The Nation Newspaper

Category: Friday

  • The Yoruba in a Federal Nigeria

    The Yoruba in a Federal Nigeria

    One September 17 and 18 2021, Egbe Omo Yoruba North America (EOYNA) held its virtual 2021 Summit on the current issues agitating the minds of the average Yoruba in the homeland and the diaspora. The main theme of the summit was “Yoruba in the Federated Nigeria: The way forward” with a special focus of what the organizers saw as the “inherent challenges of the Yoruba in present Nigeria and the way forward”.

    With a kind invitation from the President, Dr. Durojaiye Akindutire, I was honored to make some remarks on the evening of September 17, focusing on where we started, where we are now, the unacceptability of where we are now, and the options before us. The following is a summary of my remarks.

    Nigeria Then

    Upon negotiations with the British colonial masters and among themselves through several constitutional conferences, the nationalists and founding fathers of the republic agreed to a federation of three regions (later four) with internal autonomy and constitutionally guaranteed powers over many areas of cultural and economic development. Each region had its own constitution and symbols including coat of arms, and diplomatic representation abroad. A broad array of concurrent legislative list with a short exclusive legislative list gave the regions adequate powers over the matters that affected their people. The major problem with the 1960 independence constitution was the disproportionate size of the regions, which, in a parliamentary system, gave one region an undue advantage over the others.

    Yoruba Then

    With a true federal constitution which privileged fiscal federalism, the Western Region, home to the Yoruba nation, enjoyed a bustling economy, a thriving social life, and a liberal welfare policy with a laser focus on education, health, and rural development. A visionary political class worked collaboratively with a dedicated civil service which prioritized policy analysis in service of the elected leaders. The result was one progressive program after the other, leading to the achievement of “First in Africa” in notable areas of development, and a happy citizenry.

    Nigeria Now

    From the federalism of 1950s and 1960s, Nigeria became a unitary state in 1966 and has remained so till date, with disastrous effects for democratic norms, social welfare, ethnic relations, and economic development. Insecurity, rarely experienced in the 1950s, is now a dreadful challenge. Foreign herdsmen, bandits, and kidnappers litter the landscape and are overwhelming our national security infrastructure. Nigeria has a national police which is incapable of keeping citizens safe but a workable alternative is all but ruled out. While governors are constitutionally classified as their states’ Chief Security Officers, they are so only in name. Most dangerous for the survival of the nation is the widespread perception of unjust domination by one section.

    Yoruba Now

    In the midst of the many problems that Nigeria battles, the Yoruba have never been in a more challenging situation. Education which used to be the Number 1 priority of the regional government, and which gave Westerners the head start in the days of true federalism, has collapsed completely. The young ones who are fortunate to get into tertiary institutions and receive degrees cannot find jobs in the midst of a wrecked economy. This has resulted in a ridiculously high rate of unemployment. With unemployment sky high, high rate of poverty is inevitable. So is crime, and so is disease.

    Read Also: Yoruba obas, secession and Gbajabiamila outburst

    Options for the way forward

    Remake Yoruba in the image of Nigeria Now

    The Yoruba have been on the onslaught against what Nigeria has become now because they are vehemently opposed to injustice, incompetence, and impunity. They experienced good governance and shared in its rewards between 1951 and 1960. Therefore, what is going on now is not in tune with what they are used to. The option of remaking Yoruba in the image of Nigeria now is therefore a nonstarter because it will turn them into what they are not.

    Remake Nigeria Now

    Nigeria used to work. Nigeria used to be on the road to development when true federalism prevailed. To remake Nigeria now is to restructure it for the benefit of every section and every citizen. But this is what has been blocked over and over again by those powerful ones who see Nigeria now as working for their selfish interests.

    We should not be tempted to see the anti-restructuring powers as coming from just one part of the country. They are all over the place, including in our own corner of the country. A minister of the federal republic who accepts position but doesn’t see anything wrong with the enormous power grab of his ministry, which takes away resources and functions from states and refuses to do anything about it is anti-restructuring, no matter where he or she comes from.

    Indeed, it is becoming more and more apparent to me that our challenge as far as restructuring is concerned is not just with one party or one zone. It is with the professional political class. Many aspiring politicians, including presidential hopefuls, whether from the north or south want to preserve the status quo for either of two misinformed reasons. While some are just selfish power grabbers looking out only for self, others may genuinely think that the more power the center has, the more good they can do for all regions from the center. But that hasn’t been our experience since 1966.

    Pursue Yoruba self-determination

    With the center’s roadblock to restructuring, it’s understandable that frustration is at fever pitch and the demand for self-determination has intensified in the last several years. Even when Afenifere, the foremost Yoruba politico-cultural organization, has insisted on restructuring but hasn’t supported secession, Odudua Republic agitation is on the rise. It is therefore in order to make a few observations.

    First, in the matter of nomenclature, I think that the clamor for “Yoruba Nation Now” is a misnomer. Yoruba is already a nation by the political and cultural standard that is internationally approved. We are a people of common ancestry, common cultural heritage, with common language, a memory of common history and experiences, and common aspirations. What we lack is the actualization of the right to political self-determination which translates as a state. We lack a government of our own and, thus, political autonomy. If this status is the objective of the self-determination movement, “Yoruba Republic Now” or “Odudua Republic Now” should be the demand.

    Second, an effective strategy is so glaringly lacking now. Our people talk too much and make too much noise. They must learn to play the duck, not the chicken. What should be important elements of a good strategy?

    Carry everyone along but learn from the 1998 Pan-Yoruba conference and the Egbe Omo Yoruba Philadelphia Convention. Beware of politicians who crave power for its sake. But don’t alienate all stakeholders including traditional rulers, professionals, youths, market women, intellectuals, etc. A pan-Yoruba summit that brings them all together is a first step. And for this, all major organizations should be involved. This will demonstrate the seriousness of the struggle. Right now, there are too many conflicting voices and, therefore, too many discordant notes.

    The inevitability of referendum. The reaction of some politicians to the self-determination movement has been the question: Who decided self-determination on our behalf? A fitting response to this natural reaction is to have a referendum conducted throughout Yorubaland as the Yoruba Referendum Committee has been urging. However, a pan-Yoruba summit in which a thorough discussion of the challenges of the Yoruba in present day Nigeria is hashed out is the first item in the strategy toolkit.

    What should be the role of Egbe Omo Yoruba North America in this? As the foremost Yoruba organization in this hemisphere, EOYNA must take the lead in reaching out to all stakeholders. It is heartening that the leadership of the Egbe is doing just this, and this 2021 Summit, bringing on some of the leaders of major home-based organizations, is another major step in the right direction.

    Be aware, however, that you may aim for the moon of external self-determination but end up among the stars of internal self-determination. That is success. Grab it with head high up and the swagger of a victor.

     

  • Nigeria @ 61

    By Segun Gbadegesin

    A nation is not a human being. But there’s basis for comparison. A nation is made up of human beings. Human drivers steer its wheels. Most importantly, like human beings with organs which interact to keep them alive, a nation has its own organs, including institutions and laws and mores, which, in their ebb and flow, give direction for individual conduct and social happiness or the opposite.

    Now, no human being crawls at 61 unless they have health challenges. Therefore, we shouldn’t expect a nation to crawl at 61. Rather, we expect a serious nation, imbued with a sense of mission on behalf of its citizenry, to stand erect and walk, nay, run, while others walk, as Julius Nyerere famously charged newly independent African countries more than sixty years ago.

    What has happened since the 60s to Africa in general, and Nigeria in particular is an incredible loss of opportunity. We started with a clear sense of what it would take for us to stand in brotherhood despite the diversity of “tribe and tongue”. We would have a federation that allows regions to experience development at their pace and enjoy the autonomy to excel. And it was working. Our development strategy was a success. With a laser focus on human development, regions reaped the rewards of their investment. Then, human nature set in with bickering and envy of success as agents. And conspiracy destroyed the progress.

    Suddenly hell broke loose and we stopped running. As if hit by a thunder bolt, the nation suffered a terrible crippling disease and since then we haven’t grown out of crawling. You ask “how?”

    A nation whose development indices are this abysmal, whose development strides lag behind its peers’, crawls at best or, at worst, is in an inexplicable sleep mode. This, unfortunately, has been our lot for a long time. Our Human Development Index is embarrassingly below even our resource-poor neighbors such as Ghana, talk less of little Botswana, a global star of development whose achievement in good governance and development have overshadowed its sleeping giant brother. Yet we, or rather, leaders who voluntarily take up the responsibility of leadership, don’t appear worried or embarrassed.

