The Nation Newspaper

Category: Segun Gbadegesin

  • A princely exit

    A princely exit

    Life has meaning. Life and death are intricately connected. Without life, there is no death. And as the sages may add, without death there is no life. The Master Sage once declared that His death must be recognised as the beginning of a new life. And our ancestors concur. For them, death is simply a transition from one mode of existence to another. With this connection between the two, we must conclude that if life has meaning, death must also have meaning. Yet, if this were the only connection, an important question would remain unanswered: why is one so deeply perceived as the stark opposite of the other?

    The meaning of life, its essence or the purpose it serves, is the good it promotes. That is the reason of existence, the creator’s objective. The meaning of death is the opportunity it affords the living for the lessons of life. In death, we have a powerful MRI of life in all its simplicity and complexity. Death shows us that life is as simple as the setting of the sun, the imagery that we adopt as its metaphor. But death also demonstrates to us that life is as complex as the riddle of the Sphinx. Walking on four legs in the morning, then on two in the afternoon, and on three in the evening, human life is as complex as it is conflicted.

    One—life—appears to be the stark opposite of the other—death—because the former seems to open doors of opportunity while the latter seems to close them up. As the Yoruba would say, ba o ku ise o tan. When there is life, there is hope, we gleefully remind ourselves. But death ends it all. Hence, poor humans, we dread death.

    The wise know better. They recognise the uncertainties and vicissitude of the duration of time between one mode of being (life) and the other (death), grab the opportunities that life affords them to serve the creator’s purpose, promoting as much good as they can, while they can; and when death knocks, they are ready for it. For them, the intensity of the suffering that life may throw at them at the end stage of existence does not disable their will to do as much good as possible. In their suffering, they reflect God’s purpose.

    Prince Oyemomilara Okunlola had a faith in his creator akin to Abraham’s. He was endowed with wisdom close to Solomon’s. His kinds don’t suffer destruction. Instead, they are transformed into greater realm of perfection where, face-to-face with their creator, they continue to promote the good.

    Bros. Oye, as he was fondly called, determined from the beginning of life’s journey to excel in the delivery of the message of his destiny, which was simply to do as much good as possible. To accomplish such a mission, he knew that he had to prepare himself. He knew that he had to remake himself. “I have been made, I have to remake myself” is the witty saying of the sage. Education is the key to remaking oneself, and Oye took a great advantage of the opportunities of sound education in the old West.

    Of course, as we know, limitations of heritage could place one at a disadvantage relative to others. In the days of his youth, Oke-Ogun had limited opportunities for educational advancement. At the end of primary education, one had to relocate to pursue further education, which was also mostly limited to secondary modern school education. It was not unusual that at 12, a young boy or girl must make that move. And after three years of secondary modern school, the next available opportunity was teacher training, a boot camp of sorts with its harsh discipline and character training. Bros Oye and generations of Oke-Ogun indigenes before and after him passed through this rigour of life. He and his friends once labeled Oke-Ogun as New Nigeria, partly in reference to the people’s innocence of spirit, and partly in the hope of a national mobilisation toward the discipline and moral rectitude that their beloved rural life forced on them.

    After receiving the Teachers’ Grade III and Grade II certificates in 1961 and 1965 respectively, Oye had to study for the General Certificate of Education to qualify for university admission. During this period, when he was still struggling for his own future, he was not deterred from helping others, including the younger ones who were fortunate to secure university admissions before him. My friends Adebisi and Oyediran were students at the University of Ibadan. I was then at the University of Ife. We all had summer jobs at Ibadan. While I stayed with Bros. Gbade Adejumo, Bisi and Diran stayed with Bros. Oye. This was the pattern in those days. We stood on the shoulders of those who cared to lend a hand. They did it without grudge. We are all the better for their generosity of spirit.

    Bros Oye was an undergraduate at the University of Ibadan from 1972 to 1975 at the end of which he received the B. Sc. (Hons.) in Economic, Second Class Upper Division. He later obtained the Advanced Diploma in Project Analysis and Management from the University of Connecticut and an Advanced Diploma in Public Administration from Obafemi Awolowo University.

    After a stint in the private sector, Prince Okunlola joined the Oyo State Public Service in January 1977. This was where he made an indelible mark, leaving a legacy of hard work and integrity. Public service could be privately rewarding in the sense that it enables one to serve the public and thereby promote the most good. From the Ministry of Finance and Economic Planning to the Ministry of Commerce and Industry to the Office of the Governor dealing with Chieftaincy and Parastatals, there was plenty of good to share, and many wrongs to right. He was always on top of his league. He capped his civil service years with service as the Administrative Secretary of the National Electoral Commission (NEC) in Oyo state until his retirement on 1994. And because of his meritorious service in that capacity, in retirement he was tapped to serve as the Chairman of the Oyo State Independent Electoral Commission (OYSIEC) from January 2004 to 2008.

    Outside of government, Prince Okunlola was a foremost community leader and advocate for the people, serving in various capacities and initiating many development projects for the communities. He was National President of Okeho Development Association, Secretary of Okeho Socio-Economic Club, President, Iwajowa Union of Okeho, President, Ifeoluwa Society of Agodi Baptist Church, Secretary, Council of Oke-Ogun Indigenes (COIN), President Emeritus of Oyo Club 79, Former Oyo State Chairman, Planned Parenthood Federation of Nigeria (PPFN), among others.

    If promotion of the most good is the meaning of life and the purpose of existence, I can reasonably assert that Prince Okunlola lived a meaningful life. But there is another lesson of life that he taught us. Recall that in suffering and in death, the meaning of life is revealed to us. And in the suffering that he endured before his final passing, Prince Okunlola demonstrated to us that nothing can separate him from the love of his God. I mentioned earlier that he was endowed with wisdom close to Solomon’s; he also had a spirit of perseverance and trust that almost rivaled Job’s. In his suffering, he never cursed God. Indeed, many recall that he was always praising God and praying for others even as he lay in bed. He was an unusual human being; one that was sent here to teach us how to live, how to love and how to suffer with dignity.

    Grace, a loyal and dutiful wife to the end demonstrated the true meaning of the marriage vow—for better or for worse—in her devotion and tender care of her husband. Bros Oye could not have wished for a more sympathetic and understanding companion. Children, brothers and, friends, including Chief Bayande Ayanlowo, did their best and all must now take consolation in the knowledge that the Prince is with the King and that son and father are in eternal bliss. For the anointed never dies, the anointed never sees destruction; the anointed only transits to Itunla; itunla is the home of the anointed.

    So long, Bros. Oye.

  • Making religion work for peace

    Making religion work for peace

    It  Sallah time, when the total submission of a man to the will of his maker is recognised and celebrated, it is appropriate to reflect on religion and the potentials it has for peace and prosperity. The paradox of our contemporary life is that an institution that originated in the desire for peaceful co-existence has been turned into a veritable agent of war and destruction. Certainly, the various objects of human religious devotion couldn’t have been pleased with this turn of events.

    Religion speaks to the heart with a message of love; and to the soul, with a promise of redemption and salvation. The major religions understand the fallen nature of humans and the need for divine favor to overcome sin and. This is what gives one inner peace—knowing that one is in tune with the Almighty.

    No believer, whatever his or her faith, fails to make this his or her ultimate goal. Of course, there are other purposes, including the materialistic hope of miraculous prosperity. I dey serve my God, e dey do am for me. And sometimes when the latter overwhelms the former, we have cases of unfulfilled expectations, leading to frustration and psychosis.

    I am sure that I am not alone in being perplexed when believers of all faiths fail to translate the pursuit of inner peace that their religion affords to the pursuit of social peace. If each person is at peace with God because of his or her belief in the divine will of God, why is it so difficult to be at peace with others who are equally at peace with the divine will of God?

    In the matter of social peace, it is interpersonal relations that matter, and while the various religions promote inner peace of adherents, they have not been very successful in the matter of promoting interpersonal relations. I want to believe that it is not intrinsic to the religions that they neglect interpersonal relations that promote social peace. Rather, I think there is something in human nature that prevents the message of inner peace from being translated effected into a pursuit of social peace. If it is not in the nature of religion but just in the nature of humans, perhaps there is hope of transcending the aspect of human nature that makes it difficult for religious believers to promote social peace.

    There is a powerful argument against what I just proposed. It goes as follows. While there is nothing inherently opposed to social peace in each religion, a pluralism of religions in a common space is not likely to promote peaceful coexistence among adherents. But we know that there is hardly a society without a multiplicity of religions or at least sects of the same religion. Therefore the argument is that if not by nature, then by circumstance of modern life, which brings people of different faiths and sects into a common nationspace, it is naïve to expect religion to be an agent of peace. Why not?

    Looking at the injunctions of each of the major religions, it is hard to defend the foregoing position. Christianity is a religion of peace, with its injunction to believers to be peacemakers so they can be blessed. One of the major commandments, summed up in the teachings of Christ is to love one’s neighbours as oneself. Indeed, Christ himself is the truest symbol of love for laying down his life for the sake of others. If love of others is a precondition for social peace, then Christianity should be considered a foremost promoter of social peace.

    The Islamic faith is based on the teachings of Prophet Muhammed (PBUH). Like other major religions, Islam preaches peace and the social obligations of believers derive from and reinforce their religious duties. They are enjoined to maintain peace and love their fellow human beings. Leaders are instructed to be righteous and it is the religious duty of believers to take care of the poor and wretched.

    Traditional African religions of all shades cannot be ignored in the context of our society. Dwindling in numbers, they are still in reckoning in communities across the nation. And it cannot be overemphasised that these religions are integral to the communal foundations of traditional African societies with emphasis on the community and its well-being. In a sense, then, they have a mission to preserve and promote the peace of the community. More than the two Abrahamic faiths, traditional religions demonstrate a capacity to enforce their injunctions regarding the promotion of social peace.

    Given the position of each of these religions on the important issue of peaceful coexistence, while would anyone suggest that religious pluralism is antithetical to the promotion of social peace? The answer is that it is not just the injunction of each religion in the matter of peace that counts, the tragedy of our time is the fact of the politicisation of religion. The messages of Christ and Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) have been politicised beyond reason. In the service of self-interest, later day prophets have turned these messages on their heads and have sown seeds of hatred and war. In the circumstance, it is naïve to expect that adherents who listen to the messages churned out by religious leaders today are going to be moved to promote peace among people of different faiths.

