Category: Segun Gbadegesin

By Segun Gbadegesin

Last week on this page, our focus was on the place of national interest in a democracy whose enduring character is its original foundation of multiple nationalities, raising the questions: Which nation? Whose interest?

From 1914 till now, the story of Nigeria has been remarkably shaped by efforts, some sincere, many fake, through several constitutional conferences, to find an acceptable approach to answering these questions. When the founding fathers finally settled on federalism, they insisted that the interest of the new nation was in the sustenance of its diversity which they believed was its strength. They agreed to further the interest of a nation of different tribes and tongues where no one is oppressed.

That agreement was significant for two reasons. First, the founding fathers chose to abide with the colonial creation of Nigeria out of the multiplicity of nationalities. They chose a united Nigeria over the alternative of each nationality going its way. Second, however, they also chose a structure that allows each nationality the autonomy to pursue its cultural and economic goals without undermining the unity of the new nation. It was a fitting compromise.

That compromise also gave them a reasonable basis for answering the question of the national interest of the new nation. Two answers presented themselves. First, it would be in the interest of the new nation to have a democratic system whose foundation is the rule of law. This makes sense especially in light of the different precolonial backgrounds of the various nationalities. To run a monarchical system is impossible since there was no common monarchical system they could agree to. Furthermore, coming out of the tutelage of British system, democracy and its foundation in the rule of law had its appeal.

Second, however, the security of the new nation is in the interest of every member nationality as well as every individual. Whatever their individual or nationality interests, once they have become one nation under the rule of law, each shares an interest in security from external attack and from internal disturbance that could distract from the pursuit of their various interests, including economic and cultural interests. An important assumption here is that any such breach of national security would be outside of, and in conflict with, the rule of law which is the foundation of democracy.

But there is a catch. The rule of law is the foundation of democracy. Any breach of national security is a breach of the rule of law. So, how is it determined that there is a breach of national security? And how is an appropriate response to such a breach determined? In a representative democracy such as Nigeria chose at independence, the people choose their leaders who make laws and those who execute the laws, the legislature and the executive respectively. A third, unelected arm of government, the judiciary, interprets the law, adjudicates conflicting interests, and decides on punishment for any breach thereof. Therefore, it is up to the judiciary to determine any cases of breaches, including breaches of national security. The three branches of government are separate with no overlap of personnel.

Over a year ago, President Muhammadu Buhari inserted the prestige of the presidency into the national debate over the reconciliation of any conflict between national security and the rule of law. Following the Supreme Court decision in Dokubo Asari v. The Federal Republic of Nigeria, in which the Court ruled that the human rights of any individual citizens must take the back seat where there is a threat to national security by those citizens, the position of the Court is that the corporate existence of Nigeria as a nation is greater than the liberty or right of any citizen. It is this position of the Supreme Court of Nigeria that Buhari advanced in his August 2018 address to the Nigeria Bar Association.

At the time of the President’s address, two cases were in the public domain: El-Zakzaky, the Shite Cleric, and Colonel Dasuki, former National Security Adviser, both of whom had been detained by the Department of State Services (DSS) since 2015 allegedly for national security offences. It was therefore reasonable for Nigerians to deduce that President Buhari was defending the position of his government on these cases. Since then, of course, other cases of journalists and activists, including the most recent case of Sowore, publisher of Sahara Reporters, have been added.

One could offer a robust defence of the President by just referencing the Supreme Court decision and applying it to these cases. Indeed, there is good reason to believe that this was in the mind of the President. Remember that President Buhari had vowed that he had embraced democracy and the rule of law. Indeed, in that same address, he, ironically, ended with a call for “respect for the rule of law”. Therefore, he probably felt that, as the ultimate protector of the rule of law, the Supreme Court was on the same wave length with his administration, especially his Department of State Services in these cases.

Let us then assume that the Supreme Court is right in Dokubo Asari v. Federal Republic of Nigeria. Recall that that judgment upheld the position of DSS and denied bail to Dokubo Asari. In these other cases, however, including that of Sowore, the courts granted bail to the accused. To be sure, these are lower courts. But can a lower court decision validly set aside the Supreme Court decision in a case that is identical in all respects? Hardly so. Therefore, it stands to reason to infer that the lower court decision to grant bail to Sowore, for example, must have been based on the court’s judgment that it is different from the Dokubo case.

Assume that this is the case, that the lower court finds some significant differences between the Dokubo case and the Sowore case and, therefore, decided to grant Sowore bail. What is the option for the government, namely DSS, in this matter if it has due respect for the rule of law? The reasonable option is to appeal the decision of the lower court to a higher court up to the Supreme Court where it would have to argue for respect for judicial precedence by showing the similarity if not identity between the cases of Sowore and Dokubo.  Choosing a different option, by keeping the accused in perpetual detention without challenging the validity of the court ruling, is a flagrant recourse to the rule of man, which can only and always be arbitrary.

