The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • 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

     

     

  • 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.

     

     

  • 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.

     

  • 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 Next Level Team

    Finally, The List is out. As the nation waited with bated breath, President Buhari took his time to assemble a team which we can be sure he is proud of and would gladly vouch for as an A-team. We will soon confirm as rubber hits the road. For now, we must congratulate the president and his team and pray for strength and sound health to carry the nation to the Next Level.

    The release of the list comes at a time of national distress over unwelcome and unappreciated events of the last few weeks, nay, months. What started as isolated cases of criminal brigandage soon assumed a heightened level of nervousness for the future of the nation. The innocent life of Mrs. Funke Olakunrin was snuffed out with reckless abandon, leaving her 93 years old father and leader of pan-Yoruba premier organization, her husband, children and her family, in unfathomable pain, and striking a sadistic dagger through the heart of Yorubaland and, indeed, Nigeria as a whole. It is the loss of a nation. As she rests in the bosom of her Lord, here below, we approach the throne of Grace for mercy and comfort.

    Not surprising, in view of her pedigree, the reaction to the loss was fierce but measured, thanks to the reservoir of patience and pragmatic orientation of the Yoruba. Traditional and political leadership rose to the occasion. In unison, they condemned the brutal murder, and delivered unambiguous messages by correspondence and in person to the President. The Yoruba are long suffering. However, it’s a mistake to take them for granted. For when they are sure they’ve had enough, their reaction is usually disproportionate. That’s a word that is enough for the wise.

    As the police investigates the tragic killing on a highway that is supposed to be secure, what is clear is that no matter whoever is responsible, whether criminal kidnappers, armed robbers, or Fulani herdsmen, the government bears vicarious responsibility for its failure to provide security, a foremost duty of any government, for the shirking of which there is no justifiable excuse.

    The nation was still struggling to deal with the emotional damage done to its psyche by the tragic death of Mrs. Olakunrin, when another inexcusable security breach occurred in the nation’s capital. The worst nightmare of any parent, a young Youth Corps member, serving his country, was gunned down in a cross- fire between police and Shiites protesting the over three years detention of their leader despite court order for his release on bail. A Deputy Commissioner of Police was also felled in the fracas! Was this due to failure of Intelligence? How could it be that after a violent demonstration of the sect at the National Assembly only days before, security wasn’t beefed up to forestall such a repeat incidence that turned fatal?

    Perhaps, it all happened because there was no team in place. The Presidency cannot do all the heavy lifting. That is why the constitution provides for helpers, aka Honorable Ministers, with specific portfolios. Thank goodness, we now have the nominations and the Senate has promised to fast track their screening. Very soon, then, we will have the full team on duty. What should we expect? What can we expect?

    Before the election that gave him a second term, the president had laid out his vision for the Next Level and his expectation, indeed, demand of members of his team is that they would help him realize that vision and take the nation to that desired level. On her part, the nation can’t wait. It is important, however, that in the light of the desired investment of the nation in her own future, she should be carried along. If this requires a revision of the president’s vision, so be it.

    In particular, the matter of security must now take priority of place on the front burner. In his remarks at his inauguration, the president recalled that in 2015, he had identified security, economy, and corruption as the cardinal and existential challenges facing the country. He relished the fact that his administration has degraded Boko Haram insurgency. He also acknowledged that there are still challenges with regards to kidnappings and banditry but insists that he is meeting the remaining challenges “with much greater support to security forces with funds, equipment and improved local intelligence.”

    There is probably no doubt that the administration is supporting the security forces. It is also probably true that those forces are grossly inadequate for the challenges that they face on all fronts. The ratio of police to civilian in this country is abysmal. Besides, there is no fit between a such a centralized security force that we operate and a diverse population that we proudly identify as an unquantifiable asset of the nation. Why we relentlessly stick to such a monstrosity despite its glaring inadequacy is still a mystery to commonsense.

    The Next Level is a higher level. Therefore, we expect a new approach that does not frustrate expectations. It is high time we came to terms with the need for a new and effective security architecture that focuses on local policing, using personnel that identify with the people. We cannot continue recycling the same policy menu and expect different results. It is not working! Nigerians, young and old, professionals and students, low income and middle-income earners are afraid to travel by road whether on highways or even on remote rural roads because they hear stories of fellow Nigerians dying unnecessary deaths in the hands of criminals. It must stop. The team must find a solution NOW.

