The Nation Newspaper

Category: Friday

  • Engaging the African diaspora (1)

    FOLLOWING our discussion last week on the 400th anniversary of the arrival of enslaved Africans in the United States, and the emergence of a tradition of a thriving African diaspora in the Americas, It occurred to me that we have to have a more robust discussion of the important matter of how we engage the African diaspora for the mutual benefit of Africans on both sides of the Atlantic.

    Forced out against their will, many Africans in America, the Caribbean, and across the Western hemisphere, including the United Kingdom, Spain, France, and Portugal, victims of the Middle Passage, constituting the core of the African diaspora, still identify with the homeland from which they were snatched. Over the centuries and decades since, however, they have been joined by voluntary migrants who relocated from Africa in pursuit of better lives, to become members of the growing African diaspora. Importantly, they also identify with the homeland.

    Now, the population of the African diaspora worldwide is in the tens of millions, a powerful force of human energy capable of making huge impact in all areas, if well-harnessed. The question is whether Africa is serious about engaging its diaspora and if so, what is its focus: old or recent diaspora? economic or cultural development? moral or material growth? Or all the above? Whatever our answer is to this question of focus, the point worth noting is that the African diaspora has a lot to offer the homeland. And this applies to both the recent and the old and established.

    My interest here is to interrogate the approach of homeland Africa in its various manifestations, both continental and national. With an eye on the Nigerian approach, I start with an examination of the recent and emergent African diaspora. What is immediately observed in connection with this group is that by virtue of their newness in their land of sojourn, their memory of the homeland is fresh and emotional. Therefore, their engagement with the homeland is self-motivated, due in part to having an unfaded memory of kinship and cultural roots. With family ties still strong, they relate without being prodded. They do remittances out of a sense of responsibility to loved ones without a feeling of compunction.

    Recent members of the African diaspora community are over there in body, but over here in spirit. No doubt, however, they are also politically conscious, agitating for reforms and/or revolution when things appear static and retrogressive for their sensibilities, given their exposure to how things work in their land of sojourn. They feel embarrassed whenever they are sent figuratively back home in hateful words oozing from the foul mouth of bigots. Therefore, they long for real change in their native lands, not necessarily because they want to go back but simply to support their sense of dignity.

    Governments recognize recent African diaspora communities for what they can contribute economically. Ironically, their remittances keep the revolution they crave at bay by providing food and shelter for their kith and kin back home. PwC’s recent disclosure that Nigerians in diaspora contributed more to national budget than foreign direct investment is a case in point. But more on this latter. Governments also acknowledge the recent diaspora to some extent when it comes to political participation. Major political parties have diaspora branches which make financial contributions and lobby on their behalf in foreign capitals. Recall Atiku Abubakar’s admission to the US and the involvement of his Nigerian diaspora supporters.

    However, the political contributions of emergent Nigerians in diaspora are limited by the provisions of the 1999 constitution which prohibit Nigerians who have acquired citizenship of other countries and sworn an oath of allegiance to those countries from serving in major legislative and executive positions at state and national levels. They cannot be governor or assembly members, and they cannot be President, Vice President or National Assembly members. This is one sore point for many of them in their relationship with the country.

    Logically, the provision of the 1999 constitution which restricts the political participation of Nigerians in diaspora is normal and can be explained. Citizens who voluntarily acquire the citizenship of another country to which they swear an oath of allegiance are presumed to have revoked their former citizenship status. Therefore, they seemingly cannot be trusted to serve in politically sensitive positions in their original countries. This, of course, is neither here nor there. There are some contemporary cases of high-level political office holders in various countries who, without owing allegiance to any foreign country, have not demonstrated fidelity to the values that rest at the foundation of their countries. To their fellow citizens, these politicians appear to be more aligned with foreign powers and seem to regularly root for the interest of those foreign powers.

    There is yet another consideration. If a Nigerian took the citizenship of another nation which requires him or her to renounce the citizenship of Nigeria, shouldn’t his or her new nation be the one to raise concern about its new citizen’s interest in serving a country whose citizenship he/she has supposedly renounced? Why would Nigeria, which needs all the help and expertise it can get, be bothered about that? Perhaps, renouncing your original allegiance and swearing a new allegiance oath to a foreign country is considered an unpatriotic betrayal.

    Yet, sometimes political pragmatism suggests that this kind of situation be handled with extreme care for the benefit of the country. Presumably, such individuals acquired citizenship of other countries under situations beyond their control. Think of many exiled Nigerians in the era of military dictatorship. Or South Africa under apartheid. Many had no choice but to take up offers of citizenship in the countries that granted them political asylum. If political normalcy returns and these individuals voluntarily return to vie for political positions, the nation could give them a choice: revoke your acquired citizenship or remain politically active without seeking elective position.

    Compare the state of Israel and its diaspora. An amendment to the Basic Laws of Israel provides that Knesset members can pledge allegiance to the State of Israel only if they revoked or renounced their citizenship of a foreign country, “if possible, under the law of that foreign country.” It also provides that one cannot acquire Israeli citizenship by naturalization without having renounced a prior citizenship. However, this last provision must appear to not apply to Jewish descendants since Israeli Law of Return welcomes Jews all over the world to the state of Israel and they become citizens upon arrival. They can also declare within three months that they don’t want to become citizens.

    In other words, Israeli law provides for Jewish descendants anywhere to feel welcome in Israel. This also gives the state moral authority to call upon its diaspora to join in its struggles and share in its achievements. Of course, this comes with the reality that both diaspora and homeland will sometimes, perhaps, often, not see eye to eye in terms of policies pursued by the homeland. Critique based on principles must be welcome on both sides, if there is mutual respect.

    In the case of Nigeria, the new diaspora has not shied away from robust criticisms of the homeland. But it has also been pivotal in pushing back on bigoted voices and practices of politicians in their lands of sojourn. The homeland has no moral right to like the latter and hate the former. If we want only their remittances, and/or their support for our political parties and candidates, but do not appreciate their criticism and/or their active participation in the political process, we are not treating them as equals. Rather we are treating them as mere means to our national ends, and not as ends in themselves, apology to Kant. Notably, Kant sees the immorality of such treatment in the selfishness that it implies. However, in this case, the state is most likely the ultimate loser even if some individuals benefit, considering the loss of potential outstanding contributions that the banning of those with exposure to other climes and processes could mean for a nation mired in economic doldrum and political corruption.

     

    • To be continued.

  • 400+ years of compromised modernity and debased humanity

    FOR some years, war had been carried on in my Eyo (Oyo) country, which was always attended with much devastation and bloodshed; the women, such men as had surrendered or were caught, with the children, were taken captives. The enemies who carried on these wars…. had no other employment but selling slaves to the Spaniards and Portuguese on the coast.”— 1837: Bishop Samuel Ajayi Crowther, Letter to Rev. William Jowett, Secretary, Church Missionary Society, in J. F. Ade-Ajayi, A Patriot to the Core: Bishop Ajayi Crowther

    We may look at modernity as an historical era and/or as a philosophical attitude and practice. As the former, it breaks down into three overlapping phases: early modern, from 1600s to 1700s; modern proper, 1800s and post-modern, 1900s to 2000s. This division of the historical era is not as important for our discussion today as the philosophical and normative attitudes and practices that are invoked in the characterization of the entire period.

    Thus, the 17th and 18th centuries are the age of reason and enlightenment, so characterized for their rejection of tradition and its suffocating grip on the mind, and for their prioritization of individualism, freedom, and equality, all understood as essential ingredients of human progress. European philosophers from Hobbes to Locke, Rousseau, and Kant rejected traditional structures of authority in favor of a contract of association freely consented to by adult individuals. It was to underscore what they believe to be the natural freedom of individuals at birth.

    This fundamental principle of modernity, the negative freedom of individuals, is violently assaulted in the practice of slavery which, starting from the 1500s reached its zenith of shame in the era of modernity despite the rigorous intervention of philosophical modernity, an unfortunate pointer to the gap between normative ideal and social practice.

    My opening quotation is from the letter of Bishop Ajayi Crowther to his boss Rev. William Jowett, Secretary of the Church Missionary Society. Crowther was critical of the deliberate pursuit of war simply to plunder and catch human beings to be sold into slavery. It was a practice rampant from the 16th to 19th centuries in Africa, with traditional institutions endorsing and participating in it. After his capture, Crowther was sold to women and men, passing through several masters and mistresses before his final sale to the Portuguese, and, thankfully, eventual release by the British anti-slavery ship raiders.

    Other captives were not as lucky as they ended up in plantations of the New World. The  first of such individuals to be forcefully taken to the United States were uprooted from their native Angola, bundled into a Portuguese ship, which was captured by pirates (aka privateers) with government license to steal human cargoes, and brought to the shores of Virginia, ironically named Port Comfort, in August 1619.

    Last weekend marked the 400th anniversary of the first Africans enslaved people in the United States of America. But the irony was starker for a different reason. From the end of July to the first week of August in 1619, shortly before the arrival of the slave ship, Virginia had become the first English colony in the Americas with the semblance of a representative democracy, featuring a colonial government elected by male residents. Thus, “democracy” and enslavement were birthed in one summer month in Virginia.

    On their part, European thinkers were the leading voices of the age of reason, decrying the superstition that had characterized the Dark Ages, and introducing new ideas about the scientific laws of nature that determine the course of the universe. Flowing from these are the social and political ideas that sought to free humans from the shackles of traditional authorities, from monarchy to priesthood, based on the unassailable position that freedom is a fundamental right of individuals.

    But if freedom is a fundamental right of human beings as individuals, how is the enslavement of some human individuals by others to be explained or justified? It’s a graphic case of the disconnect between philosophical beliefs and social-political practice. There are two ways to look at the disconnect.

    First, as a case of a hypocritical disjunction between ideas and practices on the part of the thinkers who espoused the ideas in the first place. Or second, as a case of philosophical ideas strongly and sincerely held by thinkers running into conflict with wielders of social and political powers with different ideas. In fairness to the enlightenment philosophers, it is more of the latter.