    What has been most tragic of all our negatives is how we abandon our responsibility for the future of the children and youth of the republic. We have a reproduction rate that is way above global average but irresponsibly choose not to plan for their wellbeing. Millions are thrown into the world to beg for survival under the guise of religious ritual which, thankfully, the head of the Supreme Council on Islamic Affairs has pooh-poohed as unIslamic. Millions more are abandoned to the world to fend for themselves and, unsurprisingly, end up in cults and gangs. Yet we have leaders who themselves enjoyed the best education system growing up, now faking helplessness in the midst of a failing education system.

    But none of this is new, and life goes on as individuals, out of a strong will to survive, trudge on, despite the intense hostility of the cards stacked against them. And leaders, across jurisdictions, both at the executive and legislative levels, rake in billions from the national coffers to support their lifestyles of vain and vanity. And they do it with a straight face and a warped conscience!

    More damningly serious, however, a nation crawls when it is unsure of its identity. When it is shackled by pervasive mistrust and disaffection. When its multiple constituencies are alienated and unable to make consensus work on important matters of state survival. With regard to all these, Nigeria still crawls.

    It remains true that the British colonizers did a lot of havoc sowing discordant distrust among us. They didn’t want a truly united country knowing what that meant for their continuing exploration of their erstwhile colony. It was in their self-interest to see us crawl in perpetuity and they worked towards that outcome. So, they left behind a lopsided federation, with half the population feeling unfairly cheated.

    But if failure was the British wish for us, should we also wish failure for ourselves? Isn’t it contrary to self-interest to deliberately proceed on the same course that our detractors uncaringly set for us because they want us to fail? If we truly share a consensus on the urgency of the need for unity in diversity, can it be achieved if every section insists on having its way at the expense of others, using advantage of numbers to always get what it wants? And what should it expect of others? To roll over because, well, that’s what their lot is?

    This is one of the reasons the Constitution provides for the principle of federal character in appointments and quota in admissions to federal institutions. But while this is the constitutional norm, and we have followed it to the letter since 1979, we do not shy away from flouting it when it suits us. Defense appointments have been made without attention to federal character and we justify this by appeal to merit and/or seniority which, in our thinking, must not be overridden in favor of quota. It is always a case of heads we win, tails you lose. Yet, we expect others to acquiesce in and roll over. Is that how it works?

    A good-faith effort toward planting and sustaining the tree of unity in diversity and enjoying its sweet fruits would include a deliberate attempt on the part of all to create a sense of belonging. In some other climes with our demographics, this has been achieved through a constitutional provision for power sharing. It is easy to assert the frivolous claim that democracy is a game of numbers. Sure it is. But there is more to a working and successful democracy especially in the context of multiple ethnicities, nationalities and religions.

    Beside the crucial need for true federal structures, there must be balancing of powers and interests. If you just had a federal structure with states and regions coinciding with ethnic and nationality lines, but the center had all the resources under its control, you wouldn’t have solved the problem without an adequate power sharing and power rotation formula. To think otherwise is to betray a telling lack of seriousness or hypocrisy about unity.

    The back and forth between Southern and Northern Governors’ Forums on this matter is quite unfortunate. If our state chief executives can be so far apart in a matter that strikes at the core of our national unity, it is unclear to me what hope there is for ordinary citizens to have a meeting of minds. It is also true, of course, that citizen concerns filter directly to the Chief Executives and they in turn echo the concerns of their residents.

    Our chief executives who should frontline efforts toward achieving unity in diversity are shirking the responsibility that fate places on them. One side insists on restructuring. The other side disagrees, objecting that there is no provision for restructuring in the constitution. One side says without power rotation there can be neither justice nor peace. The other says power rotation is unconstitutional. I expect, however, that they rise to the occasion as a group of serious thinkers and doers. Rather than shoot out arrows from their distant corners, let them deliberate on this matter of national concern in their common boardroom at the Nigerian Governors Forum.

    Beyond the heightening of tension and the proverbial heating of the polity, is there any hope for a reconciliation of views? Where there is will, there is a way. It all boils down to whether or not we still share the dream of a united country which doesn’t just pay lip service to unity in diversity but also works hard to achieve it for the ultimate development of human and material resources. If we do, we would not insist on simple majority rule as the only defining mark of democracy. And we would come to a meeting of minds on what else to add, including restructuring and power sharing, to avoid a perpetually unhappy minority. It’s a no brainer.

    Happy 61st Birthday, Nigeria! Arise and shine!

     

  • Dignity and death

    By Segun Gbadegesin

    Senator Olabiyi Durojaiye lived with dignity. He carried himself with dignity. To see him was to see dignity personified. At 88, he lived long going by the standard of our clime. And crowning a life well-lived, he died with his dignity intact. What else do we demand of a human being born to die? As David of old prayed, let me die the death of the righteous, that my end may be like his.

    But what is it about dignity that we should be mindful of it? Is it a character trait or a human trait? What makes it commendable and respectable? A common characterization is that dignity is a state or quality of being worthy of respect. But this just kicks the definitional can one inch further. What is it to be worthy of respect?

    For philosopher Kant, to answer this last question, we needn’t go further than to identify the humanity in a person. Simply put, the humanity in us is what is worthy of respect. It is in this sense that every human being is an object of respect and must be valued for their own sake. It is what grounds our equality. In other words, being human is having dignity, and having dignity is worthy of respect. This is one of the liberal, populist sides of Kant. Let us call this Dignity1.

    If we have a simple interpretation of the foregoing Kantian philosophy, it would appear that dignity isn’t an evaluative concept. If everyone has it by reason of being human, then why commend anyone for having it? The answer is that not everyone displays it. Not everyone carries themselves with the dignity that characterizes them as humans. For many, unfortunately, are depraved and bereft of character.

    Our use of language validates the distinction that I am drawing here. As I remark above with respect to Senator Durojaiye, we talk about “carrying oneself with dignity” or “behaving with dignity.” This shouldn’t be hard to distil. In view of our other gift of free will, what we have by nature can be suppressed by choice. Thus, many choose the life of undignified animals in their daily choices while a few choose the life that is designed for them, the life of dignity. Let us call this Dignity2.

    Incidentally, Kant doesn’t give such animals in human clothing a pass. While he urges that everyone be treated with equality, he also insists that one way to respect the depraved among us is to give them their due, that is, the punishment for their crimes, including the death penalty, if warranted. To do less is to disrespect them as human beings with dignity, that is, Dignity1. If we all have Dignity1, not all of us have Dignity2. Senator Durojaiye had both in overflowing abundance, and with it, he impacted many lives.

    That Senator Olabiyi Durojaiye chose the life of dignity and self-respect, which he carried to the end is evident in his life’s works and in the relationships that he nurtured on this terrestrial globe. A man of principle, he stood tall, literally and figuratively, among his peers both in the private sector and in public service.

    The first signal to a potential life of dignity in a human being is their approach to the remaking of self through education. In their spirituality, our ancestors knew this much: we are made to remake ourselves. This is the purpose of education, whether formal or informal. We are expected to invest time and resources in learning. Senator Durojaiye remade himself and never stopped doing so even in his old age. With a BSc. Economics in hand, he went on to acquire the LLB, BL. Still yearning for learning, he trained at Kuru and became a Member of the National Institute, mni. He was also a member of the National Institute of Management, MNIM. He also had further training with the IMF and Federal Reserve of the United States.

    Of course, while the acquisition of knowledge is good in itself, in the context of a developing country like ours, the application of such knowledge for the advancement of the common good is more important. To his eternal credit, Senator Durojaiye deployed his fierce intellect to the pursuit of the advancement of the common good in the various positions he held.

    Read Also: PMB’s Imo visit as opportunity for peace and rapprochement

    For 28 years out of the 35 years that the late Senator served in the public sector, he was a top Director of the Central Bank of Nigeria and the National Mint. He served without blemish, without scandal, and with utmost integrity. He retired in glory.

    But a life of service cannot be tired of public service. Thus, Senator Durojaiye saw a need for honest patriots to serve fatherland with dignity, he threw his hat in the ring of national politics, first as a member of the 1989 Constituent Assembly, and as a candidate for the presidency in the 1992 SDP primary campaign.

    Armed with principle and a record of dignified service with integrity, he didn’t mind the presence of heavy weights and money bags in the contest for the nomination. He ran his campaign and accepted the results which favored Chief M.K.O. Abiola as the party nominee. It was the aftermath of that campaign however that demonstrated the evergreen asset of dignity as a human trait. Senator Durojaiye not only stood with the party and the nominee throughout the campaign for the general election, he also proved a dependable ally in the aftermath of the annulment.

