The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • A culture warrior at 85

    He comes from a family of warriors and culture champions. His grandfather fought in the Oyo-Ijaye War as Alafin’s war general. His father was the Asipade of Oyo and a veteran of the First World War. Wande Abimbola, Emeritus Professor of African Languages, former Vice Chancellor of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile Ife, former Senate Leader (1992-93), and Awise Awo Agbaiye (spokesman for Ifa worldwide) chose a different war to lead. He a culture warrior.

    In the circle of enlightened culture enthusiasts, Professor Wande Abimbola needs no introduction. Here, he is, unarguably, the first among equals. If language and religion are the indispensable foundations of a culture, Abimbola is the foremost intellectual protagonist and defender of indigenous Yoruba culture through the strengthening of Yoruba language and religion. This is his life’s purpose.

    Of course, since there is no culture without a people, and since people evolve over time, cultures do evolve. This is an obvious dilemma for indigenous culture enthusiasts like Abimbola. Right from their first contact with foreign peoples, including fellow Africans and non-Africans, Yoruba people have confronted foreign ideas, languages, and beliefs. Through these interactions, foreign words entered Yoruba language and were appropriated and indigenized. Most, if not all languages, go through this experience. However, provided the mainframe of the language remains solid, the language is still considered indigenous.

    Unlike the indigenizing of foreign words into a living language, however, religious belief systems are a different class. First, foreign religions came with their own languages and worldviews, which are often posed as superior to indigenous world views. Therefore, they were expected to replace their indigenous counterparts. Second, while indigenous religions are non-proselytizing, foreign religions are, and the duty to evangelize is integral to a voluntary embrace of those religions. Third, those foreign religions also came with additional benefits, including education, commonly presented as requiring a new orientation and a new worldview.

    For these reasons, many Yoruba, like their fellow Africans across the continent, embraced those foreign belief systems, including Islam and Christianity, with their cultural ethos and the imperatives they impose on adherents, including proselytisation. The few who resisted were described as infidels bound for hell fire. Interestingly, the violence experienced by Africans in the arena of religion has been caused by conflicts between the proselytizing religions and rarely between either of them and indigenous religions. Consider Boko Haram’s war against Western education and Christianity.

    Wande Abimbola sees his mission as the preservation and promotion of Yoruba culture by promoting its language and indigenous religious system; albeit not at the expense of foreign religions. Indeed, he is the first to insist that indigenous religion is not designed to recruit adherents.

    By its nature, indigenous religion welcomes devotees; but it doesn’t have a mandate for evangelization. Neither does it ridicule adherents of other religions. Therefore, Abimbola expects reciprocity of the live-and-let-live philosophy of indigenous religions from other religions. When this expectation is unmet, which is often the case, there is crisis.

    Abimbola once found himself in such a crisis and he confronted it by fighting back on the spot. He attended a special church service at the invitation of a celebrant. The officiating clergy, considering it his spiritual obligation to offer salvation to unbelievers, issued a stern warning that whoever did not believe in Jesus, especially an Ifa worshipper, was bound for hell fire. It was an in-your-face confrontation. Abimbola responded in kind as the man of God spoke. He declared to the hearing of everyone there that he would not go to hell. And he asked the man of God if his ancestors who were also Ifa worshippers were in hell. After service, the man of God apologized to him.

    Abimbola’s position on indigenous language is just as strong as his view on indigenous religion. But as in the latter, the challenge of protecting and promoting indigenous language is real and huge. Western education travelled to Africa with Western languages–English, French, Portuguese, etc. And as missionaries despised indigenous religions, western educators were contemptuous of indigenous languages. Children were forbidden from speaking the mother tongue in school.

    The consequence is enormous. Research shows that mother tongue is the best means to effective learning. The Chinese and Japanese excel in mathematics and the sciences in part because in their formative years, they were introduced to these subjects in their mother tongues. Deprived of this effective avenue to learning, rote learning, with all its deficiencies, has been the norm in African school systems. Furthermore, children could acquire multiple languages and use them effectively in their learning process. Many African children were deprived of this opportunity because of the insistence of their western educators on the use of the language of the colonial powers.

    Apparently, the colonizers succeeded beyond their expectation because the policy worked beyond the colonial days. Even now, many Yoruba households would have nothing to do with Yoruba language, forbidding their children, including toddlers, from speaking the language. These children grow up with no understanding of their mother tongue. But they also have little understanding of the English language. And but for the recent policy declaration of one of the states, governments are also complicit in this charade. Like many scholars, Abimbola is worried about this trend. For if it is not broken, we may just bid indigenous Yoruba culture goodbye.

    Abimbola is one of the rare scholars who doesn’t just offer theories for the solution of problems. He is also actively in the business of finding practical solutions to identified problems. In the matter of indigenous religion, he is a practicing Ifa priest, and he engages in active research on Ifa divination systems. As an oral system, one major drawback for scholars interested in Ifa research is the non-availability of written texts. From his student days when Abimbola took up the challenge, he has never looked back nor digressed. He has published multiple volumes of Ifa divination poetry, which have provided scholars with a wealth of materials, thus facilitating productive research into Ifa as a religion and as a discipline.

    Abimbola is not only a professor of African Literature focusing on Ifa divination, he is also an Ifa priest. And more than an ordinary priest, he is the Awise Awo Agbaiye, the spokesman of Ifa divination in the world, having been so installed by priests from West Africa, the home of Ifa divination in 1981 in the palace of the Oni of Ife. As Awise, Professor Abimbola travels the world projecting Ifa divination and attending to the needs of adherents and devotees.

    In addition, noting the decline in the use of Yoruba language, Abimbola has established an Institute of Yoruba Language and Religion in Oyo where students from all over the world study Yoruba language and Ifa divination. His children, with their various career successes, are also very well in the tradition as Babalawos and Iyanifas in their own right.

    I have benefitted immensely from Abimbola’s wealth of knowledge in Yoruba culture, language and tradition. As a young lecturer at Obafemi Awolowo University, I studied at his feet before and after he was appointed the Vice Chancellor. It was always a delightful experience to visit him, first in his Road 9 house, and later in the Vice Chancellor’s Lodge. I always had a notebook in my car such that as soon as I left him, I would jot down my newly acquired idioms and proverbs before I forgot.

    Babalawos memorize without writing. So, Abimbola now prefers oral delivery to writing, which, he argues, does not aid memory. In October 2013, he addressed Howard University Freshman Seminar Class on Yoruba tradition in Africa and the Americas. He spoke for one hour without reference to notes, explaining that he now prefers the title “onsowe” (speaker of books) to “onkowe” (writer of books).

    Former students, colleagues, family, and fellow priests and priestesses gathered in Atlanta, Georgia on July 7 to honor Awise Awo Agbaye on the 85th anniversary of a purposeful life. I was not there because the will of the spirit was overruled by the state of a newly panel-beaten body frame. Lase Olodumare, 90th is around the corner.

    Igba odun, odun kan.

     

     

     

     

  • Beyond party promises on restructuring

    In 2015, All Progressives Congress (APC) received a massive support throughout the country, especially in the Southwest because it promised to devolve power to the states.

    To be sure, this was not the party’s only attraction. After 16 years in power, PDP had become a spent force, an epitome of corruption and weak leadership. Voters were tired of the arrogance of the largest party in Africa. Therefore, they voted in a new leader who was promoted as a man of integrity and stern discipline. Many of us believed, as we still do, that change from a centralized pseudo federalism to a true federal structure was desperately needed. Nigerians championed the cause of change with their votes.

    The change we envisioned in 2015 was from a structure that suppresses innovative thinking because, like its military precursor, it micromanages the states and treats them as appendages. Nigerians voted for a change to a structure that respects diversity and encourages state-centric development. APC received the goodwill of voters, so it could carry out the necessary changes to boost the economy and promote peaceful relation among states and geopolitical zones. Oh, how hopeful we were!