    The emphasis is on “more of the latter” because some of the enlightenment philosophers weren’t as fully invested in the universality of human nature, because they did not believe in the universal endowment of reason. But human reason is not universal and some, by virtue of their skin color or ethnicity, are believed to be less endowed, and if reason is the hallmark of humanity in virtue of which human freedom is justified, then it would seem that those less endowed cannot have the same share of freedom as those more endowed with reason. Or, at best, the former must be placed under the tutelage of the latter. Many of the so-called enlightenment philosophers, including John Stuart Mill, the most liberal of them, reasoned thus. Hence, his defence of British imperialism.

    Furthermore, those among them who felt a ping of conscience as to the universality of freedom, struggled for consistency. Locke, for instance, offered a baffling theory of war and slavery. On the one hand, one has a fundamental right to freedom because without it, one is not a complete human being. Therefore, anyone who would take your freedom away from you by initiating a war with you must be resisted and if, necessary, killed.

    On the other hand, in his account of slavery, Locke argues that a victorious party at war has a right to kill the captive, but if he decides to enslave the person, it is also within his right. It is up to the captive and enslaved to decide when death is better for him than servitude. From this, it follows that every act of enslavement that results from war is justified.

    Notice that it was a war of aggression instigated by stronger and better armed raiders that led to the captivity and enslavement of Crowther and his family. On Locke’s position, such an enslavement is justified! For the same reason, he argued that slaveholders of North Carolina had authority over their slaves, a case of reason turned on its head, same reasoning to which most slave holders appealed. It was philosophy in the service of raw power motivated by prejudice and greed.

    Notably, Rousseau, arguably the most consistent defender of individual freedom, rejected this position, arguing that “the right of slavery is null and void…illegitimate, ….and absurd and meaningless.”

    The original sin of enslavement, the forced relocation of people to a foreign land, and the hollowing out of their own land, contributed in no small way to the economic and political plight of Africans in the homeland and their kith and kin in the African diaspora. Not only this, until recently, it also created an unfortunate social and cultural chasm, a gulf of mistrust between diaspora and homeland Africans.

    On the latter, one country that is doing its best to bring the two sides together in the spirit of her founder’s pan-African outlook is Ghana and a big shout-out to Ghanaian leaders in this effort. Interestingly, Ghana was only one of the loading coasts for slave ships. Nigerian coast was named Slave Coast, while Ghana was named Gold Coast. But Ghana has apparently made her foreign policy revolve around pan-Africanism and it is paying off.

    To commemorate this anniversary, Ghana declared 2019 a “Year of Return” for Africans around the world. United States House Speaker Pelosi joined other congressional delegation to mark the occasion. So did celebrities. For some years, many African-Americans have relocated to Ghana and were received warmly by local Chiefs with promises of land to build their new homes. Viva Ghana! Pan-Africanism is alive and the spirits of Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah and Dr. Du Bois, its founding fathers, live on, beaming with satisfaction.

     

    For comments, send SMS to 08111813080

     

     

  • Happy New Year

    Writing an article with a title like ‘Happy New Year’ every year, in a month other than January, may look strange and sound odd to most non-Muslim Nigerian readers.  In Nigeria, like in most other African countries, south of the Sahara, the idea of ‘New Year’ is ignorantly believed to be peculiar to ‘January’ which is the first month of Gregorian calendar. That is the effect of colonial scar on the supposedly smooth body of our continent.

    From whichever angle it is viewed, European colonialism has a thick Christian coloration that still portrays African culture in a rainbow of colonial Christian religion and tradition. For instance, it is a well known fact that out of the 104 days of official religious holidays in Nigeria today, Islamic religion enjoys only five  days (two days for Eidul Fitr, two days for Eidul Adha and one day for Mawlidun-Nabiyy). Yet, the Nigerian Christians continue to incessantly allege islamization of the country especially whenever a Muslim becomes the President.

    Even at the state level, the sour, monotonous song of ‘islamization’ gets loudest whenever a Muslim is elected as Governor. And the hatchet job is passionately but fanatically done by the Christian dominated media. Incidentally, this irredentism occurs mostly in the Southwest (the main hub of the Christian media), despite the large population of Muslims that put them in obvious majority in the country.

     

    The Colonial Era

     

    Throughout the 99 years of the British colonial era in Nigeria, the Southern Muslims were never granted any public holiday to celebrate their festivals. It took Nigeria’s first and only Prime Minister, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa to address that malicious injustice by granting religious holidays officially to Islamic festivals nationally after independence in 1960. Hitherto, the only recognized festivals and granted public holidays by the British colonialists and their successors in the South were the Christian Easter and Christmas. Prior to 1992, Nigeria’s official working days from Monday to Saturday. It was General Yakubu Gowon, a Christian military Head of State who granted Saturday, with fiat, to the Seventh Day Adventists denomination of Christianity as a weekly public holiday at a time when the total population of that denomination in Nigeria was less than 700,000 in the then Nigerian population of 56 million people.

    Following that unilateral action, Nigerian Muslims could have kicked against the dictatorial declaration or made a demand for same. But since public holiday did not necessarily constitute peace, the Muslims decided not to contest it just to give peace a chance. Yet, the Nigerian Christians of today still believe that changing that a declaration of one day public holiday in a year for Hijrah celebration is a religious aberration amounting to islamization of Nigeria. Isn’t that ridiculously laughable?

     

    Islamic Calendar

     

    Islam has its own calendar. And, like in other calendars of the world, there is a beginning and an end for every Islamic year. However, unlike those other calendars, the Islamic calendar, otherwise known as Hijrah calendar, is divinely ordained. This is confirmed in chapter 9, verse 36 of the Qur’an as follows: “Surely, the number of months ordained by Allah when He created the heavens and the earth is twelve. Therefore, do not wrong yourselves in them….”

     

    The Months of Islamic Calendar

     

    The months of Islamic calendar are 12 in number. They are as follows:

    Muharram; Safar; Rabiul Awwal; Rabiu-th-Thani; Jumadal Ula; Jumada-th-Thaniyah; Rajab; Shaban; Ramadan; Shawwal; Dhul Qadah; and Dhul Hijjah.

    Out of these 12 months, four are specifically designated as sacred. They are the last four months of the Islamic year: Ramadan, Shawwal, Dhul Qa’dah and Dhul Hijjah. Some of these months have 30 days. Others have 29 days. No more, no less.

    The first day of this new Hijrah year of 1441 will be the coming Sunday, September 1, 2019. That day follows the last day of Dhul Hijjah which will end tomorrow, Saturday, August 31, 2019.  Dhul Hijjah is the last month of Hijrah calendar. It takes a well educated person to understand this fact and relate it to his/her life. It is such education that prompted the former Governor of the State of Osun, Ogbeni Rauf Adesoji Aregbesola to be the first Nigerian Governor to declare a public holiday for   new Islamic year in Osun State in 2013.

    That historic declaration by Ogbeni Aregbesola was not only an exhibition of sound education and civility it was also a clear evidence of justice which had hitherto been denied to Nigerian Muslims despite their demographic majority in the country.

    However, to demonstrate similar justice, either out of conviction or for political reason, some other Governors, including the former Governor of Oyo State, Alhaji Ishaq Abiola Ajimobi later joined the train of sanity along that line. And that has become an irreversible aspect of Nigerian history.

     

    Genesis of Hijrah Calendar

     

    Hijrah calendar took its name from Prophet Muhammad’s migration, otherwise known as Hijrah, from Makkah to Madinah in 622 CE.

    The use of Hijrah calendar began when Umar Bn Khattab who was to become the second Caliph in Islam suggested the idea a distinctive calendar for Islam which should be named after the Prophet’s migration from Makkah to Madinah which was a watershed for the success and survival of Islam. Without that landmark event in Islam it would have been difficult for the sacred religion to survive in Makkah. As a matter of fact, Hijrah is one of the three main factors responsible for the survival of the religion of Islam. The second was the victory of the Muslims in the battle of Badr which was waged against them in Madinah, (about 500 kilometrs away from Makkah), by the pagans of Makah shortly after the Prophet’s migration to Madinah. And the third is Allah’s great promise that became an everlasting fulfilment. That promise is contained in Chapter 15 verse 9 of the Qur’an thus:

    “It was ‘We’ (Allah) who revealed the Qur’an and it is ‘We’ who will ensure its preservation…”.

     

    Comment

     

    Now, after about 1500 years of  revelation of that divine religion that was ushered into the world by the sacred Book called the Qur’an, who can doubt the ability of the Almighty Allah to promise and fulfill?. But for these three fundamental factors, perhaps Islam or the Qur’an would have joined the legion of defunct religions in human history. It is only with Allah that all things are possible.

     

    Significance of Hijrah Calendar

     

    The first day of the Hijrah month (1st of Muharram) is one of the most significant days in Islam. Without ‘the great Message of Islam’ Prophet Muhammad (SAW) would have had no cause to migrate from Makkah to Madinah.

    It was that Great Message which compelled him to migrate, an event which eventually made him the greatest man that ever lived.

     

    Benefits of Hijrah Calendar

     

    Basically Hijrah institutionalized three important aspects of Muslim lives. These are social, economic and political. When the first revelation was made to the Prophet (SAW), a period of twelve (12) years was devoted by him towards incubating the religion in the minds of individuals at a time when no pattern of  collective life based on true religious concepts could be presented to the world. As a result, the status of the Muslim individuals in Makkah at that time gave rise to the misconception that Islam, or rather, believing in the mission of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was one’s personal affair. This was believed to concern only to the hereafter which had nothing to do with people’s collective life.

     

    Social Effect

     

    It was only after the Prophet’s migration (Hijrah) that people began to see Islam clearly as a total way of life which paid attention to and reformed every facet of human existence. It then became evident that Islam was the religion that gave mankind directions regarding almost every moment of a believer’s conscious life. Hijrah also enabled the Arabs in particular to see what a Muslim’s matrimonial home should be in a Muslim society. Hence, it was only after the Prophet’s migration that the world could see the aspect of human social decency and decorum prescribed by Islam.

     

    Economic Impact

     

    The second reason for the importance of Hijrah is its economic significance which manifested in the lifestyle of the pioneer Muslims’ who were led by Prophet Muhammad (SAW) himself in migrating to Madinah. The unsurpassable hospitality of the people of Madinah towards the Muslim emigrants at that time did not only provide a new peaceful home for the immigrants, it also showed the hosts’ passionate self-sacrifice in philanthropic gesture. And with Hijrah, those immigrants vividly came in contact with advanced agricultural acumen and ingenuous artisanship which they never experienced in Makkah.