In the case of Lagos State versus Federal Republic of Nigeria, the Supreme Court ruled against the withholding of the Lagos State Local Government funds by the Federal Government. The latter, under former President Obasanjo, refused to release the funds even after the Supreme Court judgement. In a column at the time, I argued against the Obasanjo administration’s position for mocking the rule of law. Of course, in that case, the federal government did not argue from the perspective of national security. Everyone understood that it was partisan politics taken too far to the detriment of the rule of law. But once you take a step in that direction, there is always the temptation to move an inch more and more until you erode all the pillars of defence for the rule of law. We are gradually getting there, and it is a scary situation that is unfolding before our eyes.

No one denies the importance of national security. The Supreme Court is right that if the security of the nation is jeopardized, it cannot survive in peace. We may also admit that the executive arm has a responsibility to protect the security of the nation and to identify potential cases of its breach by individuals or groups of individuals. What the Court does not declare, however, is that one arm of government, whether the legislature or the executive, has the final say on the guilt or innocence of any suspect. That is the purview of the courts, and it is in our national interest to keep it there as one nation under the rule of law.

Segun Gbadegesin

 

IN its name, governments demand sacrifices. For its sake, citizens endure deprivation. To be in tune with its requests, trusting patriots gladly embrace policies that deny them the goods of life. National interest is the proverbial Oyo door: it hardly gives; it just keeps taking.

To be sure, governments appeal to such other abstract entities as the public interest and common good in defence of policies. But while there are certain cat-in-the-hat tricks that could reduce the public interest or common good to the interests of blood and flesh citizens, national interest is in a league of its own. Public interest is the interest of the public where the public is the summation of all its members. Ditto for the common good, which is the good that is common to all, and therefore shareable by them. National interest is superior to either of these

Perhaps, following the examples of common good and public interest, we could define national interest as the interest of the nation. Sure, but we would be quickly advised that the nation is an irreducible or indivisible entity. It is a collective that has no individuation. Except in the case where an individual appropriates the state as in l’etat c’est moi attributed to Louis XIV of France who made himself the personification of the state and ruled with absolute authority. In that case, the interest of the nation, national interest, is the interest of the king. And when a government policy or action is defended by appeal to the national interest in such an environment of absolute rule, clearly the subjects don’t matter.

A republic is supposedly an advancement over earlier forms of political authority, founded, as it is, on the rule of law, rather than the rule of woman or man. Therefore, policies are to be justified by appeal to the interest of citizens. How might appeal to national interest measure up to the requirement of republicanism? It requires identifying the nation whose interest is in question with the people who make it up. More importantly, however, the identification that is necessary is over and above a second or third-party identification. It requires self-identification, a one-to-one relationship with the subject of the interest. It requires every citizen’s internalization of the Sun King’s famous affirmation: I am the nation.

This requirement is easily satisfied when citizens have an awareness that their interest(s) is(are) implicated in specific issues confronting the nation. A good example is the case of an imminent foreign invasion. American leaders had taken no decision about the nation joining the Second World War until the Japanese invaded Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, a date which President Roosevelt declared “will live in infamy”. More than 2,000 people were killed in the Japanese invasion. Americans judged that invasion unjustified and knew that their leaders were forced to declare war on Japan. Besides, they could not predict what the Japanese and the Axis Powers would do next if Americans decided on neutrality. The issues were clear to citizens, and they responded with voluntary enlistment. The Greatest Generation aligned their interest with the interest of their nation at war. They made voluntary sacrifices, including the supreme sacrifice of more than 400,000 military deaths.

It should be obvious that we don’t always have such cases where individual citizens or groups of citizens see a convergence of their interest with the interest of the nation as declared or espoused by leaders. And we don’t have to move from the United States to see the flip side in the Vietnam War. There was no significant difference in the make-up of the citizenry between 1941 and 1964 when President Johnson declared US involvement in Vietnam. The difference was that many citizens failed to see the need for US intervention in a foreign war, while others opposed it because they saw it as a war against Vietnamese independence. Leaders therefore found it difficult to justify the American involvement on ground of national interest.

Americans generally highlight a shared interest in democratic norms and the rule of law. Of course, historically, they have hardly lived up to the requirements of these principles and norms. Sadly, race and ethnicity still unfairly dominate social and political life in ways that are detrimental to the health of the republic. All these make contemporary appeals to national interest ring hollow in minority quarters which bear the brunt of social and political injustice. For instance, law and order, should normally be in the interest of everyone. But when African-American men account for 37% of US male prison population versus 32% for White men, and African-Americans are only 14% of the US population, it is not hard to see this as the height of injustice.