    Patriotic Nigerians, including those who abhor partisan politics but are committed to the project of a better Nigeria, offered unsolicited advice to the incoming ruling party and the administration on the way forward. Much of those advice was consistent with the declared policy goals and objectives of the party. Based on the routing of those items of advice, there is reason to believe that the intended target received them. Due diligence done, the waiting time for result was tortuously unending. The promise remained unfulfilled. And since an unfulfilled promise is a broken promise, and since promise-breaking is tantamount to taking human beings for a ride, the animus that is being expressed now is not out of place.

    Of course, there are other issues, and different groups can point to any number of issues that give them pause about the ruling party and its administration. And it will certainly be unfair to treat all complaints with equal emphasis or to even acknowledge their legitimacy. The promise to fight corruption has been discharged creditably despite some hiccups which are not unexpected. Corruption has a way of fighting back. Also, the effort to fight terrorism in the North East has been largely successful and the administration deserves credit on this score. Unfortunately, the same zeal that forced Boko Haram to flee has not been seen in the matter of killer herdsmen. This matter will continue to be one of the greatest embarrassments for an administration that has a former military general at its head.

    As important as these other issues are, however, the foundational issue, which APC also recognized in its manifesto in view of the priority it gave it in the document, is devolution of power, its own nomenclature for restructuring. The failure of that promise is the most unfortunate in the record of the party, despite any other success.

    The effort failed partly because once the administration got power, it failed to give it the attention it deserved until very late. When the drumbeat of restructuring became loud and unrelenting, we were told that restructuring was not a priority of the party because it inherited a battered economy which needed immediate attention. No doubt, the new administration inherited a depleted foreign reserve, collapsing businesses, severe crisis of oil revenue shortage, militancy in the oil producing areas, and rising unemployment.

    Yet, as terrible as the economy was, it was not an excuse for not initiating discussions in the legislature on how best to redeem the promise of devolution of powers. The linkage between the economy and political structure is unassailable. Besides, what is wrong with multitasking in matters as important as these two? An early focus on restructuring would have also discouraged militancy in the Niger Delta and this would have sent a message of hope to foreign investors.

    The party eventually set up its committee on restructuring to the delight of many. The committee worked hard and submitted a report which many from opposing political parties hailed. Even Governor Dickson jettisoned partisanship to heap praises on the report and advised the party and government to implement the recommendations. The party accepted the report and set up another committee to examine it. Many believed that this was the beginning of delay tactics. Since then, we have not heard much about the status of the report.

    Then came the crisis within, and an imminent threat to promise-keeping became a reality. APC brought together diverse elements in a marriage of convenience. Try as much as they could, the founding fathers of the party have not been able to stem the tide of divisive politicking within, and now the center no longer holds. From the beginning, the National Assembly is the epicenter of the rebellion with its anti-establishment choice of leaders. With the party leadership pitted against NASS leadership, it is unrealistic to expect an effective coordination of party and administration priorities. Thus, a bill for amending the constitution on devolution of power went down in the NASS. To be sure, beside the executive-legislature debacle, this bill was also a victim of geopolitical mistrust.

    Suspicion between the administration and the National Assembly escalated with the failed prosecution of the Senate President over irregularities in asset declaration. Believing that his trial was political motivated, many NASS members rallied and stood by him, putting into jeopardy a good working relationship between NASS and the Executive.

    It got worse. The leadership of NASS belongs to nPDP, the breakaway faction of PDP that gave APC a boost in its change campaign in 2015. But with its increasing resentment of APC leadership, the nPDP bloc has been reluctant to do much in terms of passing any substantive bill that might make APC look effective in governance. With the inauguration of rAPC, the vicious circle is unbroken. Passing a devolution of power bill is therefore out of the question. And the prospect of breaking a promise is all but certain.

    Which leads us invariably to the next election and new beginning on the fundamental issue of restructuring. The challenge of APC now is to get people to believe it in case it decides to bring back a promise to restructure or devolve power. How believable is that going to be? It would have been a smart move to get somewhere now with partial implementation and then ask for another term to complete it. Therefore, restructuring or devolution of power cannot, unfortunately, be a winning strategy that it was for APC in 2015. Our people are not dumb.

    Once beaten, twice shy. There must now be a scrutiny of every promise from every political party on restructuring. What is the party’s track record? How committed are its leaders to restructuring? Can a coalition of political parties as in CUPP deliver what a merger of parties like APC cannot deliver?

    As a way out of this depressing record of unfulfilled promises, the electorate should demand to be in the driver’s seat of the issue. We need a ballot initiative in 2019 with three options.

    1. Do you want a change in the political structure of Nigeria? Yes/No
    2. If yes, do you want a change that returns Nigeria to the pre-1966 parliamentary system with modification to the number of regions? Yes/No
    3. If no, do you want a presidential system of governance and strong regional governments with control over their resources and payment of tax and royalty to the federal government? Yes/No

    If a majority answer yes on the first question, whichever party wins the election has an obligation to execute the will of the electorate. Majority answers on either question 2 or 3 will determine the form the new structure will take.

    What about the logistic of a ballot initiative with a population that is largely illiterate? Where there is a will there is a way. If we get them to vote their preferences on candidates, we can get them to vote their preferences on the ballot initiative.

  • 20 years ago

    one of the several burning issues of the time that I considered writing about today is the unrelenting killings by herdsmen in the nation’s heartland. I was especially moved by a video of about twenty herdsmen, jubilantly displaying their AK-47 as they sang along on a field in plain sight. I wondered aloud, “do we have a government?”

    As I pondered that question, another story popped up on my ODA platform about the rumored allocation of land for cattle ranches in Oke-ogun area of Oyo State. Well, if Oke-Ogun was neither considered suitable for a federal educational institution nor for rural electrification, and if the only federal presence in the area is the abandoned Ikerre Gorge dam, left uncompleted since 1976, then, why not grab their land for cattle ranches?  Can the people complain? Who are they anyway?

    But as important as these issues are, I chose to focus on a deep-rooted affliction, of which these little sufferings are branches.

    On July 7, 1998, I was at my desk at work when my phone rang. It was a call that still rings in my ear till today. “Did you hear the news?” the voice on the other end asked. “What news?” I asked. “Our man has been killed. Abiola has been killed”, he announced. My heart sank as the phone dropped. “No! No!! No!!!” I shouted. My secretary heard and rushed in. She saw my anguish as she sat helpless. “I told her the news I had just heard. She knew about the struggle and my involvement. I told her I had to leave the office. She understood.

    I worked the phone, calling around my colleagues: Ropo Sekoni, Banji Ayiloge, Sola Ogunbode, Bolaji Aluko, Kunle Badmus, Dauda Jolaoso, and others. Those available met in my house and from there, with families around, we drove to the Woodview home of Hafsat and her siblings, less than a mile from mine. Lekan and his brother had joined them. We all stood in their presence without knowing what to say. It was one of the saddest moments I have ever experienced. Emotion welled up in all of us. I stepped aside from view and cried.

    That day, my respect for the Abiola siblings grew exponentially. From the oldest to the youngest, they demonstrated courage strengthened by faith. It occurred to me that, by instilling in them the tenets of their faith, their parents may have unconsciously prepared them for a time like this. This observation is supported by the fact that since the passing of their mother, and then, their father, through thick and thin, the Abiola siblings have weathered the storm of life, and have had achievements that some of their peers with both parents alive cannot boast of.

    The following day, we organized a special program on Ijinle Ohun Odua, the Yoruba Radio program sponsored by Egbe Omo Yoruba. It featured a solemn account of Abiola’s martyrdom and the next phase of the struggle. But as I narrated in All the Way: Serving with Conscience, we were all in terrible emotional shape. Sola Yussuf, who goes by Motanbaje Adeyemi on air, captioned her news report with a powerful message of grief and defiance: Kannakanna ti pa omo ega (A fatal slinger had hit a good man). But Sola was overpowered by emotion and she broke down sobbing. We suspended the program until we gained our composure.