    These resulted in an unprecedented economic revolution for the city of Madinah. Since the hosts shared virtually everything they had with the immigrants when the latter first arrived, a lesson was learnt by those immigrants not to continue to be a burden on their brotherly hosts.

    Thus, every one of them adopted legitimate ways of earning righteous income as the city’s economy attained an unprecedented boom.

     

    Moral Effect of Hijrah

     

    Initially, the Muslim Immigrants in Madinah worked as labourers in the agricultural fields, and construction sites. But later, they, being traditional traders, started small trading activities which brought them into an economic competition with the Jews of Madinah. One aspect of the Islamic economic revolution was that the Muslim immigrants paid the right price for every product they consumed since the Prophet had forbidden the practice of acquiring products on reduced prices in return for loans given to the artisans or to the land cultivators as was the practice in Madinah before Hijrah. That practice was prohibited because it was considered to be a form of usury.

    Thus, it was only after Hijrah that agriculture, industry and trade freely helped the Muslims to bring about an integrated, balanced but unfettered economy to the Ummah.

     

    Judicial Effect

     

    The third reason which made Hijrah a very important event is the enjoyment of political freedom by the Muslims. Before Hijrah, the Muslims in Makkah had no say in any matter, internal or external. They were a minority against whom the hearts of the majority were full of poisonous enmity simply because they were considered to constitute an insignificant fraction in a society overwhelmingly dominated by unbelievers.

    It was Hijrah, therefore, that made the Muslims masters of their own internal affairs, external relations as well as other matters relating to war and peace. If there was any disagreement between the Muslims and the non-Muslims in Madinah at that time, the final decision was to be made by the Prophet who was an unbiased mediator. This indicated a kind of autonomy enjoyed by the Muslims for the first time in their Islamic religious lives. And thus, Madinah became the nucleus of a city-state which, within a period of ten years 622-632 CE, in the life time of the Prophet, expanded to the entire Arabian Peninsula. It is therefore evident that the event of Hijrah turned a few hundred Muslims resident in Madinah into a highly successful society in commerce and agriculture.

     

    An Erroneous Act

     

    If the Nigerian Muslim leaders of the colonial era were adequately informed at the time they were negotiating religious holidays for Nigerian Muslim Ummah they would have asked for Hijrah rather than Mawlidun-Nabiyyi holiday. After all, apart from coming into the world through birth like any other human being, the birth of Muhammad as an ordinary child did not add any value to his unprecedentedly divine mission called Islam. At least, it can still be remembered that he was not born a Muslim because there was no religion called Islam at his birth. And, the Prophet himself did not believe in the aristocracy of birth which celebration of birthday is all about. That was why he (the Prophet) never celebrated his own birthday as many Muslims do on his behalf today. What is more, the Prophet’s birthday is never celebrated in Saudi Arabia where he was born because he was not born as a Prophet. What is rather celebrated in Saudi Arabia is the first day of Hijrah calendar every year. Whereas Mawlidun-Nabiyyi is about the personal life of Prophet Muhammad alone, Hijrah is about Islam and the entire Muslim Ummah.

     

    Observation

     

    While celebrating Mawlidun-Nabiyyi, you can only praise the Prophet and nothing more. But when celebrating the Hijrah day, you are celebrating not only the Prophet’s migration but also the triumph of Islam as the everlasting password of the Universe. That is why we exchange pleasantries by congratulating one another and by chanting the slogan HAPPY NEW YEAR!

  • Uniformity: The obsession of fake federalism

    As another hair-raising example of the problematic structure of our federation, I examine today the Nigerian Marriage Act, 1990 and what it does to the spirit of federalism. And to focus the discussion with a comparison of apples and apples, kindly consider with me the following quotations:

    1. “Under the United States (Federal) Constitution, the regulation of marriage, as a general rule, is a matter of state law, not federal….. Marriage laws vary from state to state. Marriage license is a document that authorizes a couple to get married, usually available in the county clerk’s office in the state where the marriage will take place.”— marriage.uslegal.com
    2. “In its efforts at ensuring uniformity in the conduct of statutory marriages, the Federal Government has declared its intention to set up marriage registries in all the 36 state capitals in the country.” Media Report, Vanguard News August 15, 2019.

    The second quote is attributed to the Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Barrister Georgina Ehuriah, as part of the comments she made while declaring open a one-day sensitization conference on the conduct of statutory marriages in Nigeria with the theme: “Achieving Harmonious Compliance in the Conduct of Statutory Marriage in Nigeria.” Barrister Ehuriah is not responsible for the policy that she is charged with execution. As such, she is only a faithful servant of a system that has pivoted gradually from a focus on unity at all cost (1914) to unity in diversity (1955-1966) to uniformity without diversity (1966 to date).

    Charged with this responsibility of uniformity, the Ministry of Interior has, naturally, championed the cause with gusto. Back in December 2017, in the column titled “False Federalism or a tale of overstretched arms”, I had cause to comment on the idea behind a Federal Fire Service and the energy put into having a federal fire presence in all the states with a mission to “combat fire outbreaks in the country.” It’s the logic of uniformity in practice. And now if we can do it for fire service, why not for marriage, the earliest and most enduring of human institutions.

    It is not a surprise where we find ourselves, in view of the fact that the Marriage Act, which was supposedly amended in 1990 and 2004 is a relic of the 1914 Marriage Act, itself a one-size fits all colonial hand-down. A simple Google search shows the similarities between our Marriage Act and that of other former colonies, including Jamaica. One of the recent amendments was the deletion of the phrase “in Nigeria” from Section 33(1): “No marriage in Nigeria shall be valid….”, a reminder that the original was copied and pasted from a common colonial source. And an online version of the 1990 amended Act still visibly displays the list of states that were created in 1967, shortly before the civil war.

    The oddity of a federation that operates as a unitary system is fully captured in our vesting of what should normally be a state and local government matter in the central government. Thus, on its website, the Ministry of Interior refers us to the 1990 Marriage Act, CAP 218, Laws of the Federation, which charges the Ministry “with carrying out statutory marriages in Nigeria.” The Ministry also has responsibility for licensing places of worship for the purpose of conducting marriage. Based on this, the Ministry plans to establish Marriage Registries across the country.

    It is interesting that the source of the power claimed by the Ministry of Interior to carry out statutory marriages is the 1990 Marriage Act. However, Section 7(5) of the 1999 constitution and Par 1 of the Fourth Schedule authorizes the Marriage Registrars in Local Governments to register marriages.

    More generally, the Fourth Schedule 1(i) provides that local government duties include “registration of all births, deaths, and marriages.” So, we have a convoluted distribution of responsibilities whereby marriages are contracted by both federal and local governments, but only local governments have responsibility for registering marriage certificates. A couple that has its marriage contracted in a federal registry must register its certificate with the local government, though failing to do so does not invalidate the marriage. Between the 1999 constitution and the 1990 Marriage Act, there is an obvious gap.

    Back in 2017, Four local governments areas: Egor Local Government Area of Edo State, Eti-Osa Local Government Area of Lagos State, Owerri Municipal Local Government Area of Imo State, and Port Harcourt Local Government Area of Rivers State, brought a suit against the Ministry of Interior challenging the constitutionality of the powers it claims to contract marriages. In particular, the plaintiffs sought a declaration that the Ministry has no constitutional authority to contract or register marriages, and that only local governments have the constitutional authority to conduct and register marriages.

    The suit was a timely effort to rein in a rouge system in a runaway mode. But the court demurred simply because of an extant judgement of a court of concurrent jurisdiction which had affirmed the legality of federal government conducting marriage. Therefore, there was no decision on the substantive case.

    It is high time that the extant judgment was challenged on appeal by local governments for the simple reason that the constitution does not specifically authorize the federal government’s involvement in any aspect of marriage while it does at least give authority to local governments with respect to registration of marriages. In the alternative, the National Assembly needs to initiate legislation in defence of the federal status of our constitution for at least two reasons.

    But Before I go into the reasons, I need to make clear that I do not by any means deny the importance of the marriage institution in the life of a nation. It is one institution that, besides the belief in religious circles that it is ordained by God, it is also critical to the stability and progress of a nation. Through the reproductive activities of married couples, a nation is renewed and guaranteed continuous existence in perpetuity.

    Yet this important contribution of marriage to the continuous renewal of a nation does not require that in a federation, the government at the center be actively involved in the solemnization of marriages between consenting adults and setting up federal marriage registries in state capitals. But for the fact that our sensitivities to the proper relationships between tiers of government in a federation have been numbed by the practice that has been imposed on us, we would find the practice incredibly strange. We have a central government engaging in activities that local governments, not even state governments, are well-positioned to perform.

    In 1914, when the first Marriage Act was enacted, the amalgamation of the North and

    South had just occurred. We had one central unitary system. The colonial masters were in charge with District Officers serving as Marriage Registrars. Besides, the number of statutory marriages contracted, unlike customary marriages, was limited.

    Therefore, it made sense for the 1914 central government to be involved. But times changed and with it the structure of our politics. We adopted a federal system in which state and local governments are nearer to the people. The amendments to the Marriage Act should have taken cognizance of these changes in structure to correct the anomaly of a central government solemnizing wedding vows in federal registries. The Marriage Act of 1914 shouldn’t have had such a long shelf life in view of our transition from unitary to federal constitution dating back to at least 1946 with the Richards Constitution.

    There is a second reason why it is anomalous and unhelpful. Marriages contracted in federal registries are between couples who reside in the local communities whether it be Lagos, Ibadan, Kaduna, Kano, Enugu, Owerri, Aba, Port Harcourt, Benin City, or Jos. Marriage fees, no matter how small, could be helpful to the economy of those cities and local government areas. Why does the federal government have to appropriate those fees and deny local governments of such important sources of revenue? Add this to the injustice of other revenues collected locally and appropriated nationally, and you begin to appreciate the abnormality of our fake federal system.

