people about Mimiko is the dagger in that smile of his if one looked closely enough. If the ACN had backed him body and soul in his 20-month legal battle to reclaim his stolen mandate, this is surely not the best coin to pay back with. Could he not have made all the changes he desired from within? Don’t eat a man’s meal if you didn’t like his face and for sure, it is obscene, if not ungodly to go to a man’s dinner table with a dagger hidden in your pocket. That is detestable.

    All said, Ondo people already have more than enough guide on which way to vote tomorrow. I wish them goodluck.

    LAST MUG: Oyo Gov’s curious showcase: one struggles hard to understand the point of Oyo State Government advert headlined “Oyo State of ‘Firsts’”. The gov’s photo is superimposed on the imposing photos of the Cocoa House, WNBS-WNTV House and the Liberty Stadium. All of these are great edifices of a great era long gone. We think Gov. Ajimobi should show us the foundation he is laying to surpass these landmarks. Some of them must have been built in four years. For instance he can revive the cocoa industry by facilitating the building of the largest processing factory in Africa. Is it unthinkable that Oyo could become one of the largest cocoa exporters in Africa over the next 8 years? That is legacy waiting to be built.

  • National ethical challenge

    National ethical challenge

    These are trying times. Hardly does a day pass in the heart of the nation without an episode or event that makes one wonder aloud: what kind of a people are we? What principles drive us? What are our priorities? What do we cherish as a collective? Indeed do we have a collective sense of honour and shame?

    Last week it was about the gruesome lynching of four young students. We are now learning that one of the suspects had set these young men up because one of them was his creditor. Kidnappers are on the prowl across the country. Just this week the wife of the Speaker of Osun State House of Assembly was rescued from the wicked hands of youthful kidnappers. There was also the incident of the truckers who decided that the most effective way to demonstrate their anger was to block the express way and make innocent travellers suffer for fourteen hours.

    Some anthropological observations on the beliefs, norms and values of our pre-colonial antecedents appear to have been turned over on their heads. We were said to be communitarians who value the community without sacrificing the individual. We were supposed to be God-fearing and spiritually endowed folks who look after their brothers and sisters. And we were an industrious hard-working lot guided by the unwritten principle that only through the labour of our hands shall we survive and prosper. Were these myths made up to make us look good in the eyes of an unsuspecting world?

    No, it’s not all myth. Indeed, somewhere in the rural man-forsaken heartland of the various zones, these models of human accomplishments in social living still motivate conduct in some version. I once referenced the back-wood communities of Oke-Ogun, my beloved homeland, where humaneness still inspires and civility is a norm of behavior. To be civil is to be decent; to appreciate the goodness of cooperation, the pricelessness of others, the obligation of respecting them, and of course, the demand of performing civic duties religiously.

    Discipline is an enduring virtue of the collective existence of rural folks. This is explained by the fact of our early exposure to life, first, through the stringent teachings of traditional religions practiced by our ancestors. Which of our fore-parents was unaware of the imposing presence of the god of thunder who avenges wrong-doing with all the might of its fierceness? Swear falsely to an oath and prepare to die shamelessly. Or did we not grow up being taught about the requirements of Obatala even before we became Christians and Moslems? Our ancestors went through the yoke of an imperial majesty that was ruthless in its demand and unforgiving in its judgment. Liberated by the colonisers from both burdens, we ended up being exposed to the doctrines of the new religions they brought. We gladly embraced them and internalised their norms.

    But in the urbanised satanic corridors of political and business power, it’s dog-eat-dog mentality run amok. There the hardening of the heart is beyond reason, and it’s a ticking time bomb that portends catastrophe for everyone. It is not just the dregs of society; demonic forces have taken over the psyche of the powerful as well.

    From different tradition-based authorities, we accepted a republican arrangement which gives everyone the liberty and responsibility to participate in various capacities and at various levels in governance. It works perfectly when everyone takes the liberty and the responsibility seriously. Electorates ask penetrating questions and would-be representatives of the people canvas for votes without intimidation in a climate of peace. When the free flow of competing ideas is disturbed because someone or some groups arrogate illegal authority to themselves, the condition for a republican arrangement is violated. From there, it can only get worse unless steps are taken to confront it effectively. For it is a short course to imposition by default. This is just one example of the nation’s gradual but sure drift.

    How it has gotten so tragically rotten is anybody’s guess. But a more rewarding approach is an exploration of what it takes to avoid an impending crash and redirect our national train to a track of survival and prosperity.

    A major culprit is the ego which has become the be-all and end-all in all areas of our lives. Where everyone only looks out for self and no one worries about the collectivity without which the self cannot be, the result is an inadvertent annihilation of the self. More seriously, however, where the focus of the self is the greedy lust for material possession, regardless of considerations of desert, it’s easy to see the inescapability of a Hobbesian anarchy of the kind that has characterized the republic thus far.