    On Saturday, July 18, 1998, the Nigerian Muslim Community organized a Fidau to mark the 8th day of Chief Abiola’s death. Many Nigerians and friends of Nigeria attended. Seeing the large audience, I could not resist an observation. Pro-democracy groups had struggled hard with little success to attract many Nigerians to the cause. But for the commitment and dedication of a few hard-core activists, we would not make the impact that we made. Therefore, seeing so many people at the special prayers for the dead, I introduced my remarks with our elders’ wisdom that the sick would most likely survive if as much resources were committed to his care when alive as are to his funeral. While many were not bothered about Abiola’s plight when he was a victim of Nigerian military’s brutality and disregard for democratic norms, they crowded his Fidau in a show of sympathy.

    Chief M. K. O. Abiola died in the detention of the Nigerian government after a drink of tea provided by the government in the presence of visiting American diplomats. No one has been held accountable for his death. The team of international investigators, led by Dr. James G. Young of Ontario, concluded that his death was natural, caused by “arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease”.

    The team did not examine the impact of prolonged detention for four years (without access to exercise and without adequate medical care) on the “rapid deterioration in a diseased heart.” But as Chief Obasanjo remarked in his 1998 article in The New York Review, “if Abiola had not been unjustly detained for over four years, he could have had good medical attention and he would not have died.” Never mind that when he took the reins of power, the same Obasanjo never thought of a just redress for the death of Abiola.

    Chief Abiola’s death was the traumatic anticlimax of five years of suspense and hope, first for his biological family, and second, his political associates and everyone that simply resented the audacity of the military. We had all hoped for a happier ending.

    After the death of Abacha in June 1998, there were expectations that Abiola would be released. We were told that the transition government of General Abdulsalam Abubakar was preparing the ground for a role for Abiola in the transition. But they wanted him to rescind his mandate, which he boldly resisted. And there was an impasse. Furthermore, there is reason to believe that Abacha’s associates, and especially some Northern elements who were still in the administration, were unhappy that Abiola lived while Abacha was dead. The international investigators didn’t examine this aspect.

    In a Press Release titled “End of the Beginning”, Yoruba International Network (YIN) counseled our people to reflect on three issues: Chief Abiola’s travails in the last five years of his life against the background of his contributions to the economic, political and religious life of Nigeria; the history of power and politics in Nigeria; and the vitiation of the Yoruba nation in the Nigerian Federation. The release zeroed in on the impunity of the military and their backers, and the hegemonic agenda that they represented, and how this was at odds with the ideal of a truly democratic federation in which all nationalities matter.

    Sadly, 20 years later, it’s unclear that any lessons have been learnt from the avoidable crisis that the annulment of June 12, 1993 election generated and its profound impact on a good family and the entire nation.

    I started this piece with a list of issues that attracted my attention for today’s column. As it turns out, however, Abiola’s travail and death encapsulates those issues and more. The mindset that annulled Abiola’s victory and took care of the “Abiola problem” by eliminating him is the same mindset that violently usurps the inheritance of others. It is responsible for the resistance to a thriving federal system which guarantees cultural democracy and ensures the development of every nationality at its pace.

    The logic of federalism is to take care of the nationality question. It was what motivated the drafters of Nigeria’s 1960 Independence Constitution and later, the Republican Constitution of 1963. As Frederick Schwartz observes, “a federal system requires that each group, desiring autonomy or protection be identified with a particular piece of territory…. Nigeria’s federal system provides that matters which are of greatest concern to the regional ethnic groups—land tenure, local government, customary law, education— are in the hands of the regions.”

    With the federal intrusion on land and other matters, Schwartz needs a revised edition of his work. Or Nigeria needs to go back to its original model of federalism.

    May the fighting spirit of M.K.O Abiola mobilize us to the struggle for a more perfect union.

     

     

     

  • The allure of pre-1966 Constitution

    “So, I feel like if we have a constitution in this country that allows each of the zones to develop at their own pace, to manage their own resources, to make adequate contributions to the centre so as to sustain the centre and strengthen the units and weaken the centre, without making the centre subservient to the federating units, we can live together as a nation where no man is suppressed. It is the issue of suppression, it is the issue of marginalisation that usually pushes people to want to go their own ways. But I think we are better off going it together than going it our separate ways. That is my own position.”
    —Archbishop L. S. Ayo Ladigbolu, The Nation Saturday Interview, November 1, 2012

    In the Abrahamic Faith, the tradition of a spiritually endowed clergy with a social conscience imbued with a sense of justice is strongly displayed in the Old Testament scripture. There, fearless prophets of Yahweh, speaking truth to power, challenged kings and priests alike on the evil of social injustice.

    Those prophets did not seek favor from powerful kings and their elitist enablers. Many, like John the Baptist, suffered hardship and death. Jesus the Christ took the tradition to its highest level, challenging the Pharisees and Sadducees as hypocrites who were only adept in quoting the law without following its precepts. He suffered the consequences of His obduracy with death on the cross. But His spirit was never quenched, and it continues to radiate in the lives of His believers to date.

    Since the introduction of Christianity to Nigeria, we have had a mixed experience of the tradition of spiritually endowed clergy with a social conscience. Against colonial invasion and imperialistic Christianity, there were fearless defenders of the African culture such as Mojola Agbebi, Ladejo Stone, Edward Blyden, James Johnson, etc. They pioneered a cultural nationalism that sought to indigenize Christianity and served as the precursor of the political nationalism which wrestled power from the British. Along the way, these pioneer clerics taught the nation a thing or two about social justice and social transformation.

    The story of Nigeria’s independence is therefore intricately connected with the story of the cultural nationalism championed by clerics. Thereafter, their involvement in the political affairs of the nation in the post-independence era was a mixed experience. Party politics had a polluting effect on the sacred institution of the church, and it is not unusual to find the clergy as a group on different sides of the political divide, with some sometimes justifying the clearly unjustifiable, based on political calculations as opposed to the conviction of their religious principles.

    Thus, whereas the pioneer clerics raised a united voice against political and religious imperialism, the twin evils of their time, and prepared the ground for political emancipation, it has not been practicable for contemporary clerics to sing the same tune against some of the fundamental challenges of our contemporary political life. These include the issues of military dictatorship, political corruption, inequality, lopsided political structure, and gender discrimination.

    Thankfully, there are those on the right side of history, who take their call seriously, and follow the tradition of engaged prophets of old. Of these, Emeritus Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu stands out among his peers. He has been an inspiring voice in the demand for justice and equity. He has been a dependable leader in the struggle for constitutional reforms. He has been a reliable participant in the pursuit of the welfare and happiness of the generality of our people. My opening quotation above was from his interview with The Nation in November 2012, and it demonstrates the veracity of my claim.

    Archbishop Ladigbolu is a man of many parts, adept in merging religion, culture, and politics. Where others see conflict, he sees harmony, and excels in bridging gaps. As a clergy with a social conscience, he has served in various capacities in which he tends to the body, mind, and soul of the people across religious and political divide. His in-depth knowledge of Yoruba culture is an immense blessing in this regard.

    Baba Ladigbolu was a founding member of Yoruba Parapo in the late 1990s. He is the Deputy Chairman of Yoruba Unity Forum, an umbrella social-cultural organization of the Yoruba. He has spoken out forcefully on the issues of marginalization, dehumanization, and the challenges of farmers-herdsmen clashes and the various proposed solutions.

    As he turns 80, I am confident that Archbishop Ladigbolu’s fervent prayer is that Nigeria may have a constitutional framework that provides for her progressive development and the wellbeing and happiness of citizens. Therefore, it is to this desire and prayer of his that I dedicate this column today, with a further focus on the constitutional need of the country.

    Not long ago on this page, I responded to a position attributed to Dr. Ganduje, the Governor of Kano state, who argued for mind restructuring as opposed to political restructuring, suggesting that the United States was able to achieve her enviable position because of her leaders’ ability to harness the skills and talents of a diverse populace.  Against that position, I argued that “if the structure wasn’t right to start with, the mind of the population couldn’t be harnessed effectively for the task of development.”