  • The military and law enforcement

    WHAT the growing incidence of internal security is real is no longer deniable. Citizen anxiety is also on the rise. On its part, government doesn’t fold its hands and is actively engaged in providing thoughtful solution. State governments are especially on the offensive with various initiatives designed to curb the menace. And the federal government is actively engaging stakeholders from traditional rulers to governors and security agencies.

    As a zone that has been hit hard in the past few months, the Southwest has prudently and wisely led the struggle for a more effective security architecture in the country. Acknowledging its preeminent role in the matter, the executive branch of the federal government recently met with Southwest traditional rulers to intimate them with its new policy initiatives to combat the scourge of insecurity.

    The timing of the meeting was not unconnected with the publicized positions of the respected monarchs on behalf of their subjects. While Iku Baba Yeye, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi sent a powerful letter to the president, Oonirisa Oba Adeyeye Ogunwusi paid a special royal visit to the Villa. These are enough to trigger a fitting response from the president. Meeting with the traditional rulers, President Buhari outlined new measures his government was taking.

    In an announcement on his Twitter handle, the president informed the nation of these measures, which include “expediting commencement of our community policing initiative, and revamping police intelligence gathering capacity”; “boosting the numbers of security personnel”; “recruiting police officers from their Local Government Areas and stationing them there.”

    Others include speedy approval of “licensing for states requesting the use of drones to monitor forests and other criminal hideouts”; “installing CCTVs on highways and other strategic locations”; and equipping the police force with advanced technology and equipment to facilitate their work.”

    Lastly, the president promised to “continue to bring in our military when needed to complement the work of the police, including possible deployment of troops on certain highways on a temporary basis”, and to use “the Nigerian Air Force assets to bomb hideouts where criminals are located.”

    We must commend the government for rising to what the occasion demands. Surely, many citizens would wonder why it took so long. They may also see many of these new initiatives as not so extraordinary because they are normal ingredients of a good security menu.

    Take community policing, for example. The agitation for state police has been predicated on the premise that the closer to the community policing is, the more effective it is in ensuring the security of citizens. Community policing is not state police. It is still going to be under the supervision of the Nigerian Police. But recruiting its personnel from the local community and stationing them there is going to be tremendously helpful. What took so long? And for how much longer do we have to wait for implementation after policy pronouncements? That’s blowing in the wind.

    Of all the measures outlined by the president, however, there’s one that must raise the anxiety level of well-meaning citizens especially considering old history and more recent stories. The idea of sending soldiers to the highways even on temporary basis should give us pause. What questions does this raise? What fears are to be entertained? What risks does it pose?

    The military is best known as our strong tower against external attack and assault to national security. Involving the military in road check points is using them for law enforcement. From our past national experience, we can expect very little good coming out of military involvement in law enforcement. From the mid-60s to the late-90s, when the military held court over civil matters, we remember how respectful they are of civilians. With guns on one hand and horse whip on the other, they traumatized our people and violently assaulted our dignity.

    Yet, it was during that time that Nigeria had its first cases of armed robbery in the land. The draconian decree that imposed the death penalty by firing squad on armed robbery hardly did much to deter the crime. Instead, the criminals became daring and more deadly, choosing to kill their victims to prevent them from becoming witnesses against them at trial.

    Law enforcement is the responsibility of the police. When the military has shared this responsibility with them, we have seen untoward effects in clashes between the personnel of the two agencies. The latest incidence is the unfortunate killing of three police officers belonging to the highly regarded IGP’s Intelligence Response Team (IRT). The killing is reckless. The subsequent explanation is even more insulting to the memory of the gallant officers.

    This latest incidence of killer soldiers in Taraba state raises serious questions. If it can happen to police IRT, it can happen to “bloody civilians” for whom soldiers have the least respect and the greatest contempt.

    According to media reports, the police officers had gone on a mission to arrest a notorious kidnapper, a former petty fish trader who found new wealth in kidnapping for ransom in Taraba State. They had reportedly worked with the Taraba Police Command. Their mission accomplished with the criminal in handcuffs, they headed to the Command Headquarters in Jalingo. They encountered soldiers at checkpoints on the way. This is where a thick fog of confusion sets in.

    The military claimed that the van that the police drove was flagged down at three army checkpoints but refused to stop. The police disputed this claim. The military also claimed that the soldiers received a distress call about a kidnapping, a red signal to which they responded by pursuing the police officers. They caught up with them and opened fire on the vehicle, killing three officers and a civilian and “rescuing” the kidnapper who they turned to victim. Sadly, even after the truth was known, the military still referred to the police as the kidnappers. Aside from lost lives, this is the most disgusting aspect of the military excuse.

    One aspect of the military narrative appeared to be confirmed by other sources. Hamisu Bala, the kidnapper, is evil. He is also clever. After he was apprehended, handcuffed, and bundled in the van, he managed to peep out of the van and raised an alarm that he was being kidnapped. His friends and beneficiaries of his largess pursued the van and at the third check point they informed the military. That was how the military got involved.

    Several questions scream for answers. Why did the soldiers open fire on the van carrying the police instead of stopping it and “arresting” its occupants? Did they shoot indiscriminately into the van or did they target the police officers? If the former, how was the kidnapper spared? If the latter, why? And when they finally killed the three officers, did the soldiers not identify the handcuff on the kidnapper as a police tool of arrest? If they did, why did they release him? If they didn’t, did they make any inquiries on why he was handcuffed?

    According to the police, one of the dying officers told the soldiers that they were police officers on duty. Why did not this alert the soldiers to their terrible mistake and handover the kidnapper to the police? As they were not accredited law-enforcement officers, shouldn’t it occur to the soldiers to at least contact the police command to do more investigation? What is most troubling question: are the soldiers in cahoots with kidnappers?

    This last question raises a serious issue. The Nation reports that after the police officers and civilian were killed, Bala, with handcuffed hands and chained legs, managed to crawl to safety inside a house. On the following day, he contacted an army captain who helped him cut the chains and handcuff. This facilitated his escape.

    This latest military indiscretion is a red flag. We must avoid involving them in law enforcement on our roads. We must not create more deadly encounters while trying to solve others. Give the police the tools they need. Attend to their welfare. Recruit more men and women of integrity. They will get the job done.

    May the souls of the gallant officers rest in peace.

     

     

  • Islam’s Charter with Christianity

    For many Nigerian charlatans who claim to be clerics and preach to their congregations with instigation of hate speeches and unbridled hostility, there are many sources from which to learn a lesson. One of such sources is history which is globally recognized as a great teacher of man. Without history, there can neither be any experience for man nor any template for his future plans. It is on the fertile soil of history that the growth of man and the development of his society are firmly planted.

    Symbiotic Relationship

    Just as history makes man so does man makes history. But the impact of the latter outweighs that of the former by far in the trend of human civilization. However, the symbiotic relationship of both history and man is what keeps the world going.

    Makers of History

    In its characteristic nature as a teacher, history has made many people who continue to depend on its platform for livelihood. On the other hand, there are those who have made history to the benefit of other people even long after their demise.

    The greatest maker of human history, as universally acknowledged, is the greatest human being that ever lived. That human being is Prophet Muhammad (SAW) the son of Abdullah who was an unlettered desert man that paved way for global literacy and education of mankind without blemish. It was he who clearly distinguished education from literacy with his own practical example and opened the eyes of the whole world to the fact that literacy is just an instrument for documenting and preserving knowledge for posterity.  And that is one of the factors that makes him the greatest man that ever lived.

    Through a famous book entitled ‘The 100: A Ranking of the Most influential Persons in History’ and published in 1977, by a Jewish American astrophysicist and scholar, Michael Hart,  the consciousness of the contemporary world was drawn to the uniqueness of an unlettered man who turns out to be the most educated human being ever in history.

    It was in that book that Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was named the greatest man that ever lived.

    And since the publication of that historic book, no other author or scholar of note has come up with an acknowledged research work to counter Michael Hart’s sense of judgment by providing a convincing alternative to the latter’s conclusion.

    Thus, contrary to cynics’ baseless propaganda against Islam and Prophet Muhammad (SAW), out of sheer envy, it was this greatest Prophet of Islam that taught mankind the act of religious tolerance and accommodation.

    Evidence of Greatness

    Greatness is neither by chance nor by sheer proclamation or attribution. Whoever can innovate a venture that becomes a heritage for multitudes of people across nations, centuries and generations is indeed an incontrovertible great person. That is one of the many factors that make Prophet Muhammad (SAW) the greatest man that ever lived.

    Historic Charter

    In recognition of Jesus Christ as his predecessor and fellow Apostle, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) signed a charter with some Christian leaders in 628 CE and the charter remains valid till today. The signing of that charter by the great Prophet was also an evidence that Islam recognizes authentic Christianity as a divine religion.

    In that year (628 CE), a Christian delegation from St. Catherine’s Monastery travelled to Madinah to meet Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and seek from him protection of the Islamic government under his command. The objective was to elicit the support of the Islamic government in ensuring their security against the aggression of the 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 Content of the Charter

    In response to the request of the Christian representatives cited above, Prophet Muhammad (SAW) them granted a written charter of rights 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 God, as well as the helpers of Islam 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 has breached God’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 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 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 are 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, do not blame Christianity for any misdemeanor of a Christian or attack Christianity as a way of preaching Islam as some Christians do against Islam particularly in Nigeria.

    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 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 or disciples 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.

    One God, One Faith

    A divine religion is like embassies to which Ambassadors are diplomatically assigned. The operations in those embassies are in accordance with the foreign policies of the home country of the mission to which an Ambassador is assigned. And just as the embassy premises are treated as part of the home country of the concerned mission so are the Ambassadors posted to those missions are accorded diplomatic immunity. And, in such cases, what is good for the goose is equally deemed good for the gander.

    Commercialization of Religion

    Ironically, today, in no other country is religion as commercialized as in Nigeria. Even the United States of America from where that obnoxious capitalist orientation was imported has been surpassed by some Nigerian charlatans calling themselves ‘men and women of god’. If such Nigerians claim to be religious at all, their dedication is rather to the money accruing from religion than to God that they claim to be worshipping.

    Evidence of Ignorance

    What most Nigerian leaders of Islamic and Christian religions do not seem to know is that the refusal of the adherents of both religions to study and understand the doctrines which guide those religions is the main cause of religious disharmony in the country today. This is however, not peculiar to Nigeria. It is global. Both Christians and Muslims jointly constitute more than half of the world’s population.