    Beefing up security is important. It must however be combined with sustained efforts in the matter of providing functional education to the youth as well as gainful employment and entrepreneurial opportunities geared towards lifting citizens out of poverty. To be fair, we must give credit to the Buhari administration for its doggedness in making alleviation of poverty a policy priority in its first term. From N-Power to TraderMoni, Anchor Borrowers Scheme, and School Feeding programs, many of our fellow-citizens have seen dramatic positive changes in their lives. These effective programs now must be sustained and improved.

    In the case of education, it seems clear that we have given an undue advantage to private schools and institutions over public institutions. This is wrong headed. A very tiny percentage of school age children have the resources to attend private schools. A vast majority of children have no alternative to public schools. But those public schools are starved of teachers, classroom space, teaching materials because they are not well-funded. Teachers lack the enthusiasm because they are not paid regularly. It is part of the reason we have so many out-of-school children and while those who attend end up not doing well.

    Why on earth do we bring children into the world, count them as citizens, expect them to become useful citizens, but refuse to do our part to train them? How are they to be useful citizens if, as a nation, we left them untrained and unloved? From our apparent unconcerned and uncaring attitude to the upbringing of our youth population, we should not expect anything better than that which we now experience in their embrace of banditry, armed robbery, cultism, and kidnapping. We fail them and the devil grabs them and turns them into its dependable weapon against us. As the Sage, in his characteristic bluntness, warned the nation: “The children of the poor that you failed to train will never let your children have peace.”

    In the circumstance, the team has its work cut out for it. Your role is to give useful and implementable policy advice to the President as it pertains to your portfolio. It is hoped that Mr. President chose you because he is familiar with your expertise in the portfolio that he entrusts to you. It is also hoped that he knows you for your hard work and loyalty to the vision that he shared with the nation. Therefore, you are a perfect fit for the Next Level. We pray that you do not disappoint the expectations of the nation.

     

     

  • Egbe Omo Yoruba and Project Nigeria

    The silver anniversary of Egbe Omo Yoruba, North America comes with a mixed feeling. On one hand, it is a great pleasure to be alive to see the tiny seed become a giant tree. On the other hand, it is frustrating that the challenges it confronted 25 years ago are still alive and well.

    The need to, in collaboration with other pro-democracy organizations, confront military dictatorship gone berserk following the annulment of the June 12, 1993 election, led to the formation of a pan-Yoruba organization in 1994. Thanks to the resilience of members who gave all they had, that battle was won. Five years after, the military retreated in disgrace.

    One of the memorable moments of the organization was the 1997 convention in Houston, Texas when Chief Anthony Enahoro gave an inspiring keynote address. That speech, which zeroed in on the challenge of our quasi-unitary federal system and the responsibility of the Yoruba nation as a major federating unit, was a clarion call to action, and it continues to resonate in Nigeria’s current wobbly existence.

    Titled “Nigerian Federalism in the 21st Century”, Chief Enahoro’s address challenged our sense of history and nudged us to understand and be proud of our place in it as a people. Underscoring the reality of different nations with “their separate identities, histories, languages, religions, cultures and stages of civilization”, Baba decried how European nations “created, contrived or arranged” African countries just to serve their own interests. Unfortunately, those African countries subsequently endorsed the arbitrary boundaries and built their nationalist struggles on those boundaries, thus destroying “indigenous languages, political cultures and national identities, which in some cases, had existed and flourished for a thousand years or more.”

    Still, however, the founding fathers of Nigeria took up the challenge posed by those peculiarities of a multinational state. They created a workable federal system that sought to protect languages, cultures and identities as much as possible. But in their zeal for uniformity, the military rubbished that arrangement and created a big mess.

    Enahoro therefore challenged us to “resume and pursue the federating postulations of our founding fathers to their logical conclusion, and by so doing, liberate ourselves finally from the bondage of European colonization.” In particular, the elder statesman warned his Yoruba audience that failure to pursue the goal of genuine federation means that the Yoruba as a people could face disintegration if the path of a unitarian political system was not resisted.

    In the course of the years since that convention, the Egbe has had many other inspiring speeches from prominent Yoruba leaders, including, among others, listed here from oldest to youngest, Baba Abraham Adesanya, Chief Bola Ige, Chief Olu Falae, Chief Bisi Akande, General Ipoola Akinrinade, Chief C. O. Adebayo, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Gov. Rauf Aregbesola, and others. They all echoed the same message focusing on true and fiscal federalism as panacea for Nigerian stability and progress.