In our own corner of the world, appeal to national interest is more problematic because we haven’t even come to terms with our identity as a nation. While many Americans migrated from different nations and still identify as Italian-Americans, Irish-Americans, Jewish-Americans, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, Asian-Americans, etc., many of these hyphenated Americans still self-identify as Americans first. And many more would if America lives up to its creed that all humans are created equal with inalienable rights that the state must protect and promote.

In the case of Nigeria, the original sin of colonial imposition and corralling together of diverse nationalities into the canopy of one nation under Britain has been a formidable fortress against the development of a common national sentiment. And without this sentiment, it is not a surprise where we have found ourselves more than a century after amalgamation. It is, of course, uncharitable to blame Britain for all our woes, including the most important one of division and disunity. If we didn’t care to be one, we could just have decided to part ways in 1960. We achieved independence. Nothing was at stake. Oil wasn’t a known entity. We could just have ended the relationship, and each could have moved to its tent.

Our leaders decided to give nationhood a try. That was audacious. It called for mutual understanding and shared sacrifices. The commitment to these crucial conditions was unfortunately not there. So, we marched on with each listening to different bugle tones, emphasizing different primordial interests. We still do. There can be no national interest that appeals to everyone when each nationality, no matter how small, is engrossed with its own sense of its interests.

Take the case of the recent border closure. Presumably, it is to boost indigenous production and help local farmers as it is to prevent neighboring countries from feeding fat on our appetite for imports, which drain foreign reserves and slow our pace of industrial development. What has been our reaction? Arguments have been offered suggesting that “it is not in the interest of zones close to the borders”; “other borders have not been closed, why ours?” etc. In other words, we look at this important policy, which CBN has adjudged to be working effectively, from the perspective of its impact on our nationality or zone.

I am not pronouncing any judgment on this mindset. It would be unfair to do so, because I know that every nationality looks for its own interest. The zone that has the presidency now has expressed an interest in holding on to it on the ground that zoning is unconstitutional, and merit should be the basis for filling the position. If it does, can it honorably advocate that a policy is in the national interest and expect others to applaud?

In the final analysis, therefore, in the unfortunate context of our divisive political tendencies, in which each ethnic, linguistic, religious, and nationality group, sees itself apart from everyone else, looks for its own interests and seeks to promote such as it sees fit, it is unfair for any group in power to continue to appeal to a spurious national interest in which it doesn’t have a scintilla of belief. What is more, it is disingenuous and deceptive. If this outcome rightly makes us uncomfortable, we must call on our political leaders to put on the mantle of genuine national leadership, seeing the entire nation as their constituency.

ENFORCEMENT of this law is by the Ministry of Labour and Employment through our inspectors in the field. The National Salaries, Income and Wages Commission will also help in the enforcement. The labour unions can report (failure) to us or approach the National Industrial Court. We expect every employer of labour to start payment immediately.” Dr. Chris Ngige, Minister of Labour and Employment, quoted by The Nation, October 29, 2019.

“ …all employers of  labour in the thirty-six states of the federation and the Federal Capital territory (FCT) as well as the Organized Private Sector (OPS) are expected to complete the implementation process of the new national minimum wage and consequential wage adjustment forthwith.”— Comrade Ayuba Wabba, NLC President, quoted by The Nation, October 18, 2019

“…. the FEC does not determine what happens in the states. States have their own Executive Councils, and that is the highest decision-making body at the state level…The states were part of the tri-partite negotiation. States agreed to N30,000 minimum wage. States also know that there will be consequential adjustments… But that would be determined by what happen on a state-by-state basis. Because, there are different numbers of workers at state level, there are different issues at state level.”— Dr. Kayode Fayemi, Chairman, Nigerian Governors Forum, quoted by The Nation, October 29,2019

“All the governors in Nigeria receive the same salaries. Even the states that cannot produce anything, they receive the same salaries with states that can produce something. So, they cannot also deny their workers what they should get.”— Musa-Lawal Ozigi, Secretary-General, Trade Union Congress (TUC), quoted by The Nation, October 29, 2019.

Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) and Trade Union Congress (TUC) won a resounding victory in their negotiations with the Federal Government for a new national minimum wage and consequential wage adjustments. It is well-deserved. As I argued on this page months ago, it is a scriptural injunction common to all faiths that ”labourers deserve their reward.” Of course, that reward will ideally not only be commensurate with productivity, but it will also reflect the state of the economy. You ought to pay implies you can pay.