    And, it is from their common brook that the spiritual ripples which continually make the world restive emanate. If the adherents of both religions had endeavoured to mutually study and understand the doctrines that guide their ways in life, the world would not have come under religious spell as we have it today.

    Prophetic Revelation

    Before the Prophet’s migration from Makkah to Madinah, a Qur’anic revelation came to Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in 616 CE to confirm 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 more vividly than can be found in the Bible. 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?

    Orientalists’ Antics

    However, despite all the indisputable facts mentioned above, the Western Orientalists and their blind imitators in Nigeria who seek to foster discord between Christianity and Islam by all means, as a way of  enriching themselves materially in their commercialization of religion refuse to relent in that evil machination. Those are commercial the charlatans who want the world to believe that this same Prophet Muhammad (SAW), at the inception of Islam, held the Qur’an in one hand and the sword in the other while moving around to force people to accept Islam or be ready to die. In the exhibition of their blatant ignorance based on falsehood, they do not even think of the illogicality of such baseless falsehood as the Qur’an had not been compiled into a book before the demise of the Prophet. Logically, if one man had such a power to intimidate and force multitudes of people who opposed his divine mission to accept Islam by force could such a man have been compelled to migrate from Makkah (his home town) to Madinah for asylum? That shows how shallow the thought of liars can be in the process of fabricating falsehood.

    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 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 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 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 under the guise of religion. Nigerian press is particularly guilty of this by fueling such provocations. It is wrong to expect tolerance to 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.

    Nigerian Church and Mosque leaders must refrain from negative sentiments and hypocrisy by dissuading their followers from interpreting the misbehaviour of some miscreants to mean the prescription of the religion which those miscreants claim to profess.

    No matter the level of hatred and hostility towards another religion, only the will of Allah will prevail.

  • Growing pains

    I WOULD like to invite the attention of my readers to what I consider to be one of the unique features of democracy as a form of government. Simply put, democracy is an organism, with stages of growth, each of which has its unique characteristics requiring special attention. In some sense, we acknowledge this fact with our speech-acts. We say, for instance, that we should grow our democracy. Or that we must not allow democracy to die.

    But what does it mean to say that as an organism democracy has stages of growth? It means that, as opposed to being born and attaining the age of maturity in a day, it develops in stages. And each of these stages comes with unique characteristics and special requirements, which if not met, could hamper its growth and delay its maturity. In short, a democracy-being can be likened to a human being. It goes through birthing pains, infancy, adolescence, and adulthood.

    Before we go into a discussion of these stages of growth and their special needs, however, it is necessary to see how other forms of government such as monarchy, aristocracy, or dictatorship are different. For each of these, the analogy fails because it is misplaced. No growth is warranted because the interest at stake is limited to that of the wielder(s) of power.

    Take monarchy, for instance. In Prince, Machiavelli gets it right when he advises that the interest of the king be the sole long-term motivation for actions and policies, and it is in the context of the king’s interests that those of the subjects get considered. In The Social Contract, Rousseau makes a similar claim. And Louis XIV of France declared: Letat c’est moi. Where that is the case, talk about growth of the monarchy makes little sense unless in terms of the maturing of the person wielding power at any point in time.

    In our own neck of wood, the pre-colonial forms of government differed in various ways. In none of them does the analogy prevail for the same reason that we have mentioned. We are familiar with such lyrics as “Kabiyesi Oba lo nile. Bo ba n dun yin e fori sole.”(The land belongs to the king. If you are unhappy, you may fall and die.) And the subjects themselves dance ecstatically to the music that demeans their humanity.

    In the case of the military, which, beside democracy, has been our common experience for the better part of our existence as a nation, we also know that it is far from being an organism that grows. Surely, it increases or decreases in size and complexity depending on circumstances external to it. But it is akin to robotic development than human growth. In fairness to Fela, this is probably what he tried to depict in his zombie lyrics, without prejudice to the wonderful men and women of distinction who have served or are serving in the armed forces.

    Democracy is the only form of government that can be described as an organism that grows and suffers from growing pains as it goes through the various stages of growth.

    First, is the stage of birth and its pains. We have gone through three stages of democratic birth, each with midwives having their own special interests in the newly born. In our first democratic birth, we had the colonial masters as the midwives. They delivered a baby that was to be in their image and serve their interests. Therefore, the baby, almost still born, deprived of loving care and left on her own, did not survive beyond the kindergarten stage. It was the beginning of democracy as abiku in this land.

    Our second democratic birth was midwifed by the military. Again, with their own interest at stake, they ensured that they monitored the baby in gestation, and they delivered her in accordance with their perceived good. What you get as output cannot be different from what you put in. A vineyard does not produce a harvest of carrots. And birth pains are sure to be multiple and linger when the conditions are not conducive. So it was that this new baby had a shorter life than the first.

    Finally, we just had a third birth also midwifed by the military which was responsible for the demise of the second birth. And, as before, it made extra effort to ensure that this new arrival is also kept close to its tutelage by making one of its own the president of the new republic. This was soon to backfire as the new president, untrusting of his own former colleagues, brutally clipped their wings. The new birth has weathered the storm of life from infancy to the margins of adulthood at 20, while still engrossed in reactive mode to its environment, including cultural, religious, and ethnic.

    At infancy, a dictator in democratic garb became its first nurse. With heavy hands and an arsenal of military tactics, he outmaneuvered his opponents, but in the process, he dealt a heavy blow on the temple of the new-born, nearly suffocating it with electoral malfeasance, flagrant abuse of power and process in the use of impeachment as political weapon against perceived enemies. In infancy, our dear democracy suffered from negligence and abuse.

    A child that is thus abused has a tendency for developing defense mechanisms and may become delinquent in adolescence. Without proper counseling and therapy, this may follow him or her to adulthood. This accounts for the crippling corruption, mockery of the rule of law, and judicial recklessness that have been the embarrassing features of our democracy at 20.

    There are certain development milestones that we expect normal human children to attain as they grow. At 20, which is late adolescence in human development, there are some expectations. Mentally, a 20-year old would think through ideas, set personally goals, and develop a view of life that makes it meaningful. With regards to emotional development, late adolescents have a good sense of self, have some concern for others, and entertain thoughts about his or her purpose in life as he or she becomes gradually stable. In social terms, late adolescents are more self-reliant with an increasing ability to make their own decisions.

    If democracy is a living organism, citizens are the internal organs, the interplay, intersection and workings of which make the organism thrive and prosper. Therefore, if any of the internal organs is diseased and unable to perform its functions, the health of the organism is also compromised. There is no doubt that many citizens of our democratic republic are diseased and demobilized. That the institutions which are established to provide direction for the republic are dysfunctional is provable beyond reasonable doubt. These institutions are also peopled by persons that operate at below par. Hence the morbidity of the entire system.

    The current furor over the call for revolution is part of the growing pains of the system and a symptom of its ill-health. Surely, there are serious problems that warrant the attention of patriots, but which also predate the current administration. Indeed, members of the current administration, including the president himself, have at some point in 2011 and 2015 led protests that exposed the ills of society.

    It is also true, however, that this latest effort on the part of some patriots has not been well handled. Such a major push must not be made as if it were a lone wolf idea, especially when the lone wolf has just lost an election, giving the unfortunate impression of a sore loser only re-contesting the election on the streets. There is no indication of a thoughtful plan that seeks collaboration with labor, trade unions, students, market women, etc. Without such an effort, you open yourself to defeat and failure.

    On the other hand, the state security services, as always, has also managed to snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. With its deployment of machine guns to kill a spider, it has lionized the spider in the process, embarrassing itself and the administration. There are enough lessons to learn from this latest saga, a manifestation of a late adolescence in growing pains.

     

  • An orphan’s legacy

    Who shares his life’s pure pleasure and works the honest road; who trades with heaping measure and lifts his brother’s load; who turns the wrong down bluntly and lends the right a hand; he dwells in God’s own country and tills the holy land.
    — Louis F. Benson

    No man in history has ever been as fitting to the above poetic description as Prophet Muhammad (SAW) the undisputable greatest man who ever lived. His legacy is the solid foundation upon which the contemporary civilisation is built. But despite the vivid visibility of that legacy it remains invisible to many eyes that are alien to Islam. Thus, the Prophet’s legacy is like the beaming sun which no blind can see and no seeing eyes can perceive in its natural nakedness. Yet, both the blind and the seeing feel the burning effect of the sun ‘Willy-nilly’ even as it photosynthesizes the plants around them.

    Attention

    This article is not meant to celebrate the birth of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) for which  a public holiday is annually declared in Nigeria.

    As far as ‘The Message’ is concerned, what is to be celebrated about this great Prophet is by far beyond his birthday. His achievements clearly transcend his birth. Thus, there is no need wasting time on his birthday here.

    From the creation of Adam, the first human being, till date, no man’s biography has been so much written and read as that of Muhammad (SAW) the son of Abdullah and Aminah. This man’s biography has been written from all perspectives, positive and negative, by various men and women of diverse races, tribes, ideologies and religions in the past 1444 years or there about. And the biography is still being written and re-written authoritatively and un-authoritatively, today, in uncountable languages.

    Through the writings of the Prophet’s biography, some people have zoomed into un-dream-able fame. Others have sunk into the abyss of a permanent oblivion. But virtually all the writers have benefitted from their writings directly or indirectly in coins and in kind. No other Prophet’s biography has attracted as many writers from believers and non-believers, from friends and foes alike as that of Prophet Muhammad (SAW).

    Every aspect of this Prophet’s life including the dresses he wore, the food he ate, the way he spoke, the wives he married, the children he bore, and the wars he fought, has formed the basis of his biography.

    In short, next to the Qur’an, no book is as much read daily in the world today as the biography of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in one form or another. But there is a vital question: why is global focus so much on this unlettered Prophet from Arabia?

    The answer to this question is not far-fetched. The world has not produced any other personality like him. And it will not. He is the seal of all Prophets and the epitome of human exemplariness. In him alone are found all the traits of what a perfect gentleman should be in all ramifications.