    But a nation, like an individual, must have a sense of honor and a sense of shame. A true patriot, with a sense of belonging, naturally feels proud when her nation excels in the discharge of responsibilities integral to the reason of its existence and is considered a member in good standing in the comity of nations. Surely, nations cannot be judged with identical standards and an element of relativism is involved. What is expected of the United States in contribution to the relief of international suffering cannot be expected of Nigeria. But in the matter of democratic norms, freedom of expression, accountability, and a general civility that abhors a thuggish approach to governance, there is a universality of standards.

    Nigeria has lost its moral bearing and every citizen is implicated in the morass.

    To be troubled by such a demeaning standard of decency requires a concerted effort to combat the perpetrators. Political parties and political actors, including candidates are too engrossed in their vote-catching tactics to be effective partners in what must be a national effort to reinstate our national self-esteem. The suffering masses are turning against themselves when what is needed is a collective effort to save the nation from uncaring power grabbers that see Nigeria as their grandfather’s farm to be exploited at will. These locusts do not belong to just one sub-national group. Theirs is a coalition of an evil cabal that cuts across the thirty-six states plus Abuja. Yet there is no denying the fact that they are far fewer than the suffering masses whose common patrimony the members of the cabal are bent on looting and exploiting.

    The army of unemployed school leavers and university graduates parading the streets need to know that they have to fight their own battle. Why are septuagenarians and octogenarians still toiling for true democracy when the youth that really need Nigeria to do better for them to do well are engaged in collective self- immolation? They must be made to realise that their potential for growth is being wickedly hampered by the godless politicians who recruit them to do their dirty jobs for them.

    Nigeria needs to be saved from the corrupting grip of the political robbers. Nigeria needs to be saved from the deadly claws of daylight election robbers. And surely, Nigeria needs to be saved from the vampire mentality of political assassins and kidnappers. When a nation drifts so dangerously towards the cliff, the leaders are called upon to intervene. But when the leaders themselves are responsible for the drift, the followers have a collective responsibility to take their destiny in their hands.

  • There was a Country: The pogroms, the Aburi accords and the nightmare

    There was a Country: The pogroms, the Aburi accords and the nightmare

    There was a country, Chinua Achebe’s narrative of the Biafra and the Nigerian crises of nationhood soon moves from a personal story of early beginnings to the Nigerian tale of elite redux, leadership failure, coup, killings, counter coup and war. Reading through his account, one is chilled to find that the conditions precedent to the calamities that befell the country, the grim precursors to Nigeria’s sad unravelling are also eerily present today. Though he has not said anything that had not been said in other Biafra books by Madiebo, Achuzie, Ademoyega andUwechue, it is easily discernible that Achebe’s narrative is nimbler, his insight deeper and perspective broader.

    For instance, contrary to the generally held view that Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu was driven by a vaulting ambition to rule a sovereign State of Biafra, thus declared war heedlessly, the decision was actually taken by the entire Igbo leaders, intelligentsia and the people after months of consultation and dithering by the Federal Government.

    Hear Achebe on this: “It is crucial to note that the decision of an entire people, the Igbo people to leave Nigeria, did not come from Ojukwu alone but was informed by the desire of the people and mandated by a body that contained some of the most distinguished Nigerians in history: Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, Nigeria’s former Governor-General and first ceremonial President; Dr. Michael I. Okpara and Sir Francis Ibiam, former Premier and Governor of Eastern Nigeria, respectively; and Supreme Court Justice Sir Louis Mbanefo. Others included: Educationist Dr. Alvan Ikoku; First Republic minister, Mr. K. O. Mbadiwe as well as Mr. N. U. Akpan, Mr. Joseph Echeruo, Mr. Ekukinam-Bassey, Chief Samuel Mbakwe, Chief Jerome Udoji, and Chief Margaret Ekpo.”

    By late May of 1967, the battle line had been drawn between Eastern Nigeria and the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Both sides were engrossed in what in today’s parlance, is called a strategic session, to contain the “enemy”. Earlier in April, frustrated that the Gen. Yakubu Gowon-led Federal Government would neither act on the Aburi agreements nor do something about the masterminds of the pogrom, Ojukwu began to sever ties with the centre. He froze official communication with Lagos and disconnected all administrative and revenue ties.

    In a speech to the nation on May 27, 1967, Gowon responded to what he described as Ojukwu’s assault on Nigeria’s unity and blatant revenue appropriation by declaring a state of emergency and dividing the nation into 12 states. This was a deadly blow to the Biafra move as the implications of this move were deep and devastating. The Igbo were isolated and all the surrounding ethnic minorities were ranged against them and most notably, they were excised from the major oil wells. This singular move was to be decisive later when the war raged. All the minority states fought against Biafra and the foreign powers with their eyes trained on Nigeria’s crude oil, backed the federal side or looked the other way as the Igbo were being pummelled when hostilities raged.