    This history of Christianity and Islam cannot be complete without reference to the crusaders and jihadists and the ensuing intolerance in their wake. These are motivated by the proselytising injunction fundamental to each religion. Yet, both Prophets Muhammed and Christ could not have intended their injunctions to evangelise to result in conflict and violence. You could evangelise and preach the gospel without instigating violence. There is religious violence and conflict because the various devotees are intolerant of the views of rivals.

    Religious intolerance is deep and troubling and it can be explained in terms of the distorted understanding of devotees concerning their roles in spreading the good news of their faiths. On the part of leaders, there appears to be an instrumental conception of religion in terms of the material gain it affords. The more the adherents, the greater the good things of earthly existence and religion have been turned into an irresistible source of wealth and primitive accumulation by many religious leaders.

    If religion is to contribute to the promotion of social peace and refrain from being an instrument of conflict and violence, religious leaders must come to terms with their social responsibilities and enjoin their followers to be tolerant of other people’s religious beliefs. In the final analysis, the social enterprise is more important because it makes the religious structures thrive. If the nation is in turmoil, the practice of religion is in grave danger. Happy Sallah!

  • National ethical challenge

    National ethical challenge

    These are trying times. Hardly does a day pass in the heart of the nation without an episode or event that makes one wonder aloud: what kind of a people are we? What principles drive us? What are our priorities? What do we cherish as a collective? Indeed do we have a collective sense of honour and shame?

    Last week it was about the gruesome lynching of four young students. We are now learning that one of the suspects had set these young men up because one of them was his creditor. Kidnappers are on the prowl across the country. Just this week the wife of the Speaker of Osun State House of Assembly was rescued from the wicked hands of youthful kidnappers. There was also the incident of the truckers who decided that the most effective way to demonstrate their anger was to block the express way and make innocent travellers suffer for fourteen hours.

    Some anthropological observations on the beliefs, norms and values of our pre-colonial antecedents appear to have been turned over on their heads. We were said to be communitarians who value the community without sacrificing the individual. We were supposed to be God-fearing and spiritually endowed folks who look after their brothers and sisters. And we were an industrious hard-working lot guided by the unwritten principle that only through the labour of our hands shall we survive and prosper. Were these myths made up to make us look good in the eyes of an unsuspecting world?

    No, it’s not all myth. Indeed, somewhere in the rural man-forsaken heartland of the various zones, these models of human accomplishments in social living still motivate conduct in some version. I once referenced the back-wood communities of Oke-Ogun, my beloved homeland, where humaneness still inspires and civility is a norm of behavior. To be civil is to be decent; to appreciate the goodness of cooperation, the pricelessness of others, the obligation of respecting them, and of course, the demand of performing civic duties religiously.

    Discipline is an enduring virtue of the collective existence of rural folks. This is explained by the fact of our early exposure to life, first, through the stringent teachings of traditional religions practiced by our ancestors. Which of our fore-parents was unaware of the imposing presence of the god of thunder who avenges wrong-doing with all the might of its fierceness? Swear falsely to an oath and prepare to die shamelessly. Or did we not grow up being taught about the requirements of Obatala even before we became Christians and Moslems? Our ancestors went through the yoke of an imperial majesty that was ruthless in its demand and unforgiving in its judgment. Liberated by the colonisers from both burdens, we ended up being exposed to the doctrines of the new religions they brought. We gladly embraced them and internalised their norms.

    But in the urbanised satanic corridors of political and business power, it’s dog-eat-dog mentality run amok. There the hardening of the heart is beyond reason, and it’s a ticking time bomb that portends catastrophe for everyone. It is not just the dregs of society; demonic forces have taken over the psyche of the powerful as well.

    From different tradition-based authorities, we accepted a republican arrangement which gives everyone the liberty and responsibility to participate in various capacities and at various levels in governance. It works perfectly when everyone takes the liberty and the responsibility seriously. Electorates ask penetrating questions and would-be representatives of the people canvas for votes without intimidation in a climate of peace. When the free flow of competing ideas is disturbed because someone or some groups arrogate illegal authority to themselves, the condition for a republican arrangement is violated. From there, it can only get worse unless steps are taken to confront it effectively. For it is a short course to imposition by default. This is just one example of the nation’s gradual but sure drift.

    How it has gotten so tragically rotten is anybody’s guess. But a more rewarding approach is an exploration of what it takes to avoid an impending crash and redirect our national train to a track of survival and prosperity.

    A major culprit is the ego which has become the be-all and end-all in all areas of our lives. Where everyone only looks out for self and no one worries about the collectivity without which the self cannot be, the result is an inadvertent annihilation of the self. More seriously, however, where the focus of the self is the greedy lust for material possession, regardless of considerations of desert, it’s easy to see the inescapability of a Hobbesian anarchy of the kind that has characterized the republic thus far.

    But a nation, like an individual, must have a sense of honor and a sense of shame. A true patriot, with a sense of belonging, naturally feels proud when her nation excels in the discharge of responsibilities integral to the reason of its existence and is considered a member in good standing in the comity of nations. Surely, nations cannot be judged with identical standards and an element of relativism is involved. What is expected of the United States in contribution to the relief of international suffering cannot be expected of Nigeria. But in the matter of democratic norms, freedom of expression, accountability, and a general civility that abhors a thuggish approach to governance, there is a universality of standards.

    Nigeria has lost its moral bearing and every citizen is implicated in the morass.

    To be troubled by such a demeaning standard of decency requires a concerted effort to combat the perpetrators. Political parties and political actors, including candidates are too engrossed in their vote-catching tactics to be effective partners in what must be a national effort to reinstate our national self-esteem. The suffering masses are turning against themselves when what is needed is a collective effort to save the nation from uncaring power grabbers that see Nigeria as their grandfather’s farm to be exploited at will. These locusts do not belong to just one sub-national group. Theirs is a coalition of an evil cabal that cuts across the thirty-six states plus Abuja. Yet there is no denying the fact that they are far fewer than the suffering masses whose common patrimony the members of the cabal are bent on looting and exploiting.

    The army of unemployed school leavers and university graduates parading the streets need to know that they have to fight their own battle. Why are septuagenarians and octogenarians still toiling for true democracy when the youth that really need Nigeria to do better for them to do well are engaged in collective self- immolation? They must be made to realise that their potential for growth is being wickedly hampered by the godless politicians who recruit them to do their dirty jobs for them.

    Nigeria needs to be saved from the corrupting grip of the political robbers. Nigeria needs to be saved from the deadly claws of daylight election robbers. And surely, Nigeria needs to be saved from the vampire mentality of political assassins and kidnappers. When a nation drifts so dangerously towards the cliff, the leaders are called upon to intervene. But when the leaders themselves are responsible for the drift, the followers have a collective responsibility to take their destiny in their hands.

  • A sick society

    A sick society

    The brutish killing of four University of Port Harcourt students was another poignant reminder that we live in a sick society. For, it has provided us with a powerful MRI of the society from which we are able to see clearly the multiple maladies that afflict it. This society is full of monsters in human garb, savages fit only for the wild and downright brutes ill-equipped for civil society.

    We have often been delusional, and I do not exclude myself from the mental hubris that romanticises our golden age of decent humanity. Many of us have attributed the degeneration of values in our contemporary society to the neglect of our traditional heritage, which presumably privileged human dignity over material wealth. I think this is largely true and there is ample illustration in words and practice to support the view. What we have not emphasised enough is that the break with that past has been gradual and persistent even prior to the so-called colonial imposition but certainly sharper and cleaner thereafter.

    The various internal civil wars within each ethnic or nationality group predated the Atlantic slave trade and the horror of the Middle Passage. Indeed, there were ample evidences of the complicity of local chiefs in the facilitation of the capture and delivery of their kith and kin to slave traders. Just a few years ago, some African chiefs were moved to offer atonement for the involvement of our ancestors in the barbarism of enslavement. We may choose to ignore the past, but we will continue to relive it.

    Every society has a past that shames their present and a history that embarrasses. It is what is done to shape a present narrative to ensure a glorious future that separates one from the other. If we vow that the horrific past of savagery will not define our future, then we—leaders and followers— have our work cut out for us. It cannot be left to chance. It has to be a deliberate and methodical plan of action to redeem the dignity of individuals and the integrity of the nation.

    The video clip that announced the gory scene in the university town of Aluu speaks volumes. First, here is a village that is privileged to have a university located within its vicinity. How can it be that the values that are implicated in the idea of a university fail to percolate to the Aluu community? How is it that jungle justice is favored by the people of Aluu when the university prides itself in championing civil and humane justice system? Is there a meeting of minds between town and gown? If not, why not?

    In the video are young men and women many of whom are looking on with glee and some of whom are actively participating in the clubbing of fellow human beings to death! Young people? These are the ones we count on to mold a nation into what it will become? It’s scary stuff. I am sure that these young people have some form of education or another. They are not illiterates. I will not be surprised if a good number of them have university education. What does this mean? What values are we inculcating in our youths through the nation’s education system? That laptops and cell phones are so invaluable that their loss can only be atoned with human lives?

    Assume that these young people watching and participating in the lynching of their fellow human beings never stepped into a formal classroom. Is it too much to ask if they never had parents and grandparents? How were they brought up? What lessons did the village community impart? We used to be told that it takes a village to raise a child. And communities raise their children the way they—the communities would like to be identified? Aluu is now identified as a community of lynch mobs and barbarians. Was this their original idea of a community?

    Religion is equally implicated. Africans in general, and Nigerians, in particular, have been variously described as incurably religious, notoriously spiritual, and acutely God-loving. Now you could consistently be God-loving and brutal in practice if you have a divine revelation that God enjoins a savage procedure in dealing with crime. Moses ordered stoning to death of adulterers for that reason. And versions of Sharia law belong to that tradition. But that justification has not been presented by the Aluu community lynch mob. And if they did, should we accept it? Consistent with religious ideals, we know now that even the most Mosaic of modern religions has not followed the injunction to club or stone culprits to death. And for Christians, which I assume is the professed religion of a good number of the Aluu community mob the effect of the cross has been a redemption from bestiality.

    Nothing can morally justify what the Aluu mob did to the four young students. It turned out also that the end of their action is not justified by the means. They imposed a punishment of death without trial. But the community has suffered an equally stern punishment—without trial—in the hands of the youth that sought to revenge the brutal killings of their colleagues. This is what a sick society looks like. With no respect for socially accepted principles and processes of law and order, one evil and wicked act summons the other and a vicious circle of vengeance and counter vengeance continues.

    Who will save the sick society from its self-inflicted ailment? In anticipation of this possibility, rational human beings are assumed to create a decent procedure for resolving issues. They put in charge a leadership corps to ensure that everyone abides by the accepted procedure. Where that leadership functions, it promotes and sustains institutions that effectively carry out the objectives of a decent society. Such institutions will promote effective and functional education that not only trains the youth for jobs but also inculcates the values that are to sustain the welfare of the people and promote their peaceful interaction. Such institutions will effectively adjudicate conflicts and punish crimes, including the crimes of a privatised justice system. It bears emphasising that the leadership we have in mind must be visible at every level from local to national. Even in this dehumanised epoch, leadership can make a difference.

  • Politicising justice

    Politicising justice

    Justice”, as philosopher John Rawls declares, “is the first virtue of social institutions.” After this opening statement to his 1971 classic, Rawls goes on to suggest that “in a just society the liberties of equal citizenship are taken as settled; the rights secured by justice are not subject to political bargaining or the calculus of social interests.” I take it that we, perhaps with the exception of the most highly placed among us, can articulate the reasoning of Rawls and indeed find ourselves in total agreement with him.

    I raise the issue of the possible exception of the most highly placed for obvious reasons. First, though we claim to have a republican constitution, the most highly placed act as if ours is a feudal institution with their good selves as the Lords. Therefore, what the constitution proclaims is for others, and is hardly applicable to them. Second, even when they reluctantly concede that we operate a republican constitution, they do not see themselves as bound by its essential remedies and restraints because with their position, they can manipulate the system to suit their interests.

    The upshot of the position of the most highly placed is that the system of justice that marks out a republican from a feudal or monarchical institution is brutally skewed in their favor and it becomes a “just-us” system.

    There is something grand and pleasing about knowing that the liberties of equal citizenship are settled in a just society. I am assured that my right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness cannot be violated with impunity. I can count on the system of justice to take up my case and plead my cause. The understanding that the rights that accrue to me on the grounds of my membership of the society cannot be bargained away is compellingly reassuring. What I have a right to is mine and is not subject to “political bargaining or the calculus of social interests.” The consequence of such a system for social life is incalculable. It allows for the thriving of citizens and for the flourishing of human lives. Yet the alternative universe with a de facto hierarchical ordering of persons with different access to the system of justice is as dreadful as it is real. It is our universe.

    The alternative universe which is the negation of a just system is the reality for most of us in this clime. It used to be that the dispossessed and disenfranchised among us are the victims. For unlike the well-placed, they do not have the means to negotiate their rights in an unjust system. But now it is turning out that even the so-called shakers and dealers are not immune from the “political bargaining” and “the calculus of social interests” that chip away “the rights secured by justice.” Rather than this trend being a solace for the dispossessed, it should ring the alarm bell and warn reasonable people of the dangers of politics run amok.

    It is politics run amok when every sphere of social life is politicised, when every action and every policy decision is moderated and modulated by considerations of political interest. It is not a recent phenomenon. Indeed it has been part of our story since the birth of the republic, reaching the crescendo of lunacy in the Second Republic. In 1991, I had the opportunity of contributing to and editing a volume on The Politicisation of Society During Nigeria’s Second Republic, 1979-83, in which my fellow contributors succeeded in demonstrating how virtually all sectors of the society, from religion to ethnicity, law and order, and the economy, were highly politicised. It was the view of my colleagues in that volume that the system buckled in 1983 under the unbearable weight of blatant politicisation.

    Fast forward almost three decades later and we have perfected the art of politicisation to the point of regarding it as an essential aspect of social life. It is what politics is supposed to be about. Even when we have a constitution that grounds the separation of powers in the age-old tradition of republicanism, we see politics as the be-all and end-all of our nation-space and other spheres have to bow under its domineering presence.

    The case of Justice Isa Salami comes readily to mind as an illustration of this scenario. It has just become clear that the constitution itself is a victim of the ugly game of political savagery that has gone on for far too long without any of the protagonists giving room for the intervention of reason. Articles 237 to 238 of the Constitution are very clear about the role of the President of Nigeria (PON) and the National Judicial Council (NJC) in the hiring and/or firing of the President of the Court of Appeal (PCA). The President cannot appoint, suspend, or dismiss without the recommendation of the NJC. And where the NJC recommends firing or suspending the PCA and the PON appoints the most senior Justice of the Court of Appeal to perform the functions of the PCA, the Constitution is also clear about the duration of such appointment.

    Article 238 Section (5) states: “Except on the recommendation of the National Judicial Council, an appointment pursuant to the provisions of subsection (4) of this section shall cease to have effect after the expiration of three months from the date of such appointment, and the President shall not reappoint a person whose appointment has lapsed.” This is as clear as it gets. But the President, who swore to a sacred oath to protect the Constitution, has allegedly reappointed the Acting PCA without the recommendation of the NJC.

    Whatever position anyone holds concerning the injustice of the decision to suspend President Salami from office, it is clearly a deficit of integrity to support an act of illegality that is being promoted by the continuation of the Acting President of the Court of Appeal in office.

    Integrity implies principled action and wholeness. It is the ability to follow up a commitment with action that realises the commitment. If you commit to protect the constitution, it is deficit of integrity to do anything to jeopardise the health of the constitution. Integrity is especially realised—it shines forth—when difficult situations of self interest present themselves as obstacles to the pursuit of or the realisation of our commitments. If you made me a promise to help me out of trouble and then you face some personal difficulties of your own, yet in the face of your difficulties, you fulfil your promise; that is the height of integrity. When political interests present a conflict that militates against the pursuit and realisation of our commitments and we buckle, we have demonstrated a deficit of integrity.

    In the matter on hand, the President must redeem his integrity. So must the Acting President of the Court of Appeal. The appeal of office should not be an obstacle for a man of integrity to show his moral muscle. If those who are in positions of leadership cannot lay good examples in the matter of the ethics of leadership, pray, what is the moral justification for their leadership?

  • National consciousness as camouflage

    National consciousness as camouflage

    It is time once again to mark (celebrate?) the flag independence of our dear country and to lament what turns out to be its unfulfilled promises. Yet while this lamentation comes natural to many who invested a sizeable amount of capital in the prospect of a strong, united, and democratic nation-state, many others are not surprised at the ugly turn of events. There are good reasons for both reactions, though as I would argue, the second group has the benefit of the facts.

    To the first group, it is the case that the struggle for freedom forged a united front against the colonial powers universally condemned as a rampaging force of racist exploiters responsible for the dismemberment of motherland Africa, first through the enslavement and physical separation of its sons and daughters, and second through the balkanisation of its land without the courtesy of involving any of its rulers.

    The resentment of the European master brought Africans to the realisation of their kinship as the dispossessed and, in the words of Frantz Fanon, the wretched of the earth. Pan-African ideas bolstered the resolve of Africans in the Diaspora and on the continent, and decolonisation became a rallying cry for the mobilisation of the people against imperialists and exploiters.

    Interestingly, for the masses of African colonies, it was the colonial factor that brought them together and developed in them the consciousness of a common bond. A semblance of national consciousness was thus generated as the direct outcome of the people’s encounter with the colonial system.

    To those who invested a lot of capital in the development of this consciousness as a result of their leadership of the anti-colonial struggle, and later in the newly independent country, Nigeria in our case, it was this semblance of national consciousness that enticed and entrapped. It enticed them to the possibilities of a truly new and bold experiment which, they thought had a great potential for becoming a reality. While the enthusiasm could be explained by appeal to the investment of time and resources, there were indications even right from the beginning of serious impediments.

    To the second group referenced above, the whole idea of a common nationality or national consciousness has been a ruse all along. The coming together of different groups and forces was motivated by different and in many cases, conflicting interests, with traces of these emerging during the “nationalist” struggles. Indeed, as some analysts have observed, it could be surmised that there was a conscious decision, independently or collectively arrived at, by the differing and conflicting forces, to first gloss over their divisions for the sake of working together to eliminate the common enemy.

    Frantz Fanon’s analysis of “The Pitfalls of National Consciousness” in The Wretched of the Earth captured vividly the imagery of a disjointed and inept national middle class at the dawn of independence. Of course, while Fanon saw something worth commending in the initial act of solidarity against the imperialists, he also worried that it could lead to an anomalous outcome of dog eating dog if and when national consciousness slides into ethnic consciousness: “National consciousness, instead of being the all-embracing crystallisation of the innermost hopes of the whole people, instead of being the immediate and most obvious result of the mobilisation of the people, will be in any case only an empty shell, a crude and fragile travesty of what it might have been.” Fanon laments the “facility with which, when dealing with young and independent nations, the nation is passed over for the race, and the tribe is preferred to the state.”

    The fear and the agony passionately expressed by Fanon are shared by many Africans in and outside of the continent who decry the post-independence rot. But while they blamed the slide into ethnic consciousness as culprit, I would suggest that we take another look at the issues. For this, we must acknowledge the groups that were involved in the original struggle: the masses, the elite, and the coloniser.

    For the most part, the masses were never unmindful of the reality of their primordial attachments. Indeed, for them the ethnic community—the original nation—was their only reality. They were never properly attuned to the reality of the new nation, which was more of an imposition than a voluntarily assumed consciousness. The masses were right at home with their ethnic nationalities.

    The elite, on the other hand, had a love-hate relationship with the new “national” reality. It promised a new lease on life with the prospect of taking over the perquisites of office at the departure of the colonial lords. On the other hand, there was the fear of the Other—the rivals from pre-existing primordial groups competing for the same perks. And so, while national consciousness meant little or nothing to the masses, it proved to have a dual meaning for the elite who must therefore present a bifurcated relationship to it: take full advantage of its promise for self-advancement, and at the same time undermine its potential for genuine national consciousness which supersede primordial attachments. Since national consciousness is an essential prerequisite for national unity, it is not a surprise that the latter has been so elusive.

    In the special case of Nigeria, recent history is no different from the now apparently ancient times of anti-colonial struggles. Consider the so-called North-South divide. It seems clear that the self-interest of the political elite has been the motivating factor of the crisis of mistrust. Northern governors want to re-open the litigated and adjudicated offshore-onshore controversy. They are against the creation of more states in the South and they reject the idea of embedding zonal arrangements in the constitution. The South is against the position of the North in every instance of these issues.

    I like to believe that northern governors believe sincerely that these issues have a direct bearing on the welfare of the northern masses and not just the interest of the elite. To that extent, they must also believe that it is their sacred responsibility to fight for their people. In the same way, the southern governors have similar belief about their position vis-à-vis the welfare of their people. Is there another group that is looking after that other entity that is named NIGERIA? Indeed, does any one of the antagonists in the current debate acknowledge the existence of that entity? National consciousness will be mouthed ad nauseam in this season of remembrance. But it is hard to not see it as a ruse.