    If Prophet Muhammad had not been an orphan, he would not have been able to guide humanity on how orphans should be treated especially with regards to inheritance. If he had not been a husband, his marital life would not have been an excellent example for others to emulate and women’s rights would have been permanently ignored. If he had not been a widower the world would not have realised the plight of widows and learnt how to provide for them. If he had not been a father, the proper care for children by parents would have been relegated to the background in Islamic doctrine. If he had not been trustworthy, the value of trust would have been totally lost on mankind.

    His migration from Makkah to Madinah paved way for the culture of hospitality universally imbibed today and the wars he was forced to fight engendered the law of war, armistice and peace. Without the conquests he achieved, the word magnanimity would not have found a place in the dictionary of man and if he had not suffered defeat in war, the vanquished would not have learnt the act of gallantry. If the Prophet had not been a judge, the virtue of justice would have been globally thrown to the winds and survival in all societies would have been for the fittest.

    If he had not being a democratic ruler, the relationship between the ruled and their rulers, all over the world, today, would not have been dissimilar from that of slaves and their masters and dictatorship in governance would have known no bounds. If Prophet had not been poor despite being a Head of State, the policy of social welfare adopted in civilised societies today in favour of the poor, would not have been possible. If he had not been an illiterate, the world would not have known the difference between literacy and education. And, if, despite all these qualities in him, he had not been humble and affable, arrogance would have been the main character of all privileged people in the world today.

    Who else can be compared to this man in history? And, in which any other single person have all the aforementioned qualities ever been

    found in history? There can be little wonder then why so much attention was and is still being focused on the personality of this extra-ordinary human being. That is Prophet Muhammad (SAW) for you, the like of whom the world has never seen and will never see again. If

    this man is celebrated anywhere in the world, anytime, therefore, it is definitely not because he was born. His achievements transcend his birth.

    But for him, the world would have remained in the dungeon of ignorance and primitivism and humanity would have remained at the level of crude beasts. It was he who brought back the manual of life to mankind after it had been lost in the search for sheer vanity. Manual of life is the divine instruction which came gradually from Allah to mankind according to the growth rate of human intellect. But such manual is not peculiar to man alone. All other organisms have their own instructions from Allah which in a way constitute their own manuals of life.

    However, due to the intellectual superiority of man, the various divine instructions to other organisms were incorporated into man’s own manual of life. This is to enable man understand the complexity of his environment vis-a-vis the essence of his own existence and thereby act effectively as Allah’s vicegerent on earth. Although because of the differences in times and methods, Allah’s message is perceived differently, the fact remains that the message is only one coming from only one and same God. This message is the ‘RIGHT PATH’ to salvation which came to mankind after several millennia of wondering in the wilderness of ignorance and vainglory. And the man, Muhammad (SAW), through whom that message reached us is the ‘PATH FINDER’. There are many attestations to this. For instance, after many years of scientific experimentations, a German-born American physicist and Nobel Laureate, Albert Einstein, the inventor of atomic bomb who is generally known as the 20th century creator of special and general theory of relativity, compared his works with the contents of the Qur’an and concluded as follows: “Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind”.

    He then called on fellow scientists to endeavour to read the Qur’an without bias in order to know the true origin of science in human life.

    And as if responding to Einstein’s call, Professor Tagatat Tajasen, Chairman of the Department of Anatomy at Chiang Mai University in Thailand accepted Islam on the strength of just one scientific sign accurately mentioned in the Qur’an. He had spent a great amount of his time, as a Professor, in search of pain receptor. When his attention was drawn to the Qur’an, he did not believe initially that such a highly sophisticated aspect of science could have been mentioned over 1,400 years ago. But when he confirmed it by himself in the translation of the Qur’an, he became so much impressed that he purposely attended the 8th Saudi Medical Conference held in Riyadh where he publicly embraced Islam.

    Another leading scientist, Professor Marshall Johnson, the Head of the Department of Anatomy a Director of Daniel Institute at the Thomas Jefferson University in Philadelphia, USA, was asked to comment on the verses of the Qur’an dealing with embryology. In response, he said it was probable that for Prophet Muhammad (SAW) to have given such vivid description of foetus, he must have had a powerful microscope. But when he was reminded that the Qur’an was revealed over 1400 years ago and that the invention of microscope took place only a couple of centuries ago Professor Johnson laughed and made the following remark: “I see nothing here in conflict with the concept that Divine intervention was involved when Muhammad recited the Qur’an….”.

    Yet another Embryologist, Professor Keith Moore of the Department of Anatomy, University of Toronto, Canada, after carefully examining the translation of the Qur’anic verses presented to him admitted thus: “most of the information concerning embryology mentioned in the Qur’an is in perfect conformity with modern discoveries in the field of embryology and does not conflict with them in any way”.

    Professor Moore had no prior knowledge of anything leechlike about embryo until he read chapter 96 of the Qur’an where Allah says “Read! In the name of your Lord Who created. He created man out of a leechlike clot…” He then went to verify this fact in an embryo under a powerful microscope and compared his observation with a diagram of a leech. He was astonished at the resemblance of the two. That prompted him to go fully into studying the Qur’an and Hadith to acquire more knowledge until he was able to answer about 80 hitherto unanswered questions in that field.

    That prompted him to correct the contents of his book ‘The Developing Human’ which he published earlier and he re-published it in 1982. It was with that revised edition that he became the recipient of an award for the best medical book written by a single author in the 20th century. That book has been translated into many major languages of the world and is mostly used as textbook of embryology today in the first year of medical studies in various Universities in the world.

    Yet, despite talking about all sciences, the Qur’an is not a book of Sciences but that of ‘Signs’. Those ‘Signs’ invite man to realise the purpose of his existence on earth and live in harmony with nature.

    Judging the above verses of the Qur’an revealed over 1400 years ago with the wonderful reality of scientific civilisation of today what further proof does anybody need of the genuineness of the Qur’an? And who else can give better guidance than the Supreme Creator Himself? And who else can be better called the ‘PATH FINDER’ than Prophet Muhammad (SAW) who showed humanity the way to that all time guidance? Perhaps, this was why Michael Hart, a Jewish American Astrophysicist, named Prophet Muhammad the greatest man that ever lived in his famous book entitled ‘The 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons in History’.

    If all the descriptions given above about Prophet Muhammad (SAW) sound exaggerated because they are given by Femi Abbas, a Muslim and an ardent follower of that Prophet, and if Michael Hart is seen as crazy in his judgment let us read the views and impressions of some other non-Muslims about this great Prophet. One of them (Alphonse de Lamartine of France) had the following to say in his book ‘Histoire de la Torque’:

    “Never has a man set for himself, voluntarily or involuntarily, a more sublime aim since this aim was superhuman; to subvert superstitions which had been interposed between man and his Creator; to render God unto man and man unto God; to restore rational and sacred idea of divinity amidst the chaos of the material and disfigured gods of idolatry, then existing.

    Never has a man undertaken a work so far beyond human power with so feeble means, for he (Muhammad) had in the conception as well as in the execution of such a great design no other instrument than himself, and no other, except a handful of men living in a corner of a desert….

    If greatness of purpose, smallness of means, and astounding results are the three criteria of human genius, who could dare to compare any great man in modern history with Muhammad? The most famous men created arms, laws and empires only. They founded, if anything at all, no more than material powers which often crumbled before their very eyes. This man moved not only armies, legislations, empires, peoples and dynasties, but millions of men in one-third of the then inhabited world; and more than that, he moved the altars, the gods, the religions, the ideas, the beliefs and the souls. On the basis of a book, every letter of which has become law, he created a spiritual nationality which blended together peoples of every tongue and of every race…..As regards all standards by which human greatness may be measured we may well ask, is there any man in human history greater than Muhammad?”

    On his own, Napoleon Bonaparte, the great 18th century French conqueror of Europe was so much amazed by the traits of Islam which he saw in Egypt during his military expeditions that he made the following historic statement about that divine religion and its great Prophet: “Muhammad, in reality, was a great leader of mankind. He preached UNITY among Arabs who were, till then, torn asunder due to internecine quarrels, sometimes resulting in bloody war fares. He brought them out of the obscure world in a short time and the discipline which they maintained under his leadership was simply marvellous, and so was their bravery, courage and devotion to the cause which they loved and cherished. This, coupled with the contempt for death, as taught by their leader, made them great soldiers and fighters like of whom history rarely produces. I simply marvel at the achievements of this great ‘Son of the Desert’ within a mere period of less than 15 years; a thing which Moses and Christ could not do in 15 centuries. I salute this great man; I salute his qualities of Head and Heart….”

    And, in corroboration of the above statements, variously made by renowned men of letters and intellect, another foremost Orientalist, playwright and dramatist, George Bernard Shaw, had the following to say about Islam and Prophet Muhammad (SAW) in his book ‘The genuine Islam’ (vol. 1 No 8 of 1936):

    “The Christians and their missionaries have presented a horrible picture of Islam. Not only that, they also carried out an organised and planned propaganda against the personality of Prophet Mohammad and the religion he preached. I have carefully studied Islam and the life of its Prophet. I have done so both as a student of history and as a critic. And I have come to the conclusion that Mohammad was indeed a great man and a deliverer and benefactor of mankind which was till then writhing under a most agonizing pain. I have always held Islam in high estimation because of its wonderful vitality. It is the only religion which appears to me to possess that assimilating capacity to the changing face of existence which can make it appealing to every age. I have studied him-the wonderful man and in my opinion, far from being an anti-Christ, he must be called the saviour of humanity. I believe that if a man like him were to assume the dictatorship of the modern world, he would succeed in solving its problems in a way that would bring it the much needed peace and happiness.

    I have prophesied about the faith of Muhammad that it would be acceptable to the Europe of tomorrow as it is beginning to be acceptable to the Europe of today”.

    For confirmation of Bernard Shaw’s remark quoted above, see ‘The Genuine Islam, vol. 1, No. 8, 1936.

    These are just some of the facts that make an orphan and unlettered Prophet, Muhammad (SAW), the greatest human being that ever lived on earth. None of the attestations above made any reference to his birth or birthday because they knew that his birth had nothing to do with his achievements. If non-Muslims could go as far as shown above to benefit from the greatness of Prophet Muhammad’s mission on earth what is expected of Muslims for whom that mission is primarily meant?