    The question then arises, why have we not followed up our thoughts and words with action? In 2005, the Obasanjo administration organized a constitutional conference on political reform. Yoruba activists, organizations, intelligentsia, and retired generals held series of meetings to present a unified Yoruba position at the conference. Titled Yoruba Agenda, it was coordinated with the Southwest governors and their aides. But at the eleventh hour, five PDP governors bowed up, insisting that as zonal political leaders, they had to prepare the Yoruba position.

    Many believed then that it was a script from the highest Yoruba office holder. It didn’t matter. What mattered was that the exercise suffered terribly from partisan bickering. The ruling party was wary of the opposition’s strategy. It was a lost opportunity to join other zones which also craved a reformed federation. History repeated itself in 2014, this time, the opposition was cynical about the politics of the ruling party’s last-minute change of mind about a national conference. Fast forward to 2019, it is General Obasanjo that is calling for another national summit. And the beat of politicking goes on.

    Yet there are inescapable realities that every group and the country at large must face squarely if the prediction of a failed state must be reversed. Why is this important? In Failed State 2030: Nigeria- A Case Study, a 2011 Occasional Paper No. 67 by Colonel Christopher Kinnan and others of Air War College, USA, the authors noted that in a 2007 Failed State Index, “with the largest population in Africa and a top-20 economy, (Nigeria) was ranked 17th most likely to fail” on a list of 148 countries. It is a dire assessment of the state of the nation. But there are more notable points in the study.

    First, the factors that the authors identify as conducive to state failure include “an uneven economic and social development; a failure to address group grievances; and a perceived lack of government legitimacy.” All three are unfortunately as Nigerian as our national anthem.

    Second, in 2011, the study notes that “the youth bulge in Nigeria may swap roles from productive laborers to disaffected rebels in the next two decades.” In 2019, we are already witnessing widespread banditry, kidnapping, armed robbery, and cultism by rebellious youths.

    Third, the authors suggest that a state that fails may require up to 56 years to recover, or it may never recover.

    Fourth, a failed state is a threat to the survival and prosperity of ethnic-nationalities. Therefore, when a multinational state like Nigeria fails, even the quest of ethnic-nationalities for independence may not be realized. So much then for the drumbeats of war and our passion for ending it all so we could go our separate ways.

    What does this all mean for our present heightened political rhetoric? First, another civil war is not an option simply because it will not end well for any zone. 2019 is not 1967. To borrow an analogy from the study authors, our china plate is so full of many cracks now that allowing it to drop on a hard floor will lead to many broken pieces. Neither the north nor the south is monolithic.

    Second, then, acknowledging this fact of our condition requires us to tone down the rhetoric and develop mutual respect for our differences, whether political, economic, religious, ethnic or linguistic. Developing mutual respect means not seeking an undue advantage over others or exploiting our positions of authority over them.

    Third, security is the most important function of any government. But, in our present inadequate constitutional arrangement, the federal government has an overall responsibility for the security of the nation since it controls the police and the military. Without state and local police, which are more effective in the management of security, the center must either beef up the number and effectiveness of the national police and military or be prepared for incessant complaints on insecurity.

    Fourth, as I observed a few weeks ago, we must separate the crisis of farmer-herder conflicts from the general insecurity across the country. The former needs well thought-out policy that does not alienate groups and communities or pit them against one another. States, which have control over land, must be the loci of any policy formulation and implementation. Already, some states in the South, Ogun, for example, have vowed to create ranches.

    Fifth, however, even if we succeed in resolving the farmer-herder conflicts, it will not solve all our security challenges. Kidnapping, armed-robbery, and cultism have always been with us. If Fulani herdsmen were to relocate completely to Sambisa forest, kidnapping for ransom, armed robbery and cultism will not go away in the South.

    Sixth, we will have violent crimes unless we take care of our youth bulge. Functional education that prioritizes employability and entrepreneurship are essential to any successful management of our energetic population. The federal government must lead the effort in the mobilization of every tier of government towards a future that falsifies the prediction of state failure.

    As members converge on Baton Rouge, Louisiana this weekend for the Egbe’s silver anniversary, I congratulate President Durojaiye Akindutire, his executive, and members. I pray that the next 25 years are more glorious than the preceding. Ase Olodumare!