    The die was cast. On May 30, 1967, Ojukwu bit the bullet. This is how Achebe recorded it: “Ojukwu, citing a variety of malevolent acts directed at the mainly Igbo Easterners – such as the pogrom that claimed over 30,000 lives; the Federal Government’s failure to ensure the safety of Easterners in the presence of organised genocide, the direct incrimination of the government in the murders of its own citizens – proclaimed the independence of the Republic of Biafra from Nigeria, with the full backing of the Eastern House Constituent Assembly.”

    The Biafran position, as Achebe sees it is that beginning with the January 15, 1966, coup d’etat, through the countercoup (staged mainly by Northern Nigerian officers, who murdered 185 Igbo officers) and the massacre of 30,000 Igbo and Easterners in pogroms that started in May 1966 and occurred over four months – the events of those months left millions of other future Biafrans and me feeling terrified. As we fled “home” to Eastern Nigeria to escape all manner of atrocities that were being inflicted upon us and our families in different parts of Nigeria, we saw ourselves as victims. When we noticed that the Federal Government of Nigeria did not respond to our call to end the pogroms, we concluded that a government that failed to safeguard the lives of its citizens had no claim to their allegiance and must be ready to accept that the victims deserve the right to seek their safety in other ways – including secession.”

    The Nigerian position in the crisis as Achebe presents it, was hinged on the premise that if Biafra was allowed to secede, then a number of other ethnic nationalities within Nigeria would follow suit. The Nigeria government, therefore, had to block Biafra secession to prevent the dissolution of Nigeria.

    Tracing the origin of the crisis, Achebe noted that Nigeria’s leaders at the time were not quite ready to face up to the nation’s problems. He says: “If its leaders had approached their duty with humility, they all might have realised long before the coup that the country was in deep trouble. Nigeria was rocked by one crisis after another in the years that followed independence. First, the Nigerian census crisis of 1963-’64 shook the nation, then the federal election crisis of 1964, which was followed by the Western Nigeria election crisis of 1965 – which threatened to split the country at its seams. At that point, most of us, the writers at least, knew that something was very wrong in Nigeria. A fix was long overdue.”

    Apart from the incompetence of the Nigerian ruling class to rise up to the occasion at this critical juncture, the author also delved at length into the supposed Igbo dominance of that era, how it fanned the embers of hatred and how the January 15, 1966 coup, which went awry, was twisted to be an Igbo coup, breeding the reprisal in July. If the Northerners had stopped at killing about 185 Igbo officers, it would have probably been allowed as a horrendous tit for tat. “But the Northerners turned on Igbo civilians living in the North and unleashed waves of brutal massacre that Colin Legum of The Observer (UK) was the first to describe as a pogrom.”

    The Igbo fled from across the country back home. There was suddenly a “refugee” crisis in the East as over a million returnees could not be managed. Meanwhile, the killings were not assuaged; they were not even discussed let alone the perpetrators being brought to justice. General Aguiyi- Ironsi, the Igbo officer who took over the reins of power after the first coup, was hunted down in a most horrific manner with his host, Colonel Adekunle Fajuyi, in Ibadan.

    When, therefore, attempts were made to repair all these at the Aburi Summit in Ghana, the sore had festered.

     

    •Tomorrow: Ojukwu and Gowon; The Asaba massacre and Ogbunigwe bomb.

     

  • About Hajj

    About Hajj

    This article is not new. It was published in this column during Hajj period last year. It is being repeated here today with some alterations in response to readers’ popular demand. Here it goes:

    Hajj in the life of a Muslim is like pregnancy in the womb of an expectant mother. The experience varies from woman to woman. The foetus in the womb undergoes various stages before reaching the stage of delivery. But by the time the child is finally delivered the mother feels a relief of her life. And the child assumes a tabula rasa (clean slate) that makes him absolutely innocent.

    A pilgrim is like a newly born child, spiritually, if he strictly performs Hajj as prescribed by Allah. But if he returns into the world of vanity he automatically becomes like a person in snow white attire who finds himself in a palm oil market. Unless he spiritually guides his loins, he may immediately become a tainted person both in body and in soul.

    Pilgrims who are going on Hajj must be prepared to go through series of rigour both spiritually and physically. The rigour of getting the money with which to perform Hajj; the rigour of getting the travelling documents including visa; the rigour of taking care of the home front before embarking on the Holy journey; the rigour of boarding the plane with a sense of high risk; the rigour of going through the security search at the embarkation point as well as in Saudi Arabia when entering and when departing; the rigour of performing the Tawaf and Sa’y; the rigour of moving from Makkah to Mina on the 8th of Dhul-Hijjah, then to Arafah on the 9th of Dhul-Hijjah, and back to Mina via Muzdalifah on the 10th of Dhul-Hijjah; the rigour of locating the tents at Arafah; the rigour of throwing the pebbles at the Jamrat in Mina on the three or four days known as Ayamu-t-Tashrik; The rigour of performing Tawaful Ifadah at the Sanctuary in Makkah after the first day of throwing pebbles; the rigour of shaving the head and slaughtering the rams, the rigour of performing the farewell circumambulation otherwise known as Tawaful Wida‘i all in the midst of millions of people can be too much to forget so soon after Hajj.