    There is one more thing. Both northern and southern political elites get motivated by self-interest. It is human as psychological egoists would argue. But there is a difference. In the case of the Southwest in particular, precedence was created at the dawn of Western Nigeria’s self-government in 1957 when the foremost welfarist of our space, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, consciously aligned his self-interest with the interest of the masses. Awolowo was not a saint. But he knew the game of politics well and he made a calculated effort to ensure that the welfare of the masses was the measure by which his success would be judged. It paid huge dividends politically and morally.

    Since that successful experiment in political engineering, the political elite in the Southwest are hard-pressed to ensure the congruity of their elite motivation with the interests and welfare of the masses. Awolowo ensured that the struggle against colonialism culminated in massive investments in welfare institutions—education, health, employment, rural development—that cater to the basic needs of the people. This was how a fractious people, united only by a common language (with some dialects mutually unintelligible), came to see themselves as one. This was how a Yoruba nation was born out of a myriad of tribal enclaves. And it is a lesson for how a Nigerian nation can emerge out of a multitude of tribes and tongues. That is, if the train has not already left the station.

     

  • Ideas that live

    Ideas that live

    Steve Biko was one of the iconic figures of the South African struggle against the racist, oppressive and immoral system of apartheid. Throughout his involvement in the struggle, and especially in his last days, he epitomised the best in the tradition of resistance movement, defying the arrogance of the operators of a system that denied its victims one of the most precious gifts of the creator—freedom and justice. In the end, he was brutally murdered in prison. But he left a lasting legacy with words to guide and advance the cause for which he died. He reminded us that “it is better to die for an idea that lives than to live for an idea that dies.” These words, crafted on the commemorative stone that marked Biko’s final resting place are worthy of the attention of intelligent human beings.

    It is better to die for an idea that lives because in the life of the idea, the immortality of the dead is assured. On the other hand, living for an idea that dies makes one a living dead. We still remember the like of Steve Biko and Martin Luther King Jr. Indeed Dr. King has his memorial monument alongside those of former presidents in the prime real estate of the United States capital while those who tormented him and organised his premature death lived in ignominy, and, in death no one remembers any of them.

    Freedom has long been recognised as the inalienable gift of the creator to human beings. Jean-Jacques Rousseau, the French philosopher of the enlightenment era agonised over the plight of humans in political societies when he observed that “man is born free but is everywhere in chains.” Whether in the bondage of enslavement, colonial domination, racial oppression, or pseudo democratic arrangements that deny the humanity of citizens, the struggle for freedom and justice have always loomed large. These are the ideas that live. It is the struggle for the realisation of these ideals that move nations and societies to the centre stage of history.

    Our societies have not lagged behind in such endeavours even though it is disheartening, as I would argue, that the burden of the struggles has been disproportionately endured by a few while the freeloaders almost always end up the beneficiaries of the successful outcome. For, while the struggle may be long and brutal, it almost always ended up with victory for the ideas that live. It cannot be otherwise. The human being is not made for bondage or injustice. The spirit would always reject oppression and tyranny. And even those that for selfish reasons side with oppression while it lasts will always take full advantage of its demise to advance the same self interest.

    There are copious resources from our history. The struggle against colonial imposition pitted natives against natives, with some siding with the colonisers. And the battle for independence tarried for a while because of indecision on the part of some about its benefits. In the end, those that hesitated and slowed down the process turned out to be the greatest beneficiaries of the struggle.

    Independence was earned on the proverbial platter of gold because there was no formal war of independence. But those who lost individual rights and privileges because they stuck out their necks knew what they endured.

    Then democratic governance descended into the hell of military dictatorship and the struggle for freedom assumed a different dimension as an internal one among citizens with different ideas of governance. While the military might claim that circumstances forced them to take over and defend national integrity, there was no denying the fact that the hard-earned freedom was in jeopardy. Th e same individuals and groups rallied to its cause, fought the military and won the battle, not without a significant loss of lifes and property.

    In the struggle against military tyranny, there was the usual corps of egotists for whom it is better to live for an idea that dies. They were the praise singers, the fifth columnists, and the plain traitors to the cause of freedom. They were the ones who, while not clearly preferring servitude to freedom, sought to advance their interests at the expense of the larger whole and the integrity of the nation. They enjoyed the patronage of their military friends while it lasted but the idea for which they live has since suffered a fatal assault. Now, they cannot proudly reference their once passionately held convictions. Isn’t this sufficient lesson for everyone to steer clear of ideas that die?

    At present there is another battle going on between ideas that live and ideas that die. This is actually not a different battle; it’s just another front of the same old battle. It is still the battle for the fullness of freedom. The nature of our independence from colonisation meant that we are to be one entity without regard to ethnic or national identities. We concurred because it was a condition for freedom. But then we accepted our differences and agreed that the best means of enlarging our freedom is to preserve our various cultures and languages through a federal system of governance universally acknowledged as the most effective method of governance in a multi-national society.

    The abrupt end to the independence and republican constitutions which gave teeth to that understanding dealt a fatal blow to the practice of federalism replacing it with military unitarism. The idea of militarism has since died but the concomitant idea of unitarism has not been discarded. Why?