  • For Aremo Segun Osoba: Between pressmanship and statesmanship

    On his divine promotion to the rank of octogenarians, Aremo Segun Osoba deserves our heart-heart congratulations and every best wish for the years ahead. For he continues to be a jolly good fellow, respectable and respected for his integrity and dignified presence. Osoba exemplifies some of the best traditions of pressmanship and statesmanship, that this country has experienced.

    Straddling the world of pressmanship or journalism and statesmanship is indeed a rare privilege that a few before him, all pioneers of our nationalist struggle, were privileged to experience. I am sure that Aremo would be the first to admit the indispensability of the trail they blazed for the success of determined efforts like his. As we celebrate his achieving the enviable status of an elder statesman, it is worth exploring again the requirements for the successful interaction between pressmanship and statesmanship.

    Interestingly, the mystery of life is sometimes displayed in spectacular ways for our edification provided we pay careful attention. This is my metaphysical interpretation of why, twice this past week, the loaded phrase, “pulse of the nation” came up in national discourse in quite unrelated circumstances.

    First, in a moment of anguish over his disappointment on the Supreme Court decision in the Osun State governorship election petition, PDP presidential candidate Alhaji Atiku Abubakar pleaded with the judiciary to feel the pulse of the nation as they do their work of dispensing justice. It was an odd plea, which not only second-guessed the highest court, but also solicited a criterion of justice that is detrimental to justice. Second, in his congratulatory message on Aremo Osoba’s birthday, former military president, General Ibrahim Babangida (IBB) appreciatively revealed to the nation how the celebrant helped his administration to understand the pulse of the nation as they contemplated policies and actions.

    One of the two usages was right, the other wrong. The job of a reporter is to expose the state of the nation without fear or favor. Politicians and administrators may, of course, foolishly decide not to be bothered or they may wisely be guided by the counsel of the Fourth Estate of the Realm. They may characterize the reports they hate as fake news and recoil to their cocoons where falsehood abides. Or they may wisely separate the wheat of good reporting from the chaff of political babble. However, elected officials feeling the pulse of the nation as presented by journalists guided by the ethics of the profession is a veritable means to good statesmanship.

    Now, of course, IBB’s revelation is interesting for what it fails to admit. How trusting was he of good journalistic reporting? How did it guide him in the runup to the adoption of IMF’s SAP? And most significantly, how did media reporting and editorials influence his political agenda between 1986 and 1993? And how was his position swayed by reporting on the runup to the annulment of the presidential election of June 1993?

    Turning to the other usage which demands that, in rendering their verdicts on electoral disputes, judges feel the pulse of the nation, we might ask, how appropriate is it in the context? Does the judiciary have a legal or moral responsibility to feel the pulse of the nation when contemplating such a judicial decision?

    This is obviously a situation in which reality sometimes negates the ideal. Judges are supposed to base their judgement on the facts of the case and the law. By a deduction from the law and the facts, they are to make judicial decisions, not minding where the chips fall. So why demand that judges feel the pulse of the nation as if they are to be influenced by the trending opinion? Sounding unconstitutional and immoral, the demand reflects a state of mind that has dominated republican systems of government for far too long. It is certainly not limited to our clime as we find similar reasonings and actions even in developed climes. There are two categories.

    First, judges and justices are members of dynamic societies. Social change affects their thinking and their decisions on crucial matters of law. While precedents are supposedly sacred and inviolable, occasions sometimes arise when they are overridden. Thirty years ago, anti-sodomy laws were well-established across the United States. Over the years, however, the society has moved on from criminalizing sexual relationships between consenting adults. The justices fell in line and same-sex marriage is now legal, affirming social influence on judicial decision.

    Second, in political systems where judges are appointed by politicians based on their ideological orientations, the reality of political influence on judicial decisions cannot be ruled out. Indeed, it is one of the dark spots on the judiciary because it leaves it vulnerable to accusations of political bias. This is why there is so much political turmoil in judicial nominations in the United States.

    In the Nigerian system, a non-political body, National Judicial Council, is responsible for the screening and recommendation of judges for nomination by the President to the Senate for confirmation. This, in addition to an independent power of the purse, is as close to judicial independence as it can be, reducing the chance of political pressure or ideological bias in judicial decision making.

    Despite the above references to external influences on the judiciary, there are special areas where judicial decisions must be completely above board and free from any external influence. Such is the case with judicial decisions of election disputes. Since such disputes are almost always about who wins or loses an election, requiring judges to feel the pulse of the nation begs an important question: which nation? Where there is a contention between political parties with membership across the nation, which party is more representative and therefore more deserving of consideration in the pulse-feeling activity of the courts?

