The Nation Newspaper

Category: Emeka Omeihe

  • Season of oil well disputes

    It will not be out of place to posit that the country is currently entangled in fierce disputes for rights to oil wells among its constituents. From Cross River to Akwa Ibom, Rivers to Bayelsa and Anambra to Kogi, the story is the same. Not unexpectedly, these have pitched the disputant communities against themselves with fears that the smouldering controversy may lead to the break down of law and order. Though the dust of the 76 oil wells which Cross Rivers state was made to cede to its sister state of Akwa Ibom is yet to fully settle, the federal government has in its hands two new serious agitations to grapple with. The first is that between Rivers and Bayelsa states over alleged attempts to annex ancestral lands, communities and oil facilities located in Kalabari land in Rivers to Bayelsa state.

    The matter came to a head last week when elders and chiefs under the aegis of the Kalabari National Forum staged protests in Abuja and Port Harcourt to underscore their seriousness on the issue. President Goodluck Jonathan was fingered as the brain behind the attempt to forcefully cede five Rivers oil communities to Bayelsa.

    As should be expected, the presidency has denied the allegation accusing its sponsors of nursing a hidden agenda of instigating conflict between the Ijaw people of Nembe and Kalabari in Rivers and Bayelsa states.

    Equally, the dispute between Anambra and Kogi states also hinges on the right to oil fields in the just commissioned Orient Oil Refinery built by the Anambra State government. Kogi and Enugu states had soon after the declaration of Anambra as the 10th oil producing state made claims to oil wells servicing the refinery. But the dispute has largely narrowed down to Anambra and Kogi states.

    In its reaction, Bayelsa state government came out very strongly laying claims to the oil wells.

    While denying the allegation of any attempt to forcefully annex any territory or people into Bayelsa State, it claimed that the 11th edition of the administrative map of Nigeria published in 2000 placed the said communities within the territorial boundaries of state. According to them, “it is very common in the Niger Delta given the manner states were created for communities or clans to be in one state while part of their ancestral land is in another. The family, clan or community does not cease to be traditional owners of such lands, while the state in which the land forms a part exercise administrative control over such land and therefore entitled to derivation”.

    But the Rivers state government has countered querying the intention of the Bayelsa State government in singling out the 11th edition of that map while remaining curiously silent on the 1st to the 10th. It accused Bayelsa of concealing vital information in the case as the oil wells had been part and parcel of Rivers state. According to governor Amaechi, even the federal government had admitted in court that the 11th edition being bandied by the Bayelsa State government was an error which is evident from the first to the 10th editions. They said it was wrong to have released monies to Bayelsa State instead of paying them into an escrow account pending the resolution of the boundary dispute as directed by the Supreme Court.

    In its own case, Kogi State Governor Idris Wada claimed that the oil wells servicing Orient refinery are located in his state. For that, he said Kogi is major stakeholder in the refinery. But Governor Peter Obi of Anambra disputes this arguing that the land and the wells are within the territorial boundaries of his state. He gave a history of the refinery and the huge investments made on it with the monies of the Anambra people and wondered why the claimants waited for the refinery to come on stream before coming up.

    The simmering crises between these states have once again drawn attention to some salient issues that are central to the peace, progress and development of this country. First, they have exposed the inherent weaknesses in our sole reliance on oil as the only source of revenue. Because of this mono-cultural economy and the advantages that accrue to oil bearing states, people are prepared to go to any length to lay claim to lands suspected to have oil deposits. Secondly, they also brought to the fore, the inherent flaws in the way states were created in this country by the military. That is why the Kalabari people have their communities and ancestral lands in Bayelsa even when they are in Rivers State.

    It meant that such crucial variables as contiguity, cultural affinity and the need to respect the culture and living patterns of a people were not given due consideration. The right thing would have been for the Kalabari people together with their communities, lands and villages to form part and parcel of Rivers State where they rightly belong. Had it been so, the current fierce dispute between the two states would have not arisen in the first instance. There is definitely something anomalous in having a people belong to one state while their villages and lands are in another.

    There is also every thing wrong in allowing such an untidy situation linger for several years after Bayelsa State had been created. What this implies is that the exercise separated the Kalabaris’ from the relics of their identity as a people. Instead of properly delineating boundaries such that they coincide with that of the state in which they form part of, they are split between two states. Its result is now the situation in which they are denied the benefits of what nature has bountifully placed at their back yard. It is inconceivable how the derivation money paid to Bayelsa will be used for the benefit of the Kalabari people who own the land but live in Rivers.

    Had there been proper delineation of boundaries, the current recrimination between the two states would not have arisen.

    This point can be gleaned from the contention of the Bayelsa State government that by the manner states were created, communities that found themselves in some states had ancestral lands, communities and villages in another. This is anomalous and at the root of the current disputations. It is also a huge puzzle that relevant federal agencies are relying on the so-called 11th edition of the map without reference to the 1st to 10th editions. The interpretation is that by being silent over the position of these editions, they have something to hide. It will be very interesting to know the position of these editions; at what point the map changed and the reasons for it, more so as the President has been fingered in the current imbroglio.

    In all therefore, Jonathan has a serious burden to discharge given the consistent accusing fingers being pointed at him by the Rivers people. It is not enough to say that the statutory bodies handling the matter are independent. The Rivers people have been unequivocal in their claim that those bodies are under undue pressure from the presidency. And this should not be a surprise given the way things are handled in this country. Nobody will be surprised that politics may take the centre stage in resolving these issues. But nothing should be done to scuttle the visionary initiative and huge investments of the Anambra people in Orient Refinery, the ambitions of later day claimants notwithstanding.

  • Achebe’s horde of attackers

    Achebe’s horde of attackers

    Those hurling invectives at Prof. Chinua Achebe for aspects of his latest book which in part, held late elder statesman, Chief Obafemi Awolowo responsible for economic blockade of the civil war era and its debilitating effects on the Biafran side should sheathe their swords. This is because much of those criticisms have been propelled by banal sentiments rather than an objective appraisal of the facts of the matter.

    Achebe had in his 335-page book, ‘There was a country’ said when Biafra did not capitulate despite the evil machinations against it, the Nigerian government resorted to starving the people through blockade of food supplies, a plan which he said was hatched by the top echelon of the Nigerian government, especially Awolowo. He said that by the beginning of dry season in 1968, Biafran soldiers and civilians were starving. Bodies lay rotting under hot sun by the road side and the flapping wings of scavengers could be seen circling, waiting patiently nearby. The policy which seemed to say “starve them into submission’ left upwards of 50,000 people, mostly children dying of starvation every month, he further wrote.

    Since the book became public knowledge, several loyalists and supporters of the late sage have taken up arms against Achebe such that the erroneous impression is being conveyed that the book is all about Awolowo’s role in the economic blockade of the civil war era.

    For Femi Fani-Kayode, Achebe was indulging in historical revisionism and ethnic chauvinism for saying that Awolowo played a key role in inventing that policy. He would also want an apology for the Awolowo family and the Yoruba people. Yet, the same Fani-Kayode admitted that Awolowo publicly defended the policy and told the world that it was perfectly legitimate in war time. The same Fani-Kayode went further to support the policy by citing the blockade imposed on Germany, Japan and Italy by Allied Forces during the Second World War.

    One is at a loss therefore to fathom the basis for his anger except perhaps, he does not want Awolowo to share in the blame for the intended outcome of that policy- death of millions of Biafran children and soldiers. Nothing can be more dishonest than this line of argument.

    Even then, the issues raised by Achebe are not entirely new as they were strenuously canvassed while Awolowo was alive and he had ample time to address them. That the issue resonated decades after that war from such a highly informed personage, illustrates vividly the feelings of those who bore the brunt of that policy. Perhaps, if those calling for Achebe’s head had taken time to study some of Awolowo’s comments on the matter, their current diatribe would have been absolutely unnecessary.

    The transcript of a town hall meeting held in Abeokuta by Awolowo during the campaigns for the 1983 elections on his role in the 30-month civil war, (The Nation October 12,) spoke volumes on the vexed issue. He said among others “the ending of the war itself that I’m accused of, accused of starving the Igbo, I did nothing of the sort”. But he went on to say that when he visited Calabar, Enugu and Port Harcourt after their liberation, he was shocked at the terrible sight of kwashiorkor victims and when he enquired, he found out that the food they were sending were being hijacked by soldiers and was not getting to the civilians. And “I said that was a dangerous policy we didn’t intend the food for the soldiers. So I decided to stop sending the food there. In the process, the civilians would suffer, but the soldiers suffered most” He also spoke on how he almost unilaterally changed the Nigerian currency only letting Gowon know of it a day before the change even as he expressed delight that it was the policy of starvation and currency change that Ojukwu admitted defeated him.

    There are salient issues that have been brought to the fore by aspects of the transcript as they relate to the thesis of Achebe’s presentation. First, they corroborate very unambiguously, our earlier assertion that the matter is not new as Awolowo was confronted with them while he lived. Secondly, he did not deny he was privy to that policy. And as can be gleaned from the above, he admitted to have stopped sending food there after his visit so that by starving the soldiers they could easily be defeated. And it came to pass as he recounted Ojukwu admitted. He also admitted that civilians would also suffer for that action ostensibly directed at soldiers. It is also very instructive to note his emphasis on the first person. By that emphasis, he left no body in doubt that he wielded and exercised enormous powers on those policies. So what is there in Achebe’s presentation that is substantially different from what Awolowo said on the issue? Nothing except nobody wanted to take responsibility for the resultant deaths. And where is that blasphemy for which Achebe has to render apology not only to the Awolowo family but the entire Yoruba people?

    Awolowo was a national figure who played crucial roles in the evolution of the Nigerian state. Thus, his place in history will continue to attract considerable interest and reviews from researchers, students and commentators. We must therefore exorcise from our psyche that stale African mentality of not permitting of an objective appraisal of the policies and programs of dead compatriots. It would appear to me that much of the attacks are not only misguided but equally guilty of elevating sentiments over and above the substantive issues raised in the book.

    That could explain why Dr. Fredrick Fasheun had the comfort of mind to call Achebe a frustrated man. A frustrated man for chronicling what he considers Awolowo’s role in that war? We may as well need an apology from Fasheun on behalf of the Achebe family and the Igbo people for denigrating one of their best. Fasheun must have been speaking for himself when he claimed the Igbo no longer care about such lamentations as they are more concerned on how to be relevant in mainstream Nigerian politics. He is saying that the Igbo should forget their past and they can make real progress in this country without the benefit of their travails. That conclusion is patently puerile as it cannot fly in the face of current realities in the country- realities that have reinforced most poignantly the relevance of that past.

    And as Achebe wrote “It is for the sake of the future of Nigeria, for our children and grand children that I feel it is important to tell Nigeria’s story, Biafra story, our story, my story”. It is therefore a matter of immense regret that such a veritable work is being denigrated and viewed solely from the prism of how it purportedly recorded inadequately the roles played by Awolowo during that pogrom. If the truth must be told, the views expressed by Achebe represent the feelings of the average Igbo man on the matter. Those talking of revisionism, must first work hard to erase this feeling from the psyche of the Igbo people. And until they achieve this, they remain the ones to be accused of revisionism. Of course, Awolowo was not the head of state during that period. For that, there is a limit beyond which he cannot take responsibility for events of that war. But if copious explanations by Awolowo while he lived could not resolve the matter in his favour, it is a remote possibility that the antagonism of his army of supporters and sympathizers can pull any magic now.

  • Scourge of wrong values

    Scourge of wrong values

    Two recent events have once again brought to the fore all that is wrong with us as a people. And in them, we can reasonably find the causative factors for the recurring cycle of underdevelopment and poverty that have held this nation down over the years.

    First was the conferment of national honours on 149 Nigerians by President Goodluck Jonathan during which event he threatened to withdraw the honours conferred on those who have been convicted or are facing criminal charges. The second has to do with the decision taken by the Association of Vice-Chancellors of Nigerian Universities on guidelines for the award of honorary doctorate degrees to reduce indiscriminate awards and restore the ‘age-long university culture and best practices’.

    Secretary-General of the association, Prof. Michael Faborode said the awards were now based on wealth, political office and position as well as a means of generating revenue with little or no regard for integrity, contributions to the development of the university and the nation.

    What clearly stands out from these is our scant regard for time tested values- values that are cherished and preserved in other climes as a mark of their national pride. The objective is to promote excellence and high attainment in all fields of human endeavour through the unleashing of the creative energies of the people for national development. By rewarding honour, virtue, patriotism and excellence, a statement is being made that only through such values can true greatness of the individual and the nation be attained. But the facts of our own situation seem to be negating these ennobling and high-minded objectives. Little wonder we have failed to make any significant progress in the development matrix.

    Not long ago, the National Universities Commission (NUC) had decried the flouting of university tradition on the appointment of professors. The commission was piqued that the tradition requiring peer review and assessment of such appointees by at least three professors from both within and outside the country in addition to having a ‘Professorial Chair’ were being observed in their breach. It also noted that some people were parading themselves as professors without any evidence of affiliation to any recognized university or academic discipline in which such scholarly contributions were made. The award of professorships by parastatals, research institutes and allied establishments that have neither a senate nor affiliation to any recognized university was another issue that gave the commission serious worries.

    In an article titled ‘NUC’s fake professors’, I had drawn copious attention to how these dysfunctions not only degrade our university system but the entire Nigerian society. We had also decried the high appetite of our people for sundry awards, recognitions, honours and titles without committing themselves to the necessary rigors and sacrifice that go with such elevated attainments. Our summation was that all these ruinous dispositions and high regard for vain glory signpost both the necessary and sufficient condition for colossal failure either as a people or nation.

    Perhaps, the intervention of the Vice- Chancellors may have been part of the steps to address the observations of the NUC. That could as well be. But what all these go to buttress is that something has definitely gone awry with our values system. Much is also wrong with the way and manner we currently nominate and confer national honours on people. If our national honours were conferred on people who soon turned out as convicts or suspects standing trial before our courts, then we have with us all signs of a demented society.

    It is a key evidence of the shoddiness that has over the years gone in the nomination and subsequent award of national honours to sundry characters using warped and questionable criteria. And this should not be a surprise to any one. Over the years, very well meaning Nigerians have voiced out against the conferment of honours on people solely on account of the political office they happened to occupy at the time. Merit, integrity, honour and contributions to the overall development of the country, are relegated to the back seat. It is not surprising that as soon as some of these characters leave office, they are apprehended to account for the criminal offences they committed in office. Is this not sufficient to cast a slur on the propriety and integrity of the award?

    Perhaps, were such people allowed to complete their terms before their nomination for such awards, the government may have been saved the embarrassment of having to confer its highest honours on rogue individuals that it will be forced to withdraw so soon after. Ironically, even as Jonathan is pontificating on his intention to ensure that holders of national honours are truly worthy representatives of our national values, honour and are patriotic, the last award has with it all the trappings of previous ones. Much of the recipients were people currently occupying political offices either through elective offices or by appointment.

    There is nothing to show that some of them will not go the way of those who were arraigned or convicted for one offence or the other soon after they left office. If Jonathan is serious in sanitizing the award process, he should have began by ensuring that current political office holders are disallowed from the process. Apart from saving the country the loss of face arising from conferring awards on questionable characters, we will also be ensuring that those in public offices do not use them to influence the award in their favour.

    Again, relying on ascendancy to elective positions as a veritable criterion for national honours in a clime that is still struggling to evolve a credible electoral process makes the matter more laughable.

    Nigeria is not lacking in individuals who have distinguished themselves in the mould Jonathan characterized. There are former governors and others who have occupied federal and state offices without blemish. Nobody has deemed it necessary to honour them. Yet serving governors, legislators and sundry political appointees have easily smiled home with such awards even with very curious credentials.

    It may be interesting to publish the criteria on which recipients were rated and the scores of each on that scale. The outcome will be very revealing. There is also something untidy in relying solely on the nominations of state governments for such a sensitive national exercise. In the brand of politics we play in this country, there are bound to be very qualified people who are deliberately excluded just to settle political points. There has to be a way to fish out those people on their own merit so as to enhance the overall credibility of the exercise.

    In all, our country is currently plagued by a scourge of wrong values. We must work hard to weed it of the debilitating malaise of denigrating time-tested values, awards and recognitions. Those who want to excel must be prepared to go through the mills of high attainment. That is the right path to national progress.

  • Paradox of unity at 52

    Paradox of unity at 52

    I was preparing another topic for this column when it dawned on me by chance that today will mark 52 years of Nigeria as a sovereign independent (nation) country. A couple of years past, such an event meant so many things to so many Nigerians. It was not only a period of reminiscences on our journey so far, but equally served as a platform for the renewal of hopes and aspirations on what the future holds for our collective as one country. It also served as a gauge for evaluating the progress if any, made in approximating those lofty promises our founding fathers hoped independence would usher in. It was no doubt, an event to look forward to especially given the enormous sacrifices our people have made to keep this country together through a 30- month civil war.

    That such symbolic event was about to pass by without attracting the usual attention and sentiments associated with it in years past, may mean one or two things.

    It could either be an indication of a gulf between these hopes and their fulfilment or that Nigerian unity has become an aberrant concept that bears no semblance with extant facts or both. Whichever one it is, the facts on the ground especially events of our recent past have shown that the concept of Nigerian unity is more than ever before being confronted by serious crisis of relevance. Mildly put, it is now facing the greatest challenge of relevance since independence in 1960.

    I had in an article on this date last year titled “In fear at 51” drawn copious attention to the palpable fears that had overtaken Nigerians regarding the prospects of the country surviving the stress of corporate preservation and survival. The fears raised then which are still very relevant today were that Nigeria was fast drifting apart and that unless something urgent was done to remedy the situation, we may inevitably be heading to the precipice. To support the prediction then was the dissonance from the various ethnic groups questioning the basis of our continued existence as a nation. In that regard, one had in mind the discordant tunes from the resurging ethnic militias and militants that were competing with the federal authority for the loyalty of the citizens. As that was not enough, we were also confronted by the Boko Haram surge that raised ethnic and religious cleavages to very dangerous dimensions. Apart from its threat to impose Islamic religion on the entire country, it matched it with action by hauling bombs in churches with a view to provoking a religious war. Through these bombings and selective killings, they also succeeded in making good their threat to force southerners out of the north. It was against the backdrop of such a foreboding scenario that the last independence was marked in the villa under great fear and trepidation. At 50, the celebration was heralded by bomb blasts that left shock and awe in its trail.

    Those who chose the Independence Day celebrations to levy violence on the nation knew what they were doing. They were making a remarkably poignant statement. And it is that they do not believe in whatever that date represents for us as a people. They seem to have been passing a vote of no confidence on our collective existence as a nation. For them, independence does not seem to mean much again. That is why they have to mock its anniversary by hauling bombs, injuring and killing those who dared to come out to celebrate. Their objective was to change the face of that day to that of sorrow and mourning as against celebrations it rightly should be. They seem to be drawing attention to the fact that Nigerian unity has inevitably become a serious liability to the constituent units. They seem to be saying that instead of our shared experiences and close association over the years erecting a common bond of unity among the disparate peoples, they have further drawn us apart.

    The issue has been so much so that today, questions are being raised regarding the prospects of Nigeria surviving as a country. Two former heads of state Obasanjo and Babangida captured this dilemma succinctly in a recent joint statement when they said “a deeply worrying trend that is emerging from this terrible situation is that a pervasive cynicism is beginning to set in, so much so that millions of true Nigerian patriots are starting to question the platform upon which the unity of the country rests”.

    They also admitted that a regime of fear and frustrations currently pervade the nation even as the hope to build a united and peaceful nation where all will find accommodation is increasingly eroding. Babangida and Obasanjo recommended dialogue with the belligerent groups and what they called “grassroots engagement” as a way out.

    The systemic dysfunctions the duo made references to are not entirely new. Perhaps, the only new thing in their intervention is the quarters it is emanating from. Before now, some people and sections of the country had given the impression that it is their bounden responsibility to wield the nation together irrespective of the cost of that on other constituents. For these people and the likes of Obasanjo and Babangida, Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable as everything even the most ignoble must be done to achieve that objective. Genuine feelings of the people requiring attention so that the task of national unity can progress unhindered were treated with utter disdain. The erroneous impression was given that national unity is an end rather than a means to general good, resulting in the scoffing at genuine feelings of discomfort, alienation and marginalization. The feeling we got then was that all was well with us as a nation. National integration was not given the desired attention even as it holds the prospects for our survival as a corporate entity. It is one thing to recognize the desideratum of our continued unity and entirely a different kettle of fish to make the necessary sacrifices and cooperative accommodation that guarantee the success and survival of such a construct. Yes, the unity of the country is paramount. But unity per se is a means to an end and not an end onto itself. It is a means to the approximation of the collective good of the constituents. It is only relevant as long as it serves this common goal. The systemic stress the country is currently passing through is largely on account of years of neglect of those irreducible minimum that make for unity in diversity.

    We have over the years failed to reckon that as a federation, the constituents ought to march in an ambience of accommodation, trust, equality and mutual respect. The questions which the frustrations of Obasanjo and Babangida as past leaders have thrown up are: what is it that has happened that led millions of patriotic Nigerians to lose hope in the platform on which the unity of the country was erected? When and at what point did these manifestations become visible to the point that they had to cry out? And what is to be done to renew and reinforce the confidence of these millions of patriots and non patriots in the unity of the country? These are the real issues to contend with as the country turns 52. And unless we admit and find realistic answers to them, the task of building a united nation may turn out a mirage.

    At the root of it all, is the defective federal structure- a structure that has placed sections into undue disadvantage as the disproportionate resources at the disposal of the centre is appropriated and apportioned by those who have been opportune to capture state power. It is not surprising that as soon as power left that segment of the country, the so called millions of patriots began to question the basis for the unity of the country. What manner of patriots are these people really? And why is it only now they are coming to terms with the imperfections of our federal order? These are the real issues. We must therefore restructure this country such that no section is any longer in a position to lord it over others, dispensing state patronage and punishment at its whims and caprices. Only then, will the real patriots that will push further the frontiers of our national unity emerge.