    Whoever is not bothered by the money spent on Hajj should at least be bothered by the various stages of the rigour involved including that of visiting Madinah. To lose all these to the forces of Satan after Hajj is like losing one’s travelling passport after obtaining visa. The prayer of every genuine pilgrim is to retain the validity of Hajj forever.

    Performance of pilgrimage must be based on genuine intention and high spiritual standard. An intending pilgrim must have attained puberty. He must have been an ardent practitioner of the first four pillars of Islam: (Salat, Zakah, and Sawm) all of which are fervently based on faith (Iman). Hajj without these pre-requisites is like a tree without roots.

    Money is a major pre-requisite for Hajj but it is not absolute.

    Hajj, the last pillar of Islam shows very vividly, the similitude of what mankind will experience on the Day of Judgment. Looking at the unique way in which pilgrims dress for Hajj and how they assemble at Arafat leaving their luggage behind in Makkah, one will realise how ephemeral this world is.

    The various stages of preparation through which pilgrims pass before arriving at Arafat are symbolic of our peregrination in life as human beings. Like the Day of Judgment, Arafat is the climax of Hajj performance. Anybody who misses Arafat misses Hajj. But Arafat is not by physical appearance alone. It takes a combination of factors to participate effectively in that great assembly which serves as the climax of Hajj.

    For Hajj to serve its spiritual purpose in the life of a pilgrim, certain steps must be taken before leaving home. They are as follows:

    • Fine-tuning the first four pillars of Islam very sincerely

    • Packaging the intention to perform Hajj

    • Ensuring the security of the way

    • Providing for the family and dependants at home

    • Paying all the outstanding debts including promises

    • Ascertaining the condition of health

    • Perfecting immigration procedures and undergoing all necessary medical services including inoculation

    • Assuming a mood of humility like that of a servant approaching his master.

    • Readiness to endure hardship and to tolerate fellow pilgrims’ attitudes.

    Admonishing Muslims on spiritual journey, including Hajj, Prophet Muhammad once said: “Actions shall be judged according to intentions. Whoever embarks on a spiritual journey for the sake of Allah will be adjudged on that basis. And whoever bases his/her intention for pilgrimage on marriage or material gains should not expect any reward beyond that for which the intention is based”. The steps to follow in the performance of Hajj are as follows:

    The Miqat

    Miqat is the specified place for the wearing of Ihram dress. There are five of such places in all. But the one earmarked for pilgrims from Nigeria cannot be reached by pilgrims travelling by air. It is over-flown while crossing the Red Sea. What most Nigerians do therefore is to wear their Ihram dress in Jeddah which has now been adjudged right through a Fatwah. Thus, Nigerian pilgrims can now wear their Ihram dress on arrival at the pilgrims’ airport in Jeddah.

    Tawaful Qudum

    Tawaf means circumambulation of the Ka’bah. The very first Tawaf to be performed by any pilgrim on entering Makkah is Tawaful Qudum. It is performed before a pilgrim settles down in any residence. Tawaful Qudum is an obligatory Sunnah from which only residents of Makkah among pilgrims are exempted.

    Residence in Makkah or Madinah

    Most Nigerian pilgrims often seek their accommodations in Makkah or Madinah close to the Haram. This is to enable them walk to and back from the Haram conveniently at the time of any Salat. To minimise pilgrim’s regular occurrence of missing their ways, they are provided with hand bands bearing the addresses of their residences. Pilgrims are therefore advised to wear such bands at all times to enable them show it to either the Hajj guides or policemen when the road is missed. It is also important for pilgrims to always be with their identity cards provided by Nigerian Pilgrims’ Commission or private agents. This is to enable them to be identified in case of sickness, accident or even death.

    Movement to Mina

    Pilgrims must be ready to undergo some rigour in the process of moving to Mina from Makkah. The rigour which normally affects all pilgrims is engendered by limited time available for millions of pilgrims who must move to that spiritual camp before the sunset on the day preceding Arafah day.

    Arafah

    At the Plain of Arafat, pilgrims are advised to stay under their tents and concentrate on the spiritual activities that take them to the place.

    They must reach Arafat by mid day when Salatu-d-Dhuhr and ‘Asr should be observed combined. Anybody who is not at Arafat by mid day is considered not to have taken part in the assembly and therefore missed Hajj. Immediately after observing the combined Salatu-d-Dhuhr and ‘Asr the Imam who leds the two Salat is expected to give a sermon. Listening to such sermon is as compulsory as giving it.

    The great assembly of Arafat terminates shortly before sunset (Magrib) and the pilgrims return to Mina via Muzdalifah.