Not unexpectedly, therefore, a fallout from the agreement has been a face-off, subtle thus far, between organized labour and the Nigerian Governors Forum (NGF) on the obligation of the states to implement the agreement. Indeed, from the statements quoted above, it appears that the NGF is the odd one out in the matter of universal implementation of the new wage structure. On his part, the Minister of Labour, clearly in agreement with NLC/TUC, expects “every employer of labour to start payment immediately.”

What is the argument of NGF? And is it valid and sound? The first argument is based on the nature of federalism. In a true federal system, the central government and the states are co-equal tiers of government, and no tier has the constitutional authority to dictate for another. Therefore, for the agreement between the federal government and labour to be applicable to states, the states must be involved in the negotiation and must sign off to the conclusion. Negotiations for the national minimum wage satisfied these conditions. However, the consequential wage adjustment must be negotiated at the state level. Therefore, the consequential adjustments agreed to by the federal government and labour do not apply to the states.

The second argument follows from the first and is based on the reality on the ground in the various states. As Governor Fayemi puts it, “there are different number of workers at state level, there are different issues at state level.”  The economies of different states are different. While a handful can afford to pay more than the national minimum wage, a vast majority of states are already behind, some for five months, in the payment of salaries even prior to the agreement on the new minimum wage. States fingers are certainly not equal.

So, we have an argument of principle and an argument of reality. Other things being equal, both arguments are valid. We cannot have a federation in which the center dictates terms of governance, including compensation regimes, for workers across tiers of government. Such a practice is alien to federations. And a state or a region in a federation would want to cut its coat bearing in mind the size of its cloth. Therefore, states reserve the right and obligation to negotiate with their workers without being imposed upon by the central government.

However, other things are not equal, because ours is not an ideal federation. We have eaten the proverbial apple, and since 1966, despite our various (insincere) efforts to change course, the bottom has fallen off and what remains of our federal system is a sham. And the governors have been part and parcel of the rot.

Therefore, to many, especially, Labour, it is nothing short of hypocrisy for the governors to resist this federal imposition.  The TUC General Secretary nailed the coffin on the argument based on the reality of state conditions: “All the governors in Nigeria receive the same salary. Even the states that cannot produce anything, they receive the same salaries with the states that can produce something. So, they cannot also deny their workers what they should get.”

This is a powerful argument. But it is just a reflection of the fake nature of the federalism which the military imposed on us based on its own unitary one-size-fits-all institutional structure. Other federations take seriously the reality of the conditions of their component parts. I once on this page cited the example of the State of Maine in the United States where in 2016, the governor’s wife, Ann LePage, decided to take a part-time summer waitressing job to supplement the income of her husband whose annual salary was $70,000, the lowest in the country. One of Mrs. LePage’s desires for that summer was to buy a car!

Let us contextualize. Total spending for the State of Maine in 2016 was $8.1 billion. Federal Aid to Maine was approximately $3 billion. In 2015, the state budget for K-12 education was 17.6%; for Higher education, it was 3.8%; 32.8% for Medicaid; and 8.5% for Transportation.  Maine’s population was 1,331, 479 in 2016. Leakages were plugged. Wastage was a taboo. Priorities were set right. That is all because there was accountability at all levels. Maine is not an exception. A state that eyes the future with adequate investment for the next generation will not engage in conspicuous consumption. When elected officials take the lead in accountable behavior, citizens don’t need sermons before they jump in.

Compare Maine with California where in June, the State Citizens Commission voted to increase the governor’s salary from $202,000 to $210,000 effective December. Reason: The boom in the state economy and budget surplus. Compare New York, the commercial capital of the world, whose governor earns an annual salary of $225,000. Common to all three cases is the alignment of salary expenditure with the state of the economy in each state. Those who go into public service do so not because of monetary gain but because of what they can contribute. Many take huge cuts in income while they serve. But they are happy because their names are on record of selfless contributors to the good of the state or nation.

I do not place everyone in public service in this country in the same basket. I know some go in with a pure heart of service. But there are hustlers whose interest is only in what’s in it for them. Organized Labour knows what’s going on. Their members are part of the system. Therefore, it is difficult to ask of them the sacrifice that elected officials are not willing to make. If we are going to make a case for state prerogative in determining what is due as salary to state workers, we can. However, by the same token, we must disband the National Salaries, Income and Wages Commission as it applies to elected officials. Let each state determine what it can pay to its governor, commissioners, and lawmakers. Then, Labour will have no valid argument against shared sacrifice.

 

By Segun Gbadegesin

Today, I offer the following propositions for readers’ consideration:

1. Democracy is a system of governance that deserves protection and advancement, and its multiparty variant is its exemplar.
2. After twenty years of experimentation, Nigeria has come a long way in her democratic adventure.
3. She still has a long way to go to have a mature democracy that can defend itself against the excesses of human nature. What more is needed to guide our national footsteps on this long way is the subject of this piece.
4. However, attaining the pinnacle of democratic maturation is only a means to the desirable end of peace and development. In a multi-national context, the achievement of this end requires respect for diversity.