    In the case of the United States, I noted that the political structure was settled very early in the intensive debates before the constitution was adopted. The debate on the merits of federalism over confederalism engaged the attention of the convention delegates for years before they finally settled for federalism.

    With the political structure of the United States, the right of each state over its finances, economy, education, health, agriculture, cannot be overridden at will by the federal government. Each state has its constitution, state police, state anthem, state symbols and other paraphernalia of governance side by side with those of the federal government. States control the minerals under their soil and, based on the revenue that accrue to them from taxation on the extraction of such minerals by private companies, some states, such as Texas, do not charge their residents state income tax. This is how heterogeneity works and diversity benefits the entire country.

    “Now, since the structure has been given adequate thought from the beginning and it works, the United States has no need for restructuring. If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it! Nigeria also got it right at the beginning with the independence constitution of 1960 and the Republican Constitution of 1963. But in 1966, something snapped seriously and, in our effort to put it right, we went for the wrong medication. The military chose to fix a problem of leadership with a change of structure. It is this wrong move that now needs fixing.”

    IBK, an Opalaba-like young activist, forcefully challenged me on this topic recently, reminding me again about how the pre-1966 Nigerian Constitution placed us on the path of national advancement. Regions were semi-autonomous, and they developed at their own pace with astounding results. It was also the outcome of a genuine effort of the people’s representatives, unlike its military-tailored elite successors. But for the blatant hubris on the part of some greedy agents of the state who abused their privileged positions, and the in-built lopsidedness of the regions orchestrated by the British, the 1963 Constitution should serve this country well.

    Those fault lines are still pretty much present to the eyes. Greed still afflicts political actors. And though the creation of states appears to have corrected the lopsidedness of the regions, it has created more problems, especially with states now more like puppets of the federal government. This was not the design of the founding fathers. It is what needs our attention now.

    The resistance to political restructuring is inexplicable in view of the evidence of the weakness of the structure to deliver on national advancement. Fortunately, we have an option. We started from somewhere in 1960 and then in 1963. Going back to the source of our strength in the pre-1966 constitution is our reasonable option.

    Happy Birthday, Baba! Aseyisamodun!

     

     

     

  • Case for a new constitution

    Today, I share with readers, a statement issued by the Yoruba International Network (YIN) on the state of Nigeria as a federal democracy. YIN mobilized diaspora Yoruba for struggle against military dictatorship in Nigeria following the annulment of the June 12 1993 presidential election. The statement was signed by Dr. Femi Folorunso, Convener, Yoruba International Network:

    “June 12, 2018 marks the 25th anniversary of the June 12 Presidential election which was won by Chief M.K.O. Abiola, but irresponsibly annulled by General Ibrahim Babangida.

    “The Buhari administration caught the whole country by surprise when a week to this anniversary it announced that June 12 will henceforth be marked as “Democracy Day.” This was in addition to awarding the nation’s highest honour, GCFR, to Chief M.K.O Abiola post-humously.  This is a significant gesture, even if it took so long in coming and despite that no important member of the government had mentioned June 12 in any political forum since the Buhari administration came into power three years ago.

    “YIN acknowledges the significance of the declaration and gives credit to the administration for the gesture even if there is a political motivation lurking behind. After all, others, including the Obasanjo administration which was the first direct beneficiary of June 12 crisis, simply looked away.

    “Nevertheless, the gesture of admitting the importance of June 12 as another watershed in the political history of Nigeria must not obscure the lingering critical questions about constitutional democracy and governance in Nigeria. These questions have become even more pertinent because of the general unease in the country.

    “Nigeria’s abysmal record on human development and well-being of citizens is now compounded by the growing and ever-changing demands on governments. There is persuasive evidence that the pursuit of economic and social reform only succeeds where it is supported in the political sphere through democratic accountability and institutional structures that have credibility and is rooted in transparent commitment to fairness.

    “A common explanation for the unease is failure of governance occasioning brazen looting of the national treasury by elected and unelected officials of state. This however is a one-dimensional view and too weak a formulation. What continue to afflict Nigeria are the reservoirs of its political history. Put simply, it means what constitutional arrangement is best for a multi-national state with over 200 linguistic groups? A fast-growing awareness is that only an unfettered federal constitution can answer this question.

    “As is the case in countries with configurations such as Nigeria’s, there are three fundamental issues at the heart of the demand for unfettered federalism. These are democracy, prosperity, and equity and fairness. It means each national unit will have a government that is as close to its wishes and values as possible and each sub-national government will have control over its resources, its wealth and determine how to use both for the benefits of its people, while also working cooperatively with a national government to promote the well-being and national security of the whole country.

    “Riddled with jargons and laboured technicalities, the current constitution of Nigeria is a flawed article of association, not a consensus document on how to organize a federal system of governance.

    “Indeed, the constitution has proved itself to be a document that demobilizes more than it can mobilize citizens towards democracy and development. Since the return to democratic governance in 1999, states have been treated less as federating units than as a collection of viceroyalty of whoever reigns as president in Abuja. This has constrained the ability of states to meet future challenges that face them. Many if not most elected governors have taken the absurdity further by behaving as unconscionable viceroys who will stop at nothing to please their sovereign in Abuja. Elected governors have become mostly fawning panglossians more interested in power than in addressing the complexity of governance and socio-economic development in critical times such as the present.

    “For example, the population of Nigeria is estimated to be 183,523,432 in 2015. In comparison, it was 37,860,000 in 1950.  Population by its very nature can be a force for good, but this is when it is guided by policies that are set within appropriate framework for social and economic development.

    “The South-Western states of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo and Ekiti occupy a land area of 78,505.17sq.km and are estimated to have a population of 36,282,583 by 2015.

    “Although Western Nigeria is 8.38 percent of the total land area of Nigeria, it houses 19.77 percent of the population of the entire country. The six states in Western Nigeria have a combined population density of 482 people per sq.km. The population density will rise to 1032 people per sq.km by 2050 if the current rate of increase is maintained.

    “This unfolding scenario has put critical pressure on land management across Yorubaland. Land is a fundamental, but finite resource. As a result, the complexity of land in relation to achieving successful economic development, sustainable environment, and communities has never been more critical for the southwest.

    “It is imperative therefore that the Yoruba region give priority to population management, land use, and the management of physical and natural environment in a way that may be different from the rest of the country. The importance of land to the Yoruba culture and civilization cannot and must not be subject to heartless political or constitutional manipulation.

    “This calls for a more efficient and effective governance in the region than the states in the region currently deliver, and especially given the history of the region in championing forward-looking and informed citizen-centered governance.

    “If democracy is a means by which citizens can participate in the affairs of their country by freely choosing their representatives, constitutionalism is what places limits on what those so chosen are permitted to do. In this sense, every constitution serves two overlapping purposes: first to protect the rights of individuals, and second, to prevent the tyranny of the majority by making it impossible for them to make political changes at the expense of the whole.

    “In 2016, one of the representatives in the national assembly, Sadiq Ibrahim, presented a draft bill for the creation of grazing reserves across Nigeria. The draft bill was laden with cultural and political meanings that taken together represented an affront on our democracy as a multi-ethnic, multi-national country. And last month, the Buhari presidency submitted A Bill for An Act to Establish a Regulatory Framework for the Water Resources Sector in Nigeria, and provide for the Equitable and Sustainable Redevelopment, Management, Use and Conservation of Nigeria’s Surface Water and Groundwater Resources and for Related Matter.

    “Following the hostile public reaction to the bill, including from southern members of the national assembly, the government has unsurprisingly resorted to what is best described as shameless cognitive dissonance by suggesting that the proposed law was harmless, constitutional and designed for the interest of all. A close reading of the bill suggests otherwise, however.

    “The bill is a classic case of the devil being in the detail. The question is should such a bill that derogates from the power of subnational governments to have control over policies for food and water provision and security for their people have been brought to the federal parliament in the first instance?  A similar question applies to the withdrawn cattle grazing reserve bill.

