The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • Senate v. Marafa

    Senate v. Marafa

    The Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria is a sacred institution, which deserves the respect of every citizen. But when its actions or attempted actions elicit screaming and scary headlines from the media, caution is warranted.

    In the matter of Senate versus Kabiru Marafa, one of its own, the following are recent sample headlines: “Planned suspension of anti-Saraki senator heightens tension at Senate” (The Punch); “Unity Forum Senators’ speaker in trouble” (Nigerian Observer); “Senate mulls suspension of Senator Marafa, 10 others” (Daily Post); “For allegedly disrespecting the Senate, read what will happen to Senator Marafa”, (NAIJ.COM); “Row in Senate over move against anti-Saraki senator” (The Nation); “CCT trial: Team Saraki moves to silence opposition in Senate” (The Eagle Online); and “Senate moves against top anti-Saraki senator, Kabiru Marafa” (Premium Times).

    While it took quite a bit of patient Internet surfing to fish out the original Marafa interview itself, news and comments about Senate reaction comes to live pretty fast and they are more embarrassing to that distinguished body than the interview.

    Here’s a sampling of the readers’ comments on the Senate-Marafa news in various media outlets:

    “Why should he be punished for saying his views”? (NAIJ.COM); “Very shameless Senate and senators” (Premium Times); “As far as am concern (sic) I see nothing wrong with Sen. Marafa’s interview granted by (sic) Punch. He’s entitle (sic) to that constitutional right, so let him express the more…” (Premium Times); “Senator Kabiru Marafa stand your ground. We want many like you to populate the house…” (The Punch); “Thought we are in a democracy. Free speech is the heart and head of democracy…” (The Punch); “What sort of privilege leaves out decorum and probity?””Truth is the only constant thing that stands the test of time…” (The Punch)

    One of the commentators had a direct hit on the nail head. It makes a huge difference that we abandoned monarchical and feudal systems. Many subjects had their heads chopped off in the dungeons of kings just for disagreeing with their imperial majesties. It also makes a huge difference that we are no longer a colony. Recall that one of the grandfathers of modern Nigeria, Herbert Macaulay, was a regular in the colonial jail because he regularly “embarrassed” the colonial government. And we are the better for the victory over military dictatorship and its various decrees, which constrained the freedom of thought and discussion.

    We opted for liberal democracy and it comes with identifiable freedoms all of which are entrenched in our grundnorm, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. One of them, the fundamental foundation of liberal democracy is the freedom of thought and discussion. This freedom supersedes any institutional rules that may conflict with it and no institutional privilege can be canvassed against it. That our distinguished senators appear to ignore this important principle is itself an embarrassment.

    The foremost defender of the liberty of thought and expression in the history of liberal democratic governance is John Stuart Mill. It is always wise to remind ourselves of the principle at such a time as this:

    “It is not in constitutional countries to be apprehended, that government, whether completely responsible to the people or not, will often attempt to control the expression of opinion, except when in doing so it makes itself the organ of the general intolerance of the public. Let us suppose, therefore, that the government is entirely at one with the people, and never thinks of exerting any power of coercion unless in agreement with what it conceives to be their voice. But I deny the right of the people to exercise such coercion, either by themselves or by their government. The power itself is illegitimate. The best government has no title to it than the worst…..If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”

    And there you have it from the High Priest of Liberalism. A progressive party in government cannot forget its distinguishing mark as the protector of human freedom in all its manifestations, including in the expression of personal opinion. Even if the whole country rejects the opinion expressed by Senator Marafa in his Punch interview, it is the responsibility of the Senate of the Federal Republic to not only accommodate him, but to protect him from the coercion of the public. That is what senators swear to do when they took their oath of office.

    Assume that the senator’s opinion is indeed wrong, all that is available to the rest of the public or the Senate is to expose his error and let the two or more opinions enter the market place of ideas for contest. The truth will thereafter prevail because the erroneous opinion will have been exposed.

    It follows that citizens will be able to examine the views expressed by Senator Marafa along with the corrections put out by other members of the Senate who feel that he is wrong. As intelligent human beings, it should be assumed that citizens will make up their mind about who is right or wrong.

    After the controversy broke out and those headlines screamed at me in every media resource that I accessed, I decided to check out the record of the senator’s interview. What I found was amazingly benign. Indeed, at many points and in many junctures in the course of the interview, the senator defended the Senate as an institution, including in the matter of its budget.

    The reporter asked Senator Marafa if he agreed with former President Obasanjo’s allegation of corruption against NASS. Marafa responded that he didn’t see Obasanjo’s letter and didn’t want to speculate. But from what he read in the papers, Obasanjo wanted NASS to make its budget public and he Marafa considered it “a genuine call” and the Senate President equally agreed with the President’s suggestion.

    On whether the budget of N120bn to N150bn for NASS can be justified, Marafa observed that “sharing of money should not be the basis of the performance of legislators. Maybe the less they earn the better.” But he quickly added that this was another good reason for laying bare the budget because just looking at the numbers is not sufficient for accusing legislators of corruption.

    With regard to the controversial budget of N4.7bn for cars, Marafa responded that he didn’t think that “it is the right thing to do” and called for its abandonment. “That is my opinion and I stand by it”, he stated. On whether NASS is doing enough about austerity measures, the senator objected to the question and suggested that the problem with some Nigerians was that they “tend to just say things without properly looking at the implication of everything.” He added: “If you want me to function, you have to equip me very well.” He then went into a lively discussion of how much the United States invests in its senators and congressmen and congress women.

    On the issue of whether the jostle for power in the 8th NASS was justification for Obasanjo’s allegations, Marafa countered again that it was not jostling for power as such, but that there is “abuse of the laws of the Senate and the laws of the country. And when the reporter pressed further concerning the length of time some senators have served in the Senate, including those who have been there since 1999, Marafa argued that experience matters, again comparing the United States where there is no term limit with Nigeria where legislators are changed at will on the grounds that the privilege must go round. He saw the limitation on experience as a drawback.

    Overall, I do not see what is subversive to the Senate as an institution in Marafa’s publicised views. And if some senators feel otherwise, what they ought to do is to call him out by exposing his errors. Threatening suspension on account of a senator’s public expression of opinion is an unfortunate example of the much dreaded tyranny of the majority.

  • Immortal Muhammed

    Immortal Muhammed

    In the enduring wisdom of our people, being endowed with a good capacity for thinking is a prerequisite for the ability to be thankful. It stands to reason then that, if her citizens put their minds to the matter, they have many reasons to be thankful on behalf of Nigeria, the nation. That is, in spite of everything else that we know and experience.

    In the short history of her existence, and compared with nations her age, this country has seen the best and the worst. Citizens have worked together for noble causes over the years, especially in the nationalist struggle for independence. But they have also allowed divisive forces to have the best of their thought and action. Yet at the end of every twist and turn in the national race of life, Nigeria remains resilient and strong.

    Many horrific and devil-induced acts of inhumanity by humans against fellow humans have been allowed to afflict the nation.  While the civil war continues to be a reference point of our national capacity for self-immolation, and while its consequences are still living realities with us to date, there were other brutish national acts that predated and yet more that succeeded that thirty-six months of national insanity. And while not everyone lifted their fingers as co-culprits in every such case, many if not all were vicariously implicated.

    Consider the various military coups in which lives were lost since 1966. In every one of them, the coup leaders justified their actions by reference to the nation, that is, to us. They claimed to act on our behalf to correct certain unacceptable conditions. But in none of them were the people consulted before the military struck. On some occasions, the people welcomed the announcement with street jubilation, which suggested that the coup plotters were after the hearts of the people. And at least with regard to such instances, the people must assume responsibility for the senseless killings associated with the coups.