    Muzdalifah

    At Muzdalifah, pilgrims are expected to halt their journey to observe Magrib and ‘Ishai combined. They are also expected to pass the night there and observe the Salat-s-Subh of the following day before proceeding to Mina. Muzdalifah is adjacent to Mina and is therefore a walking distance.

    Jamrat

    Stoning of the devils (Rajmu Jamrat) begins a day after Arafat and continues for the next three or four days that the pilgrims are supposed to spend at Mina. This exercise is obligatory and without it Hajj is incomplete. There are three points at which stones are to be thrown. Seven pebbles are to be thrown at each point on every one of the three or four days to be spent in Mina.

    While going for the pebble-throwing exercise, pilgrims are advised to take their pebbles along with them. Except for the first day when seven pebbles are supposed to be thrown at only one spot, pilgrims are required to throw twenty one pebbles each day the three spots provided while they remain in Mina.

    Picking such pebbles at the point of throwing them is forbidden. All pebbles must have been picked before leaving the tent for the ‘Jamrat’ or on the way.

    Majzarah (Abattoir)

    Slaughtering of all sacrificial animals is done at the abattoir in Mina. Pilgrims do not need to bother themselves by going to the abattoir for the purpose of carrying out this compulsory obligation. They can simply buy the guaranteed ticket sold by designated Saudi agents. The ticket is the evidence that one has performed that duty. The slaughtering is done on behalves of the pilgrims by some authorised artisans who are paid by the Saudi Hajj authorities from the money paid for those animals. The animals to be slaughtered at Jamrat range from rams to camels. A pilgrim should slaughter one ram or more while seven pilgrims may combine to slaughter one camel or five of them may jointly slaughter a cow.

    Tawaful Ifadah

    For pilgrims who can afford to go to Makkah after throwing the first seven pebbles, it is good to perform Tawaf-ul-Ifadah. For those who cannot, the exercise can be deferred till the end of Tashrik.

    Pilgrims who have performed Tawaf-ul-Ifadah are free to shave their heads and change from their Ihram dress into civil or traditional dresses.

    The only reason for any pilgrim to go to Makkah from Mina during the camping period is to perform Tawaf-ul-Ifadah. No pilgrim should break camping rule by going to Makkah without performing Tawaf-ul- Ifadah. And after performing Tawaful Ifadah, no pilgrim should remain in Makkah or elsewhere without returning to Mina before sunset.

    With the completion of the camping days in Mina and the arrival of all the pilgrims in Makkah, Hajj has been completed except for Tawaf Wida‘i otherwise called farewell Tawaf. That Tawaf is compulsory.

    It is then left for pilgrims to decide whether or not to go to Madinah. Going to Madinah is not compulsory. It can neither validate nor invalidate Hajj. But it will be spiritually odd for any pilgrim to choose not to visit the Prophet’s Mosque.

    Throughout the Hajj exercise, what should be uppermost in the mind of a pilgrim is the spiritual benefit.

    Hajj is made compulsory only once in a life’s time for those who have the wherewithal to undergo it and can satisfy the conditions attached to its performance.

    On arriving home finally, pilgrims are not expected to start organising parties in celebration of a successful Hajj performance as ignorantly done by some Nigerians. Maintaining Hajj is a necessity for those who know the value of doing that. Whoever is privileged to perform Hajj once should forever be grateful to Allah as no one is sure of getting another chance.

     

  • A sick society

    A sick society

    The brutish killing of four University of Port Harcourt students was another poignant reminder that we live in a sick society. For, it has provided us with a powerful MRI of the society from which we are able to see clearly the multiple maladies that afflict it. This society is full of monsters in human garb, savages fit only for the wild and downright brutes ill-equipped for civil society.

    We have often been delusional, and I do not exclude myself from the mental hubris that romanticises our golden age of decent humanity. Many of us have attributed the degeneration of values in our contemporary society to the neglect of our traditional heritage, which presumably privileged human dignity over material wealth. I think this is largely true and there is ample illustration in words and practice to support the view. What we have not emphasised enough is that the break with that past has been gradual and persistent even prior to the so-called colonial imposition but certainly sharper and cleaner thereafter.

    The various internal civil wars within each ethnic or nationality group predated the Atlantic slave trade and the horror of the Middle Passage. Indeed, there were ample evidences of the complicity of local chiefs in the facilitation of the capture and delivery of their kith and kin to slave traders. Just a few years ago, some African chiefs were moved to offer atonement for the involvement of our ancestors in the barbarism of enslavement. We may choose to ignore the past, but we will continue to relive it.

    Every society has a past that shames their present and a history that embarrasses. It is what is done to shape a present narrative to ensure a glorious future that separates one from the other. If we vow that the horrific past of savagery will not define our future, then we—leaders and followers— have our work cut out for us. It cannot be left to chance. It has to be a deliberate and methodical plan of action to redeem the dignity of individuals and the integrity of the nation.