  • Rethinking Southwest priorities: An update

    On October 2016, I did a three-part series on Rethinking Southwest Priorities. I am revisiting the first part of the series today for one reason: its contemporary relevance.

    In the 2016 piece, I observed the centrality of restructuring in the political lexicon of the Southwest. I referenced the battle cry of marginalization by an integral segment of a political tendency in the zone against the Jonathan administration. I saw it as a reflection of the group’s perception of a center and its periphery, a core with a favored occupant and a margin with its forsaken elements.

    In a self-serving response to the complaint, the Jonathan presidency threw the zone a piece of bone: a contract for the reconstruction of Lagos-Ibadan Expressway. The announcement this week of a partial closure of that highway to accelerate completion after five years, and four years after the exit of that administration, is evidence of the emptiness of that gesture.

    Imagine for a moment the significance of this closure announcement in view of the importance of that expressway to the economy of the country, west to east, south to north. A friend of mine in the corporate world told me this week the story of a potential foreign investor who visited the country a few years ago for business. His hosts arranged a visit from Lagos to Ibadan. The journey, which should normally take one hour, took them four hours. That was a deal breaker for the foreigner. Who could blame him? But in our ignorant ethnic sensibilities, even we sometimes jeopardize our best interests. This accounts for the way federal lawmakers conflated the Lagos-Ibadan expressway with relatively secondary roads in their neck of wood and demanded comparable budget allocation.

    The question for the southwest has always been about putting to work, for the advancement of the region and the country, the mass of largely untapped human and material resources at its disposal. To the extent that it feels helpless in the centralized architecture of a quasi-unitary system that we run in the name of a federal polity, the complaint of marginalization as arrested development is genuine.

    Having the memory of what the region accomplished in the golden era of Nigerian federalism in the late fifties and early sixties cannot but be frustrating in the present circumstance of retarded growth and unfulfilled expectations. Without the brutal interruption of its forward march in the 60s, there is little doubt about where the old West would be now. But here we are with generations of youths condemned to a present mired in confusion, celebrating ignorance and greed, and a hopeless future.

    In the piece under review, I warned against crying over spilled milk. I argued that we did not need to continuously brood over the failures of a quasi-unitary system. We should rather worry about the state of the southwest as a cohesive group with a vision, a people with a history of achievement that was and is still the envy of others. “Assume the worst, that the progressive government at the center, while willing, finds itself in a situation that it cannot deliver on political restructuring. What ought the southwest to do? And since “ought” implies “can”, what can the southwest do?”

    What options do we have? Talk about secession is cheap. Following through requires a heavy lifting. We are aware of the constitutional constraint that has no provision for peaceful secession. A bloodless divorce must be the result of negotiation by all the parties. Needless to add, such negotiation cannot be achieved in the context of name-calling and hate mail. Beside the external impediment, there are contradictions and oppositional tendencies within, which make it unlikely that a consensus is reachable, even within the Southwest. Though the zone was to be the beneficiary of the victory in the struggle against military dictatorship in the 1990s, it was a case of a house divided against itself. That was a lesson too soon to be forgotten.

    The objective of the rallying cry for restructuring is to enable the component units of the federation develop efficiently and effectively. This objective could be pursued with vigor now even as we continue to make the case for restructuring. How? It does not even require any out-of-the-box imagining. It only requires us to address ourselves to the questions: What worked for us in the past as a people? How is the present different from the past? In the light of the difference between the past and the present, what adjustments do we need to make to our past approach so that we can have a good outcome in the present.

    Focusing on the first question there is a simple answer. We had a fortunate combination of selfless and visionary leadership with the skill sets for economic and social development, a people with the inculcated values of hard work and the urge to self-improvement, and a large expanse of land and territory that was a boost to the fundamental requirement of economy of scale.

    Consider this last factor for a minute. From Okeho in the north to Ikeja in the south, from Ado-Odo in the west to Ado-Ekiti in the east, the products of the land complemented each other. Production was enhanced by friendly governmental policies such that there was enough for domestic consumption and export. We saw the beginning of an agro-industrial complex with Lafia Canning Industry, Ado-Ekiti Textile Factory, and a host of others.

    More to the point in the current political discourse over best practices for livestock farming is the history of the pioneering efforts of the old Western Region. I just watched a YouTube post by Professor Adewumi Taiwo, an agricultural expert whose father was a former agricultural expert in the old region. It does matter that what he discussed in the video was what many in my generation witnessed as participants or observers. Who in the generation of our children could believe that the old Western Region had well-developed ranches for breeding and rearing cattle, chicken, pigs, and rabbits? It is all history now because we had generations of military governments that cared nothing about food production. They killed innovative ideas that worked and abandoned agriculture. We are reaping the fruits of their ignominious action now.

    Professor Taiwo talks about the grades of cattle, with Fashola ranch breeding grandparent and parent species which were not for sale, sending retail breeds to other ranches such as Odeda, Oriire, etc. which were then raised and sold to the public. Unfortunately, succeeding military administrators cared less about these policies. They took whatever they wanted from the farms, including grandparent breeds. That was an example of leadership failure, the bane of development agenda.

    Consider also the security issue that we are dealing with now. In our centralized security architecture, the country has less than 500,000 police force. For more than 180 million population, the ratio is atrocious. Our military force is not any better in numbers. Equipment is a different issue entirely. Men and women of the underworld have superior weapons with which the police cannot compete. There are no regional or local police. So, we condemn our rural areas, many of which have no police presence at all, to savagery by bandits, kidnappers and terrorists. We abandoned a system that worked for all because we wanted a uniformitarian system. But we have refused to invest adequately to make it work. Every time we hear about recruitment into the police force, but the security situation is only getting worse.

    Military era is long gone. Civilians have been in the saddle for twenty years. Do we have our priorities right? Or do we only celebrate mediocrity and arrogance? What motivates our zonal leaders? These questions scream for answers.

    I still believe that all is not lost. We still have a crop of leaders with genuine commitment to the development of human and material resources in the zone. Our challenge is to find and multiply them across the zone and get them commit to a unity of purpose unencumbered by partisanship or ego, so we can write the next story of a region bubbling with developmental energy.

     

     

     

  • The Price of Ignorance

    Preamble

    Peace, in any tempestuous circumstance is not by chance. It is rather a well planned sphere of life with pillars of endurance, tolerance and understanding. The usual template of peace is a matter of experience gained from history.

    This article is not new. It was first published in 2012. But it is being repeated here today because of demand for its republication by many readers who passionately believe in its relevance to the current Nigerian situation in which religion has become the biggest commercial venture that vigorously constitutes a tug of war on a regular basis at the instance of some so called religious leaders who are provocatively dishing out hate speeches in torrents from their pulpits as a form of advertisement to their ignorant congregations.

     

    Definition of History

     

    History is an invisible object with two invisible wings flying across generations in time and in space. One of the wings is positive, the other is negative. With history, the present becomes the heritage of the past even as the future awaits the baton of continuity or otherwise from the present. No living nation or tribe or even individual can dream of a realizable future without a veritable present based on the experience of the past. The web of life is like a magnet which no iron element can bypass on its way to ornamental glory.

    Against what ought to be a valuable heritage, Nigeria is, today, passing through a fabric of uncertainty as she rolls back the fibres of the future into those of the present and weaves both into the vestiges of the past. Such is a sign of a dead nation waiting to be interned. What war is not ravaging Nigeria today in spite of Allah’s abundant bounties? The forces of the present seem to have connived with those of the past to engage in wrestling down the future with a determination to deprive the generations yet unborn of any hope of decent existence. From all indications, Nigerians live in a country that is evidently enslaved to her so-called leaders who are politicians.

    For decades, Nigeria had been forced by those so-called leaders to fight wars ranging from political to economic, to social and to ethnic conflicts without winning any. Now, a religious dimension is being desperately added for pecuniary purpose.

    Like a billow vigorously storming around at the instance of an invisible tempest, a melee of religious hullabaloo engendered by a vicious political Pandora has virtually turned Nigeria into a land of curses.

     

    Youths for Peace

     

    To avoid the scourge of such a melee or prevent its spread and intensity in Nigeria, some foresighted Nigerian youths (Muslims and Christians) of Yoruba descent bravely took the bull by the horn in 2012. Those youths, led by a versatile Journalist, Adewale Adeoye (a Christian) and a brilliant Lawyer, Shenge Abdur-Rahman (a Muslim) formed an organization named ‘Yoruba Muslim-Christian Dialogue Group’ and organized an interfaith in Lagos on February 23, 2012. The core objective of the group was to foster a stronger peaceful co-existence between the Muslims and the Christians in Nigeria with a view to stem the growth of Boko Haram carnage on the one hand and preclude a possible repetition of Rwandan pogrom saga in Nigeria on the other.

    The summit which attracted a number of Muslim and Christian organizations as well as some prominent individuals made the gathering to look expressly meaningful. Yours sincerely was one of the guest speakers invited to address the gathering on that occasion. Below is an excerpt from the speech I delivered:

     

    Purpose of Religion

     

    “….By its design and intent, religion is supposed to be not only a panacea for all human psychological ailments but also a soothing balm for any spiritual ache. Ironically, however, it has been turned into a poison in our society which seemingly has no provision for any antidote. And through our usual  attitude tagged Nigerian factor, we seem to be bent on swallowing the pill of that poison without minding its dangerous repercussion.

    The factors that culminated in what we now variously call religious militancy, extremism, fanaticism and terrorism emanated only from the yoke of ignorance which bad governance has come to incubate. And could anything have influenced bad governance as much as ignorance? Yet ignorance would not have had a role to play in our religious or political lives if we had demonstrated the will to genuinely follow the tenets of our religions and learn from the lessons of history without banking on mere assumption and fallacious rumour.

     

    History as a Teacher

     

    History as a teacher always has a lesson to teach those who are ready to learn. But unfortunately, most human beings especially Nigerians refuse to learn any lesson from history and the price is what we are paying today.