    Sadly, we had an ignoble past in these matters when the courts had done precisely what Turaki Adamawa is apparently urging them to revisit. Recall the Treasonable Felony case against Chief Awolowo and others, and the metaphor of tied hands. Or, more poignantly, the 1979 presidential election Supreme Court judgement and the insistence that it must not be used as a precedent for future decisions. Those were moments we would rather forget.

    Read Also: Clark tackles Osoba for denigrating Confab Report

    For the confluence of pressmanship and statesmanship to have a positive impact on national progress, two related requirements are essential. First is ethical pressmanship, imbued with a desire for truth and justice towards national greatness. Second is a responsible leadership, committed to the pursuit of national greatness. Armed with progressive national policies, such a leadership will take advantage of the work of the free press, in the understanding that leadership is not infallible. In turn, benefiting from such a respectful relationship, the press becomes more and more responsible, a win-win outcome for the nation.

    In the fiery days of anti-colonial struggles, such a respectful relationship was out of the question because there was no common cause between the national press with a focus on independence and the colonial state, with a determination for continuous domination. Notwithstanding General Babangida’s spin, military rule was only slightly different. Being indigenous dictators did not really endear the military to the people, and the press, as people’s eyes and ears, knew this. Thus, many journalists also suffered the consequences of their defiance of military regimes over the years. A democracy should be different and the freedom of the press to investigate and report on the truth regarding the state of the nation should be of tremendous value to the statesman in the pursuit of the good of the nation.

    As his memoir, Battlelines: Adventures in Journalism and Politics, demonstrates, for more than fifty years, Aremo Osoba straddles both worlds of pressmanship and statesmanship. In both, he excels in his stand for truth and justice. When the world of politics tested his resolve for justice, he responded as any respectable human being would. But, then, as a gentleman, knowing that in politics there are no permanent friends or enemies, he accepted the counsel of reconciliation and he reconsidered at the right time. And he had the last laugh!

    Happy 80th Birthday, Aremo. Igba odun, odun kan.

     

     

     

  • Mr. President: Please clear this fog!

    A thick cloud of insecurity hangs over the nation. Kidnappers are on the loose. Killer herders are on the rampage. Banditry and cattle rustling are on the rise. No government can conduct its business with such a cloud of insecurity hanging over the country. Granted there are political opportunists counting on exploiting the volatile condition. Still, the challenge of insecurity is not in doubt.

    Unfortunately, the country is boiling with a cacophony of voices on the nature and source of the challenge. And our uniqueness as a divided people unwilling to get beyond their differences never disappoints. Therefore, accounts of the nature and source of the challenge varies across political spectrum and ethno-national divisions. Worse, there’s an aggravating fog of policy proposals.

    Lumping all cases of insecurity, including recent increase in kidnapping activities into one basket of farmer-herdsmen clash, the South sees land grab by foreigners. Following from this is the prediction of another civil war in the horizon. A recent social media post is introduced with an ominous quotation attributed to former President Obasanjo: “War will soon break out in Nigeria. Mark my words.” Of course, if it does, it could be the final one. For, which country can survive two civil wars in the lifetime of a generation?

    On its part, the North, ever so defensive of its lumpenproletariat, which its own elite has never lost an opportunity to impoverish and exploit, sees only economic forces at work. Precisely, it sees the consequence of climate change in desertification and drying up of Lake Chad, forcing herders down south in search of pasture, and, thus, the inevitability of clashes and conflicts. But as that observed reality appears to be made with a “nothing you can do; therefore, deal with it” attitude, the South sees the North as an arrogant nose thumper.

    Between the two frames of reference, there are elements of truth. There is desertification. Lake Chad is drying up. There is influx of cattle and herders from foreign countries up our northern border. There is southbound movement of cattle. There is indiscriminate cattle grazing on farmlands in the Middle Belt and Southern states. There is cattle invasion of residential areas and public spaces. There is maiming and killing of human beings in defense of cattle. And there are reprisal attacks on cattle and herdsmen.

    A good understanding of the above-stated truths should lead us to two further realities. First, not all our security challenges are attributable to farmer-herder conflicts. Second, government has responsibility for all our security challenges.