    “These two events demonstrate that the case for connecting democracy and constitution, and the need for a renewed vigilance for both, has never been clearer or more urgent in Nigeria. After all, the constitution is the bedrock of our democracy and the principle that underlines it is that Nigeria will be a federal republic. The whole point of federalism is that federating units will cooperate to promote the common good and not one regional power or group forcing domination on the others through willful abuse of democratic process and the underlying principles.

    “The 1999 Constitution imposed on the Nigerian federation by departing military dictators at the end of the Transition to Democracy in 1999 is not a constitution that fosters federal democratic governance. It needs and MUST be replaced with a federal constitution duly negotiated by the peoples of Nigeria.”

     

     

     

  • 25 years later, apology and honour

    No one saw it coming. But everyone with a sense of history received it with utmost joy. Why?

    First, it was a gesture that many Nigerians least expected now after the injustice of June 23, 1993, when the Babangida regime annulled the June 12, 1993 presidential election which was globally recognised as the freest and fairest in the history of elections in Nigeria.

    Second, several administrations, both military and civilian had come and gone since 1993, including the transition government of Abdulsalam Abubakar under whose watch the winner of the election, MKO Abiola was killed in detention. This recognition and this honor could have been done by Abubakar for the sake of closure. He failed. Then, the hope of the fair-minded populace turned to the greatest beneficiary of the martyrdom of Abiola. In 1999, they expected newly elected president Olusegun Obasanjo to right the wrong. They waited in vain.

    And so, with the stroke of a master strategist, Buhari shamed and silenced all the co-conspirators.

    Notice that what was uppermost in the minds of those who resented the calculated injustice against June 12 was the acknowledgement that a wrong was done, a national apology for it, and a restitution that is appropriate to the wrong. A symbolic gesture was made by the Jonathan administration with the renaming of the University of Lagos after MKO. For many, that was ill-advised because it was inadequate, having appeared to regionalize MKO’s achievements and sacrifice.

    Third, then, the difference between Buhari’s gesture and the last symbolic attempt at righting the wrong cannot be clearer. For, as Femi Falana, SAN, rightly noted, Buhari has virtually declared Abiola as the winner of June 12, 1993 presidential election. The truth has come out at last, and that is soothing for both the immediate family of Abiola, who have suffered tremendous harm over the last 25 years, and for the many leaders and foot soldiers in the struggle for the realization of Abiola’s mandate, many of whom also died in the process, and most of whom suffered serious deprivation.

    Fourth, Buhari not only recognised Abiola as the winner of that momentous election, he also, on behalf of the federal government and the nation, apologised for its annulment. That is not something that I imagined would ever come from a man with a no-nonsense military background. But Buhari pulled it off to the delight of democrats across the nation. And the commendation is swift and unreserved.

    Is there a self-serving motivation behind the gesture? Who knows? And, really, who cares? Others before him could have done it with whatever motivation, selfish or altruistic. They failed. So why must anyone be bothered about motivation, which only the agent of an action, in this case, Buhari, is privy to? Truly, good and selfless motive grants moral worth to an action, as Kant would argue. However, motives do not detract from the rightness of an action. Buhari has performed a right action here, whatever his motive.

    While many, including lawmakers have commended the President’s action in conferring national honors on Abiola, his running mate and the late national gadfly, Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN), some have questioned the legitimacy of granting national honor posthumously or declaring June 12 as Democracy Day. It is easy to dismiss such a position as sheer sophistry. But it deserves to be taken seriously and addressed if only to expose its faulty reasoning.

    Surely, posthumous honors are not uncommon, and the objectors know it. The specific reference is to the constitutional provision which requires that a national honor be conferred on a Nigerian citizen. And for some strange reasoning on the part of the objector, a dead Nigerian is not a Nigerian. Therefore, either the constitution is amended, or the honor is illegal. It appears, from this reasoning that when we make reference to, and appreciate, the “labours of our heroes past”, we do not recognize them as Nigerians. They belong to the land of the dead, and not to Nigeria. This is so at odds with any of our indigenous belief systems and world views that it hardly warrants a response. But it came right from the sacred chambers of our lawmaking institution.

    With respect to the declaration of June 12 as Democracy Day instead of May 29, the president supported his declaration with cogent reasoning. It was on June 12, 1993 that Nigerians voted for a united nation, despite their differences in language and religion. And they voted peacefully and overwhelmingly for a (Muslim-Muslim) ticket that they embraced. They exercised their democratic rights in an atmosphere of peace and freedom.

    It was an affirmation of unity and democracy. Why did it not occur to General Abdulsalam Abubakar and President Obasanjo that June 12 was the most appropriate Democracy Day? Your guess is as good as mine. And what was the uniqueness of May 29? Does a day become uniquely identified with democracy just because after a long period of military rule the new president was sworn in on that day? Does it not matter that the military would not have been in power for that last long if they had respected the voice of the people clearly articulated on June 12, 1993? It does, and once the injustice was addressed, there is a need to also address the symbolism of dates.

    What now needs to be taken care of is the anomaly of inaugurating a new administration on May 29 marking the end of four years of an outgoing administration, and celebrating Democracy Day only a few days later, on June 12. If there is a will there is a way. The political will must be summoned to find a way to regularize this potential anomaly to give effect to the presidential declaration.

    As many have pointed out, Buhari’s gesture, though momentous and justly commended, is only the beginning of the end of a self-inflicted trauma that consumed the nation 25 years ago. Much more needs to be done to assure every section of the nation that they belong. This requires as much courage as has been summoned thus far in correcting the injustice of June 12.

    Abiola has been virtually declared winner of the election. Therefore, he is a former president. This should be formalized, and his entitlements be tendered to his family. NASS has rightly requested Professor Nwosu’s NEC to formally declare the winner of the election. It should follow it with a legislation retroactively proclaiming Abiola as elected president in 1993. This is what truth and reconciliation demand. In this holy month of Ramadan, it is what is required of the faithful.

    Finally, due to the lopsidedness of its structure, the nation is still far from its potential as a nation bound in freedom, peace, and unity. Many are rendered unfree because they do not have the basic needs to live in freedom. Unrest and violence, rather than peace, has been the portion of the majority across the six geopolitical zones. And these have detracted remarkably from any sense of national unity as we have seen in the rise of sectional and sectarian agitations.

    Many reasonable voices, including from this page, have been raised concerning the need to attend to the structure which has exacerbated the dangers of sectionalism and sectarianism before they consume the nation. Restructuring has been the rallying cry across the zones since 1999, and before then in the demands and agitations of the various pro-democracy movements. While the latter could rejoice in the partial victory of the recognition of June 12 and the honor done to its foremost champion, they would even be more appreciative of efforts in the direction of restructuring because this portends more benefits for the nation.

    Buhari can write his name in a bold platinum of history with an unflinching support for restructuring, starting with a fulfillment of the promise of his party to amend the constitution for devolution of power to the states. Together with the National Assembly, this can be completed in a jiffy, and they will be the proud beneficiaries of the gratitude of a nation truly bound in freedom, peace, and unity.

     

     

  • A compromised foundation

    We are witnessing tragic manifestations of compromised foundations. Religion and ethnicity are this nation’s master fault lines. They determine what leaders see and do despite hypocritical denials. With a handful of exceptions, leaders live and breathe sectarianism and sectionalism. As for the exceptions, they only exhibit surface-deep pan-Nigerian credentials.

    Theirs is even more sordid than the commitment of sectarians and sectionalists to some entity beyond themselves. These are absolute egoists using the forum of politics for personal gains. Therefore, they will align with anyone across religious and ethnic divides, provided something is in it for them. But where there is no common commitment to an ideology that transcends self-interest, a virulent competition of self-interests ensues without the possibility of reconciliation.