That democracy is a system of governance deserving protection is hopefully not in contention. Of course, we had traditions of monarchism, aristocracy, and individualism or anarchism, and our journey through these traditions was truncated by colonial invasion. We may justly decry the imposition of an alien form of governance. However, while we would never know what internal transformations these traditions might have succumbed to, we may reasonably assume that none of them would have remained the same for long even without an external push. In our various individual and communal efforts to secure the goods of life, and with the reality of group dynamics that influence changes in other societies, we probably would have come up with new governance structures close to, if not the same as, democracy. It is the law of human nature.

Since we embraced democracy as a norm, we have also been exposed to its various versions: no-party democracy, one-party democracy, and multi-party democracy. We are also aware of the strengths and weaknesses of each of these. One of the attractions of a no-party democracy, in the thinking of its advocates, of whom Ghana philosopher Kwasi Wiredu is foremost, is its promotion of consensual decision, as opposed to majoritarian decision, which denies minorities both formal and substantive representation.

Of course, as Wiredu also concedes, consensus is not always possible and, in such cases, voting is indispensable. Furthermore, though appeal to ancestral or divine authority would have provided a moral foundation for his account, Wiredu eschews that approach in favor of a reliance on the intrinsic persuasiveness of the reasoning of leaders to secure a consensus on any matter at hand. This is a stretch.

More importantly, however, in multi-ethnic or multi-national contexts, into which many African countries are forcefully drawn by foreign powers, consensus, rather than majoritarianism, as a principle of decision making, is not only a pipe dream, it is also a misidentification of what democracy is. As the late Nigerian philosopher, Emmanuel Eze, rightly noted, the human world is by nature competitive. There are individual desires that compete and must be managed for social life to endure. Democracy is the form of governance structure designed for this task. Consensus could be one of its outcomes. So can majority decision. We cannot wish away divisions by valorizing consensus.

If a no-party democracy is defensible for its advocacy of consensus, a one-party democracy, as Wiredu himself notes, at least in its post-colonial African iteration, is only a soothing euphemism for dictatorship. It is also interesting that its advocates from Julius Nyerere to Leopold Senghor also appealed to the desirability of consensus and its precursors in pre-colonial Africa. But those variants of “consensual” politics only succeeded to the extent that they could be described as such, by “murdering” political opponents, as Wiredu puts it. Surely, that cannot be a model for the 21st century African democracy.

A multiparty democracy recognizes competition between interests and desires seeking fulfilment as the reality of social life. Its approach is to recognize groups with similar interests and desires and bring them into the political marketplace where they sell their ideas to potential buyers who then join them to mobilize support for the ideas in the democratic political process. This process ideally guarantees that every idea and group behind it gets an equal access to market their ideas; each has an equal protection as they do so; and no group has or exercises an undue advantage. If the process is fair, the outcome, whatever it is, must be acceptable to all. Therefore, the emphasis is on the fairness and equitability of the process.  If only for this reason of its respect for fairness and justice for process, multiparty democracy system deserves protection and promotion.

After 20 years of experimentation, Nigeria has come a long way in her democratic adventure. We have had six presidential and gubernatorial election cycles, albeit of varying degrees of fairness and probity. That the country has avoided a major conflict as a result of electoral competition since 1999 may signal progressive maturation of our politics and political actors. It may, of course, also be the politicians’ aversion to playing into the hands of the enemies of democracy who are always lurking around in the alley peeping through the window ready to exploit any signs of disaffection among the occupants of the democratic hall. Whatever it is, celebration is in order.

I am sure, however, that our political actors, including elected officials and supporters, ruling party and opposition parties, will honestly agree that we still have a long way to go in the pursuit of a perfect multiparty democracy if that is in fact the goal. But even if perfection is not a realistic goal, we should at least aim for a fairer process than what we have now. Democratic elections must not be for the highest bidder. Settling electoral disputes through the court system must be above board without under the table dealings. Intra-party selection of candidates for electoral contests must be fair and open to all members. And when a victorious party emerges at the center or in the states, winning is not an end-in-itself; rather, it is only the beginning of the task of making democracy work for the people. What more is needed for this end to be realized?

First, both the ruling party and the opposition must commit to the spirit of the constitution which they swear to defend and protect. Sure, it is not a perfect document and there is an obligation to amend it or enact a new constitution that respects the federal structure of the nation. But even in its imperfection, the present constitution provides for the promotion of the rights and welfare of citizens. Therefore, while working towards a more perfect constitution, political leaders, and especially elected officials, have a responsibility to uphold these constitutional provisions.