    A founding member of NADECO, Senator Durojaiye suffered deprivation and hardship as he was hounded into detention for 560 days on trumped-up charges in the darkest days of the Abacha junta. And he didn’t betray the cause. He didn’t play a Judas. He served his unjust sentence with dignity until the God of justice vindicated him and others. He got out undaunted and, without bitterness, he volunteered to serve more.

    At an Egbe Omo Yoruba, North America event in late 1998, Senator Durojaiye spoke passionately about his belief in public service despite the heavy price he had been forced to pay. He urged his young audience to keep the faith for the future is on the side of the unrelenting. He was elected Senator of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in 1999 and served for four years until 2003. He was appointed Chairman of the National Communications Commission in 2016 and served till 2019. In every role he played and in every office he held, Senator Durojaiye was an exemplar of dignity and integrity.

    Even his post-public service life had not been idle as he was actively engaged in contributions to public discourse on the future of Nigeria. In a 9-page Memorandum to the Senate Committee on the Review of the 1999 Constitution, which he kindly shared with me in May this year, Senator Durojaiye made brilliant submissions consistent with his progressive principles. He boldly called on the nation to ‘jettison the 1999 Constitution crafted by the Military in the borrowed gown of “WE THE PEOPLE” and revive a truly FEDERAL CONSTITUTION which our political founding fathers painstakingly agreed to after a series of constitutional conference in Nigeria and Britain (Lancaster House) between 1956 and 1960!’ (emphasis in the original).

    For him the beauty of the 1960 constitution, which still attracts many elders and youths to it, is its exemplification of a true federal system with fiscal federalism based on the derivation principle as its defining mark. And he urged the regrouping or restructuring of the 36 states to 6 regions, in which “every region will be wide enough to cover old and new areas of agricultural, mineral, modern digital resources/huge sources of revenue for all the federating regions of the country.”

    Senator Durojaiye left behind an outstanding legacy of thoughtfulness and diligence in public service. If you are a decent human being, you just would love this distinguished elder statesman who has now exited this world of indecency. His children and grandchildren have a proud heritage worthy of preservation and promotion. Ka rin gbedegbede, ka lee ku pelepele, komo eni lee fowo gbogboro gbe ni sin. His memory is blessed.

     

     

  • Islam’s Charter with Christianity

    By Femi Abbas

    Monologue

    Of all the causes of human restlessness and, even war, none is as dangerous as religion. This is because religion is mostly a fixation of mind with little room for flexibility. The danger often engendered by religion becomes worse when religion is commercialized and tied to materialism as in the case of Nigeria where competition, especially between Islam and Christianity has virtually become a tacit symbol of enmity.

    Preamble

    Islam and Christianity are not the only religions in any part of the world. But because of certain similarities between them, some traits of artificial rivalry seem to have characterized their coexistence especially in Nigeria where religion has been turned into a mega market for certain merchants of faith who are claiming to be clerical leaders. If money is removed from religion today, there will be nothing called religion in our country. And, that will surely reduce spiritual restlessness to its lowest ebb.

     

    The Role of History

    History, being the permanent teacher of mankind, can never cease to play  the role of a reference point in human life. The historic charter which Prophet Muhammad (SAW) led his noble companions to sign with some Christian leaders in the 7th century is a vivid reminder of the role which history plays in the life of man.

    Perhaps no man in history preceded Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in recognizing this fact in history.

    In recognition of Prophet Isa (Jesus) the son of Maryam (Mary) as his predecessor and fellow Apostle, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) signed a charter with some Christian leaders in 628 CE and the charter remains valid, in principle, till today. The signing of that charter by Allah’s anchor Prophet was also a clear indication that Islam recognises the authenticity of the mission of Jesus as a continuation of Allah’s divine religion earlier preached by Prophet Ibrahim (Abraham).

    How it happened

    In the year 628 CE, a Christian delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery travelled to the city of Madinah, to meet Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and seek from him, protection of the Islamic government under his command. That was four years before the demise of Prophet Muhammad. The objective of that delegation was to solicit for the protection of the Islamic government as an assurance for the security of the the Christians against the aggression of the then Persian Empire.

    (St. Catherine’s Monastery is the world’s oldest Monastery located at the foot of Mt. Sinai which has a huge collection of Christian manuscripts second only to those of the Vatican City and, it is known as a world heritage site).

    The Charter

    In response to the request of the above mentioned delegation, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) granted them a written charter of rights, the very first of its type in religious sphere, in history. The contents of that charter are as follows:

    “This is a message from Muhammad the son of Abdullah serving as a covenant to those who adopt Christianity, near and far, that we (Muslims) are with them. Verily, I and all the servants of Allah, as well as the helpers of Islam (ie: the hosts of Prophet Muhammad in Madinah) hereby make promise to defend Christians because they are my citizens and by God, I stand out against anything that displeases them. No compulsion is to be on them (concerning their way of worship). Neither are their judges to be removed from their jobs nor their monks from their monasteries. No one should destroy a house of their religion or damage it or loot it. Whoever violates this charter has breached Allah’s covenant with mankind and disobeyed His Apostle.

    Verily, Christians are my allies and have my secure charter against all they hate. No one should force them to fight for a course in which they have no belief or compel them to migrate against their wish.

    Neither is the sacredness of their covenant to be violated nor their Monasteries to be disrespected. And, if any damage should happen to their Monasteries by chance, they must not be prevented from repairing them. No Muslim should disobey this charter till the Last Day (end of the world)”.

    Before the Charter

    Prior to the charter mentioned above, several verses of the Qur’an had been revealed to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) acknowledging the divine mission of all the Prophets preceding him (Muhammad (SAW) including that of Jesus the son of Mary. And, because of those Qur’anic revelations, no Muslim can claim to be a true believer in Islam without accepting Prophet Isa (Jesus), the son of Mary, as well as other Prophets ordained as Apostles of Allah. One of those Qur’anic revelations states as follows:

    “The Apostle of Allah (Muhammad SAW) believes in what was revealed to him and so do the entire Muslim faithful. Every one of them believes in Allah, His Angels, His Books and His Apostles. We do not discriminate against any of His Apostles. They say “we hear and we obey (the laws brought by those Apostles). Grant us Your forgiveness Oh Lord! To you we shall all return….” (Q. 2: 285).

    Brethren in Faith

    The above charter shows that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) recognized a bond of brotherhood in faith between Muslims and Christians and that none of them should fight against the other (physically or psychologically) for the reason of differences in their modes of worship. And, by validating the charter till the great Day of Judgment, the Prophet had precluded any future attempt to revoke the privileges contained in that charter by any nation, group or individuals.

    Implications of the Charter

    By implication, the inalienability of the privileges contained in the above charter remain irreversible from the primordial time to the contemporary time. Besides, one remarkable aspect of the charter is that it did not stipulate any condition for Christians to enjoy those privileges. It is because of that unprecedented charter that Muslims, all over the world, neither malign the personality of Jesus nor subject Christianity to mockery as a while preaching Islam, as some Christians do with impunity in various parts of the world.

     

    Reciprocation

    Believing that being followers of Jesus Christ was enough a condition to enjoy the privileges contained in the above charter, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) assumed that the Christians, would also be civilized enough to reciprocate that unprecedented gesture whenever and wherever they coexist with Muslims, not only by tolerating the latter’s mode of worship and way of life, but also by refraining from any naked or avowed act of provocation or disdain against them, which could precipitate a religious rancour. Another noticeable aspect of the charter is the Prophet’s silence on any payment by the protectorate Christians which was the general norm among nations in those days.

    Thus, that ‘Charter of Rights’ was a free gift. And from it the reason becomes clear why the Islamic State under the command of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) or any of his rightly guided companions who became Caliphs after his demise never crossed swords with any Christian group or nation throughout their regimes. If any wars like those of the crusades ever broke out centuries later between Christians and Muslims such could only be attributed either to a breach of the charter by ignorant adherents of both religions. And, that does not have anything to do with the tenets of the two religions.

     

    Upholding the Charter

    In upholding that charter, the second Caliph in Islam, Umar Bn Khattab, refused to observe Muslim prayer (Salat) inside the Church of Jerusalem when he visited the area, following the liberation of that region by the Islamic State from the Persian Empire in which Zoroastrianism (worshiping of fire) was the religion. On that historic occasion, the Church of Jerusalem had been cleared by Muslim soldiers for the observance of Salat which Caliph Umar, as Head of State, was to lead. But when he was invited to lead the Salat, he simply declined and rather ordered the soldiers to find another place for Salat and keep the Church intact for the Christians to worship therein in their own way. He said he would not do what Prophet Muhammad (SAW) had prohibited before his demise. He then warned the Muslims who accompanied him never to convert Churches to Mosques for that would amount to religious aggression which was capable of breaching the Prophet’s charter with Christians.