    With a mixture of sectarianism, sectionalism, and egoism as the materials upon which the nation was founded, the inevitable conflict in their interaction leads ineluctably to a breach of the foundation, and ultimate weakening of the edifice. Absent necessary repair at the most basic level, the nation will continue to slouch toward structural collapse. But because the tendencies that are tethered to sectarian, sectional, and egoistic interests are each fighting for domination so they can impose on others, they are unconcerned about the looming destruction of the whole.

    Consider this illustration. The battle for economic survival on the one hand, and the preservation of a way of life on the other hand, need not conflict because one does not harm the other. For an Okeogun farmer, tilling the ground is both a means of economic survival and a way of life. He could move from hoe and cutlass subsistence farming to tractor and fertilizer commercial farming. He could go into partnership with friends and family members in cooperative association for production and/or marketing purposes.

    Through such ventures, they could bring more land into production by buying from others. With this, the two objectives of economic survival and preservation of a way of life are advanced. Government may help in various ways: extensions services, including education about best practices, improved seedlings and fertilizer at affordable cost, coordination of cooperative societies, farm settlements and agricultural research institutes.

    Notice here that no one is an unwilling partner in the furtherance of our farmer’s interest and he has not encroached on the interest of others. With his original subsistence farm, and his advancement to commercial farming, he has refrained from harming the interest of others.

    Now compare another economic venture and its potentials for furthering interest and avoiding conflict with the interest of others. The herdsman also has an interest in economic survival and preservation of a way of life. He starts with a few heads of cattle. He lives in a settlement on the edge of town and he moves his cattle around the area for pasture and water. In the evenings, he returns to his settlement. Provided he restrains his cattle from encroaching on farmland and thus jeopardizing the farmer’s interest in economic survival and preservation of his own way of life, there is no conflict.

    That has been the case in the interaction between farmers and herdsmen in Okeogun from the 1940s to the turn of the century. Suddenly, farmlands were deliberately invaded by cattle. In dry season, bushes around farmlands were set on fire so fresh pasture can sprout as soon as the first rains fell. The  frequency of these breaches in interaction with conflicts in the interests of both parties for economic survival and cultural preservation cannot but lead to serious conflicts. How could these be handled?

    Just like farmers, the interest of herdsmen in economic survival and cultural preservation could be handled with strategic political-economic thinking. As the herdsman acquires more cattle warranting the need for greater access to pasture, he needs more land under his control. For better economy of scale, he could enter into partnership with other herdsmen to form cooperative herdsmen association to purchase land and ranch their cattle.

    As with farmers, government could provide extension services, including training in breeding techniques, supply of new breeds, and production of feed at subsidized prices. Thus, a way of life is being preserved and the economic interest of the herdsman is being promoted. Besides, these objectives are being realized for both groups without the threat of a perennial conflict. Why has this potentially effective solution not being canvassed?

    The sectarians, sectionalists, and egoists have all been busy with the politics of domination to the detriment of harmonious accommodation. And as they advance their self-interests, the foundation is further compromised and the edifice threatened.

    The disease of sectarianism, sectionalism, and egoism has also afflicted the political party, and here, the pursuit of self-interest self-contradictorily jeopardizes itself. This affected the fortunes of People’s Democratic Party (PDP) in the last general elections when many of its leadership decamped as nPDP.

    To be sure, having ruled the nation for sixteen years, PDP was already experiencing the onset of diminishing returns and the electorate was ready for change. APC rode on the disenchantment of the people. But there is no denying the help it received from nPDP.

    Politics is a game of numbers and it is interest that motivates politicians. But, like the rest of us, politicians have differing ideas of what their interests are and the best way to pursue them. For a few, the fundamental interest is the pursuit of the common good, the outcome of which they expect to promote their own self-interest too. Such a group will dedicatedly develop an agenda of national cohesion which mobilizes the entire population for progress.

    Others see their interest in the promotion of sectional and sectarian agenda for which they become local champions. As their minions look up to them for protection and promotion, the larger task of national advancement is truncated.

    For others yet, it is what they can materially acquire at the shortest possible time that matters to them. Eyi teye je leye n gbe fo. The philosophy of immediate gratification is not the monopoly of any one group or party. It has become the symbol of political affiliation and no leader can claim to be immune. What this does, however, is limit the potentials for national advancement as individuals and groups, without an enduring allegiance to the common good, jump from one ship to another in search of a larger catch from the political ocean. nPDP has just vividly illustrated this tendency.

    Consider the fact that four years after its decamping from PDP to APC, this group still self-identifies as nPDP. This self-identification suggests a failure of group synergy with APC, thus ensuring a destructive factionalization. This is in spite of the positions of critical importance that some of its members occupy in the various branches of government, including the National Assembly.

    Two points need to be noted here. First, as hinted earlier, nPDP is just the latest manifestation of a tendency that is ingrained in our system, which focuses on the fairness of distribution rather than the task of production. We are least concerned with the production of the proverbial national cake, only with its distribution, with everyone jostling for the most share.

    Second, this sharing mindset jeopardizes the common interest in the stability of the system, which further threatens the foundation, and with it, the entire structure. With the case of farmers that I started with, assume that a group of cooperative farmers only indulge in sharing whatever they make with no saving or reinvesting. Their venture cannot prosper and they’ll soon hit the rock of debt and bankruptcy. The same fate awaits a nation of only sharers and no producers.

    On the other hand, however, the reality of our predilection for sharing is that those who feel left out have good reasons to complain and to take whatever action they deem necessary for them to not lose out in the political activity of possessive individualism. We are guilty of hypocrisy if we fail to call out other groups, including legacy parties, such CPC and ANPP, which use the political power at their disposal at the federal and state levels, to look after the interests of “loyalists” to the chagrin of others.

     

  • Memory-challenged politics (For Femi Falana and Kunle Ajibade)

    Femi Falana (SAN) is 60. Kunle Ajibade is 60. It is a big deal. The hazards of life in this divinely blessed country of ours are well known. There is also the specificity of the dangers of Kunle’s chosen profession. And there are the perils of Femi’s conscious decision to get out of the comfort zone of the learned profession where his peers make cool wealth, to wade into the tortuous waters of human right and political activism.

    That both are alive despite the fragility of existence in our native land is God’s own doing. That both are free men today, even as their erstwhile oppressors are long gone and probably groaning in hell, reminds us that the just shall live by faith.

    In the thick of the struggle for democracy which started with the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential elections, I used to assure my peers and fellow activists that each of us was writing a story which was bound to endure no matter what happened to the struggle.

    Femi and Kunle suffered the indignities of the struggle. They were harassed by agents of the state. They were bundled into detention and maximum prison several times. Kunle was given a life sentence for not divulging the source of a story that his paper ran. He only regained his freedom upon the death of General Sani Abacha.

    Both Femi and Kunle have not given an inch to despair in what the Fourth Republic has turned out to be- a caricature of democracy and pseudo federalism. Yet they are human and have had to witness the death of a dream for dear country. In his own way, each has used the tool at his disposal to continue the struggle for a better country. Even against all odds.

    Femi and Kunle were born days apart in May 1958. That was only a few months after Western Region achieved a self-governing status. It was a period of exemplary leadership in the region when the Premier, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, challenged the priorities of colonial powers and insisted on developing the state with or without federal support. It was three years after the introduction of one of the most progressive innovations in education, the Universal Free Primary Education. It is therefore not a coincidence that they both turned out to be exemplary activists for progress. Imagine if they had been given the opportunity for political leadership.

    Yet it would be grossly unfair to wholly attribute how they turned out to environmental factors, political or otherwise. Individual choices matter. After all, they both had peers who also got a head start from the conducive political and economic environment that Awolowo and his associates created but who either did not make the most of it, or did, and only chose to mind their own business. That Femi and Kunle chose as Awolowo did even when his peers looked elsewhere for pleasure, and as they suffer maximally in the process, is our gain. For this we must be grateful to them and their loving families.