    It is ironic, though, that one of the most momentous of the coups that the country experienced was the one with the least, if any, human casualties. It was the coup of 29 July 1975 which ousted General Yakubu Gowon and brought in General Murtala Ramat Muhammed as the Head of State. Perhaps, due to its careful planning which ensured that the foremost victim was out of the country at the time of implementation, it was a palace coup with minimum violence.

    Yet the leadership of that coup and the administration that it launched initiated some of the defining achievements of the military in the government of Nigeria to date. With lightning speed and strong determination, they rolled out one initiative after another, one of the most celebrated of which was the announcement of a plan and procedure for return to civil rule in 1979. It was also to their credit that they kept the promise. The appointment of a 50- member Constitution Drafting Committee was another. And there was the initiative on a new Federal Capital which had Justice Akinola Aguda appointed as the arrow head of the search team.

    In the twinkling of an eye, the new administration had devised a courageous plan to tackle most of the knotty issues facing the nation. It had corruption on its radar. The military and public service was purged, though there were allegations of arbitrariness.Without saying a whole lot, they got a whole lot done in a few months. Nigerians had a renewed sense of hope in their government and not many minded its being a military administration. On top of it, that administration courageously engaged the world with a robust foreign policy that made Africa its centre and the remnants of brazen imperialism and shameless apartheid its target.

    Leadership is about action. It is about decisiveness, not wobbling. Sure, deliberativeness is important before decision. But one cannot sacrifice decision-making at the altar of carefulness. General Murtala Muhammed knew this much and ensured that he did not frustrate the patience of his fellow citizens with long and boring moments of indecision. It was as if he knew he had a short time to demonstrate his leadership capabilities.

    On Friday, February 13th 1976, barely seven months into the new administration, tragedy struck and the nation was thrown into mourning for the hope of national ascendancy that appeared dashed. In a sad twist of fate again, the man who carefully planned and executed a violence-free coup was gunned down violently in the public space in which he demonstrated his humility and love for the people that he led. He chose to ride in his car without the glamor of office and without a security detail that would have protected him from harm.

    Africans don’t have the monopoly of superstitious beliefs. In Western European and American superstition, Friday the 13th symbolises ill luck. So it was that on Friday the 13th of February 1976, Nigeria had its share of bad luck. It was a day that, as Chief Obafemi Awolowo put it, the dog killed the tiger and a community in which that happened was unsafe to live in. At that moment in time, Nigeria proved unsafe to live in.

    Characteristically, Chief Awolowo also did not let the opportunity pass without making his observations and sagacious comments. Dimka gunned down General Muhammed in broad daylight. The Head of State maintained his low profile. He had no convoy and no siren. He only had his Aide-de-Camp, Lt. Akintunde Akinsehinwa, and his driver and orderly. He reposed his confidence in God and in his fellow-citizens! He must have felt that if his people loved him as he loved them, he had nothing to fear. There were stories about his brushing aside warnings from concerned friends worried about his style.

    But what happened on the fateful day? According to media reports, the policemanon traffic duty, having no knowledge of who was in traffic, stopped the traffic in which the Head of State’s car was moving to allow an army truck pass! That was the opportunity for Dimka to get beside General Muhammed’s car. He killed General Muhammed and his ADC. What did the policeman do? He took to his feet on seeing what happened and recognising that it was the Head of State that had just been murdered.

    What did the rest of Nigerian onlookers do? The people, including vehicle owners and drivers in traffic, scattered. They let down the man who loved them and adopted a low-profile life style because he wanted to feel their pain. They let him die. As Chief Awolowo saw it, “at that tragic moment in time, we failed to display a spirit of vigilance and daring and a sense of patriotism and self-sacrifice which are among the indispensable ingredients of national integrity.”

    This is the aspect of our national life that we still have not come to terms with: a spirit of vigilance, a sense of patriotism and sacrifice. Everyone appears to be for him or herself. Egoistic tendencies run deep and wide. What ever happened to the bragging rights that, as Africans, we used to have about being our brothers’ and sisters’ keepers? Now even those that voluntarily take appointments as police officers and other security personnel are often reluctant to attend to security challenges and crime scenes because they fear for their safety.

    Murtala Ramat Muhammed died when he was needed most to drive home the logic of patriotism and self-sacrifice in the service of the nation. However, if to be immortal is to live in the memories of loved ones, including fellow-citizens, there is no doubt that he has earned immortality. Of course, he wasn’t a saint. But he surely transcended the frivolities and vanities of his peers. And just by giving purposeful leadership when his country needed reassurance, and paying the supreme sacrifice in the process, he lives on in their hearts.

     

  • Education and ethically challenged role models

    Education and ethically challenged role models

    Let me start with a confession. In some of my previous contributions on education, I made some assumptions on the basis of my own experience as a child, a student, a teacher, and a parent and grandparent. Sadly, for me, I now realize that those assumptions may not be universally true. Indeed, it does appear that the cultural ethos of the moment has effectively invalidated those assumptions for many stakeholders in the educational enterprise. It is tragic!

    First, as a child, I was aware that my parents invested heavily both morally and financially in my education and left no ethically sound stone unturned for my success. My father was an activist parent in PTA meetings, serving as officers in several of them even after I had left those schools. With the little he had, he ensured that I had all school materials throughout the school year. He befriended the parents of my schoolmates to ensure that he knew what was going on. He was also in good relation with all my teachers and headmasters. At home, I had no other assignments during school days than to study. His watchful eyes followed my footsteps such that I had no place to hide for any juvenile mischief.

    Second, as a student, I just knew that the task that I needed to accomplish was to get a good education and that there must be no distraction. Therefore, I approached the task with all the energy that my little frame could muster during and after school hours. I knew that infractions such as cheating came with dire consequences; therefore, I avoided them like plague. In this, the community and its social and religious institutions deserve a lot of credit for reinforcing the message of hard work and moral norms that saw my generation through. It really takes a village.

    Third, I had teachers who dedicated their entire working life to the success of their students. They were well-prepared and well-motivated. Remarkably, many of my early education teachers had no formal teacher training. Yet they performed extremely well and instilled discipline and moral rectitude in their students. Sure, we thought that some of them were quite harsh. It was only later that we gave them the credit they deserved.

    Fourth, as a teacher, following the example of those who taught me, I knew well to take my job seriously. Having an excellent knowledge of the subject-matter, preparing good lesson notes, teaching with passion, and motivating children to learnare key to good learning outcomes. I did (and still do) all at the various levels that I taughtfrom elementary to university. Having satisfied myself of my input, I let the output take care of itself, believing that if my students did their part, they cannot fail any internal or external examination that was based on what I taught them. I have never been disappointed.

    Fifth, all loving parents and grandparents naturally want the best for their wards. Like our parents, we try to invest emotionally and materially in the future of our children both for selfish and altruistic reasons. After all, our destinies are linked with theirs. My assumption, born out of my own experience, is that to achieve their desire, parents seek to instill in their children the habit of hard work and discipline that they need to succeed in their studies and in their lives.

    In a previous piece on family involvement in education, I argued for the need to bet on our innocent children who we voluntarily bring into the world. I submitted that we bet on them when we create a future that is worthy of them and the country which they in turn can be proud to call theirs.

    I observed that we create that future by investing in their education from the cradle so that from the first time they open their eyes, they see a nation that cares and educates, just as they behold the love of an extended family of mother, father, siblings, uncles, aunties and grandparents who first welcome them with loving hands and cheerful faces.

    I reasoned that parents had to take effective ownership of family responsibility in the education of their children. And this has always been our tradition even in the pre-colonial days when our focus was on practical education for skills that were considered essential for a successful life—farming, trading, crafts, and family professions.

    The literature on parental involvement in education is convincing. There is copious evidence that when the family is actively involved in the education of their children, it has a positive influence on the achievement of the children not only in school but throughout life because it enables them not only to do well in examinations and earn good grades, but also to develop better social skills.

    Initiating and nurturing family involvement in the education of children is a double-lane approach by parents and schools because there is a lot at stake for both but certainly more for the parents. A school where accountability is taken seriously and where there are consequences for failure would leave no stone unturned in getting all hands on the deck for successful student outcomes.

    On the other hand, parents know that the future of their kids, and their own happiness and peace of mind are at stake. They therefore have a lot more reason to get involved. Careers are important, but as the elders remind us, the probability is very high that a child that is inadvertently left untrained and unskilled may end up destroying whatever legacy an illustrious career has succeeded in building. This is just as true of children that are spoilt on account of parental negligence.

    I still believe in all the foregoing and in the assumptions that have been the motivating force of my educational philosophy. The reader may then imagine my shock when it appears that my assumptions are not acceptable to many contemporary parents and teachers. Surely, they share the dream of successful children and students respectively. But they have a different approach to the realization of this dream.

    I have just got to know that the approach that many now favor, including parents and teachers, is the short-cut approach that has perilously impacted our development in all facets of our national life. It is the approach of cheating, also known as examination malpractice.

    Why is this appalling? Assume that,on their own, some students engage in examination malpractice.We would expect teachers and parents to rise up to the challenge, inflict serious punishment on the culprits to reform them and to serve as deterrent to others. But now, when parents and teachers are the culprits-in-chief, what is the hope?

    Parents and teachers are naturally seen as role models. Children look up to their parents and teachers as models or examples of decent character and moral values to be emulated. They are the closest to the child growing up. But instead of serving as positive models of character and moral values, many teachers and parents now not only just look aside in the face of immoral behavior on the part of their wards, they are alleged to actively encourage and sanction such behavior.

    In the matter of the unfortunate incidents of examination malpractice that bedevils our school system, principals and teachers are alleged to be in cahoots with parents who voluntarily pay the required fees for the purpose.Are these still role models?

    There is nothing mysterious regarding the consequence of examination malpractice for the future of the students, parents, and the nation. Many students with straight “A’s” in GCE are not able to move higher in the educational leader because they are unable to cope with the rigor of higher education. Those who make it also fraudulently through higher education end up back as teachers in the same school system that encouraged examination malpractice and the cycle continues. What you don’t have, you cannot give. And where knowledge is lacking, teachers and students resort to the easy way out. Meanwhile, the nation is the ultimate victim of these ethically challenged role models.

     

  • Infrastructural development and contractor impunity: A case study

    Infrastructural development and contractor impunity: A case study

    Consider with me the following three theses:

    First, infrastructural development is key to economic breakthrough even in an era of dwindling resources.

    Second, Nigerian governments have not been unmindful of the importance of infrastructural development as evidenced by the various budgets and development plans since the beginning of the republic, and especially in the last 16 years.

    Third, unfortunately, the terrible disease of impunity that has hitherto characterised government activities and projects, especially in the last dispensation, also afflicts contractors working for government on infrastructure, including especially federal roads. Thus even when the government has discharged its responsibilities and mobilised contractors with funds, nothing tangible gets done with contractors abscondingwith mobilisation funds, leaving projects uncompleted and in some cases unbegun.

    The first thesis is uncontroversial and doesn’t really need justification as has been attested to by experts and confirmed by the experience of other nations. The United States is a good example of a nation that invested in infrastructure right from the beginning of its birth and maintained its dominance by reinvesting in infrastructure. Even during its most trying period at the depth of its economic depression, the visionary leaders of the US attacked the enemy and dug the nation out of economic doldrums with massive public work investment.

    The link between infrastructural development and economic development is fairly straightforward. Though nations emerged from agricultural settlements, no nation can develop to its full potentials and take care of its population on the basis of subsistence agriculture alone. But for a successful revolution in agricultural development, a good network of roads is minimally essential for obvious reasons. So is a good system of irrigation. We cannot forget the need for power at least for the sustenance of irrigation and for the maintenance of a good storage system, which ensures food availability through the seasons. This is purely elementary. But we have not even got the elementary and rudimentary nature of the linkages right. Hence our predicament in the matter of sustainable development of agriculture even in the 21st century.

    If we choose not to be in a rush to advance and therefore we limit ourselves to agriculture and its infrastructural needs, it is clear that we are far behind in the reconciliation of where we are with where we ought to be. We have land masses that remain largely uncultivated mainly because farmers are condemned to middle-age methods of farming and even when they endure the drudgery, they are faced with the daunting task of evacuating their harvests to urban markets and many of the produce perish in the process.

    Second, our government is not unaware of the importance of infrastructure for economic advancement and national transformation. Our development plans in the 60s and 70s up until the mid-80s were meant to accelerate the pace of development with emphasis on infrastructure. Since 1999, there have been noticeable efforts in the same direction, culminating in the 2010 discussions between the African Development Bank Group (AfDB)and the administration of former President Goodluck Jonathan.

    As reported by the Bank in its prepared report, the government of Nigeria requested the bank to “prepare a report on the state of infrastructure in the country.” Among others, the Bank noted that “investments in infrastructure are critical to advances in agriculture, which is one of the key pillars of the Nigerian economy, and human development, including the delivery of health and education services to the poor.” The Bank then provided an assessment of the status of infrastructure in the transport, power, information and communication technologies, and water and sanitation sectors. It prepared an action plan for the country to achieve the goals set by 2020. That was six years ago. Needless to add, we have hardly started the implementation of the plan.

    One of the action plans with regard to the transport sector was that “about 145,000 km of the existing network (equal about 75 per cent of the total network) would be rehabilitated and selectively upgraded, including rehabilitation and upgrade of the tertiary network that serves rural communities. Some 7,993 km of existing federal primary and secondary roads will be dualised, with all of the primary roads completed and 1,685 km of the secondary roads in the federal network.” Due to space factor, I limit myself to just these two of the identified Action Plans.

    Shortly after, in July 2012, the government tasked the National Planning Commission with the responsibility to coordinate the preparation of a National Integrated Infrastructure Master Plan (NIIMP) for the country to be implemented over a period of 30 years. That coordination had hardly taken off before the government was sent packing.

    Now to the third thesis. At a retreat organised by the presidency on the implementation of the plan, former President Jonathan himself zeroed in on one of the major reasons for the failure of all the efforts toward the development of infrastructure in Nigeria. He observed that greed and corruption were the twin evils that militate against the development of Nigeria. I make bold to suggest that contractor corruption and impunity and governmental connivance are at the center of the evils that befall Nigeria and have drawn it backwards since its birth as a nation, and especially since the beginning of the Fourth Republic.

    Every year there is budget earmarked for road development, including reconstruction, rehabilitation, pavement, etc. of federal and state roads. However, in the most successful scenario, we may have a third of these partially implemented and none fully implemented. Not that the contractors are not funded. Usually, they and the monitoring authorities have a deal, which ensures that should the contractors abscond with the funds, they are not pursued or forced to complete the project for which they received funds. This is why abandoned projects litter our streets and the masses are suffering in silence. This is why we hardly see contractors punished for failure to discharge their contractual obligations even after receiving funds.

    The Okeho-Iseyin Federal Road is a case study of an abandoned project six years after it was awarded in 2009 to a contractor (name withheld) for about N1 billion for the 30 km road. The stipulated completion time was SIX MONTHS! And we have the contractor to thank for having partially completed 8 km in SIX YEARS. Prior to this latest experience, there hadn’t been any good report on the performance of the Federal Government and the incompetent contractors that it decided to have handle the fixing of the road. For hardly had they completed the job than the road started disintegrating even before they packed they equipment.

    In the current case, the ministry and its zonal office did not deem it necessary to sack the contractor company and in the last six years, it has been a frustrating experience of a most incompetent and inefficient execution of the project. The contractor has often abandoned the site such that one would conclude that the government had sacked him. Then he would reappear with an assembly of some old and dilapidated equipment that would suggest that it couldn’t be a Federal Government project. And yet, this is a billion Naira federal road rehabilitation project! The question is: why is an incompetent contractor handling a federal road? And why is the government not caring enough to ensure that its resources are not squandered and the people do not suffer undue neglect?

    Last year, Governor Abiola Ajimobi moved to fix the road. But as word reached the contractor, he cunningly moved his equipment back to site. Shortly after, he disappeared. Three weeks ago, the contractor resurfaced again with piles of laterite on the road, another clever gimmick to hold on to the project and continue with its shoddy job or to avoid the scrutiny of the new Minister of Works known for his conscientiousness and spartan discipline. It is time to either terminate the contract and give it to a competent contractor or force its efficient and satisfactory completion. For apart from its internal developmental benefits, the road is a major portion of the Oyo-Iseyin-Okeho-Wasimi Road, which when fixed, will facilitate trade with our Benin Republic neighbours.

  • God save the kings!

    God save the kings!

    For progressives who also embrace tradition and perceive no contradiction in so doing, there is much to inspire and encourage in recent news.

    Let me start with a fundamental question? Is there a contradiction with progressives embracing tradition? Or does a progressive have to defend embracing tradition? Not necessarily, especially if the idea of progressive traditionalism makes sense. By this I mean the deliberate and active encouragement of tradition moving with the times. It does make sense!

    I once had an experience with a member of the family of the late Onjo of Okeho, Oba Ereola Adedeji. It was Christmas holiday when I visited Okeho. As I drove around town I ran into a group of merry makers dancing on the street. I stopped my car in the middle of the road so they can pass by. But their leader would have me do more. He wanted me to come down from my car. I didn’t, and he considered it an insult and shouted some obscenities. I didn’t respond. He then invoked what he thought was the traditional right of a royal family which for him I had trampled upon.

    Before I got home, my father heard about it and went straight to Kabiyesi Adedeji. I had held a meeting with Kabiyesi earlier in the day on his interests in mobilising the elite for the development of the town. He was therefore embarrassed by what his younger brother had done and he called him to caution and apologise to me.  That was enough for me to want to do more for the town and for the monarch who was not going to turn back the clock of progress.

    The present Onjo of Okeho, Oba Rafiu Osuolale Mustapha, has also embraced progressive approach to tradition because it is the only way for tradition to endure.

    My experience with the traditional rulers that I have had contact with in Yorubaland has been nothing but positive and uplifting. From Oba Rilwan Akiolu of Lagos whose thoughtful response to affectionate shout of “Kabiyesi” from admirers is “Olorun lo n je bee” (That is God’s title), to Oba Sikiru Adetona, the quintessential integrity model, to my foremost senior, Oba Alani Oyede, the Olota of Ota, I have seen the best in what tradition can be. Sure, there is always going to be some uninspiring stories. But that is true of all other social and political institutions and we don’t throw away their bath waters with the precious babies.

    I had not seen Oba Oyede since 1966 when he completed his Teachers Grade II programme at the African Church Teachers’ Training College, Ifako, Agege until he showed up at the public presentation of my book on December 21 last year. As those who were at the event witnessed, it was an emotional moment for both of us.

    Senior Oyede was an all-round student. He was the school goal-keeper, the captain of the volley ball team and the college librarian. He appointed me his junior librarian and I succeeded him as the college librarian in 1967, my final year. We lived in the same Joseph House, and as I mentioned to him during my visit to his palace in Ota recently, I inherited his bed in the House.

    That Oba Oyede chose to risk his frail health to honour my invitation was the height of affection which we mutually shared. And rather than expecting anything from me, he also made donation to the Foundation which I co-chair with my wife.On my visit to his palace, he presented me with invaluable gifts to last a lifetime. At that visit, he ensured that he invited one of my classmates, Bishop S. A. Odu and it was a great reunion. The Oloris, Chief Akinyemi, the Ajana of Ota, were friendly and pleasant hosts.

    Oba Akiolu, who also graced the public presentation of my book, is a modern progressive Oba in all respects. Some years ago, Oba Akiolu visited Maryland to see a young man, who was studying there. I met him at the airport and gave him a ride to his hotel. As I tried to open the back door for him so he could sit comfortably at the back, Kabiyesi went for the passenger’s seat in the front. My request for him to take the back seat was ignored. He then volunteered the information that having been a police officer; he was comfortable anywhere and under any condition. He loaded two pieces of luggage with food items for us all the way from Lagos. That is tradition combined with progress. For extreme traditionalists, an Oba does not give; he only receives.

    Money is the root of all evils, including the evil of belittling tradition and its keepers. What is pleasing to me is that I have not heard that any of our Obas is linked with Dasukigate or Anennihgate. Indeed, they have come out to deny categorically that they had no part in the booty sharing.

    The foregoing observations are pertinent as evidence of our coming of age in the progressive development of our communities and the enlightened reconciliation of tradition with progress. For all these, there is a good reason for optimism and pride.

    However, the recent news of the visit of the Ooni of Ife, Oba Enitan Ogunwusi, Ojaja II, Arole Odua, to the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Olayiwola Adeyemi III, Iku Baba Yeye, coming 79 years after the last such visit by an Ooni, is the foremost tradico-progressive news of the century. That Alaafin and Ooni shook hands openly, sat together and worshipped together in celebration of the 45th anniversary of the Alaafin’s coronation is a story that must warm the hearts of all Yoruba worldwide.

    Why is it an indication of progress? There’s no denying the fact that the root of the crisis between Alaafin and the late Ooni drew the Yoruba back in the scheme of things. It prevented the public show of unity of Yoruba traditional hierarchy, which sent the wrong signal to others. If we cannot speak with one voice because our traditional rulers will not lead in that direction, can we blame anyone for marginalising us? That the foremost rulers of Yorubaland embraced peace and cooperation to push the Yoruba agenda is progress.

    Secondly, it is also not in doubt that self-centred politicians have benefitted from the division or misunderstanding between the two royal fathers over the years. And a number of them must have cheered them on while it lasted. Now, those politicians are enemies of the progress of the Yoruba and they have been shamed by the singular act of courage and patriotism on the part of the new Ooni and Alaafin.

    We must, however, not also forget that for every dancing iromi, there is a strategising drummer even if unseen and unappreciated. The drummers to whose beat the royal fathers gleefully danced know themselves and we also know them as foremost progressives. In the fullness of time, they will reap the rewards of their nationalistic and patriotic endeavours.

    I was almost ready to submit this piece when the news broke of the transition of the Olubadan of Ibadanland, Kabiyesi Oba Samuel Odulana, at the ripe age of 101. A foremost progressive among traditionalists, his experience traversed all areas of the social and political life of Nigeria. An army officer, he fought in the war of the Greatest Generation, served in the parliament of the First Republic as well as in its executive branch as Minister of State. As a co-founder of the Ibadan Economic Foundation and the Ibadan Progressive Union, Oba Odulana championed the cause of progress and development even before he ascended the Olubadan throne. His life, which crisscrossed centuries and millennials, was full of notable achievements. That he lived to see the promise of leading Yoruba Obas coming together is a lasting tribute to the sweet memories of his life and times. He is already resting in peace.

  • 50 years later

    50 years later

    I dedicate the column today to a great couple, Chief and Chief (Mrs.) Adebisi Akande, who are celebrating their birthdays this week. I was their guest on Tuesday and had a wonderful time. They are worthy role models and exemplars of patriotic zeal that we desperately need to move beyond pedestrian thinking to greater heights for the nation. Happy Birthday! Igba odun, odun kan. Ase.

    No thanks to her controversial, impatient and rebellious young Turks, Nigeria tasted the forbidden fruit as a kindergartener among nations for the first time 50 years ago today. And like the accursed of the Garden of Eden, it has never been the same for her.

    For a colony, independence is the political kingdom. On October 1, 1960, Nigeria had a promising future ahead. She was moving from the golden to the platinum era of existence. The signs were good on the economic and social sides. There were optimistic signs of the black gold. Not hoodwinked by that prospect, she prioritised the right mix of developmental goals and planned for the right results.

    Politics, on the other hand, was a different kettle of fish. And it turned out to be the undoing of a nation on the move.

    There is no shortage of theories on the cause of the fall of the First Republic. For the vast majority of theorists, it was not a question of structure; rather, ethnic politics was the foremost culprit. For advocates of a unitary system, the republic was structurally-doomed because of its adoption of a genuine federal system which afforded the regions ample opportunities for grassroots development and cultural democracy. For others yet, both of the above downplayed the powerful machinations of the enemy outside her borders. It was neocolonialism triumphant!

    It seems clear, of course, that none of the theories can credibly explain the politics of the First Republic without referencing the sandy foundation upon which it was built due to the lousy credentials of its architectural experts. Unfortunately, only a wobbly edifice emerges from a sandy foundation.

    The majors and captains who conspired and planned the first military coup in the history of Nigeria were most likely convinced of the rightness of their cause and the nobility of their plan. They thought that they were doing the country a huge favour. They were disturbed about the violence of its politics and the baseness of its leadership cadre.  They believed that they were the conscience of the nation. Believing that there was a moral burden on their heads, they struck.

    Rightly or wrongly, it was clear that they took sides in the political conflict that afflicted the republic at the time. From the various official and unofficial reports on the coup, certain facts emerged. First, some of the young officers involved in the coup resented the acrimonious character of the politics of the times and thought that they were on a conscientious rescue mission.

    Second, there were the more regionally-inclined officers who, in addition, resented the dominance of the North and its political party in the affairs of the nation. Needless to suggest, there is no way to parse this than understand it as another expression of sympathy for the South and against the North.

    Third, there were those moved by the specific cases of political corruption and electoral malpractices in 1964 and 1965 and the controversial federal census of 1964. For this group, the Western Regional election of October 1965 was the final straw. It didn’t help matters that there was a rumour making the rounds about an impending forceful crackdown on the West sequel to the violent protests against the election results.

    Fourth, from the list of officers and other ranks involved in the planning and execution of the coup and the list of its military and civilian casualties, many found it difficult to believe that it wasn’t ethnically-motivated. Without justifying the ensuing developments, including the crisis in the North and the July counter coup that followed, one must have to infer that the belief of an ethnic motivation of the January coup must have been a considerable factor in these subsequent developments.

    Now, to what end was the first bite of the forbidden fruit? What did it accomplish or fail to accomplish? What lessons were learnt and how have we fared as a result?

    We would never know what the plotters were up to and how prepared they were to change the republic for better because they failed in the mission to secure power. That, in itself, may be a damning verdict on the quality of their planning ability. They killed and maimed for nothing and they never had access to political power, having been outfoxed by the Generals.

    On their part, the Generals thought that they had a prescription for whatever ailed the nation. It was, in their judgment, too much independence for the regions; therefore, they needed to be reined in to promote not just unity but uniformity. For 13 years, this therapy was administered with unparalleled passion in various degrees by three administrations. Needless to add, it failed woefully, the most visible evidence being the scars of Biafra and its reincarnation in IPOB.

    Typically, apologists of military rule justify it on two grounds, one of which is backward-looking, while the other is forward-looking. For the former, the argument is analogical to the retributive justification for punishment. Bloody civilians misbehaved politically; they deserve to be taught a lesson. Without politicians messing up, the military won’t dare interfere with the democratic system. So the argument goes.

    The forward-looking argument is corrective and developmental. The presupposition or presumption is that the Army has the discipline to push the development agenda of a new state and put in corrective measures for the politicians to build upon. Therefore, intervention is not so much of a punishment, but more of a developmental effort to help the new nation advance its interests beyond the bickering typical of civilians.

    To be fair to the second argument, a disciplined military has an edge over civilians in the promotion of development. But our experience as a nation has been the opposite. As it turned out, we did not have a disciplined military. Indeed, it was the lack of discipline that motivated the first military coup in the first place and its failure was just a good evidence of this observation.

    More importantly, however, no sooner than the military took over, the nation was plunged into a senseless war that cost us dearly in human lives and material resources and further divided us beyond repair till today, 50 years later. There were a few indices of development in bridges and refineries and higher institutions. But what one clean military hand gave to promote development, the other corrupt military hand took back. Indeed, to the extent that corruption was the foremost legacy of the military in power in this country, one can justifiably proclaim that its intervention was to a negative end.

    Now to the first argument, just as retributive punishment is problematic because it offers no good justification, so the idea that military intervention is justified as a punishment for civilians’ misbehaviour in power is without merit. Were it to have merit, it must yield a better political system and good political behaviour on the part of civilians. But we know that civilians have not been given the chance to learn the rope.

    The first military intervention was just five years plus four months into the First Republic. It wasn’t enough time for politicians to mature. That intervention lasted 13 years. Then the military struck again just after four years of the Second Republic. Thereafter it was serial coups and counter coups. How are civilians supposed to learn the art of democratic governance?

    The only good that may be claimed to have come out of the national experience of January 15, 1966 is that 32 years after they first tasted the forbidden fruit, the military finally realised that it is too poisonous for its system and too acidic to be of any lasting benefit to the political system. That realisation is the beginning of military wisdom.

  • The pitfalls of self-determination struggles

    The pitfalls of self-determination struggles

    E jo laa ko; a kii ko ija” is, for the Yoruba, one of the fundamental principles of a good fight. Simply put, for a successful fight, the trick is not just to be a good fighter, but rather it is important to be adept in the art of stating one’s case effectively. If you are a lousy combatant but an eloquent narrator of events, you are likely to have the sympathy of the judge and jury. On the other hand, even when you are a good fighter but your recounting of the issues is defective, the risk of your losing the case is pretty high.

    All oppressed people have good cases in the court of world political opinion. But not all oppressed people have made a good impression on the world. Many factors are responsible for this, not least of which is that the world itself is a veritable centre of great injustice that has not always been moved by the plea of the oppressed for justice. But even when oppression is so morally outrageous that many are moved to help, the misfortune of the oppressed is that they play into the hands of the oppressor with the manner of their approach to the fight and with their poor narratives of the issues.

    The principle of self-determination was Clause 3 of the Atlantic Charter adopted at a meeting between the British Prime Minister and the United States President and issued by them in August 1941. It was the agreement that got the United States involved in the war of the greatest generation. The principle of self-determination may have been strategically invoked to assure subordinated groups that they too had something important, namely their freedom, to gain at the end of the war and with victory over the adversaries. But originally it wasn’t meant to apply to African colonies. Who were Africans, after all?

    Africans adopted the principle anyway, and vigorously and effectively deployed it to expose the inconsistency and duplicity of the allied powers. The 1945 Pan African Conference made it its focus and dispersed the conferees with the instruction to fight for their self-determination. It worked.

    The self-determination battles of the 1940s to 1960s could have finished the job by insisting on new boundaries for the new states. For pragmatic reasons, they did not because they didn’t want a delay in the granting of independence to their states by the European powers. The self whose determination was the object of the struggle turned out to be the colonial-imposed boundaries and independence from colonial rule was the goal.

    Within a decade of the achievement of the goal in respect of each of those “mere geographical” entities, it became obvious that it was a wrong self that the struggle succeeded in determining and it was clear even to the vision-impaired that the various nationalities which made up the multinational states that the colonisers left behind had been unfairly treated. This was especially the case with the cultural minorities.

    It was clear then that the goal achieved cannot serve the purpose of good governance and self-government. John Stuart Mill is right on target: “Among a people without fellow-feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the working of the representative government, cannot exist.” In many cases, including ours, it is a truism.

    Yet, two factors have since made it almost impossible to reverse the action. First, the Organisation of African Unity insisted on the principle of non-interference with colonial-imposed boundaries even in cases where those impositions were clearly ridiculous and outrageous.

    Second, the new indigenous powers as beneficiaries of the hand-over from imperialists also saw themselves as keepers of a sacred trust which they were not willing to betray. Of course, the imperialists only retreated to the corner, effectively controlling events of their former colonies from the sideline. Therefore, the new leaders swore to keep their various countries united at all cost. In addition, there was the human fear of the unknown creeping to the subconscious of national leaders, preventing them from taking the bold steps their countries needed.

    Granted that the most extreme of those steps, namely complete separation and/or full-scale boundary redrawing may be traumatic and sometimes counter-productive. But there are less radical approaches, such as true federal or confederal arrangements.

    For the trauma of complete separation and full-scale boundary redrawing, we do not need to go beyond our national borders and reflect on the new struggle for the Republic of Biafra. Assume that it is a genuine struggle based on the fundamental principle of self-determination. Assume also that there is a hundred per cent support for the cause among all Igbo of the Southeast. The snag is this: what about the Igbo in the Northwest, Northeast, Northcentral and Southwest, not to talk of Southsouth? Do they return to the new Biafra? Do they stay put wherever they are and become aliens requiring visas and work permits? What about those in the civil service of other states and the federal? Or in the university system?

    Of course, these issues would have to be part of the details that a more comprehensive approach may need to work out if there is a consensus on a complete separation. But barring such a consensus, there is bound to be severe tension across the land even as we are now witnessing.

    A consensus is not out of the question, but it has eluded us for a long time especially since Aburi. Every now and then, a political crisis rocks the nation and one zone or region feels the pinch, cries foul and demands an out. But somehow the crisis is resolved and with it goes the demand. It happened in 1966, 1967, 1993, and now it appears that the cycle is being restarted by agitators for a new Biafra. What sparked this new agitation is anybody’s guess! Is it marginalisation or electoral shellacking?

    A genuine fight for self-determination doesn’t need to be supported by any defensive justification other than that self-determination is the birth-right of human beings and groups. And where a group was unfairly imposed upon by an external entity, leading to its involuntary incorporation into a larger entity with others, it must retain its right to pull out at any time, provided that all the parties impacted reach a mutually agreeable consensus on the terms of separation.

    A consensus is not impossible. And despite OAU and AU it has happened in Africa. It can happen again. But it cannot be unilaterally achieved by one nationality especially when that nationality has its tentacles spread throughout the nation space.

    A more rewarding approach is genuine negotiation that includes all nationalities. This was the object of the Congress of Nigerian Nationalities (CONN) which the late super patriot, Chief Anthony Enahoro, initiated and struggled to achieve in exile and later upon his return to the country. His demise left a vacuum in the struggle for reform and cultural democracy.

    Hopefully there is a Joshua in the land who will take the people to their desired destination. Let dialogue and negotiations begin in earnest. We know that there are nationalities that are not afraid to go it alone and are capable of standing on their own without encroaching on the space of others.

  • Leaping and limping into 2016

    The New Year just sneaked on us like a thief in the night. It was only yesterday that we prepared so hard for the February 2015 elections, only to be dealt a severe blow by the almighty NSA. He needed all security agencies to focus on the militants and none can be spared for the conduct of “bloody civilian” elections. Therefore the elections had to be postponed.

    Now we know that the NSA only needed more time to fashion out an equitable distribution formula for sharing among PDP chieftains the funds meant to procure weapons for the war against insurgents. It was all meant buy victory for the party at the polls. With no viable options, INEC succumbed. We would have no idea but for the determination of PMB to restart his war against corruption from where he was stopped midstream in 1985.

    2015 was a year of drama on the political front. It was a year that democracy was stressed and stretched thin but it survived. It was the year that the electorate found their voice and got their mojo. Having been subjected to political intrigues for a long time, and having been treated like doormat in political mansions, the electorate had their sweet revenge in the year of our Lord Two Thousand and Fifteen. Never again will any politician take them for granted.

    Politicians now know that they have to perform just because voters now know that they have the constitutional right to hire and fire. The landmark elections of 2015 pointed us in the direction of a new reality, which any politician misunderstands only at his or her political peril.

    In 2015, the power of strategic thinking on the part of progressives paid off in electoral victory at the centre. There have been progressives across the country since the beginning of the republic. And given the various progressive ideas championed across the states, it has always been clear that they are in the majority. They have just not been able to harness their collective power to gain entry to the centre of national politics. Now that has changed, thanks to the political wizardry of a few who downplayed and sacrificed their personal ambitions.

    However, it was also in 2015 that the doctrine of party supremacy, once defended vigorously and passionately by the acknowledged premier political sage of the last century slumped and succumbed to internal intrigue.It was all about 2019, we were told as if there can be a 2019 victory for the ruling party if it cannot discipline its folks in 2015. Pray, how do you get to 2019 successfully without a robust unity of purpose from 2015?

    One of the enduring features of the last presidential election was the enthusiasm and the rallying cry for change on the part of the youth and old alike. The message was unmistakable. They wanted change, not just of personnel but more importantly of direction. It was clear to them that the party that had been in power for 16 years had lost steam and direction and cannot be counted upon to redeem the country from the abyss into which it was heading.

    The youth in particular embraced the message of change in the political structure of the country. They were sympathetic to the promise of true federalism as proclaimed by the APC. Now that they used their votes to hire the party that they felt could do the job, the onus is on the party to deliver on its promise.

    It is not going to be easy especially with the first signs of chaos that marked the NASS elections. However, it will be the undoing of the party if it fails to put its house in order or neglects to work effectively for the restructuring of the country along the lines of true federalism.

    It is very clear that our people can no longer be taken for granted. They have seen the political light and they are not unaware of the power of their votes. If any ruling party dares them, they will patiently wait for their chance to retaliate. The “common sense” in common sense revolution is the wisdom to do the right thing and that is to restructure the country now.

    2016 comes with its challenges, the most serious of which is the economic. Ours has been a mono economy since the 1970s when we got carried away by the wealth from the black gold. Even when we had the opportunity to diversity, we did not seize it and now we are on the verge of an economic meltdown. Our budget benchmark for our most important export earner was $38 per barrel. But the most recent forecast points to the possibility of a $30 or even $20 demand price.

    We are in a state of desperation, as states are unable to pay their workers’ salaries. Most of them are unable to generate any significant amount of internal revenue, and have had to depend on subventions from the Federal Government. That we need to embark on a rigorous and thoughtful diversification of the economy now is a foregone conclusion. The President saw it clearly as stated in his inaugural address and at every opportunity he had since then, including his recent budget address.

    One area that has always been our strength and for which we do not have many competitors is agriculture. The President is wise to have identified it and mining as priority areas for government and private investment. We cannot overstate the need for this new policy direction. With dwindling foreign exchange, we cannot afford to remain as net importers of food when we have agricultural land in every part of the federation. It is hoped that he will lead the effort to pursue this policy initiative and the investment it requires to succeed.

    One such investment clearly is the development of infrastructure that is indispensable to a successful agricultural revolution. For both commercial and subsistence farmers across the country, there is the foremost challenge of evacuating their produce from the farm to the consumers. This means that road development must be a priority.

    Oke-Ogun area of Oyo State used to be the food basket of the Southwest until oil wealth took centre stage in governmental thought and action. Roads developed since 1962 literally disappeared. Okeho-Iseyin road is a federal road that has suffered this fate. It has been contracted out for repair multiple times by the previous administrations. Each time, the ruling party gave the contract to its hirelings with nothing to show. Meanwhile, farmers suffer losses because they are not able to move their produce to the market in timely fashion.

    Water irrigation has been another important variable in viable agricultural revolution. In the Second Republic, one of the initiatives in this direction was the Ikerre Gorge Dam in Iseyin. It was almost completed, but the Federal Government abandoned it. We were told that the dam was capable of supplying potable water as well as irrigation water for the whole of Oke-Ogun. However, it remains only a dream, as reptiles inhabit the Ikerre Gorge Dam now. What kind of government invests in laudable projects such as this only to abandon it?

    Finally, there is the challenge of politics. The battle cry for the resuscitation of the dream for a new Biafra is loud and clear. We must not think that the youth with clenched fist and raised voices are mad. There are two levels of reality that motivate their action and we must attend to both.

    First, if you believe that ethnicity and cultural nationalism are at best fictitious representations and at worst opium of the people, you may characterise what is going on as the consequence of unemployment and the hopelessness it engenders. If so, it is still necessary to treat that disease.

    Second, however, if you believe that there is something real about people wanting cultural democracy and recognition, it may well be that the Biafra agitation is a call for true federal democracy. We should attend to it before other “Biafras” join in.

    Happy New Year!

  • All the way: Serving with conscience (4)

    All the way: Serving with conscience (4)

    The public presentation of my memoir has come and gone. I thank everyone that contributed to the success of the programme. I am especially grateful to all the leaders and members of the progressive group of activists and politicians who graced the occasion with their presence. They included Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu (Chairman), Chief Pius Akinyelure (Chief Presenter), Kunle Ajibade (Book Reviewer), Senator Abiola Ajimobi of Oyo State, Chief Adebisi Akande, Aremo Segun Osoba, Otunba Niyi Adebayo, General Ipoola Akinrinade, Dr. Amos Akingba, Senator Olorunnimbe Mamora, Honourable Olawale Oshun and Afenifere Renewal Group members, Femi Falana (SAN) and others too numerous to mention.

    My colleagues in Egbe Isokan Yoruba, Washington, DC and Egbe Omo Yoruba: Professor Ropo Sekoni, Dr. Olu McGuinnis Otubusin and Engineer Kunle Badmus were there just as my former colleagues from Obafemi Awolowo University surprised me with a large contingent.

    The keepers of Yoruba tradition were generous with their time: Kabiyesi Oba Rilwan Osuolale Akiolu, the Oba of Lagos, Kabiyesi Oba Alani Oyede, the Olota of Ota and Kabiyesi Oba Rafiu Osuolale Mustapha, Onjo of Okeho. The Chief Imam of Okeho and the Pastor of First Baptist Church, Okeho were also there.

    Debola Williams of Red Media and his team introduced a novel idea with a panel discussion that focused on the subject of the book. I applaud the brilliance of the panelists.

    In this final excerpt from the book, I discuss the next phase.

    “My good aburo, Sola Yussuf had a signature sign-off greeting as she concluded her reading of the news on Radio O.Y.O. in those days of yore: “A na gbara, a na gboro, a tona koko a si dona jijin.” Simply put, I have gone far and near, literally and figuratively, and now it is time to round off.

    As I mentioned in the preface (to the book), this is not an ordinary autobiography in which I present a summary of my life so far. I have done that and more. I have presented some of the fundamental issues that predated my birth but which have somehow persisted and contributed in no small measure to who I am and has provided the motivation for my actions. I have interrogated old ideas and I have introduced some new ones. I have shown how a purposive leadership can change the conditions of existence of a people in both professional and social life. I am confident that I have accomplished what I set out to do in (the book) and I feel fulfilled.

    Figuratively, I have opened a window into my life from childhood to adulthood for the world to have a glimpse. I am certain the reader has some idea now about what I have been through and how providence has helped me in many ways in the battle against all odds. From professional to social and political engagements, I have seen the glory of the Lord “all the way.” I am sure that I can do more, but there is always some other time or some other person. In this regard, then, I can say with confidence that I am satisfied as I retire from active professional life.

    I have never been a politician, only a politically conscious animal engaged in the normal routine of contributing to the evolution and progress of my motherland in the tradition of my ancestors. This is not something that one retires from. But one can slow down and allow others, especially the young ones, to make their contributions. It is for good reason that the elders suggest that the baby elephant does not announce its presence at the same time that the mother does. What this means is that the mother elephant must know the appropriate time to retreat to allow the baby to take over.

    Finally, then, I have travelled far and near in the journey of life. All the way, my saviour has led me. There is nothing I can ask beside. I cannot doubt his tender mercies. Through life, He has been my guide. Heavenly peace, divinest comfort, here by faith, in him I dwell. I know that whatever befalls me, He knows best. He is always right and can never be wrong. In fact, He has done everything right.

    Yet there is more to do and there is a new phase that I must now explore. Professionally, I am fulfilled. But I cannot afford to rest because of the proverbial blood-stain on the finger-nails created by the occurrence of lice on our national, regional and local clothing. As long as these destructive lice endure, and the stained fingers remain the evidence of their endurance, neither I nor any human being with a conscience can rest.

    I hope therefore to continue to intervene at various levels. First, since 2007, The Nation has been an effective avenue for me to add my voice to those of well-meaning individuals. I intend to continue to use it as a forum for intelligent discourse on matters of national and regional significance. In the relaxed climate of retirement from active professional life and from social and political activism, I hope to continue contributing to the interrogation of issues that confront us locally, regionally and nationally.

    Nationally, we still do not have a true federal structure that is capable of unleashing the creative energy of the teeming masses of our people. The realisation that without such a structure we cannot expect an effective resolution of the issues that confront us is the beginning of political wisdom.

    While writing and analysis are important for the clarification of issues and proposal of new ideas, there is more to do at the level of practice. For instance, at all levels, we are inadvertently managing to entrench a dangerous system of inequality with our educational system in which the public education of our children is fast becoming a relic of the past, while we enlist the services of private institutions and agencies and we seem to relish the idea. From pre-school to college, private institutions have become the vogue. The impact of this shift on citizens could be serious, with the poor and middle class being more adversely impacted than the wealthy. We cannot allow this to continue and I intend to do my part towards the cause of promoting public education.

    On this score, I am fortunate to have compatriots at all levels—local, regional and national with whom I can collaborate on meaningful projects. However, I intend to start this at my local base in Okeho where there are committed individuals who have ideas and are determined to make a difference. Okeho Strategic Development and Economic Foundation (OSTRADEF) was established by fellow compatriots whose sole objective was to give back to the community. When Moyo Ajekigbe contacted me about the initiative and invited me to be a part of the group, I was honoured and I did not hesitate to join. I see it as a continuation, in a new century, of the labours of our heroes past in Okeho, some of whom have featured in (the book). Many of them have passed on but the contributions they made to the development of human talents cannot be forgotten. I will support the cause for which they laboured and sacrificed.