     

    Prophetic Revelation

    Before the Prophet’s migration from Makkah to Madinah, in 622 CE, a Qur’anic revelation came to him in 616 CE  confirming the brotherhood of Islam and Christianity. That revelation which formed a whole chapter in the Qur’an was entitled ‘The Chapter of Rome’. It reads thus:

    “Rome, (the nation of the Christian Greeks) has been defeated in a neighbouring land. But after their defeat, they shall (themselves) gain victory within a few years. Allah is the Supreme Commander before and after. On that day (when they become victorious), the believers (Muslims and Christians) will rejoice in Allah’s help.

    Allah gives victory to whoever He wills. He is Mighty and Merciful. That is Allah’s promise; He never reneges on His promise” (Q. 30: 1-5).

    And true to that divine revelation, the Roman Empire surprisingly defeated the Persian Empire to the ecstasy of the Muslims just nine years after it was revealed. Besides, it will be recalled that the name of Jesus Christ is mentioned more than 37 times in the Glorious Qur’an giving more details of his birth and disappearance rather than crucifixion. Also a whole chapter of the Qur’an is dedicated to Mary the mother of Jesus confirming her chastity and the miraculous birth of Jesus. It is only in the Qur’an that the report of how Jesus spoke as an infant was revealed. That chapter is called ‘The Chapter of Maryam (Mary). How else can the unity of religious mission from the unity of God be confirmed?

     

    Conclusion

    The doctrine of one God one mission purportedly shared in the world today by three religions (Judaism, Christianity and Islam) cannot be from the same perception. Each of these religions has its own revealed Book and their adherents practice their faiths according to the doctrines contained in those Books. It will therefore be wrong of the adherents of one particular religion to adjudge those of others as deviants or infidels who must be exterminated.

    Religion is like an examination. Those who sit down to write it with blue ink pen must not turn themselves into examiners using red ink pen to mark it. Paradise is Allah’s own domain. He admits whoever He wishes into it. And this is done not necessarily by sheer mortal charlatans’ recommendation. Only the Almighty Allah who chose our parents for us without our knowledge or input before we came into this world and, who knows where each of us would finally be buried, has the final say on everybody’s destination. If the truth must be told, the real cause of religious conflicts in Nigeria is not intolerance as often hypocritically claimed by some people but greedy provocation emanating from avarice in the guise of religion. Nigerian press is particularly guilty of this by fueling such provocations. It is wrong to expect that tolerance would thrive in a society where provocation and injustice refuse to abate. Propagating a religion by denigrating another religion is an act of satanic provocation. And those who want peace to prevail in Nigeria must desist from such intolerable act.

  • 20 years after 9/11

    By Segun Gbadegesin

    Consider the following propositions:

    1. Every nation-state or people has a right to freedom and protection from unprovoked attack by other states or non-state actors.
    2. Any nation that violates proposition 1 by attacking another nation or serving as a sanctuary for non-state actors who violate this principle forfeits the right to freedom and protection asserted in 1.
    3. A people or nation-state that suffers an attack from a state or non-state actor based in another state may exercise its right of self-defence by attacking that state or non-state actor to prevent further attacks from its territory.
    4. The right of self-defence does not confer on the victim a right of occupation in perpetuity provided the danger of further attack from the aggressor is reasonably eliminated.

    These are arguably self-evident principles which unfortunately have not always been observed or respected by the world community, with disastrous consequences for all. Indeed, these propositions are variously acknowledged in the Charter of the United Nations.

    Thus, the first of the ends or aims of the United Nations is “to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours”, a nod to proposition 1, while Article 2 paragraph 4 enjoins member nations to “refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state…” Where this principle is violated, the organization reserves the right to take “preventive or enforcement action.” And Article 5 assures that a Member “against which preventive action has been taken by the Security Council may be suspended from the exercise of the rights and privileges of membership by the General Assembly…”

    Finally, the right of self defence is acknowledged in Article 51: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures to maintain international peace and security.” Needless to add, the United Nations Charter is itself derived from the fundamental principles of morality that are at the very foundation of our humanity.

    It may be justifiably argued that the Western world has itself not always been a good steward of these fundamental moral principles. While some member states had been implicated in unprovoked attacks on innocent people, others have been complicit and have compromised their integrity in dealing with culprits. While this is true and we cannot whitewash infractions of principles, it is also true that two wrongs don’t make a right. And before the world is turned into a Hobbesian state of nature, it is time nations joined hands again in paying adequate respect to these principles.

    Twenty years ago tomorrow was a day of brazen unprovoked violation of proposition 1 above on a global scale by Al Qaeda, a terrorist organization which had been sheltered by the Taliban government in Afghanistan. And the world changed, and normalcy has been a mirage ever since. The culmination of that terrible day was the chaos that accompanied the withdrawal of American troops from Afghanistan on August 31, 2021.

    The withdrawal of troops was a fulfilment of President Joe Biden’s campaign promise to end the longest war in the history of the United States. It was also an affirmation of proposition 4 above, a principle that is both moral and prudential. It is moral in the sense that it is unjustifiable for any country to perpetually occupy another if it has assured itself that it has reasonably eliminated the threat from that nation.

    On the other hand, perpetual occupation of Afghanistan is not in the self-interest of the United States. It cannot win a guerrilla warfare that Taliban forces have perfected. It cannot afford to spend trillions of dollars to prop a corrupt administration in an effort to nurture democracy in a country that is averse to democratic culture. And it cannot afford to continuously lose its young men and women in a war that appears to have no end in sight.

    Many commentators, including Afghans and Republicans, who criticize the Biden administration have either been unfamiliar with the issues or are simply mischievous. Former President Trump had a deal with the Taliban to withdraw troops by May 2021. He had a deal to release 5000 Taliban members from jail. He knew that they were going to take over the Afghan government. He knew that the government that the US was propping was corrupt and ineffective.

    How is it explicable that after 20 years of training and equipping Afghan military with sophisticated weapons, the 300,000-strong force just collapsed like a pack of cards to a 75,000 Taliban force? Or how can it be explained that the Afghan President himself fled the country, allegedly in an aircraft packed with dollars? And many of the fleeing soldiers fled with military aircrafts to their various destinations? This cannot be the conduct of true patriots who share commitment to the good of their nation.

    With such acts of betrayal by trained forces and elected officials, the Taliban faced no resistance and simply took over on a platter of gold. What can Biden do? The chaos at the airport couldn’t have been avoided as the Vietnam evacuation experience also confirmed.

    However, there is a nagging question pursuant to proposition 4 above. In defence of his position, Biden has argued that the war should have been ended long before 2021. He probably wouldn’t have extended troop presence in Afghanistan in 2016 when President Obama did. Was that a right decision?

    No president wants to lose a war. And in this case, it was clear that much was at stake, including what eventually happened, namely the return of the Taliban with the potential for another terrorist group setting up shop in the country. But the prospect of that potential could be a trap. Biden thinks it has been for the last twenty years. As far as he was concerned, the US accomplished its mission when Bin Laden was killed and Al Qaeda was decimated. It was an opportunity to withdraw and focus on counter-terrorism measures to prevent any further attacks against the homeland.  Instead, various administrations engaged in nation-building. Is President Biden right?

    Terrorism is the use of violence and terror to achieve political change. This is true of religious terrorists as it is of freedom fighters. The purpose is political. ISIS, Al Qaeda, and Boko Haram all want to have a Caliphate that they control. Boko Haram once insisted that no non-Moslems will be allowed to rule their fold. But they also discriminate between their version of Islam and those they reject. No members of other Moslem sects are also to be trusted to rule over them.

    But there can never be a moral justification for terrorism, which unlike conventional war, makes no distinction against morally justifiable and unjustifiable targets of violent actions. When Boko Haram gang of terrorists send innocent girls and young boys on suicide bombing missions, we cannot assume that those young people know or fully understand what they are being asked to do. They are indoctrinated into believing that they are going to paradise where virgins await them as compensation. A vulgar spirituality! They die and they kill others who have nothing to do with whatever the grievances of the gang might be. And they’ll rot in hell.

    African nations cannot afford the devastation, dislocations, and the psychological trauma that terrorism is inflicting worldwide. This is why it is important for them to combine their forces to defeat it and erase it from the face of the continent. This is supposed to be Africa’s century. It is its take-off time. It cannot afford to be pulled down by the weight of terror.

    President Biden has an opportunity to make a case for a global action against terrorism, knowing that the United States is still a prime target of global terrorism no matter where it is based, whether in the backwoods of Africa or the Middle East. 20 years after 9/11, we cannot assume that it can never happen again. The Taliban just came back. Is Al Qaeda next?