    The video clip that announced the gory scene in the university town of Aluu speaks volumes. First, here is a village that is privileged to have a university located within its vicinity. How can it be that the values that are implicated in the idea of a university fail to percolate to the Aluu community? How is it that jungle justice is favored by the people of Aluu when the university prides itself in championing civil and humane justice system? Is there a meeting of minds between town and gown? If not, why not?

    In the video are young men and women many of whom are looking on with glee and some of whom are actively participating in the clubbing of fellow human beings to death! Young people? These are the ones we count on to mold a nation into what it will become? It’s scary stuff. I am sure that these young people have some form of education or another. They are not illiterates. I will not be surprised if a good number of them have university education. What does this mean? What values are we inculcating in our youths through the nation’s education system? That laptops and cell phones are so invaluable that their loss can only be atoned with human lives?

    Assume that these young people watching and participating in the lynching of their fellow human beings never stepped into a formal classroom. Is it too much to ask if they never had parents and grandparents? How were they brought up? What lessons did the village community impart? We used to be told that it takes a village to raise a child. And communities raise their children the way they—the communities would like to be identified? Aluu is now identified as a community of lynch mobs and barbarians. Was this their original idea of a community?

    Religion is equally implicated. Africans in general, and Nigerians, in particular, have been variously described as incurably religious, notoriously spiritual, and acutely God-loving. Now you could consistently be God-loving and brutal in practice if you have a divine revelation that God enjoins a savage procedure in dealing with crime. Moses ordered stoning to death of adulterers for that reason. And versions of Sharia law belong to that tradition. But that justification has not been presented by the Aluu community lynch mob. And if they did, should we accept it? Consistent with religious ideals, we know now that even the most Mosaic of modern religions has not followed the injunction to club or stone culprits to death. And for Christians, which I assume is the professed religion of a good number of the Aluu community mob the effect of the cross has been a redemption from bestiality.

    Nothing can morally justify what the Aluu mob did to the four young students. It turned out also that the end of their action is not justified by the means. They imposed a punishment of death without trial. But the community has suffered an equally stern punishment—without trial—in the hands of the youth that sought to revenge the brutal killings of their colleagues. This is what a sick society looks like. With no respect for socially accepted principles and processes of law and order, one evil and wicked act summons the other and a vicious circle of vengeance and counter vengeance continues.

    Who will save the sick society from its self-inflicted ailment? In anticipation of this possibility, rational human beings are assumed to create a decent procedure for resolving issues. They put in charge a leadership corps to ensure that everyone abides by the accepted procedure. Where that leadership functions, it promotes and sustains institutions that effectively carry out the objectives of a decent society. Such institutions will promote effective and functional education that not only trains the youth for jobs but also inculcates the values that are to sustain the welfare of the people and promote their peaceful interaction. Such institutions will effectively adjudicate conflicts and punish crimes, including the crimes of a privatised justice system. It bears emphasising that the leadership we have in mind must be visible at every level from local to national. Even in this dehumanised epoch, leadership can make a difference.

  • Achebe’s tintinnabulating truth

    Achebe’s tintinnabulating truth

    Good truth – yes, there is good truth – it tintinnabulates. It continues to ring in the mind (ear) and jars its target (victim) until he succumbs to it or even goes crazy as the case may be. Good truth is an ever ringing bell that will never stop until assuaged. This is what Nigeria’s patriot-extraordinaire, Professor Chinua Achebe has told his compatriots in his new Biafra war memoir, There was a Country. For a book just released in the United States, hardly been read by anyone in Nigeria, the tome of reviews and commentaries on just an excerpt of it is a testimony to the stature of the author and the weight of what of his proclaimation in the book.

    In the extract, published in The Guardian of London, Achebe simply says that the story of Biafra is being suppressed and sandbagged in order to put a veil over one of the worst genocides of human history. He wants our collective Biafra to be properly investigated, interrogated, discussed, debated and reconciled so that we do not walk blindly, into such gruesome history ever again. He said vicious policies were deployed in fighting what was a civil war and that even post war (on-going) attrition against Igbo is in itself, the worst kind of warfare. Achebe mentioned the food blockade to Biafra, the 20 pounds policy and oblique economic warfare as facts of that war and its aftermath. He then went on to mention some of the dramatis personae who were the master-minds and architects of the ideas that shaped Biafra.

    Achebe mentioned specifically, the role played by Chief Obafemi Awolowo who was the war regime’s Finance Minister, chief strategist and certainly, the second most powerful man in the land at that time after the Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon. An attestation to this was that Chief Awolowo, as part of the strategy to damage Biafra’s position, single-handedly changed Nigeria’s currency during the war with General Gowon knowing about it only the day before. Such was Pa Awolowo’s power that only two other Nigerians knew about his stratagem.