Second, respect for the rule of law is a cardinal principle of a democratic republic. The rule of law is no respecter or mocker of persons. Rather, it is an ingenious device that levels the playing field and makes every citizen a lawmaker as well as a subject of law. In the system, no one is above or below the law, and no one can use his or her position to weaponize the law against real or perceived enemies. Contempt for court decisions, no matter how wrong we perceive them, is an unacceptable mockery of the rule of law.

Third, in the state of nature, individuals find ways, moral or immoral, to fend for themselves. With the rule of law in a democratic republic, they are constrained. Therefore, the constitution provides for the promotion of their interests in a variety of ways: security and welfare, equal and adequate educational opportunities, free mobility, full residence rights, abolition of corrupt practices and abuse of power, opportunity for adequate means of livelihood and suitable employment, etc. Elected officials have the duty to implement these provisions.

Fourth, the foregoing are ordinary conditions for democracy to work for citizens. But there is an extraordinary requirement for democracy in a multinational context in which an individual is not only a citizen but also a member of a nationality in which he/she has an abiding interest. What is required is respect for diversity, a precondition for national unity. This is what federalism is designed to achieve. Without a true federal structure, multiparty democracy is a sham.

Segun Gbadegeshin

 

LAST week, the focus of this column was on the community, an entity founded on a common bond that unites a people despite whatever surface differences exist, and its importance in the lives of individuals and the nation. Among others, there are differences of biology, gender, age, and politics between members of any community. Sometimes, these differences get accentuated and exploited, and thus, become too divisive for the full potentials of community to be realized.

Using my Okeho community as the springboard for that discussion, I appreciated the leading lights of the efforts to mobilize the sons and daughters of the soil for the development and progress of their homeland.

As I hinted last week, like many other communities, Okeho suffered that fate of a community demobilized by political divisions in the first and second republics. But, thanks to the efforts of these leading lights, our people have come full circle to embracing their commonality and realizing that it trumps political differences; and, with a renewed unity of purpose, they are now working together as one indivisible people.

Sadly, as helpless mortals, some events and occurrences are out of our control. We are puns in the hands of fate. Thus, at a point when it appears that we are smiled upon by providence, something that befuddles the mind happens in the next moment. In our confusion, we ask questions: What? Why? Why now? Unfortunately, we have no intellectual resources to provide answers, and despite our occasional agnosticism, we turn to the one who knows best.

This was the plight of Okeho community in the last six weeks when we lost one of our leading lights, a community icon and his matriarch of honour, Chief Gbade Adejumo and Mrs. Esther Olutola Adejumo, both of whom transited to glory within two weeks of each other, and are being celebrated this weekend.

I define a community icon as one who recognizes the commonality that is central to community life, and makes a demonstrable, purposeful, and supererogatory effort to further the common interests of community members despite all odds. Ever since I knew him, right up to the moment he breathed his last, Chief Adejumo always excelled as a community icon.

Since the late 1950s, I have followed the brilliant educational and professional career of Chief Adejumo, looking up to him as a role model. He was two years ahead of me at Baptist Secondary Modern School Koso, Iseyin. Remarkably, after graduating from that school in 1958, Chief Adejumo chose to study privately for GCE Ordinary and Advanced Levels, which got him admitted to the University of Ibadan. That was the first and the last case I know of a Modern School leaver, without further institutional training, going straight to the university.

After graduating with a B.Sc. Economics from the University of Ibadan in 1971, he joined the Western Region Public Service in October 1971, working in several departments, including Office of the Governor, Trade, Industries and Cooperatives, Establishment and Training, Finance, and Local Government. He rose to the position of Director-General (Permanent Secretary) before retiring in 1992. All along, he ensured that the community benefitted from wherever he found himself serving. He was recognized for his services with a chieftaincy title as the Mayegun of Ijio.

Okeho Strategic Development Foundation is an initiative of some development-minded indigenes. They trusted Chief Adejumo with the Chairmanship of the Foundation on account of his leadership credentials. He did not disappoint. From chores as regular as directing a meeting, to activities as momentous as offering advice to the Onjo of Okeholand on important community matters, to developmental projects such as granting loans to businesses or awarding scholarship to students, Chief Adejumo led the Foundation with distinction and integrity.

During the 2017 Okeho Centenary celebrations, which I recalled last week, we noticed with satisfaction a renewed enthusiasm of our youth and professionals for the development of the community. Young visionaries initiated discussion forums for strategic mobilization. Volunteerism was at its height. Not wanting to miss the opportunity of engaging our up-and-coming professionals, they were encouraged to set up committees for their favorite projects from education to infrastructure, from health to the environment. They did, and a flurry of initiatives and developmental activities followed. To coordinate the committees, Chief Gbade Adejumo was requested to lead a Strategic Elders Committee to serve as a buffer between the committees comprising young people and the elders in Egbe Omo Ibile. He agreed, and he worked hard on the project before the onset of his illness.