  • COVID sense

    COVID sense

    About a month ago on August 6, in the column titled “Different Strokes”, our focus was on the different attitudes to COVID-19 in God’s Own Country. As we observed, in the name of personal freedom, many were willing to die an unnecessary death. Even with the scientific breakthrough of a record-time vaccine success that a right-wing President facilitated, many right wingers still found vaccine mandate an objectionable intrusion into their private lives. And they won’t volunteer to get the shots because they are contemptuous of science.

    Of course, a fourth wave emerged with a fury. Many anti-vaxxers end up intubated with ventilators in packed ICUs. Some express regret but it’s too late. And not unlike the regretful rich man roasting in hell, as they face impending death, some send desperate messages to their loved ones to get “the damned vaccine.” Among them are pastors, radio talk show hosts, three of whom have died in the last month alone, and ordinary folks led astray by leaders who should know better. Among those who are offered the grace of a second chance is a Baptist pastor who, fortunately, learnt his lesson and is now preaching the gospel of vaccination to his congregants.

    That is in a country with enormous material and human resources to fight this pandemic to death. But, hey, freedom can intoxicate. We ended that column by pivoting to our own situation with the following words:

    “Back to our clime where we don’t have the luxury of available vaccines. What should be our attitude to the escalating incidence of the virus? The elders advise the motherless to avoid sustaining injury to their back. That is because without a mother, they don’t have the certainty of nursing a back wound. That is our situation. With no adequate hospital facilities, with a dearth of medical professionals, and knowing well that rich nations would rather keep their surplus vaccines for their reluctant citizens, shouldn’t we wisely embrace preventive measures? Why do we go about as if there is no fire on our roof? Why tempt God? Why allow the vicious prediction of bodies on African streets to be self-fulfilling? Beats me hollow!”

    We doubtless now have a new worrisome surge of cases. The evidence is out there in recent obituary announcements. And while we hear only about prominent citizens, there is little doubt that many more cases go unknown and unannounced. The reported cases are also much higher in number now than at this time last year. Of course, without mass testing, we can’t really know the extent of the cases at any time. Yet, about this time last year, experts and opinion writers were pleasantly surprised about how Africa had appeared to manage the pandemic response so well that just few cases and deaths were recorded contrary to earlier predictions of bodies on the streets of Africa. There were theories about such a success story.

    Thus, Anne Soy, a BBC Senior Africa Correspondent, suggested five reasons “why Covid-19 has been less deadly (in Africa) than elsewhere.” Her first two reasons were “quick action” on the part of governments and leaders with some instituting precautionary measures even before a single case showed up in their countries, and “public support” for public health measures, with people wearing masks and observing social distancing voluntarily. Restrictions on economic activities were taken in good faith even though these cost a lot of pain despite relief measures.

    Soy also cited favorable demography which includes a comparatively larger youth population “with a median age bracket of 19 years” whereas most deaths from the earliest variants of Covid-19 were in the older populations many of whom end up in nursing homes in Western countries, and therefore more vulnerable to infectious diseases such as Covid-19. In Africa, however, rural communities with sparse populations are home to the older populations, and this shields them from mass infections.

    The fourth of Soy’s reasons was African warm climate and high humidity because Covid-19 “spreads better when temperature and humidity drop.” As she observes, African countries away from the tropics have been worse off.” And her final reason was “good community health systems.” And here commendation is due to our hard-working and knowledgeable community health experts at federal and state levels. Lagos State excelled in the management of information as well as in an all-out effort to curtail the spread of the disease once the first case was discovered. Soy acknowledged the experience of health experts in dealing with such infectious diseases as Ebola, measles and polio as an invaluable asset in the onslaught of Covid-19.

    It is instructive that Anne Soy ended her article which had appeared in October 2020, in the following words: “But all this doesn’t mean that people in Africa can afford to relax.” Unfortunately that is what we have done. Hence the new surge!

    We indulge in careless behavior. Politicians host large gatherings of supporters with little or no thought about consequences for public health. But even without large events, the disease can and has been spreading simply because we have given up on the very sensible precautions that we embraced at its onset. Masking has been all but abandoned completely. Folks who recently visited the country returned with tales of the carefree attitude in the matter of health. They’d be picked up by Uber drivers who would mock them for putting on masks! Thankfully, many such visitors received their full vaccination before departing the US.

    We had few cases in 2020 in part because of the reasons listed by Soy in her article. But we must not forget the other part. We were dealing with a new coronavirus which had not had a chance of mutating. Since then however we’ve had several variants with the now dominant variant being Delta. And some of the advantages that Africa had with the original Covid-19 appears to be no more. This includes especially the young population which is now quite heavily impacted by the Delta variant.

    While we can still count on public health experts to give responsive leadership as they’ve always done, we must also call on political leaders and the general public to do their part. Vaccines are effective and efficacious even against the dreaded Delta variant and it is incumbent on political leaders to come up with a plan to get Nigerians vaccinated. We cannot continue to depend on the large heart of donor countries or organizations. We are a sovereign nation with a responsibility for the health of our people. Whatever it takes must be done to get shots into the arms of Nigerians without discrimination.

    Of course, reality stares us in the face. Vaccines will not be available for everyone tomorrow or even in the next three months. That is the truth. Therefore, political leaders must avoid the grossly irresponsible and oppressive political stunt of issuing vaccine mandates when vaccines are not available for everyone. From experience, we know that such political gimmicks only end up hurting the poor and helpless.

    Importantly, individuals and groups with leadership roles must now mobilise precautionary resources. Testing must be reinstated and contact tracing must follow every positive test. Make masks available in all churches and mosques. Ensure that the NURTW cooperates on mask mandates for public transporters and commuters. States and local governments have a moral duty to educate the public and provide resources to implement health mandates.

    Let us not fall for the myth that Covid-19 is a disease of the rich and wealthy. It doesn’t spare the poor and needy. It doesn’t discriminate between old and young, men and women. While some are more vulnerable because they have preexisting conditions which affect their immune system, many healthy individuals have succumbed to the disease and are no more. But we know that it is preventable if we follow proven health precautions.

    Yes, God is our refuge and strength. But God doesn’t want us to test him as even his beloved son clearly understood. And God helps only those who help themselves. Helping ourselves through these tough times of public health emergency requires the cooperation of everyone. Let’s apply COVID sense and practice health safety measures.

     

     

  • ALBC @ 25

    ALBC @ 25

    Following the Master who chastised Satan, reminding him that man is not made for bread alone, and who escaped the Pharisees’ trap, advising them to give unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s, we give due attention to the things of God today. We are both material and spiritual beings, made in the image of God. And while politics matters a lot because of its strong hold over our earthly affairs, the spiritual still reigns supreme, soaring over material obstacles, for those who believe. I do.

    For more than thirty years in my beautiful land of sojourn, I have been involved, with people of like minds, in building and nurturing institutions and in activities that prioritize justice and good governance in our land of origin. From Egbe Isokan Yoruba in Washington, DC, to Egbe Omo Yoruba in North America, and World Congress of Free Nigerians across the globe, enormous sacrifices were made for the cause of justice and democratic reform. Ordinary folks, struggling for survival in a foreign land, found the time and resources to combat tyranny and oppression in their homeland.

    Of course, though we were all on the same page with the justice of our cause, we did not always agree on the options we had or on the means to achieve our goals. There were advocates for a united Nigeria devoid of military dictatorship. There were also skeptics about Project Nigeria, especially in view of what happened post-June 12. Interestingly, some of the current arrowheads of “Yoruba Nation Now” agitation were silent onlookers at that time.

    This brief rehash of recent history is to make a point. Human beings are complex creatures, sharing in the material and the spiritual. But while both are purposive endeavors, I have come to realize that the spiritual is ultimately more rewarding, not just in the afterlife, but even in the here and now. Coming to this realization in my own experience is what I need to understand the passion of our people in respect of the matters of the spirit. Intellectuals may find it puzzling. But Paul saw through that puzzle: the wisdom of this world is foolishness to God…He traps the wise in the snare of their own cleverness.

    Read Also: Lagos records 10 virus-related deaths

    Politics is the craft of the clever or those who think that they are clever. You may start out with them on the grand goal and foundational principles. But don’t rule out being disappointed when individuals with ambition abandon the shared principles. Depending on them is a sure way to heartache.

    The shared goal of the spiritual is different and lofty.  The ultimate is making the kingdom of God, whatever your material lot on earth is. “Seek ye first the kingdom of heaven, and all other things shall be added unto you.” You are either on the path to making heaven or you are not. For those who would rather not lose their soul even as they gain the whole world, the choice is clear.

    A passionate focus on heavenly kingdom unites people of faith. But in the process of their search for their ultimate prize, they must satisfy some conditions. What are those conditions? Answering this question asked by a young aspirer, the Master simplified the old commandments into a sentence: Love your neighbor as yourself and love your God with all your heart.

    Love, trustworthiness, fairness in dealing with one another is what makes the difference between a focus that prioritizes politics and one that prioritizes matters of the spirit. I have seen this upfront as I navigate both worlds. And the institution of the spirit with which I have been involved in the last 25 years, which has reassured me of this reality is Alafia Baptist Church, Mt. Rainier, Maryland, USA (ALBC), which just celebrated its 25th anniversary as a body of Christ.

    In mid-1996, in the thick of political struggle, a humble servant of God, Rev. Joel Olusina Ojelade, accompanied by another man of God, Deacon David Oriola, approached me on a matter that God had laid on his mind. He had a vision to start a congregation of Nigerian Baptists in the Washington metro area. Both were trained in the Baptist tradition. Rev. Ojelade had been a fixture of the struggle as a staunch member of Egbe Isokan Yoruba. And both are originally from my neck of the wood.

    Washington metro area has a sizable number of Nigerian immigrants who are proud of their Baptist heritage and desirous of sustaining it and bringing up their children in the tradition. While some have found their spiritual homes in other denominations, many have either given up on church altogether or have been noncommittal in their denominational choices. Rev. Ojelade reached out to both groups and succeeded in getting some of them to commit to the new congregation.

    On August 11, 1996, 25 worshippers attended the first service in a rented space at United Methodist Church, Hyattsville, Maryland. It was the beginning of what has turned out to be a loving relationship among some of the most spiritually endowed people I have had the fortune of meeting. Rev. Ojelade made enormous sacrifices so the new congregation can grow physically and spiritually. Combining his day-job with the ministry, he used his resources without asking for reimbursement. And for the entirety of his service prior to his retirement this week, he was only on a stipend. It is a mark of the sacrifice that Christ demanded and modeled.

    What is pleasantly reassuring about ALBC members is their love for their fellow congregants. Bearing the burden of one another, they rejoice in the achievements of others. And they not just sympathize with those grieving, they mourn as fellow victims of sorrow. The sense of solidarity with one another is a reminder of the early apostles who “steadfast with one accord…., took their food with gladness and singleness of heart, praising God, and having favor with all people.” With this steadfastness and singleness of heart, ALBC has relentlessly pursued its mission of revealing “the purpose of God for life worth living for mankind”, using its “holy fellowship meetings for sustaining God’s peace, love and joy in everyone”.

    Though few in number, members take seriously their mission, bearing witness to the goodness of the Lord. There are no money bags among their number. Some work two or more jobs to make ends meet. Yet, they are faithful to their Master’s injunction of cheerful giving. Thus, within a few years, they bought a sanctuary, and, with total commitment, in another few years, it was paid off. A few years later, again, they bought a land for a new sanctuary.

    More impressive is the number of youngsters who have taken up the challenge and chosen the ministry. A trained pastor has emerged from the rank of the youth. A missionary has been called to serve across the land. A music ministry is developing in earnest. And a church that started as a congregation of oldies is gradually becoming a temple of youths.

    This new trend in the development of ALBC is due to the grace of God in the life of the new ministers taking over from the retiring Rev. Ojelade. Rev. Dr. Kayode and Pst. Mrs. Bisi Opadeji are God-sent. They and their godly children come to ALBC with a fervent desire to work for the Lord. They are dynamic, engaging, and spiritually endowed. With passionate charisma, they have attracted to the congregation a number of brothers and sisters who are eager to work for the Lord.

    Now at 25, ALBC is well-positioned to combine the strength of every member with the power of the Holy Spirit to advance the work of the Kingdom and do exploits for the glory of God. And it all started with the vision of a humble servant of God. As we pray for a happy retirement in sound health for Rev. Joel Ojelade, we invoke the spirit of the Lord to renew the anointing of Rev. Dr. Kayode Opadeji and Pst. Mrs. Bisi Opadeji and strengthen them as the Joshua to lead his people to the Promised Land.

  • Constitution matters (2)

    Constitution matters (2)

    Last week we examined the challenge of self-interest and group-interest parading as national interest in constitution-making. Without prejudice to the rightness or wrongness of secession, we argued that a particular objection against it cannot withstand scrutiny. That unsustainable objection is based on the observation that the constitution has no provision for secession. We argued, among others, that there is also no provision for military takeover of government in the constitution. We also addressed the “big lie” concerning the unanimous consent of citizens to the constitution, recalling the position of many citizens that no such consent was sought or given either in 1979 or 1999.

    The “big lie” is incidentally an acknowledgement of the moral requirement that a people cannot be governed without their consent, directly or indirectly through their elected representatives. We observed that the 1960 constitution satisfied this requirement while the 1979 and 1999 constitutions did not. The philosophical objection to this latest efforts in constitution-making is that they violated the requirement of consent. The question whether any anomalies in this constitution can be corrected by amendment is subject therefore to the resolution of this fundamental flaw of lack of consent.

    Today, we deal with the second argument, which while also making lack of consent its assault weapon, is even more radical and uncompromising in its submission. To get a handle on this argument, let us recall the social contract argument for the state, which posits an imaginary contract of association by which the individuals in a state of nature contracted among themselves to form a political association, giving up their natural rights so they can achieve civil rights in society.

    The imaginary nature of the so-called contract is simply a philosophical device to account for the justification of the state in general. As I have always argued, however, Awolowo’s historical account is more authentic in its capturing of how states historically came about.

    Now, whether it is historical or philosophical, one fundamental objection to the social contract model is that if such a contract binds the original social contractors, it cannot be binding on future generations who were not party to the original contract. John Locke, one of the more progressive theorists of contract, responded that succeeding generations must be assumed to have implicitly given their consent if they choose to remain in the political community. Since they have the option of leaving, and they don’t, then they are bound by the contract of their ancestors.

    Here, of course, Locke deliberately overlooked the challenges of voluntary emigration. Perhaps in a world of open borders, there would be no problem. But many who would leave their homelands in a jiffy must first confront the question “where do I go and which country is ready to take me?” Many of our fellow citizens would agree that this aint easy! But beside the challenge of emigration, there is a more fundamental issue which militates against the Lockean approach to the matter of consent by succeeding generations: Is Locke’s solution really a fair and just one?

    However, the issue of social contract is a more general one than the case of constitution-making and adoption. Can we bring the same argument of the longevity of contract of association to the specific case of constitution making and adoption?

    Thomas Jefferson, one of the founding fathers of the United States, and its third president, cannot be accused of frivolity in thought. At the time of the deliberations over the Constitution, Jefferson was serving as United States Consul to France. There, he rubbed minds with the French intellectual and political class. Away from the rumbles of American politics, he had a lot of time for original thinking on matters of importance to the state. Thanks to his papers, and especially to a recent New York Times opinion column by Jesse Wegman, we know what Jefferson thought about the longevity of constitutions in general, and the American constitution in particular.

    Titled “Thomas Jefferson gave the Constitution 19 years. Look where we are now”, Wegman’s article has a prelude that centers it as “part of a series exploring bold ideas to revitalize and renew the American experiment.” This is all I need to be fascinated with the article. If America needs “bold ideas to revitalize and renew” its experiment, how much more does Nigeria?

    The Wegman article goes on to lament the arduous nature of the constitution amendment process in the US. The country has had 26 amendments since 1789, the last being 50 years ago. The Equal Rights Amendment (ERA), which we all read about in school, passed Congress in 1970 but only picked up the ratification of the 38th state in 2020. Meanwhile, several states that ratified it earlier had rescinded their ratification, and it has exceeded the time limit for states ratification. That ERA amendment is just about as dead. What a cumbersome amendment process!

    Though we modeled our constitution after America’s, and though ours is also a cumbersome process, we are probably not in her league. Here, a ruling party can bulldoze its ways and have states do its bidding especially if it’s an amendment that serves the political interest of federal and state legislators. However, it is noteworthy that Jefferson’s anticipation of such a difficult process of amendment and his insistence on a 19-year life span for a constitution has something to it in light of our own experience.

    Why 19 years? It was Jefferson’s direct response to the fundamental issue that the social contract theory had to deal with. A generation that deliberated on and debated the provisions of a constitution which it eventually adopted, owns the constitution. For Jefferson, that generation must not impose its sacred possession on the next or any future generation. The earth, by his reasoning, belongs to the living, not the dead.

    While some of his contemporaries placed their hope in the use of amendments based on the experience of future generations, Jefferson suggested in a letter to James Madison in 1789 that a constitution “naturally expires at the end of 19 years.” And, for full effect, he argues that “if it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, not of right.”

    What is the basis of this argument? According to Jefferson, “between society and society, or generation and generation, there is no municipal obligation, no umpire but the law of nature … by the law of nature, one generation is to another as one independent nation to another….(Therefore) no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law.”

    What does this Jeffersonian creed mean for the stability of any particular country, including ours? Of course, he didn’t make a headway with his fellow Americans. The United States constitution was ratified in 1788 and has been in operation since 1789, making it the longest surviving written constitution. It is also a credit to the constitution that United States has remained a stable democracy for that long.

    Many would therefore object to Jefferson’s theory on the ground that if we have to be making new constitution every nineteen years, it would create an intolerable instability. This is true. But notice that even with this merit of stability that is accorded the United States constitution, we are also aware that the same constitution has been complicit in the injustice of slavery, Jim Crow, and blatant discrimination against women and minorities. This goes to show that stability isn’t all there is for judging a constitutional democracy.

    My take-away from the Jeffersonian creed is simply that any society, including ours, must be mindful of the limitations of generational linkages, be conscious that the needs of one generation are not necessarily those of another, and, therefore, avoid placing an undue burden of conformity to our own idiosyncrasies on the next generation.

    It is particularly important that we do not limit the potentials of the young age groups and generations by placing on them the unfair burden of sustaining our own prejudices. Where people 60 and above are only a small part of our population, and half of the population are teenagers, our constitution-making efforts should reflect the needs and aspirations of the young.

  • ‘The Beginning of the End’ 2

    ‘The Beginning of the End’ 2

    “Here is the period, in human life, about which we had been carefully admonished through the words of Ubayyi Bn Ka’b and those of Abdullah Bn Mas’ud;

    Here is the predicted era in which the truth (as foretold), would be totally rejected while falsehood and rebellion would be loftily upheld with deceptive glorification;

    Should this period be allowed to linger beyond now, without a positive change, the world could zoom into a stage where the bereaved would rather smile than cry over the demise of a deceased relative and parents would rather cry than rejoice over the birth of a new baby”.      – Arab poet

    Monologue

    In the life of any serious-minded person, every day is a beginning of one end or another. Such an end may be positive or negative, depending on the mode of operating the activities therein, based on the intention of the operator. And, the world continues. But, surely, the impracticable Machiavellian theory of ‘the end justifies the means’ has no moral basis in any environment where the fear of Allah is considered as the climax, rather than the beginning of wisdom.

    Ordinarily, the planned article for publication in this column, today, is not what you are about to read here. If published, as planned, it would have been for the celebration of a very rare exemplariness of qualitative leadership in the unique personality of an eminent Nigerian whose enviable profile can neither be queried nor challenged in the archive of history. Although, due to his humanitarian nature, that personality does not believe in celebrating birthday ostentatiously, in a society like ours, where artificially endemic poverty has virtually become a crushing claw for most Nigerians, even in the midst of plenty, nevertheless, his impending attainment of 65 years of age next Tuesday, August 24, 2021, calls for a celebration of royal exemplariness in him. The modest lifestyle of this personality, despite the ‘blue blood’ in his veins, is an incontrovertible attestation to the exemplariness that eminently qualifies him to be the Nigerian man of the century.

    That exemplary personality is no other person than His Eminence, Dr. Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, CFR, mni, the Sultan of Sokoto and President General of Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA). Whoever wants to know what qualifies him for that assertion in this 21st century should keep date with ‘The Message’ column in ‘The Nation’ newspaper next Friday, in sha’Allah.

     

    Preamble

    The title of today’s article, in this column, was not coined by yours sincerely. It was rather culled from the late Dr. Tai Solarin’s style of writing while he was alive. In his heydays as a versatile columnist, in the Tribune newspaper, Dr. Tai Solarin, a renowned educationist and atheist, had a way of casting the titles of his articles to suit his ideas and thoughts as well as to attract the conscious attention of his readers. One of such titles is the one adopted here today. It was the title of an article he wrote in 1974 as a reaction to General Yakubu Gowon’s U-turn on his earlier promise to restore democracy to Nigeria in 1976.

    In that year (1974), General Gowon surprisingly turned round to renege on that landmark promise by announcing to Nigerians, in a nation-wide television broadcast, that returning power to civilians in 1976 was unrealistic after all. He did not specify any new date for restoring democracy to this Africa’s foremost country.

     

    Follow Up

    The above narrated scenario was what prompted Tai Solarin to write his famous article titled “The Beginning of the End”, in reaction to General Gowon’s audacious military assault, fortuitously hauled at Nigerian populace, at a time when the general yearning for democracy was almost at its peak in the country. And, incidentally, that article was the premonition that culminated in a military coup which swept General Gowon out of power, unceremoniously, in July 1975 after nine years in office as a military Head of State. That episode was a beginning of an end to Gowon’s regime and the rest became history.

     

    How Abuja became Nigeria’s Capital

    It was the same Tai Solarin that wrote another article titled “I will bomb Lagos”, in 1975, which led to the idea of changing Nigeria’s capital city from Lagos to Abuja. In the latter article Tai Solarin did not only describe Lagos of then as unbefitting to any civilized country in the world, as capital city, he also said he would have bombed it (Lagos) with the intention of rebuilding it if he was the Head of State. Characteristic of him, Dr, Tai Solarin did not stop there. He also gave a vivid geographical and environmental description of a place in Nigeria’s Middle Belt called Abuja which he recommended as the country’s new capital.

    Through that famous article, which captivated many Nigerian elites, at that time, Solarin could be called the initiator of the change of Nigeria’s capital city. And, that was why he was appointed as a member of the Justice Akinola Aguda panel that worked out the modalities for the establishment of the new federal capital called Abuja. Today, the same Abuja is being seriously threatened by certain miscreants who do not care about the implications of their actions even as we hope that such actions will not constitute a beginning of another end.

     

    In Retrospect

    When an article was first published in the Message column, under this same title (“The Beginning of the End”), in 2013, by yours sincerely, it was warranted by the circumstance of that time which was similar to the ongoing experience in Nigeria, today. However, the focus of that (2013) article was more on corruption through manipulation of figures in public offices and untamable greed of certain politicians for stinging to power with political bile, by all means. That time can be called a season of ridiculous letter writings that exposed the true natures of Nigerian politicians.

     

    The First Letter

    That time was tagged the season of Letters’ because of the barrage of tendentious and damning open letters flying across the wishes and interests of certain political, economic and religious demagogues who seemed to be married to ephemeral politics of transient power. First among those letters was from the then Governor of the Central Bank, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi who, for a patriotic reason wrote a probing letter to the Presidency on September 25, 2013 reporting the failure of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) to remit 19 months proceeds of oil sales to the Central Bank as statutorily required by the constitution.

    According to him, the total quantity of Nigerian oil that was sold between January 2012 and July 2013 was 594.02 million barrels and the unremitted amount of money accruing from the sale of that quantity was $49.8 billion which amounted to N8 trillion. Mallam Lamido said the total amount of money remitted so far within the mentioned period constituted only 24% of what ought to be remitted while 76% could not be traced by the CBN. Based partly on Sanusi’s revelation and partly on his own personal  observation, the then Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Rt. Hon. Aminu Tambuwal, openly accused President Goodluck Jonathan of reluctance or unwillingness to fight corruption. Many other well-meaning Nigerians spoke on the matter in the like manner. As a columnist, yours sincerely also wrote about it in this column. Thus, those who dogmatically believe, albeit ignorantly, that religion and politics are on two parallel lines that should never meet can now see why Islam is rather a total way of life than a mere dogmatic religion. In Islam, the theory of ‘giving to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s’ holds no water because both Caesar and whatever he portends to own belong to God alone who never slumbers nor dies. For instance, in a situation where public funds are brazenly stolen with impunity in public glare, Muslims cannot and should not keep silent even if the thievs claim to be Muslims. Prophet Muhammad (SAW) once counseled Muslims about this kind of situation through one Hadith. He said: “Whoever sees something obnoxious among you should change it (physically) with his hands. If he is incapable, let him change it with his tongue (by condemning it). And if he is still incapable, he should then endeavour to change it with his mind (by praying for its stoppage)”. He however added that “the last option signifies the weakest form of faith”.

    In a situation like the one currently being witnessed in Nigeria, should religious people, especially the Muslims, keep silent and watch helplessly how their future is being eroded by those who do not care about other people’s lives? It is rather an iniquity for Muslims to keep silent in the presence of tyranny, oppression and criminal acts. From whichever angle such crime are viewed, the will eventually be discovered to constitute the beginning of an end.