    As I reflect on our predicaments as a nation, it occurs to me that a country that deliberately denies political activists with a conscience access to political participation at the leadership level cannot make progress. What we see and appreciate in developed countries is the conscious effort to recruit skilled and politically passionate men and women to enter politics. Once identified, these– veterans, professionals, and talented business owners– are targeted and funded to run for offices. In Nigeria, however, they are craftly schemed out, even from progressive political camps. And when, out of the goodness of their hearts and deep concern for the nation, they offer suggestions and advice on key issues, they are shamelessly shunned. And we still don’t understand why Nigeria is at a standstill?

    We recycle old vessels ad infinitum. Or the grumpy old men refuse to leave the scene even when they have proven incapable in the past. I am not into ageism. I am by no means arguing for the exclusion of old men or women from political participation because of their age. That would be morally unjustifiable. I am arguing, however, that the old should know when to quit the scene, when their contribution is on a diminishing scale of usefulness. Or when they have made themselves the issue and thus are spewing negativities against the progress of the nation.

    While Femi has not framed his latest observations on Dr. Obasanjo in terms of age, and I am not, I see a convergence of concern on the negativities that the former president has allowed himself to become. It is as if he thinks the rest of us are inflicted with a memory challenge.

    Dr. Obasanjo is a three-term President/Head of State of Nigeria. He has consistently challenged and accused every one of his civilian successors (all of whom he enthroned or endorsed for office) of incompetence and criminal weakness. Which means that he has been the only competent President or Head of State since 1975.

    In his latest outing, Obasanjo wants a new group to change Nigeria. He floated the CNM ostensibly as a grassroots movement without partisan affiliation, promising to leave the movement as soon as it morphed into a political party. He would rather be a statesman. Well, CNM has recently joined ADC as a group. But Obasanjo is still championing the cause of the movement. Why the pretense?

    In his campaign against the Buhari administration, Obasanjo has tried to seek all the help he can get. In the process, he wants us to have memory loss concerning his recent past in his dealings with the groups he is now courting. But we cannot, because his tactic dealt a fatal blow on the progressive development of the country, especially since 1999.

    Obasanjo has reached out to Afenifere for cooperation in defeating Buhari, hoping that we would forget the mortal wound he inflicted on Afenifere as a political heavy weight in the SW. He schemed out the group from serious political relevance when he appointed the late Chief Ige as a Minister in his cabinet and engineered the formation of Yoruba Council of Elders to challenge Afenifere. The bad blood created by that move is still flowing in the veins of Yoruba progressives.

    Notwithstanding Obasanjo’s hands in the crisis that beset it, Afenifere agreed to meet with him in 2002 when he proposed a working relationship with them. Afenifere elders agreed. Having won them over, Obasanjo ditched them. You need to hear from the elders how Obasanjo’s attitude changed from one of a humble son when he needed them to that of an arrogant master after he got them. In 2003, he used the federal might to rout the entire southwest except Lagos because Tinubu refused to play the good son game.

    What is Obasanjo’s selling point to Afenifere elders now? “Remember how I worked with you before”? Or “remember how much I did for the Southwest before”? Or “never mind about my past, I am a changed man wanting the same thing that you want”?

    On any of the above hypothetical selling points, Obasanjo has nothing to sell except the same 419 goods. How did he work with Afenifere before? What did he do for the Southwest in the 8 years of his presidency? The roads that he failed to construct are now being pursued with vigor by Buhari. So are the railway lines.

    How is Obasanjo a changed man and what is the common ground between what Afenifere wants and what he wants? Does he want restructuring? Is restructuring in CNM or ADC platform? Why did he oppose the SDP as the party for CNM?

    I am not sure what assurances Afenifere gave Obasanjo at the meeting he held with the group. But I know that the fighting spirits of Obafemi Awolowo, Michael Ajasin and Abraham Adesanya are watching the group. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me.

    Femi and Kunle, Happy Birthday o jare. Remain blessed.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

     

  • 8th NASS and the matter of legacy

    In normal times and decent climes, it is not unusual to describe the legislative branch in a republic as a club of responsible and patriotic men and women. It is abnormal to compare the representatives of the people to a cult of self-serving men and women whose fundamental approach to governance is to look out for loyalists to protect or promote and adversaries to punish or renounce.

    But a club of responsible men and women sometimes degenerates into a cult of sycophants, or worse, paranoid schemers whose singular objective is the elimination of the supposed outsider or disloyal insider and the protection and promotion of the team players within.

    The Senate is the upper house of our legislative branch and it is appropriate to focus on it as the eye of the National Assembly. The Senate of modern republics has a history that dates to the ancient Romans. But the modern senate cannot be more starkly different than its progenitor. First, while Roman senators were appointed by an elected official of the magistracy, many senates of the modern era are elected.

    Second, while there was a requirement of independent wealth for Roman republic senators, modern senators only need to satisfy the requirement of age, education, and sound health.  Roman senators were expected to be wealthy because they worked without pay and were also expected to spend their wealth for the good of the state. That is unrealistic for our modern senators who expect their membership of the senate to improve their economic status.

    Third, while Roman senators were required to be of impeccable moral character, and corruption was an impeachable offense, we are aware of the humanity of modern senators and so we do not appear to expect sainthood as their qualification.

    With sacrifice of wealth and time for the welfare of the state comes respect for the institution of senate and individual senators throughout the Roman republic. Even with this positive point, however, it should be obvious that the Roman senate was far from being a democratic institution. It was unelected, and it was only as powerful as the consuls, or later the emperor, allowed it to be.

    What interests me in the comparison is the moral fiber of one versus the ethical lapse of the other. How do I mean?

    The Roman senate was a club of morally conscious patricians who not only guided their integrity by enforcing the moral code of membership, it was also a collection of patriotic citizens working for the good of the state without focusing on their self-interest. The Roman senator sacrificed his material wealth for the promotion of the state with an eye on legacy and immortality. What legacy do our modern senators set their eyes to?

    As it ought to be in our world of 24/7 news coverage, the 8th National Assembly in general, and the Senate in particular, has been in the news since its inception for reasons noble and repugnant. Can we ever forget the infamous leadership intrigue that ushered in the new NASS in 2015?

    Since then, it has been one game of gotcha after another. Faced with judicial investigations, the Senate President has been subject of personal humiliation for which his supporters blame the executive branch, further souring the relationship between the two branches. For a pound of flesh, NASS has asserted its authority in various ways, including withholding its advice and consent power over appointments or budget approval. This political football has not been helpful in laying the foundation for legacy-enhancing legislations that could stand the test of time and enter the 8th NASS in the book of national glory.

    Now is the time to write its own history, which is what really matters for politicians with eyes on legacy. How might the 8th NASS leave an enduring legacy? This was the takeaway from the message so articulately and passionately delivered to the leadership of NASS some weeks ago by some national elders across the zones of the federation. The National Assembly must take up the mantle of leadership in the matter of restructuring.

    Our having devolution of power, the most that APC promised the electorate in 2015 in the matter of restructuring, depends on the pleasure of three institutions: the presidency, the National Assembly, and state legislatures. The first two are controlled wholly by the ruling party. The third, state legislatures, is controlled substantially by the ruling party given that 24 of 36 states are controlled by APC.

    The committee on restructuring set up by the ruling party has submitted its report recommending substantial devolution of powers from the federal to the states. It also recommended the establishment of state police.

    To date, it has been a Herculean task trying to ascertain the pleasure of the presidency in the matter of restructuring in general, and devolution in particular. Now it is becoming clearer that putting our faith in the presidency to lead that effort is a mistake. The president’s widely reported VOA Hausa Service interview from Washington DC is unambiguous. He does not think highly of state police on two grounds. First, in his judgment, the states, which cannot pay workers’ salaries cannot be trusted to afford state police. Second, the constitution does not support state police. Both concerns beg the question.

    First, devolving power to states means shedding some of the responsibilities of the federal government. This includes some of the responsibilities for internal security. With this must come the release of some of the resources from the federal to state governments. States also generate internal revenue.