    I benefitted from the sacrifice of the generation before me, including my parents. I have also tried my best in giving back in various ways. Fortunately, my own children, as the next generation, have, without prompting, reflected on their own experience, and have collectively decided that my entire family should be involved in giving back some more. Though they are just starting their own families with the responsibility for the education of their children staring at them, they have come up with a Foundation to support the educational and health needs of our people, starting with Okeho and Eruwa. This initiative, The Segun and Adetoun Gbadegesin Family Foundation (SAGFF), will take up most of the time and energy of my wife and me in the foreseeable future. But I am thrilled at the prospect of doing something to make a difference.

     

    And so, to Okeho I return!

     

    Merry Christmas!

  • All the way: Serving with conscience (3)

    All the way: Serving with conscience (3)

    Today I bring some more fragments from my memoir which comes up for public presentation on December 21, 2015.  The formation of Egbe Omo Yoruba, North America in 1995 was, for the Yoruba Diaspora, the tipping point in the struggle against military dictatorship and for the restoration of democracy in Nigeria. The meaning of that struggle for those who participated in it, its impact on the events that eventually led up to the return of civil rule, and the modest contributions that others and I made to it, is a significant part of the book.

    Egbe Omo Yoruba Presidency, 1997-1999

    The 1997 Houston convention (of Egbe Omo Yoruba) ended with the election of new officers. I was elected President with an executive comprised of Tokunbo Marcarthy, Vice President; Banji Ayiloge, General Secretary; Olu McGuinnis Otubusin, JD., Legal Secretary; Haziz Adekunle Ajayi, Treasurer; James Oni, Financial Secretary; and Harrison Akingbade, Ph.D., Publicity Secretary.

    At the end of the convention, Egbe Omo Yoruba had the following 15 local chapters as members: Yoruba Community Association, Toronto, Canada; Egbe Omo Yoruba Kansas City; Yoruba International Union, Dallas; Egbe Ilosiwaju Yoruba ni Kolorado; Yoruba League, Long Beach, CA; Egbe Isokan Yoruba, Washington, DC; Egbe Omo Oduduwa, New York City; Egbe Omo Oduduwa, Chicago; Kiriji Movement-San Francisco; Oduduwas, Houston; Yoruba Community of Massachusetts, Boston; Egbe Omo Yoruba, Philadelphia; Egbe Omo Yoruba, London, Ontario, Canada; Oduduwa Unity Club, Greensboro, NC; and Yoruba People’s Congress, Chicago, IL.

    The new National Executive Committee, having carefully read the mood of the association and listened attentively to the messages conveyed by speakers at the convention, knew that they had a marching order and wasted no time in getting down to business in pursuit of the mission of the Egbe.

    The convention ended on Sunday, April 27, 1997. First thing in the week of April 28, I sent a package to every chapter president. The package included the convention communiqué, my prepared address, contact information for the newly elected officers of the association, and a cover letter.

    In the letter, I thanked all the members for their sacrifice of time and money to the convention and the confidence they placed in the executive committee. I reminded them that the association was only as strong as its membership especially at the local chapter level. In reference to the grievances of some members and a few chapters, I assured everyone that if they trusted us with the fate of the Egbe, they should also give us a chance to give our association a new lease of life and nurse old wounds.

    On behalf of the executive, I promised that we would make extra effort to rejuvenate the interest of existing chapters and provide a big tent that can accommodate various interests. Finally, I charged member chapters to be cognisant of our goals and aspirations and what we will need to realise them, most important of which was funding. Therefore, it was important for us to put our money where our mouths were. I welcomed fundraising ideas and initiatives and assured chapters that the national executive will collaborate with them effectively on the matter of fundraising.

    Following my message, I received a large number of heart-warming messages of congratulations and promises of cooperation from chapter presidents and individuals. One of these was from Mr. Remi Saseun, one of the strong advocates for a strong national organisation. Based in California, he was one of the pillars of the Yoruba League, which hosted the 2nd National Convention in January 1995. Mr. Saseun was also the Chairman of the Political Action Committee that had been set up at the convention of which I was also a member. On account of this, we had been close and had a mutual respect for each other.

    Part of his note to me read as follows: “I think that we finally got things right this time! I am particularly heartened that you agreed to serve, knowing that what our organisation needs most now is CREDIBILITY (emphasis supplied in original), which I have no doubt you will bring to the organisation.” He went on to give excellent suggestions on dealing with and consolidating chapters, setting up action committees, open door policy on finance and effective communication lines.

    I took seriously Mr. Saseun’s advice and ensured that I communicated regularly with local chapters. Unfortunately, the ugly side of human relationship took a toll on the Yoruba League and not being able to resolve the organisational issues, the chapter withdrew from the Egbe not long after the Houston convention. In fairness to him, my friendship with Mr. Saseun did not suffer on account of his chapter’s withdrawal and we met every now and then when the association’s convention or other events were close to his base.

    The hard work had just started. The association had just made its debut. Its official communiqué had been widely disseminated and received with a mixture of approval and denunciation. Yet, the association existed mostly on paper. There was no physical office location as of April 1997, two years after its constitution was ratified and its first officers elected. So we had to run, not walk. Perception is always dangerously ahead of reality by miles.

    We determined that we had to have an office in Washington, DC, the headquarters of the association. Since the executive officers were not in one location, we had to rely on the assistance of local chapter members who were always ready and more than happy to help. Chief among these were my colleagues in Egbe Isokan Yoruba: Ropo Sekoni, Sola Ogunbode, Hakeem P. Fahm, Mumini Adekunle Badmus, Adeleke Adekoya, Samuel Ayodele, Kayode Adenaiya, Mobolaji Aluko, Dauda Jolaoso, Abiodun Adepoju, Adeniran Adeboye, and a host of others too numerous to mention here.

    We scouted the city for good locations for a befitting office space. By this time, two exiled NADECO members, General Ipoola Akinrinade (rtd) and Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu had relocated to the Washington metro area. They were fully involved in our efforts. Incidentally, their generous donation to the Egbe at the Houston convention was the seed money that we relied on to commence our search for an office space.

    On the day that we found an office space, both Senator Tinubu and General Akinrinade were on our search team. I recall that as soon as we pulled up at 7600 Georgia Avenue, NW, Senator Tinubu gave an approving shout: “Yes, this is it!” he exclaimed in approval. We all agreed. We applied for Suite 405 and signed the lease with Capital Building on June 27, 1997 with a down-payment of $2400.

    For the next seven years, the office served as the headquarters of a most celebrated or reviled organisation depending on which side of the appraisal you stood. For our compatriots who understood the cause for which we struggled, Egbe Omo Yoruba made them extremely proud. For our detractors whether they were military apologists or partisan ideologues, our members were simply a bunch of rascals seeking attention.

    Once we secured an office space, the enthusiasm of our members was unparalleled. Banji Ayiloge, the General Secretary, lived in New York City. He secured his own key to the office, and before I woke up every Saturday morning, Banji was already in the office on Georgia Avenue, working for the Egbe. He drove four hours each way. Sometimes, when he chose to let me know he was coming, I insisted that he stop by the house for breakfast, which my wife generously prepared. We would then head together to the office.

    Members of Egbe Isokan Yoruba, the Washington local chapter of Egbe Omo Yoruba, also made 7600 Georgia Avenue, NW their after-office retreat venue. There was always something going on, and our folks were eager to offer help whether by stuffing envelopes for mailing, or searching the Internet for news from home and disseminating same to members. Chief Enahoro had also then relocated to Alexandria VA and was offered an office space in the suite that Egbe Omo Yoruba occupied. Therefore the suite served NADECO and World Congress of Free Nigerians (WCFN) as well.