     

    The Second Letter

    The second letter was written to President Goodluck Jonathan by Ex- President, Olusegun Obasanjo, on December 2, 2013. It was a kind of epistle loaded with undisguised missiles of allegations that came frontally to the nation through the media. The main gist of that letter contained allegations of corruption, bad governance and insecurity. It was heavily pregnant with political bile the summary of which can be called a tit for tat. The contents of the letter are a bundle of message that conspicuously outweighed the messenger. And reading carefully between its lines, the letter can be compared to a pot trying to paint a kettle black. In a nutshell, the addresser and the addressee can be described as two sides of an un-spendable coin.

    Although the contents of that letter generated a loud brouhaha across the land, it ended up as   a mere rhetoric with which Nigerians had long been quite familiar. If anything sounded strange in that letter, it was the allegation of a killer squad leveled by the addresser against the addressee. In that allegation, Chief Obasanjo accused Dr. Jonathan’s Presidency of planning to descend on about 1000 political opponents and other perceived enemies of the government. Funny as that episode might sound at the time, it was a beginning of an end. The only seeming issue of interest in that letter, however, was the washing of the supposed leaders’ linens in the open which the populace watched with unbridled embarrassment. It gave the impression that the only expected legacy from the crop of the 21st century Nigerian leaders was nothing more than despair in spite of the rare opportunities those so-called leaders had in preserving the tranquility of the country. What lesson could the youths have learnt from such a ridiculous political rancour engendered by calamitous greed of politicians, based on selfishness?

    To politicians, sadistic political drama can never be strange. But the peculiarity in that open letter writing case was the tacit mobilization of the suffering masses as archers deployed to forage around on their feet while the shameless political gladiators remained gangling on horses.

     

    Observation

    Like an accursed nation, Nigeria has the misfortune of engaging misfits, in the name of leaders, to pilot their affairs, especially in a very cloudy environment. Or how can one classify a situation where two supposed national leaders decided to strip naked for competitive dance in a market place and expected sellers and buyers in that market to clap for the winner. If this period in Nigeria still looks like the beginning of another catastrophic end, its genesis should be traced to the shameless leaders we had in the recent past with the intention of grooming sailors who are in possession of effective compass with which to cross the bubbling Atlantic ocean of life without any further disastrous accident.

    God save Nigeria!

  • Constitution matters (1)

    Constitution matters (1)

    By Segun Gbadegesin

    Constitution matters! It is the holy book of national life. The nation lives by its dictates. We choose our leaders according to its directives. They swear to uphold its tenets and to defend its sanctity. All things being equal, where the constitution leads, we follow.

    Of course, all things aren’t always equal. Leaders don’t always demonstrate fidelity to the constitution. For that reason, we have the court system, itself a creation of the constitution. To be sure, this works for the most part, except when we deal with situations of extreme nature as in military coups. Whereas the constitution confers right, soldiers only exercise their might, right be damned. Even here, however, soldiers also have their excuse, credible or not. For them, they strike only because the constitution is being abused and they have a duty to save the republic. Thus, even when it’s being emasculated, the supremacy of the constitution is grudgingly acknowledged.

    One of the mysteries of any constitutional republic, ours included, is how amazing it is that we confer such supremacy on, and put so much of our faith and hope in, a document authored by humans like us. Consider the fact that as humans, they have their own preferences and interests which we unrealistically expect them to suppress in service of a greater good of constitution-making. Furthermore, even when they are so unrealistically disinterested and self-consciously nationalistic, they are not immune from errors of judgment or errors of omission.

    Read Also: Nigeria needs new constitution to progress, says Afe Babalola

    From our national experience, especially the various military-civilian transition constitution-making, it is clear that self-interest or, at best, institutional preferences of the military has always prevailed in what ends up becoming the constitution of the republic. In 1979, the military ensured that its prerogative on land use, which it had decreed into existence, became a cornerstone of the constitution. Civilians had no choice. While that constitution mimicked the American system of government, the military ensured that it did not copy the robust decentralization of power that characterizes the American federalism.

    Recently, there was a submission on the unconstitutionality of secession and the argument against it is that it is not in the constitution. But one doesn’t have to be an advocate of secession to identify the problem with that objection. First, what if it was omitted inadvertently because it didn’t occur to the drafters of the constitution that such a fundamental right ought to be accorded to groups and nationalities? Toward to end of the last century, Ethiopians adopted a new constitution which established the right of secession. They were not crazy and certainly they were not out of their minds when they did. Of course, being a constitutional provision is also not a guarantee that the authorities would respect a claim to that right. Think Tigray!

    Second, what if there was an error of judgment on the part of constitutional conferees? As observed above, constitution-making is a human endeavour. Like all such endeavours, it is prone to error and the millions of people who are to live by it are the potential victims of such errors. While we have a responsibility to respect the articles of the constitution out of respect, we should refrain from fetishizing it.

    Third, what if the military, as the supervisory authority over the making of the constitution both in 1979 and 1999 was just professionally opposed to secession and it exercised its monopolistic right of disapproval? Without access to the deliberations of the conferees, we won’t have answers to any of these questions.

    Fourth, and perhaps most important of these points. What does it really matter that secession is not in the constitution? That it is therefore unconstitutional? Well, then, is military takeover of government in the constitution? No, of course. Indeed, the constitution specifically provides for a democratic republic in which citizens elect their representatives at every level of government. That provision rules out governance by force of arms. But it didn’t prevent military coups against democratically elected governments in 1966 and 1983.

    Did the military do it and get away with it because it had the power of the gun? Yes, in part. But it also relied on a moral argument, namely that the civilian authorities had violated the constitution in various ways. We may argue that the military had no authority to make such a judgment. But we should remember that many civilians agreed with them as evidenced by the jubilations on the streets on both occasions. The point of the analogy is this. Like the military, secessionists could make a similar moral judgment based on their own experience. Having no access to weapons is the material difference.

    In recognition of human frailty, constitutions have provisions for amendments, ours not an exception. And we have taken advantage of this provision on more than a few occasions since 1999. But these have been done almost always at the discretion of the ruling party at any particular time, making it more or less a partisan exercise. Such partisan efforts have always left out major amendment needs.

    A pressing issue has also been raised regarding the effectiveness of amendments in light of the structural challenges that have been identified with the constitution. If there are fundamental flaws that strike at the heart of the constitution, can amendments do the trick? Or should we opt for a brand new constitution? If we do, aren’t we committing to brand new constitutions ad infinitum since no constitution is ever perfect?

    These are interesting questions. However, if the identified flaw has to do with the fundamentals of national existence, a targeted amendment can fix it once and for all. Therefore, the objection based on the fear of incessant constitution-making exercises is without merit. The case for a truly federal constitution that preserves the cultural democracy of every component part of the republic, as opposed to a quasi-unitary system which melts them up in a pot of unanimity is one such fundamental issue. If an amendment can take care of this, why hasn’t it happened in the previous amendment exercises?

    There are two stronger philosophical arguments for a new constitution instead of an amendment. One is specific to our clime and its past constitution-making experience. The other is a general philosophical point traceable, interestingly, to the American experience. It’s interesting in the sense that our present presidential system is modeled on the American system with its constitution as our inspiration.

    There has been a persistent pushback against the claim of a unanimous consent to the adoption of our constitution. The “We The People” phrase has been characterized as a big lie for the reason that the people had no say, by participation or referendum, in the making of the constitution which was initiated and approved by the military. If a constitution should rightfully originate from the will of the people, then we have an illegitimate constitution.

    The 1960 Constitution has rightly become a reference point, not because it was perfect, but because it satisfied the procedural and processual condition of involving the people through their elected representatives in the making of the constitution. And it was the culmination of all the previous exercises from the unitarism of the 1922 Clifford Constitution and the regionalism of the 1946 Richards Constitution, the 1951 regionalism-boosting Macpherson Constitution and the 1954 Lyttleton Constitution which cemented the federal principle as the foundation of the state.

    If we were going to jettison the structure that our representatives agreed upon as the basis of the new nation, shouldn’t this be a unanimous decision? The military, which is just one of the several institutions of government, taking it upon itself to unilaterally change the agreed upon structure, is at best an error of judgement, or at worst, an unforgivable illegitimate use of power. It is the cause of the problems the country has had in the last fifty-five years. What is even more egregious is that when they also had another opportunity to correct their error in 1999, they just doubled down. Must this arrogance of power be accommodated? Maybe if it sustains the peace and stability of the nation. But is this now the case?