    The first truth is a non-brainer. Before the recent heightening of the sense of insecurity posed by herdsmen, the South lived with the menace of armed robbers, cultists, and gangsters. There were/are inbred kidnappers. Think Evans, who is still in court defending himself. The police, never tired of parading suspects before they are tried in court, recently identified some Yoruba kidnappers in public. There is the phenomenon of ole ile (house robbers) for which we have indigenous vigilantes manned by the hunter guild in Yoruba towns and villages.

    Going to my second truth, government has responsibility for all insecurity challenges. But lumping all insecurity challenges with the challenge posed by foreign herdsmen in our midst unfortunately simplifies a complex matter. Focusing on the menace of open grazing by herdsmen is extremely important. But we must not think that solving that piece of our security challenge will eliminate criminal kidnappers on our highways and forest reserves.  An effective measure for one case doesn’t necessarily work for the other.

    Over a year ago on this page, I observed that a viable path to resolving the farmer-herdsmen crisis was to modernize cattle breeding and rearing and that nomadism is not its essence. Since last year, the federal government has put its energy into resolving the crisis. But, considering the various iterations of solutions proposed to date, it has been foggy efforts at best.

    In the twinkling of an eye, we moved from grazing reserves to cattle colonies and now to Ruga settlements.  How, for heaven’s sake, is it so hard to bring together all stakeholders and agree on a policy that respects the autonomy of states under the Land Use Act and so prioritize the states as the final arbiter in this matter? Surely, the Federal Government has a responsibility for national security. But states are vested with the constitutional authority for the use of land in their areas of jurisdiction. Therefore, the federal government cannot impose any policy on them without their buy-in.

    I am certain that the Presidency understands this inescapable reality. But its policy pronouncements on this matter have not demonstrated to states and their citizens its readiness to respect it. It is time the President, in his wisdom, cleared this fog of confusion and uncertainty.

    The Presidency is an exalted office for good reason. It is the only office in the land that has the entire country as its constituency. Therefore, an elected president represents the whole country, not an ethnic nationality. Surely, becoming a president does not mean that one loses his or her ethnic identity. But it means that you bracket your unique ethnic identity during the time you serve, and you take on national identity. In this capacity, every ethnic nationality must have confidence in your ability to be dispassionate and fair as you deal with challenges that are national in scope.

    While I have no doubt that Mr. President is capable of faithfully discharging this great responsibility of fairness and thus rallying the entire country to the greatness that it richly deserves, his SILENCE in times of great crisis such as the current one is telling. For it unfortunately creates a perception, in the minds of his adversaries (unsurprisingly) but also in the mind of his admirers, that he just doesn’t care what people think in view of what they are experiencing. This is sad!

    Mr. President, you have a huge Mimbar or Pulpit which affords you the singular opportunity to rally the citizenry to your vision of the greatness that you are leading them to. Specifically, in times of manifest division arising from fears of insecurity fueled by fogs of doubt and clouds of suspicion, you have the responsibility to set matters straight and clear the fog. Unfortunately, it appears that your administration is more and more responsible for the thickening of the fog. You must now come to the rescue.  It does not by any means belittle your exalted office to go on national television to calm restive national nerves. Instead, it enhances your credibility and integrity as the Number One Citizen.

    From all that has been made public about it, Ruga settlement is Ranching. If so, it is not new to the country as many commentators have observed. But why give it a divisive nomenclature? In the mid-fifties, regional governments had cattle ranches. Why not now simply have state governments resuscitate those ranches for the benefit of their people? The federal government, with its prioritized interest in agriculture, can provide the enabling environment for these ranches in the form of grants to states or to specific cooperatives. This way, any Nigerian, not only Fulani herdsmen, are beneficiaries of the policy. Perceptions of favoritism or, worse, disguised land grab, is laid to rest.

    Why is land grab perception so real and so dangerous? There have been testimonials on the origin of the Middle Belt farmer-herdsmen crisis where small herdsmen settlements morphed into large colonies, generating conflicts over landownership. Land Use Act takes away land from indigenous families vesting it in state governments. But these families appreciate the fact that they still have access to their land even if through lease from government. There is some satisfaction in that. But let’s be honest. No family, South or North, will ever be pleased with losing its land to non-indigenes who can claim equal right of ownership! It is not only anomalous in our context; it will certainly aggravate an already tense national climate of fear and suspicion.

    Fortunately, on an optimistic note, Mr. President can easily clear this fog now, and put the devil to ignominious shame.