    These issues have been with us since after the war in 1971 prompting journalists to ask Chief Awolowo for explanation during the 1983 presidential election campaign. And he had thrown some light on them as much as possible. This in itself is a strong suggestion that these questions are still live and latent. Now the grouse of many commentators is that this matter need not be raised anymore so long after the end of the war. Some wonder why Achebe, an elderstatesman would be ‘opening old wounds’ 41 years after Biafra. But there is no better mind to profile Chief Awolowo today than Achebe. He had said earlier that the sage was tribal and now; overly ambitious. One says why not; in fact one wished the great Nnamdi Azikiwe had such virtues, Igboland would have been better for it. But then there are consequences too, which Achebe points to.

    Most people missed Achebe’s point. Even the First and Second World Wars are still being interrogated and written about; ideas are never time-barred. On the other hand, the Biafra imbroglio is being muted and muffed by the perpetrators as if it were a taboo. And in fact, the victims are being dared to tell their story. The truth, however, is that the blood of about two million Igbo people spilled in the most brutish genocide of our time will not rest until atoned. The ghosts of innocent people including pregnant women slaughtered on the streets of the north and other parts of Nigeria will continue to walk those streets until they are reconciled.

    Most disturbing is that many accuse Achebe of hate and bitterness. That is a very illiterate summation. Achebe is a transcendental mind. Anyone who understands this would know that he long outgrew such baseness. Imagine a Wole Soyinka hating people or being bitter. Their ilk only exhibit hateful abhorrence for injustice, arrogance and suppression of truth as has happened in the Biafra case. Even if we disagree with Achebe, we must at least accept that he knows what he is talking about. Here is a man who had written all his epic novels – including the prophetic, A Man of the People – over a decade before the upheaval. Even at the lower level, hate and sustained bitterness are not in the nature of the Igbo man; that is why he moves freely to every corner of the world. Ojemba e nwe iro is how we say it in Igbo.

    The real problem is that the rest of Nigeria doesn’t want to hear it but you cannot put down two million kinsmen and expect to sweep all that heap under the carpet. It won’t keep. You must clean out those carpets someday. That is Achebe’s thesis.

     

    2015 and Orji Kalu: where Greg Mbadiwe got it wrong

     

    One was taken aback reading Ambassador Greg Mbadiwe in this newspaper last Friday on how former Abia governor, Orji Uzor Kalu got it wrong in his 2015 Igbo presidency calculations. Greg in his very articulate piece suggests that Kalu need not go on the offensive in seeking to actualize the Igbo presidency agenda in 2015. Here is Greg’s summation: “while it is the turn of Igbos to produce the President in 2015 it can only be achievable if President Jonathan is not re-contesting. If he is, and PDP endorses him, the bargaining chip left for Igbos would be to insist on succeeding him after his tenure.”

    The logic in the above conclusion is so flawed that I was troubled whether it is the Greg I had encountered several times who is not terribly compromised. Here are a few questions for Greg: why should the lot of the entire Igbo race be left solely to President Jonathan’s decision to run or not to run? And while he decides, we Ndigbo must go home, lock ourselves in and wait? Don’t you find that to be terribly self-deprecating? Don’t you think Kalu has an inalienable right to discuss 2015 presidency, to rally his people, to even contest? Who says PDP is the be all and end all party in Nigeria? Who told you PDP will win in 2015? Why should Jonathan run for a second term? Does he deserved to run; why should Nigerias vote him again; has he lived up to expectations? Did he not give his word that he would serve only one term? Where is our honour?

    And lastly my brother Greg, if perchance PDP gives him another ticket, do you think Ndigbo still have a bargaining chip with a ticket in Jonathan’s pocket? Why would he not bargain with other regions with higher ace? My brother, though I am no fan of Kalu’s, I wager that he is doing the right thing. We must rally ourselves first, harness Ndigbo to one strong, loud voice then we can go to any bargaining table and get our due. Dear brother, let us shun that cheap platter of porridge they dish to us, it is overnight manure that amounts to nothing; let’s work on things that endure.

     

    LAST MUG: Wow, Gov. Rochas parties while Igbo governors were strategizing: Governor Rochas Okorocha’s obscene 50th birthday celebration would never have found space here had he not been conspicuously absent in Enugu last Sunday during the parley of Southeast governors and political leaders. To say the least, it was very embarrassing to read that the Imo governor was absent because he was celebrating his birthday. What vanity, what self-glorification? Did Imo people vote Rochas to office to celebrate lavish birthdays? If he would rather wine and dine than attend to state affairs, why would he not send his deputy as Enugu State did? At a meeting why the most crucial issue (state creation) to the Igboman was decided, Imo governor chose to party.

    Seized by the evil spirits of vanity, Rochas shut down his State (offices, schools, markets) and invited a foreign head of state and five state governors to a lavish party. Meanwhile, the workers’ salaries had not been paid and there is no factory humming in the state. Why would a sitting governor throw such a lavish party in a State that has no economy other than federal allocation and whose money is being spent? Only emperors of old exhibit this manner of recklessness and impunity…

  • Politicising justice

    Politicising justice

    Justice”, as philosopher John Rawls declares, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” After this opening statement to his 1971 classic, Rawls goes on to suggest that “in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or the calculus of social interests.” I take it that we, perhaps with the exception of the most highly placed among us, can articulate the reasoning of Rawls and indeed find ourselves in total agreement with him.