In early July this year, I called Chief Adejumo to discuss a community assignment relating to an opportunity we had to apply for a grant to deal with the incessant flooding in the community, an annual disaster that had claimed many lives. We had to put a proposal together with appropriate engineering drawings. Without pressure, he volunteered to contact an indigene of respectable professional pedigree and put the two of us in touch. He did, and within 24 hours, our engineer set to work, producing an outstanding proposal.

Shortly after, Chief Adejumo fell sick and was in hospital. Even in his pain and with a dire prognosis, he did not stop thinking about the community. I knew he was not well only by accident. I had called to update him on the progress of our proposal. But even as he was in pain, his first question to me was about the status of our proposal. He was still in the hospital when he appended his signature to the final proposal before submission.  A few days later, he passed on, serving his beloved Okeho till the last minute.

Chief Adejumo was on his sick bed when he received the sad news of the transition of Mama Biodun, Mrs. Esther Olutola Adejumo, his wife of more than fifty years. Less than two weeks later, he joined her, and we have good reasons to believe that they are both now in a better place.

Mama Biodun was a matriarch of honor, always welcoming visitors to their home with a smile. As an undergraduate in the early 1970s, I spent an entire summer vacation with the family in Ibadan where I had a vacation job. I enjoyed to the maximum the warmth of Mama Biodun’s hospitality.

A virtuous and hardworking woman, with a commendable strength of character, imbued with the fear of God, Mama Biodun’s loyal support contributed in no small measure to the successful career of her husband. Equally important, her unquantifiable love and devotion to the fruits of her womb was the foundation of their outstanding successes as family men and women and as professionals.  Through them, she lives on and her immortality is assured.

October is a special month in the annals of Okeho history. On October 18, 1916, Okeho warriors declared war against British colonial government. On October 19, 1916, they set the Native Court ablaze and things escalated from there on. The colonial government responded harshly and put an end to the insurgency. Okeho was forced to relocate back to its present site in October 1917. I am almost sure that the planning of the funeral for this weekend was done without attention to this history. That it happens this way however is powerful testimony of Chief Adejumo’s love and devotion to the community.

To underscore the appreciation of a loving community, in faraway Maryland, USA, at Alafia Baptist Church in Mount Rainier, a Commendation Service will be held simultaneously in honor of these couple who gave their best to others and who served their community passionately with love.

“We are often tossed and driv’n

On the restless sea of time,

Somber skies and howling tempests

Oft succeed a bright sunshine,

In that land of perfect day,

When the mists have rolled away,

We will understand it better by and by.

 

“By and by when the morning comes,

All the saints of God are gathered home,

We’ll tell the story how we’ve overcome:

For we’ll understand it better by and by.”

—Charles Albert Tindley

 

O di arinnako; o di oju ala firi!

 

THE story of our nation from amalgamation until now is an interesting one for what we have largely considered important versus what we have all but sidelined. Our narratives of development or lack of it, peace and insecurity, health and disease, education and poverty have focused on the state as if it is the sole driver of the engine of our lives.

For the most part, we have sidelined local communities and how they matter to the lives of citizens. Every now and then, this columnist has tried to bring communities back into the national discourse. Because community matters and matters that affect community development are at the heart of our national malaise.

Our penchant for seeing everything good or bad from the perspective of state action or inaction is a relatively recent development. There were times in our history when we held our local communities in high esteem, seeing them as the foundation of the good life for indigenes. They gave us life. They offered us opportunities for education whether formal or informal. They instilled in us cultural and moral values for successful lives.

I grew up in pre-independence era Okeho community. It was closely knit with everyone looking out for the success of every child. As I reminisced in All the Way: Serving with Conscience, Okeho was the epicenter of traditional values which continually torture the heart and soul of the one who ever thinks of deviating from them even long after leaving the community. A kii see (It’s not done) is the brutal warning.

Having such a burden of conscience not only prepares you for a life of devotion to the common good, it is also a powerful force against anti-social or unethical tendencies. Thus, faithfulness to the ethos of community ensures not only the success of individuals in life, it also guarantees social cohesion and peaceful coexistence. After all, every community instills virtually the same core values.

For its grateful beneficiaries, the attraction of community is so long-lasting that no matter how far they venture away from it, it is not out of their mind. They keep going back to their root and they keep paying forward their debt of gratitude. When each is so vested along with like-minded home folks, the ensuing display of the joy of re-membering could be truly inspiring, contagious, and moving. That was my experience two years ago this month when Okeho celebrated the centenary of its return to its original site.