    The reason that unitarism has not been discarded is because there are still those who live for an idea that dies. There are still those egotists who benefit from the sustenance of decadence and whose sole purpose in life is not the immortality of existence through the promotion of ideas that live. They are attracted to unitarism for as long as they command the levers of power and are in the position to dole out favours. But it is certain that unitarism will go the way of other ideas that die and their present promoters will, again, shamelessly turn out to embrace true federalism and its attendant benefits. In the fullness of time, it will all happen before our very eyes. It always does.

  • Deity defenders and prophet protectors

    Deity defenders and prophet protectors

    After the initial shock occasioned by the horror of senseless killings in the name of God, I often wonder if I am alone in my puzzlement over the rationale. The logic of the position of perpetrators of horror on behalf of the deity and/or his prophets goes like this:

    My God has been abused or demeaned.It is right and proper to defend the defenceless.My God is defenceless.
    Therefore it is right for me to defend my God.Defending my God requires inflicting harm on the abuser.Therefore it is right to inflict harm on the abuser.

    If this does not represent the reasoning of the deity defenders, then that reasoning defies logic. What else could be the driving force or motivating factor? Of course, we could discountenance their rationality and that is how we have always dismissed the once-upon-a-time occasional outbursts of religious violence. They are just fanatics, we surmise, and they are on the fringe of rationality.

    While this might be true, I want to pursue a line of reasoning that grants some rationality to the perpetrators of religious violence. I want to assume that they are as rational as everyone else and try to delve into the logic of their conduct. In any case, in light of the fact that these are no longer rare occurrences, it behoves us to pay attention. More to the point, my assumption of some element of rationality driving the agents of death in the name of God appears to be supported by our efforts to dialogue with them.

    Let me also emphasise the point that deity defenders and prophet protectors are not the monopoly of any one religion—at least not confined to any one of the proselytising or Abramic religions. Christianity had its crusade just as Islam had, and still has its jihad. So the position I advance here is an equal opportunity challenge to the logic of any religion that has its share of deity defenders.

    If the argument above fairly represents the logic of deity defenders and prophet protectors credited with rationality, we have a simple task to challenge its soundness.Let the truth of the first premise be assumed—God has been abused and demeaned. And let us grant the truth of the principle that it is right and proper to defend the defenceless.

    The third premise of the argument which appears to present God as a defenceless being is one of two premises that appear to violate the logic of good judgement. Stating that God is defenceless, for all intents and purposes, appears to be more blasphemous than the original act of blasphemy that the deity defender is determined to protest. For it detracts from the omnipotence of God and presents human pretenders to power and strength as superior to the deity.

    Yet, if the assumption that God is defenceless is untrue, the foundation on which deity defenders rest their action is exposed as spurious. But if it is true, then the whole edifice of religion tumbles down. How can anyone rationally believe in a defenceless God or justify confidence in the ability of a weak deity? Given this dilemma, the position of deity defenders is clearly absurd. The truth of the premise that God is defenceless puts them in an awkward position of worshipping a weak and defenceless God. Its falsity puts them in a position of doing on God’s behalf what he can do for himself.

    I think we can all agree that God can defend himself and His prophets don’t need us to fight their cause. This was Martin Luther’s assurance when he suffered tribulation and persecution after he engaged the Church in his historic reformation efforts. “A mighty fortress is our God”, he proclaimed; “a bulwark never failing; our helper he amid the flood of mortal ills prevailing.

    For still our ancient foe doth seek to work us woe; his craft and power are great, and armed with cruel hate, on earth is not his equal. Did we in our own strength confide, our striving would be losing, were not the right man on our side, the man of God’s own choosing? Dost ask who that may be? Christ Jesus, it is he; Lord Sabaoth is his name, from age to age the same and he must win the battle.”

    Among the 99 names of Allah are the ones that describe his power and strength. Allah is As-Salaam, the source of peace and safety; Al-Muhaymin, the Guardian and Protector; Al-Aziz, the Almighty, the defeater who is not defeated; and Al-Fattah, the Victory Giver. All these appear to deny the truth of the position of those who would take it upon themselves to defend God against blasphemers. What else then could be going on?

    It appears to me that what is going on is that we make the deity and the prophets in our own image, and that is the macho man image. Even when we acknowledge that God can defend himself, and when we understand that vengeance is his, we cannot let go and let God because we feel insulted when our God is insulted. It is akin to the story of the dutiful son who feels insulted by an assault on his papa.

    Even when his old man contends that he can take care of himself or has decided to brush aside the insult, the son makes himself the victim. The personalisation of perceived harm to the deity and the prophets goes to the heart of the turmoil of our contemporary experience. Unfortunately, knowing that it has no basis in spirituality or religiosity and that it is purely self-serving will not make it go away.

    The second offending premise is the one that describes the means and the instrument of defending the deity. “Defending my God requires inflicting harm on the abuser.” If you wonder why this proposition is assumed, the answer is that it is the only way to make sense of the violence that has become an integral part of any protest against what deity defenders and prophet protectors consider an abuse of their God.

    It is difficult to see how defending a God or prophet must warrant harming people, including innocent ones who are not responsible for the insult in the first place. After all, the deities and prophets are acknowledged as peace, loving. It cannot be otherwise.

    If they are creators of human beings and are intent on promoting the good of their creatures, they have to endorse peace and prohibit violence and harm. It follows then that whoever claims to defend a deity by inflicting harm on the creatures of the deity are engaged in a fundamental confusion of the mind. And only the deity can cure such confusion.