    I raise the issue of the possible exception of the most highly placed for obvious reasons. First, though we claim to have a republican constitution, the most highly placed act as if ours is a feudal institution with their good selves as the Lords. Therefore, what the constitution proclaims is for others, and is hardly applicable to them. Second, even when they reluctantly concede that we operate a republican constitution, they do not see themselves as bound by its essential remedies and restraints because with their position, they can manipulate the system to suit their interests.

    The upshot of the position of the most highly placed is that the system of justice that marks out a republican from a feudal or monarchical institution is brutally skewed in their favor and it becomes a “just-us” system.

    There is something grand and pleasing about knowing that the liberties of equal citizenship are settled in a just society. I am assured that my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness cannot be violated with impunity. I can count on the system of justice to take up my case and plead my cause. The understanding that the rights that accrue to me on the grounds of my membership of the society cannot be bargained away is compellingly reassuring. What I have a right to is mine and is not subject to “political bargaining or the calculus of social interests.” The consequence of such a system for social life is incalculable. It allows for the thriving of citizens and for the flourishing of human lives. Yet the alternative universe with a de facto hierarchical ordering of persons with different access to the system of justice is as dreadful as it is real. It is our universe.

    The alternative universe which is the negation of a just system is the reality for most of us in this clime. It used to be that the dispossessed and disenfranchised among us are the victims. For unlike the well-placed, they do not have the means to negotiate their rights in an unjust system. But now it is turning out that even the so-called shakers and dealers are not immune from the “political bargaining” and “the calculus of social interests” that chip away “the rights secured by justice.” Rather than this trend being a solace for the dispossessed, it should ring the alarm bell and warn reasonable people of the dangers of politics run amok.

    It is politics run amok when every sphere of social life is politicised, when every action and every policy decision is moderated and modulated by considerations of political interest. It is not a recent phenomenon. Indeed it has been part of our story since the birth of the republic, reaching the crescendo of lunacy in the Second Republic. In 1991, I had the opportunity of contributing to and editing a volume on The Politicisation of Society During Nigeria’s Second Republic, 1979-83, in which my fellow contributors succeeded in demonstrating how virtually all sectors of the society, from religion to ethnicity, law and order, and the economy, were highly politicised. It was the view of my colleagues in that volume that the system buckled in 1983 under the unbearable weight of blatant politicisation.

    Fast forward almost three decades later and we have perfected the art of politicisation to the point of regarding it as an essential aspect of social life. It is what politics is supposed to be about. Even when we have a constitution that grounds the separation of powers in the age-old tradition of republicanism, we see politics as the be-all and end-all of our nation-space and other spheres have to bow under its domineering presence.

    The case of Justice Isa Salami comes readily to mind as an illustration of this scenario. It has just become clear that the constitution itself is a victim of the ugly game of political savagery that has gone on for far too long without any of the protagonists giving room for the intervention of reason. Articles 237 to 238 of the Constitution are very clear about the role of the President of Nigeria (PON) and the National Judicial Council (NJC) in the hiring and/or firing of the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA). The President cannot appoint, suspend, or dismiss without the recommendation of the NJC. And where the NJC recommends firing or suspending the PCA and the PON appoints the most senior Justice of the Court of Appeal to perform the functions of the PCA, the Constitution is also clear about the duration of such appointment.

    Article 238 Section (5) states: “Except on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, an appointment pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section shall cease to have effect after the expiration of three months from the date of such appointment, and the President shall not reappoint a person whose appointment has lapsed.” This is as clear as it gets. But the President, who swore to a sacred oath to protect the Constitution, has allegedly reappointed the Acting PCA without the recommendation of the NJC.

    Whatever position anyone holds concerning the injustice of the decision to suspend President Salami from office, it is clearly a deficit of integrity to support an act of illegality that is being promoted by the continuation of the Acting President of the Court of Appeal in office.

    Integrity implies principled action and wholeness. It is the ability to follow up a commitment with action that realises the commitment. If you commit to protect the constitution, it is deficit of integrity to do anything to jeopardise the health of the constitution. Integrity is especially realised—it shines forth—when difficult situations of self interest present themselves as obstacles to the pursuit of or the realisation of our commitments. If you made me a promise to help me out of trouble and then you face some personal difficulties of your own, yet in the face of your difficulties, you fulfil your promise; that is the height of integrity. When political interests present a conflict that militates against the pursuit and realisation of our commitments and we buckle, we have demonstrated a deficit of integrity.

    In the matter on hand, the President must redeem his integrity. So must the Acting President of the Court of Appeal. The appeal of office should not be an obstacle for a man of integrity to show his moral muscle. If those who are in positions of leadership cannot lay good examples in the matter of the ethics of leadership, pray, what is the moral justification for their leadership?