Re-membering, as Ngugi Wa Thiong’o underscores, is the sacred act of recovering and restoring that which has been lost or taken away. Ngugi’s book, Remembering Africa, takes off from the dismembering of Africa by 400 years of enslavement and 200 years of colonialism and neo-colonialism. To re-member is to put together the dis-membered.

The Okeho centenary was a small community version of Ngugi’s vision of African re-membering. It was the re-membering of values and norms of community, which decades of political schism had almost but destroyed. It was the reconciliation of old and young to the tradition of community service that spawned them in the first place. It was the rebuke of a destructive individualistic ethos that had become a threat to the wellbeing of the self and the community. And the response was overwhelmingly positive. It gladdened the heart.

Volunteerism took on a new and inspiring meaning. Old and young sacrificed time, mental and material resources to make the celebrations a success. The major community association, Egbe Omo Ibile, Okeho, which had gone through periods of demobilization by partisan bickering found its mojo and reengaged with the community. Together with Okeho Development Association (ODA), and A Centenary Committee led by a successful corporate leader, the ground was laid for a successful program of events.

What was most gratifying was the determination of young professionals who, undeterred by the modern attraction of individualistic competition, chose communal commitment and inaugurated committees to take on development ideas that they had figured out needed to be pursued. This has translated into communal activism in the quest for developmental projects.

Okeho has no higher institution. In 2016, Oyo State Government approved a campus of Oyo State School of Health Technology. But the community must provide land and classroom blocks. With Kabiyesi Onjo of Okeho’s leadership, the community embarked on the project. The school is now open to students from all over the state. But the Okeho community had to bear the burden of its opening.

In 2017, National Open University (NOUN) authorities considered a request from the community for NOUN Study Center in Okeho. NOUN has a long list of conditions for the approval of the request. including a study hall for 200 students, 100 desktop computers, 100kva generator, fencing of the premises. Again, every segment of the community has been involved in the project with Egbe Omo Ibile leading the charge. A group of young professionals formed a Special Ad-Hoc Committee on NOUN Study Centre, fundraising for the project. In addition to supplying desktop computers, it has also donated a branded Mini-Bus to the proposed institution.

Why do I go into all these? I would like to make two important points. First, the spirit of community, which used to be the driving force of all developmental efforts in the past, is still alive and well. This is especially true of small local communities which are virtually left to their fates by state and federal governments in the race of development.

The two examples of educational projects that I just narrated reveal an important truth. In thIs country, development is not evenly distributed and the inequality that characterizes inter-personal relationships also exists between communities. State capitals can boast of multiple higher educational institutions, dual carriage ways, and basic and specialized health institutions, while rural communities have none. Some communities are more equal than others.

However, while deprived communities can task themselves to satisfy conditions for the location of educational and health institutions, there are other tasks, such as road construction or rehabilitation that they cannot be expected to undertake. And such are at the heart of the extreme poverty they experience. Ibadan-Iseyin road, Oyo-Iseyin road, Okeho-Iseyin Road, Okeho-Iganna road in Oyo State have been in states of abandonment for many years. Yet Oke-Ogun division, which these roads connect to the state capital, is famously known as the food basket of the state. Thanks to the intervention of the Honorable Minister for Works and Housing, Okeho-Iseyin Road is receiving attention and would hopefully be completed eventually.

My second point is that the spirit of community that inspires volunteerism and commitment to common good is dead in our national life and needs to be revived. You may wonder if it makes sense to suggest that the spirit of community is expected to be revived in the national life. Is the expectation not misplaced? If Ngugi can invoke, rightly in my view, re-membering as an approach to reconnecting Africa to its roots by recovering and restoring what has been lost through the violent intervention of foreign invaders, the concept is certainly applicable to Nigeria. For it was the same violent intervention that tore us from our communal roots.

This point was brought home vividly to me in the NYSC camp in Enugu in 1974. One of our guest lecturers drew a distinction between Oru Obodo and Oru Oyinbo (Work of the Community versus Work of the Englishman or Foreigner). Obviously, with the intensity of community development burning bright, Oru Obodo was taken more seriously than Oru Oyinbo. Unfortunately, notwithstanding independence, the state simply replaced Oyinbo in our mental picture. More so, since our different communities see others as aliens and competitors.

But it is more and worse. Many of us go from seeing community differences or from promoting our communities above others. We have come full circle to seeing our own communities as instruments for the promotion of our self-interests. This is why constituency project funds end up in the pockets of individualistic legislators. Unfortunately, therefore, the reality of our historical currents as a nation is a betrayal of the expectation of the dictates of community ethos. We can do much better.