    In 1962, Nigeria’s Governor General, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe (who later became Nigeria’s first President in 1963), paid a three day official courtesy visit to the Premier of Northern Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello in Kaduna. Dr Azikiwe was accompanied by his wife, Flora. The host

    Premier mobilized all the paraphernalia of office in honour of his guests whom he accorded an unprecedentedly flamboyant hospitality. The visit enabled their wives to become so familiar with each other that Flora also invited the Bellos to the East on a similar visit. By the time the visit ended, Dr. Azikiwe had become so much impressed that at the point of departure he held Ahmadu Bello’s hands and gently told him to “Let us forget our differences”.

    In response to that emotional but infatuating gesture, Sir Ahmadu Bello said in an equally gentle but emotional baritone voice: “No sir! Rather than forgetting our differences, let us understand them. I am a Muslim and a Northerner. You are a Christian and a Southerner. It is only by identifying and understanding those differences that our friendliness can truly blossom and endure”. There and then, Dr.

    Azikiwe nodded in agreement with his host’s logic by accepting the fact that one could not forget what has not been identified. The

    lesson to learn from this experience is that of mutual understanding without pretentiously sweeping anything under the carpet. That is the principle upon which the marriage of political strange fellows who find themselves in a joint government is often based in Nigeria. It is also the principle upon which the partnership of many Nigerian businessmen and women is based despite their cultural incompatibility.

    But that principle is not applied to Religion in Nigeria because of easy but dubious access to cheap wealth by certain religious charlatans who are ignorantly perceived as religious leaders.

     

    Stages of Ignorance

     

    Religious Ignorance from Primordial Times

     

    For thousands of years, peoples of all races and tribes across the world thrived vaingloriously on cultural ignorance attributing their calamities to mysterious forces and blaming such mysteries on what they called witchcraft. In the past, here in Africa, millions of children were forced to die in infancy by their own parents out of sheer ignorance while the same parents turned round to blame what they called ‘ABIKU’ or ‘OGBANJE’ for the mass infanticide. With time, however, education and knowledge of science brought about the invention of various vaccines with which children are now immunized against different diseases thereby giving those infants the opportunity to survive. And this has enabled us to know today that the mystery once called ‘ABIKU’ or ‘OGBANJE’ is a euphemism for ignorance in African mythology of those days.

    Now that the days of cultural ignorance seem to be over, Nigerians have devised another means of restiveness by shifting to religious ignorance which enables them to replace the infanticide of the yore with modern day genocide through terrorism and banditry in the name of religion. It is hoped that one day,  knowledge will also help us to overcome the spectre of religious ignorance by the grace of Allah.

     

    Qur’anic Testimony

     

    If it had pleased the Almighty Allah to make all human beings one single race with one colour, one tongue and one religion, He would have done so without receiving any query from any quarter. But as the Omnipresent and Omnipotent, His decision to diversify His creatures cannot be faulted as it is from that diversity that all creatures have consistently derived benefits. In the world today, there are different races and tribes of human beings with different colours, languages and cultures each functioning as predestined and yet they all interact positively with one another to the benefit of all and sundry.  This is in accordance with the words of Allah in Chapter 49 verse 13 of the Qur’an thus: “Oh mankind! We have created you from a male and a female and classified you into races and tribes that you may interact with one another (and thereby draw from the advantages therein). Verily, the most honourable of you before Allah is the most pious among you.

    Allah is All-knower and most acquainted with all things”.

     

    Nature of Creatures

     

    What is true of human beings here is equally true of other creatures.

    For instance we can all see that on a single arable plot of land, a variety of plants may grow to form an orchard but each with different foliages and fruits. Some of those fruits may be sweet, some may be bitter and some may be sour. Some may be fruitful and some may be fruitless. Some may be trees of gargantuan posture while others may be ordinary legumes. Yet they are all fed by the same soil, watered by the same rain and photosynthesized by the same sun. Their different foliages, sizes, heights and tastes notwithstanding, they all function effectively and advantageously according to the purpose for which they are created. In the ecosystem, no tree in an orchard will ever accuse another of bearing fruits different from its own and no animal will blame another for carrying a different feature or for wearing a different colour. No whale will ever denigrate even a fingerling in the ocean for sharing the same water with it. Ditto the world of birds, reptiles, and that of insects.  Even as plants, animals, aquatics, birds and insects, they know that for everything Allah does He has a purpose which may not be known to them as creatures. It is only among human beings that discrimination and segregation exist based on ignorance.

     

    Parable of Religion

     

    We can also compare the above analogy to a situation inside a football stadium where there is a variety of sections such as State Box for the upper class, State Box Extension for the Middle Class and popular side for the lower class. At the entrance of the stadium, each person obtains a ticket according to his or her financial ability. And that qualifies him for a seat in any of those sections according to the status of the ticket obtained. Without prejudice to the categories of the tickets they obtain, all the spectators in the stadium are authorised to watch the match for which they have paid. If at the end of the match however, a spectator who was privileged to sit in the State Box turns round to say that another who sat at the popular side of the stadium did not watch the match others around them will sarcastically conclude that something might have gone wrong with the psyche of the accuser. The positions from which those spectators watched the match might be different but the fact remains that they all watched the same match. That is the parable of religion in the lives of individual human beings.

    A famous German dramatist and critic Gotthold Ephraim Lessing (1729-1781) once made a related axiomatic statement in a stanza thus: “There are good men in every land; The tree of life has many branches and roots; Let not the topmost twig presume to think that it alone has sprung from the mother earth; We did not choose our races by ourselves; Jews, Muslims, Christians, all alike are men. Let me hope I have found in you a man”.

     

    The Mission of Religion

     

    In Islam, revealed religions are like an embassy established by a nation in another nation to strengthen her relationship with the host country. The Ambassadors appointed to manage such embassy, can be changed from time to time just like the foreign policy which guides those ambassadors but the embassy remains intact barring any unforeseen circumstances. So is the case with the Prophets of Allah. They might have come at different times and from different lands and tribes. They might have brought different books revealed in different languages but their mission was one and the same. Muslims believe that all the Prophets and Messengers who have come into the world to guide mankind were from one and the same God who created the universe. Thus, Prophets Ibrahim (Abraham), Ismail (Ishmael) Ishaq (Isaac), Musa (Moses), Daud (David), Isa (Jesus) and Muhammad (SAW) as well as others who preceded them or came in-between them brought the same message of monotheism through which mankind was counselled to worship one God and be upright in conduct.

    In Qur’an Chapter 2 verse 285, Allah admonishes Muslims against discriminating among His Apostles thus: “The Apostle of Allah, Muhammad, (SAW) believes in what has been revealed to him by his Lord, and so do the (Muslim) faithful. They all believe in Allah and His Angels, His Books as well as His Apostles. We do not discriminate against any of His Apostles. They say ‘We hear and obey. Grant us your forgiveness oh Lord! To you we shall all return”.

     

    Religious Rivalry

     

    As a Muslim, you cannot believe one of those Apostles and disbelieve others. And you cannot believe in one of the revealed Books while disbelieving in others. That is why no true adherent of Islam will ever express foul language against the person of Jesus or blame the misdemeanour of a Christian on Christianity as some Nigerian Christians do against the person of Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and Islam as a religion when they encounter a misbehaving Muslim as if there are no misbehaving Christians in Nigeria.  Were Nigerian Muslims also to bring such a disgruntled rivalry into religion especially in their propagations, the country called Nigeria would have long been

    forgotten.

     

    Unity of God

     

    Although the modalities for worshipping God may differ from faith to faith and from sanctuary to sanctuary this does not change the course of their faith in only one God. Thus, the rivalry between Muslims and Christians especially in Nigeria over who is spiritually right or wrong is a product of ignorance.

    As taught by Christianity and Islam through their respective revealed Books, the areas of life that need our cooperation are by far more comprehensive than those in which we differ. For instance, both the Bible and the Qur’an counsel humanity to worship one God. They preach good deeds to neighbours and other fellow human beings publicly and privately, irrespective of religious lineage. They advocate good care for our parents, our children, the aged ones amongst us and the handicapped. They urge kindness to our wives and leniency with our adversaries. They admonish us against cheating and any form of corruption. They forbid theft, adultery, fornication, homosexuality, lesbianism and above all the killing of fellow human beings extra-judicially for whatever reason. They also warn us against provocation, aggression, exploitation and transgression even as they emphasize the ephemerality of this world and the eventuality of the hereafter. In all these, we have a common affinity to jointly guard.

    The few areas in which we differ are abstract and quite personal. They are not areas in which human beings are given the power to pass judgement. Only the Almighty God can judge on them. Such are the areas which we believe will pave our ways into Paradise. But since paradise is for individuals and not for religious blocks why are we fighting each other on the basis of belief or disbelief? After all, the journey to Paradise or Hell is a matter of choice for every individual. And no one can tell with precision who will go to Paradise or go to Hell.

    Such is the prerogative of God which He has not assigned to any human being and which no human being can and should arrogate to himself or herself except one who wants to play God.

    As an adherent of a religion, you can only perceive your God according to your faith and that should not cause any rancour between you and adherents of any other religion. As Nigerians, we dwell in the same country, eat the same foods, drink the same water, wear similar dresses, trade in the same markets and spend the same money. Our children attend the same schools, write the same examinations and obtain the same certificates. We intermarry across tribes and ethnicities as well as religions. All these form a stronger bond that ought to unite us much more than the abstract ones which often threaten to tear us apart. In a situation where the factors of life that unite us grossly surpass those that divide us will it not be

    stupid to sacrifice unity and cooperation?

     

    Conclusion

     

    With the formation of this interfaith group (Yoruba Muslim-Christian Youth Dialogue Group), one had thought of seeing  a future of harmony in Nigeria not only in the sphere of religion but also in the social and political spheres as well. But unfortunately that noble thought is now rapidly turning into a forlorn as the agents of Satan seem to have become more aggressively combative  against peaceful coexistence in the garb of religion. Realistically, this is the time for changing from the path of Satan to that of God. We cannot wait any longer. Let the Christians amongst you engage in Crusade and the Muslims in Jihad against all vices in the society which the two revealed Books (Bible and Qur’an) abhor. Let all of you jointly cooperate in upholding the values of life as contained in the Bible and the Qur’an. And with this in sacred minds,  we shall all find ourselves in a new world of peace and harmony.

    God bless you all!”.