    The second point is surprising for what it ignores. The thoughtful struggle of young and old patriots across the country for restructuring has been clearly focused on the inadequacy of the constitution. This is the reason the APC committee recommended, with proposed drafts, amendment to the constitution to accommodate its suggestions. Therefore, the argument that the constitution does not support state police or any other recommendation by the committee is question-begging.

    If for reasons best known to the presidency, even restructuring through devolution of power is unacceptable, the question remains, what is the pleasure of NASS?

    Normally, no one should be excited about frictions between the presidency and the National Assembly, especially when the same political party controls both branches. However, friction cannot be ruled out and it is not uncommon. They are also good for the polity when they are matters of importance to the future of the nation, such as the issue of its structure and continued stability.

    But between this NASS and this presidency, frictions have occurred in small matters that border on pettiness. Such is the matter of the sequence of general election. It is time we saw genuine concern for foundational matters fought out between one unwilling branch of government on the one hand and a willing branch. This is perhaps a wishful thinking on my part and it may border on presumptuousness. How can I be sure that the National Assembly is willing to pursue the important issue of restructuring? Well, I am not sure it is; however, I could see why it should be.

    Both the presidency and NASS have equal stakes in the Nigerian project. While the president was elected directly by majority of Nigerians, members of both houses of NASS were elected by their constituencies across the nation. NASS members represent the interests of their local constituencies. Three quarters of the zones of the nation have expressed support for restructuring in general and devolution in particular.

    After extensive consultations with the people across the six zones, a committee of the ruling party, to which a majority of the members of the National Assembly belong, recommended devolution of power. It goes without saying that the people who elected NASS members are in support of devolution.

    If NASS truly represents the people, it has no choice but to legislate in favor of devolution according to the recommendations of the committee. Therefore, notwithstanding the position of the presidency, NASS has a responsibility to champion the cause that the people demand. This will be its glorious legacy.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

     

  • The lamentations of a democracy devotee

    It is not supposed to be this complex,” Opalaba thundered, bypassing courtesies as he began a half-hour phone tirade. “Democracy rests on some foundational principles, principal among which is the acknowledgement of the people as the repository of power. From this are derived several others.”

    “The people are to determine the rules, procedures, and practices that will govern them directly or indirectly though their representatives. Where direct decision making is impossible, as in all modern democracies, the people must be trusted as capable of choosing their representatives without undue influence.

    “The representatives so chosen are, to the best of their ability, to represent the interests of their constituencies. While there is a debate about whether representatives should vote their conscience or ascertain the will of their constituencies in pending legislations, it is understood that they would not be representatives if their constituencies had any doubt that they were chosen for their promise to represent them. After all, the wearer knows best where the shoe pinches most. It is the reason that a democracy is rated by how effective the interests of the people are promoted by their representatives.

    “It is this crucial representation of people’s interests as they understand them that is missing in military dictatorships or monarchies and that therefore marks the difference between the various systems of governance. While the former two claim the right to ascertain the interest of the people without consulting them, interest of the people in a democracy is people-based and people-determined.

    “Devotees of democracy, of which I consider myself one, have long insisted that our republic, as a democratic republic, must recognize and respect this vital character of democracy: accord the people the right to determine their interests and elect their representatives based on this determination. Second, the people should have an unfettered right to vote out representatives who fail to represent their interests.

    “It is becoming clear, however, that for many of our politicians, this essence of democracy is unacceptable, clashing as it does, with their unfounded sense of entitlement to the most enduring aspect of individuals’ lives: figuring out what is their interest. But politicians would have no such audacity to impose their ideas of people’s interests on the people in the absence of an unwitting collaboration on the part of the people.

    “Yes, we have strong men and women with a great sense of dignity and integrity who do not compromise with evil. When the battlefront in the war against military oppression was red-hot, they did not flinch. And with pseudo democracy in place now, they are not war-weary. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered and outspent.

    “I know you want to ask why people collaborate with impostors who pretend they know the people’s interests better than the people.

    “The answer is simple. Keep the people impoverished and ignorant. Dole out crumbs from the overflowing table of national treasure which you have criminally appropriated. Make them believe that you are helping them meet their basic needs even when you are discharging the obligations of your office with the resources of the state.  Extract from them the gratitude that you know is undeserved.  Based on their traditional belief in appreciation of good deeds, the people are eternally in your debt.  Once they come to trust you, you could rely on their support even when the cause you advance is against their interest.

    “This has been the pattern of our political participation over the years. It’s been based on personalities and personal relationships rather than ideological beliefs. We sloganize without a grounding in the requirements of the doctrines. Progressive sounds great, so we create “progressive” parties with arch- conservatives as members. Democracy is a political winner, so we create “democratic” parties with rabid dictators as leaders. But they all thrive because people who are drawn to these parties are drawn to personalities and not to any foundational principles. That is why, even when the promises of party manifestos are breached, there are no consequences.

    “Surely, you could be a Puritan or a zealot for democracy and create a platform for genuine progressive democrats. But how far can you go against professionals with deep pockets and deceptively sweet tongues? How far did NCP go? Even with his well-documented record of achievement in the Old Western Region, how far did Awolowo’s UPN go in its quest for a united and progressive Nigeria?

    “But what is the foundation of our present predicament? What is it that makes a simple principle and its accompanying procedure become so complex in our republic? Money, as the old saying has it, is the root of evil. In this nation, it is a trite point to make, but political evil is nurtured by money and the greedy quest for the wealth that it creates. But the entire society, not just the professional political class, is the culprit.

    “If the wealth of the country is harnessed judiciously, there is no reason why we cannot build the nation’s infrastructure to galvanize its economic and industrial development. And this will ultimately benefit everyone including the least endowed. But it appears that our cultural affinity is opposed to the basic tenets of equality of opportunity. We seem to relish a selfish appropriation of as much resources as possible without paying adequate attention to equal distribution. Consider the gap between the super filthy rich and the poor rats among us.

    “We love money and the wealth it creates. Wherever a Nigerian finds himself or herself on the economic ladder, whether as a professional, artisan, janitor, or clerk, he or she is preoccupied with what can be appropriated for self. It accounts for a reporter insisting on bribe for a story to air, a teacher demanding gratification in cash or kind for a passing grade, a police officer pumping bullets on a commercial driver who refuses to bribe him. It accounts for a Senate Committee demanding an upfront cut out of a department’s budget.  This is all in addition to the regular income of these workers.

    “Why do we need all these extras? We do because we have a culture that is obsessed with material accumulation, whether it be vehicles, houses, outfits, etc. Where an average working class American or British has his or her dignity intact with a pair of jeans and a shirt or blouse, doing his or her work and getting by with his or her salary, and holding his or her representatives accountable, an average Nigerian prefers to ingratiate himself or herself to her or his political representative for material gains. You cannot hold a political representative accountable when you depend on him or her for material resources which you crave but don’t need.

    “When our cravings direct us to night vigils with political bigwigs, and we receive an illicit share of the ill-gotten wealth, we are implicated in the ensuing blatant disregard for the people’s right to determine their interests. We are saying to them that the crumbs from their tables are good enough for us. We cannot honorably accuse them of failure to invest in our children’s education. Or in infrastructure. Indeed, how can we legitimately complain when they impose their wills on us by choosing our representatives for us? Or when, in intra-party tribal collaboration, they create loyal factions which they use to upend the majority’s political calculus, what recourse do we have if we have been compromised?

    “From the South-south to the Southeast, from the Northwest to the Northcentral, and from the Northeast to the Southwest, the story is the same. Intra-party crisis deriving from constraints on the people’s ability to choose for themselves is aggravating the stress on democratic structures and institutions.

    “Where are the leaders baked in the oven of democracy when its walls are collapsing around them? Where are the warriors of yesteryears against military oppression when civilian narcissism now holds sway? Where are comrades who initiated and sustained the fight against election rigging in the days of the locust when partisan allies are now the shameless riggers and thwarters of people’s will?”

    My friend never gave me a chance for a word.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs