The Nation Newspaper

Category: Monday

  • ‘You must find your own way’

    Five years after culture phenomenon Susanne Wenger passed away on January 12, 2009, at age 93, her life remains an intriguing signpost. Although she was Austrian by nativity, she ended up living among the Yoruba in Nigeria for almost 60 years before her death. This was unforeseen when she arrived in the country in 1950 with her then husband Ulli Beier, a German. “She came, she saw, and was conquered,” Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka said of her eventual enchantment in a posthumous tribute. Interestingly, it was Osogbo, land of the mystic River Osun, now in Osun State, that provided the milieu for what Wenger described as her “total immersion.”

    She was an engaging personality well known for her remarkable devotion to Yoruba indigenous gods and goddesses, which earned her the Yoruba moniker Adunni Olorisa as a mark of her acceptance in the traditional society. An olorisa is a devotee of the ancient Yoruba pantheon. According to a fascinating anecdote by European photojournalist Gert Chesi, a co-writer of her 1983 autobiographical work, A life with the gods in their Yoruba homeland: “At a congress of the European Forum at Alpbach, Austria, took place a meeting between ‘Black Africa and Western Europe’. Susanne Wenger was attacked and nearly prevented from reading her paper, by black missionaries and Church dignitaries from all over Africa, although the view of a Belgian Catholic Bishop ultimately prevailed that she be allowed to speak. Those who denied her credibility – since she is European – did not think to question themselves as African Christians.”

    She was also famous for her innovative New Sacred Art group and for her selfless dedication to the preservation of the sacred Osun Osogbo Grove, listed as a World Heritage Site by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) shortly after her 90th birthday in 2005- this was an interesting coincidence and the icing on the cake for Wenger. Long before it became correct to be environment-friendly, Wenger had championed a crusade for the conservation of nature in the Osun Grove, albeit based on a religious premise and her conviction that it was the abode of the gods. Inspired by her philosophy that “Art is ritual”, she created a stunning range of majestic “architectural sculptures” in the grove as symbols of reverence, working with talented locals whom she inspired to discover their artistic gift. Her professional training as a sculptor in Austria equipped her for the experience of using art to glorify nature.

    Remarkably, her most ambitious “sculpture as abode for the living gods”, the Odu Sculpture Complex, was uncompleted before her death, even after many years of work. This is perhaps understandable, considering the fact that it was conceived as an open-ended sculpture representing the multitude of gods or orisa that make up the Yoruba pantheon.

    It is to her credit that after her long-drawn-out battle with various interest groups that failed to see the need to guard the grove, the political authorities in Nigeria eventually saw her point and stepped in to protect it, and then, UNESCO followed. The Osun Osogbo Grove is the site of Nigeria’s star tourist attraction, the Osun Osogbo Festival, celebrated in honour of a river goddess and possibly the country’s pre-eminent indigenous religious festival, which draws yearly a high number of visitors from within Nigeria as well as from the wider Yoruba Diaspora and beyond.

    Notably, Yoruba religion, in which Wenger also played the mystical role of priestess, has achieved global recognition, particularly with the UNESCO 2005 listing of the Ifa Divination system as a “Masterpiece of the Oral and Intangible Heritage of Humanity.” Ifa is the oracular mouthpiece of the religion.

    The 2013 10th Orisa World Congress held at the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU) in Ile-Ife, Osun State, was an eye-opener with the variegated gathering that included participants from the United States of America (USA), Brazil, Cuba, Venezuela, and Mexico, which demonstrated the appeal of the religion beyond its local provenance. An all-male family of four from Cuba, a Chinese couple who live in Venezuela and a densely bearded white American were among the alluring sights.

    Wenger’s story would be incomplete without Lasisi Alarape, the Yoruba traditional master drummer who swept her off her feet. That was sensational! It was class suicide of sorts, particularly in those days. Not only did she, a European immigrant, submit to this local man who, by her own account, “could not speak or understand a word of English language”; she also readily accepted his polygamous reality. However, the astounding wedlock following Wenger’s split with Beier turned out to be short-lived and ended on a sour note.

    One publicised incident involving Wenger and her art certainly provided food for thought. In a drama of colliding perspectives, she ironically faced a high-profile trial over her interpretation of the nature of a particular traditional deity and her consequent artistic representation of the same. This came up, interestingly, despite the apparent depth of her connection with the local culture and, therefore, brought to the fore divergences that mirrored her delicate situation as both “insider” and “outsider”. This occurrence, perhaps like no other, revealed the creative tension she probably had to live with, in the context of putting her art at the service of traditional gods. Also, the intensity of the opposition she faced on this occasion spoke volumes about the changing situation of traditional society.

    Imagine my shock when she told me, during an interview in her twilight, that the Susanne Wenger Foundation, Krems, Austria, had already “collected all what they can get hold of, what I did and what is said about me.” She said: “I have agreed with Krems. They have better reasons to be interested than our people here. Our people here have nothing against me, but they have no reason why they should back what I do, what I say.”

    Tragically, then, it seems that, in the end, her movable body of work and her essence were better appreciated by foreigners than the local people whose culture and tradition largely informed her creative vitality, and who provided the ambience for her spiritual expression. Her story reflects the reality of a global village of multiple faiths, a few of which have generally come to be accepted as the dominant religions of the time; it also shows the challenges of devotion to indigenous faith in a world of internationalised religions.

    In a fundamental sense, Wenger’s involvement in traditional Yoruba spiritual life had an evangelistic value, although she ironically rejected any suggestion of proselytisation. She was, fascinatingly, accommodating of all paths that led to divinity. Contemplate this statement by her: “There are innumerable ways to get spiritually involved. But you must find your own way.”

     

  • False alarm

    False alarm

    Many who view President Goodluck Jonathan as a meek and gentle soul will find it hard to reconcile that image with the news of his hectoring phone conversation with Lamido Sanusi, the governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria.

    The President was angry, but meek souls are permitted to fly even into rage. The President betrayed impatience, and meek souls have the occasional free rein to fly off their hinges. The President did not understand the law, and meek souls sometimes are forgiven their lack of familiarity with the law, even though it is no excuse.

    If meek souls are permitted to infringe on all of these rules, can we allow a president of a republic that kind of latitude and attitude? That was the question I could not live with or live down as I contemplated the story, first carried by Thisday, about the exchange between the President and the boss of the nation’s financial holy of holies.

    President Jonathan has a lot in his hands these days. When Rivers State is not stewing impetuously in his pot, he is at war with his party governors who want the head of the head of PDP. And if that is not enough, he is wrestling with the forces of conscience, who want him to fire his aviation dame, or basking or writhing from the after-waves of his letter slugfest with his former mentor Obasanjo. Some may excuse the President some irritability, except that he exercised that emotion without much charity.

    How could a President ask a CBN boss to quit without first checking if the law gave him the right? We know the enormous powers of a president in a presidential system. Even then, it has its checks. Philosophers have shown that history has never thrown up an absolute monarch or dictator, from Caligula to Franco. Despots don’t hang in the air. They depend on certain individuals or stakeholders. The presidential system bows to the constitution. Did the President just wake up one morning and flew into a rage about the CBN boss and decided to fire him?

    Presidents do not act that way. I like to think the President did not just jump into such an impulse. So, he must have deliberated over the matter with his advisers. He must have discussed with his coordinating minister, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. With all her pedigree about the interaction between finance and political authority, she could not have advised the President to do so. If she did, she was diabolical. His secretary to the government Anyim Pius Anyim was a senate helmsman, and he too knows that the law does not allow for such presidential arbitrariness. His attorney general Adoke is also knowledgeable in the matter and I expect that he gave no such advice.

    Could it then be Gulak? I don’t know. If the president acted on the advice of these aides, then we must expect that they told him the proper thing. So, did the President know the truth and ignored advice and plunged precipitously into that phone conversation? It is either that the President was ill-advised in the sense that he did not seek advice or he was misadvised in the sense that his advisers gave him the wrong counsel. Either way, the President is to blame because, at his level, any advice he accepts becomes his wisdom or otherwise. He made that conversation and not any other person in government, and what a conversation it was.

    Many might fantasize about the details of the exchange. What was the decibel of the president’s voice and the counter-decibel of the CBN boss’? What diction did they command, irate, gentlemanly, glum, aplomb? Did they interrupt each other? Did they spit out invectives involuntarily or deliberately? Did it cruise on perfidious calm? How did the conversation end? With a warning, threat or counter-threat?

    How did the President feel later when he learned he acted beyond his powers when Sanusi told him he required two-third of the senate to oust him?

    One is baffled at the quickness with which he decided to oust the CBN boss when he shillyshallied like a wishy-washy over other matters like the still smouldering matter over his aviation minister Stella Oduah who has also not responded to charges of certificate fraud. That matter has been on his table for several weeks, and he could not fire her. He does not need any senate or house input to fire his ministers but he wants to do same to CBN boss who is not under his control any longer. With Sanusi, does the reader not see the hint of the pharaoh that he forswore in the house of the Lord some time ago?

    The issue at contention is the leaked letter Sanusi wrote him over $48.9 billion of crude oil sales he alleged was unaccounted for. Sanusi’s letter was a false alarm. He gave a mea culpa for that misleading missive.

    It was a scandal that a CBN chief did not do his homework before writing such a letter, and it makes one wonder what other miscues happen on his watch. He admitted it was an error and, short of resigning, he apologised. We are compelled to accept his contrition since the senate would not fire him and he would not resign. The job of the vicar of our financial sanctuary should not be subjected to such calculations of errors or errors of calculations. He has a few months at the helm and he should sin no more. But he did the right thing to stand up to the President.

    Nonetheless, he noted that $12 billion has not been accounted for, but Okonjo-Iweala said it was $10.8 billion. They made it look like it was only $10.8 billion. Newspapers have become addicted to writing in dollars rather than Naira, and sometimes the real sense of the amount is lost on the people. The sum of $10.8 billion is about N2 trillion. That amount of money could have funded the allocation nightmares of last year when the nation could not pay the states their due money.

    Yet the NNPC says the money went to operational matters. The group managing director, Andrew Yakubu, said most of the money went to subsidy. That is $8.49 billion, and the balance to pipeline repairs and maintenance, crude oil losses and holding the strategic reserve. Is this not a scandal? I thought we were through with such disbursements on subsidy. The scandal is also that the NNPC has such discretion with our oil funds and can decide on its own how much to spend on what without checks.

    No one saw the President’s alarm over that outrage. Yet, he has not relieved Oduah of her job over the car scandal, and was mute over the N2 billion oil minister Diezani Alison-Madueke spent on travels. The President clearly has a good reason to be angry over the leaked letter. However, he received the letter in September but did nothing in spite of its weighty allegations until December when he learnt it leaked.

    What other grave matters are on the president’s table that we know little about? That is the real challenge of President Jonathan’s encounter with Lamido Sanusi, the most colourful eccentric to head the CBN.

    The President should know our laws and Sanusi our figures. Neither did either. Sanusi reacted with penitence and Jonathan with impunity.

  • Baby, don’t cry

    Does being the first to be born on New Year’s Day have any post-event value? Should it? Shouldn’t it? The customary publicity that attends the earliest births in a year suggests uniqueness worthy of celebration; but, interestingly, the social euphoria dies first. After historic minutes in the spotlight, the newsmaker becomes history.

    So the public may never again hear of those whose entrance provided titillation as a new year succeeded the old. The New Year’s Day 2014 babies across the country are unlikely to be comprehensively captured in the news, but even for those who enjoyed media focus, it would likely be a fleeting happening.

    It is noteworthy that the scale of significance attached to the arrivals unfailingly draws the high-profile symbols of power and influence, specifically, the wives of top-level political leaders who perform the ceremony of glory perhaps on account of their own maternal status. So in the federal capital, Abuja, First Lady Patience Jonathan represented by the Director- General, National Council for Women Development, Ms Onyeka Onwenu, welcomed the first baby of the year, a boy born to Mr. and Mrs. Zubairu at 12.45 a.m. by Caesarean section, weighing 3.5kg at birth. The buzz at the Gwarimpa General Hospital, Abuja, was understandable as Baby Zubairu was joined by seven other boys and three girls born on January 1. “Babies are special gifts from God. I wish them God’s blessings, peace and tranquility. The children will grow in peace and will be great because children are special gifts from God,” said a philosophical Onwenu.

    It was twofold joy as the wife of Lagos State Governor, Dame Abimbola Fashola, congratulated Mr. and Mrs. Adediji whose twins were the babies of the year in the state. The twin girls arrived by a Caesarean at Lagos Island Maternity Hospital, and their 37-year-old mother, Folashade , expressed gratitude to God for “His wonderful gifts.”

    In Anambra State where 200 babies were reportedly born on January 1 at both private and public hospitals in the three senatorial zones, the wife of the governor, Mrs. Margaret Obi, was said to have visited 15 of them at different public hospitals and gave gifts and cash to the lucky parents.

    In a striking sense, it would appear that these celebrated births redefine William Shakespeare’s famous quote on greatness. The illustrious English playwright wrote in Twelfth Night, “Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.” However, in the case of New Year’s Day babies, the Shakespearean categories evidently collapse, for the infants apparently are born great, achieve greatness and have greatness thrust upon them all at once by virtue of their arrival time, even if transiently.

    This pronounced ephemerality of grandeur is certainly food for thought. Who, for instance, remembers last year’s first babies, or those of yesteryear? Who remembers the millennium’s first babies? Beyond the tokenism of the moment, the reality is that little or nothing follows from the very figures who bask in the reflected glory of the babies’ birth, which leaves a sour taste in the mouth.

    As a public relations idea and exercise, for instance, what about a First Baby Birthday organised by the central and state governments yearly to fete these symbols of history? What is more, how pleasing it would be to have not only state agencies but also corporate entities take on the education or health care issues of this magical circle! It is enlightening that Baby Zubairu’s mother, Fatima, while responding to the government’s representative, said, “I am happy and grateful for this visit and by Allah’s grace, we shall give the child the best education we can afford and may God reward the First Lady for this kind gesture.”

    It goes without saying that for a good number of the parents of these first babies, especially those born in public hospitals, raising them could be made easier by humanitarian intervention. When one considers the mind-boggling figures that are linked with official corruption across the country, it is tragic that the powerful hardly spare a thought for the New Year babies beyond the ritual of hospital visits and superficial donations.

    This is not necessarily an argument for entitlement. Rather, it simply suggests a creative approach to people-oriented governance, which would also benefit the image of the leaders. It cannot be enough to associate with these babies only at birth, if society considers the circumstances of their birth sufficiently special to merit exceptional celebration. Their survival as well as their progress should be of interest to society, beyond the thrill of the day.

    Perhaps it is pertinent to point out that Nigeria is ranked 2nd among the top 10 countries with the most first-day of life deaths, according to a 2013 State of the World’s Mothers Report. At least 89,700 (9 per cent) babies die on their first day of life every year in Nigeria, the report indicated. Entitled “Surviving the First Day”, it is the 14th in a series on the theme “Save the Children”, and compared first-day death rates for 186 countries. It found that in most countries, children are at greatest risk on the day they are born.

    In addition, Nigeria was 169th on the Mothers’ Index out of the 186 countries assessed in critical areas such as mother’s health, education and economic status, as well as key child indicators of health and nutrition. At the presentation of the report in Lagos last year, Country Manager, Save the Children International, Susan Grant, stressed the importance of helping babies survive not only the first day but also the first week and first month of life toward achieving the Millennium Development goal of reducing child mortality by two thirds by 2015. She expressed concern that the report identified Nigeria as one of the countries with the highest numbers of maternal and newborn deaths, stating that each year 40,000 women die during pregnancy and childbirth, and over two million babies die in their first month of life.

    This depressing backdrop corroborates the thought that New Year’s Day babies deserve more than the cursory attention that comes with the glare of publicity. It is a romantic picture, no doubt, but that is the beauty of the human imagination, the possibility of beautifying not only humanity but also the world both materially and spiritually.

    The truth is that there will always be babies born on New Year’s Day, right from the beginning to the end, and they will continue to trigger superlative excitement, especially those who arrive first. There must be more concrete ways of promoting their special status, which would enhance the concept of man as an advanced creature.

  • Now, the Ijaw dimension

    Edwin Clark’s letter to Obasanjo following the latter’s derisive remarks on the Ijaw in his open letter to President Jonathan, again brings to the fore some of the paradoxical issues of our national existence. Expectedly, opinions have differed on the propriety of Clark’s letter especially at a time the tension generated by the altercation seems to be waning.

    Some people queried the locus of Clark as Obasanjo’s letter was explicitly addressed to Jonathan. In this school belongs a northern politician, Dr. Junaid Mohammed who contended that Clark has no locus standi in the matter. He would rather see Clark’s letter as part of the harm the Ijaw people are doing to the nation by appropriating Jonathan.

    But many others are of the view that Clark is within his rights to have taken up Obasanjo having worked closely with him. They contend that his intervention could avail the nation vital information to aid understanding of the motive behind Obasanjo’s contentious letter.

    To this school, Obasanjo also passed incendiary comments on the Ijaw nation. So any Ijaw man or woman is within his or her rights to respond to the unmitigated insults heaped on their ethnic nationality. In this school, we have such personalities as Chukwuemeka Ezeife, Tanko Yakassai and Olu Falae among others.

    What these eminent Nigerians are saying is that there are sufficient grounds in Obasanjo’s open letter to provoke Clark or any other Nigerian to join issues with him. This writer shares this view. Even then, Clark had in the initial paragraphs of his letter set out very clearly sections of Obasanjo’s letter that he considered offensive to his ethnic nationality. He said he was moved to write to refute some of the issues highlighted in Obasanjo’s letter especially about the Ijaw nation. He made references to what he called Obasanjo’s ‘characteristic hatred and use of sarcastic remarks about the Ijaw’.

    Citing aspects of Obasanjo’s letter which stated “For you to allow yourself to be possessed so to say to the exclusion of the rest of most of other Nigerians as an Ijaw man is a mistake that should never have been allowed to happen’, Clark had established sufficient grounds for his intervention.

    It is therefore very curious why the likes of Mohammed are still querying the propriety of Clark to respond to the insulting allegations against his ethnic group even as he remains the acclaimed national leader of that nationality. Even then, Clark has been on the national stage for quite sometime now and has worked very closely with Obasanjo. He has vital information on Obasanjo which he wanted to avail this nation so that we can better understand the character that Obasanjo is. And that much was evident in his letter. Anybody who fails to decipher the new insights he brought to the matter must be deceiving himself.

    That apart, he was able to fault Obasanjo’s claim that Jonathan has been appropriated by the Ijaw ethnic group. Displaying statistics of key appointees of the government alongside their ethnic origin, he succeeded in putting a lie to Obasanjo’s claims. The officers highlighted in his letter are those who by every consideration are seen as close confidants of the president. Figures shown negate the claim that the Ijaw have taken exclusive possession of the president. There is nothing of that sort. Rather, it was a statistic of the various ethnic groups playing various roles around the president.

    From whence therefore did Obasanjo arrive at his claim that Jonathan is being possessed by the Ijaw to the exclusion of the rest of other Nigerians? This is the question Obasanjo must answer otherwise he must hold himself accountable for fanning embers of ethnic discord unbefitting of the status he arrogates to himself.

    Obasanjo also made another very dangerous remark on the Ijaw which Clark failed to highlight in his letter. He had in the same letter said inter alia, Goodluck Jonathan by his acts of omission or commission may turn out the “first and last Nigerian President ever to come from the Ijaw tribe”. Nothing can be so disdainful of an ethnic group than this statement.

    That the Ijaw nation has not reacted to this overt insult on its people is indeed a very deplorable thing. Not with the obvious innuendoes and insults that are embedded in it. For one, the statement erroneously tends to hold the Ijaw nation responsible for whatever acts of omission or commission associated with the current regime of Jonathan. That is what Obasanjo wants to achieve ostensibly on behalf of Nigerians. But if one may ask, on whose behalf or authority is he making such a bogus claim? Nothing can be as incongruous and asinine as that unguarded conclusion. If stretched to its logical conclusion, it would amount to holding the Yoruba nation down for Obasanjo’s many failings as the president of this country including his self-serving third term gambit in a democratic dispensation. It would also amount to denying the Hausa/Fulani another chance at the presidency because of the years of the locust denoted by their leadership of the commanding heights of this country. Why such a suggestion should be the case for the Ijaw nation exposes some of the inherent contradictions in this unity in diversity.

    Or is it part of the strategy to get the Ijaw people to be enemies among themselves by denying their people their rights within the federation for fear of being accused of favouring them? That is what has been termed in some circles as reversed discrimination or inverted tribalism. And it only crops up when certain sections of the country are holding key national offices as is evident in the instant case.

    Clark made references to this when he contended that during the regimes of Obasanjo and Yar’Adua, the Yoruba and Hausa languages respectively were the lingua franca in the presidency and nobody saw anything wrong with it. He is worried why the Ijaw nation should be marked out for selective blackmail if this country really belongs to all of us. In this, he has a large following.

    And when it is recalled that much of the resources of this country are tapped from the backyard of that nationality, the issue of equity begins to beg for urgent attention.

    Obasanjo did incalculable harm to the psyche of the Ijaw nation through his pejorative references and the Ijaw should not be expected to swallow that line, hook and sinker. By the account of the Committee of Patriots led by Prof. Ben Nwabueze, there are over 380 ethnic nationalities in this country. If the presidency is to rotate along this line, Obasanjo will be playing God to determine for these groups whether to allow the Ijaw nation take another shot at the presidency in the near future. It is a matter that is certainly beyond him.

    Beyond this, we must get out of this worn out stereotypical classifications that cast some sections of this country as incapable of producing national leaders or their culture and language as inferior to some others. It will be the height of deceit to classify Obasanjo and Yar’Adua for instance, as national leaders but Jonathan or another Igbo man who aspires to be president as an Ijaw or Igbo ethnic chieftain. It is all part of the competitive strategy to hold others down. Sadly, Obasanjo has become its chief purveyor.

  • For love of Nigeria

    For love of Nigeria

    This year promises to be the worst in recent times. It also promises to be the best. I make this contention because the scroll of 2014 unfurls with awful foreboding. Only a few days in, we are learning that a hit list bubbles. The presidency denies it. Governor Amaechi, Buhari and Tinubu are names highlighted in the target list.

    Whether or not this is true, this year has not begun on a rosy high. Tension thrives on both sides of the political divide. The PDP and the APC are not acting as sportsmen but as antagonists on the verge of a war in which blood and guts are collaterals. What no one has addressed is whether it is Nigeria we want or our individual or group interests.

    In Rivers State, it seems we are witnessing the love of family over the love of country. The first lady has staked a proprietary attitude to the state, undermining the governor. The police commissioner has also defied the state chief labourer as well as the inspector general of police. It does not seem the national security adviser has a latch on him. The reason is that the first lady has her thumb on police commissioner Mbu. The president has not restrained his wife. The question is not whether family is more important than country. It is whether the president can distinguish between what he owes his wife and his country.

    Still on family, why are Nyako and Tukur playing the game of sons in Adamawa? Each of them, one a sitting governor and the other a former excellency, wants their son to be the governor next time. Have they turned their state into private patrimony, such that no one can be governor unless his blood curdles with the colour of the father’s name?

    We have seen the fealty to friends, too. Why would the president not discipline or fire aviation minister when all the evidence is before him over the car scandal? Why has the oil minister not received a query over spending N2 billion on travels? There are many questions to answer, including his choice of Tukur over his party faithful.

    We also saw this in the Anambra State governorship election where some partisans conflated loyalty to tribe with fairness. It was openly advanced that a particular candidate was a planting of outsiders, and therefore not worthy of being governor, even though Ngige is the best whoever shepherded the state. Loyalty to tribe is unavoidable, and even salutary, but where does loyalty to country dovetail with loyalty to tribe?

    Some elements in the Niger Delta have started to speak in apocalyptic terms about razing down this country if their candidate doesn’t win. Is it Nigeria we seek, or our tribe or family? Or political party? We heard the same temper of rhetoric in the buildup to and in the aftermath of the 2011 polls. The tendencies of ethnic and regional love upended any sense of nationalism, which some would see as the last refuge of the scoundrel.

    Those voices are not helping us in the search for a nation. We have to build a nation. Rather, we are building personal fiefdoms. We saw president and an ex-president writing letters and neither of them exhibited presidential dignity. Obasanjo wrote his to lionise himself and show up the incumbent. The incumbent replied with a façade of restraint while revving up past irrelevancies to show superior morality without answering questions about Oduahgate or the mess in the economy, and even failing to clear simple facts about an international transaction for Rivers State water project. Who loves the country, or who loves themselves?

    We also witnessed the formation of APC, which has brought together many strange bedfellows. People who have been seen as belonging to different tendencies in the past now cuddle under the same party umbrella. Politics has been described as the art of the possible. Foes cannot be permanent. But the question remains if some of the partisans are inspired by a need to rescue Nigeria or as a mere revanchist platform. Are some of them joining because they want Nigeria to have a two-party state, or are they driven by a sense of frustration from PDP, a sense that they did not get what they wanted on that platform? So, is their move to APC less out of love for Nigeria and more about greed for a new way to advance personal interests?

    Some have said the APC has big names and therefore collision is inevitable. It is the role of the APC chieftains to prove that this is no personal agenda but the zeal of a collective to entrench a higher political realm for the nation. Big names are good for politics. Lincoln, Churchill, de Gaulle, Mandela. Even families, especially if they are democratic in instincts. The Kennedys, the Bhuttos, the Ghandis have helped their nations advance democracy even better than some political parties and groupings. It is where royalty embraces republicanism, where democracy romanticises feudalism. APC’s big names can either advance this position or fluff it. The strange bedfellows can turn their beds into steamy romances or tragedies. But if the APC comes across eventually as a mere gang-up against Jonathan, then it will lose its patriotic promise.

    We need to see persons and groups who show love of country and not exploit it for family, tribe, friends and party. We have had this before in this country. During the years of democratic struggles, we saw this in those who fled the country and lived in uncertain circumstances abroad. Rewane, Kudirat and Moshood Abiola and many anonymous warriors became martyrs for this democracy. Those who did not die sacrificed a lot, and lived uncertainly abroad. Soyinka, Enahoro, Tinubu, etc.

    Those who think that criticism or even opposition to Jonathan is unpatriotic are as narrow-minded as those APC chieftains who come to that party merely to win elections. The Jonathan votaries forget how Mark Twain defines patriotism, “supporting the country all the time, and the government when it deserves it.”

    What we need is not the NADECO-style sacrifice, or the sort that Charles de Gaulle gave France when he would not yield to Nazi domination along with Petain and other Vichy France cowards. He flew to Britain ahead of plots to court-marshal him for treason. Treason for trying to free his country. Churchill growled that de Gaulle carried the honour of France with him on that small aircraft.

    We are not seeking sacrifice of family in the way Mengisto Haille Meriam reacted to threat to kill his family when in captivity. He said they should not only kill them but butcher them. That was his own version of love for Ethiopia. He became a butcher himself. Nor am I asking for the Greek version when Agamemnon sacrificed his daughter Iphigenia so the Greeks could get into Troy. A similar story is in the bible about Jephtah who had to sacrifice his daughter after a vow of battle. That is not what we ask of those choosing family over country.

    We should learn the Mandela example, who understood the prize and price of patriotism. If our leaders won’t sacrifice or lose their Winnie, we are not asking for that much. We only want a year of rules and civility, and any sacrifice for that won’t necessitate bloodshed. Jesus said, I would rather have mercy than sacrifice. I am not asking for either. I want us to follow the line saying, “to obey is better than sacrifice, to heed than a fat of rams.” With this mindset we can turn a macabre potential or year of cause celebre into a one joyful calendar. This way, we can turn worst to best.

  • Jonathan’s inevitable climax

    It was always certain that the definitive moment would arrive. What if, in an instant of rare clarity, President Goodluck Jonathan decided against pursuing a second term in office? Would such a possibly unexpected detour make the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) less unattractive to the electorate, or it simply would not matter? The challenge of correct candidacy as well as the issue of corporate image will, no doubt, be on the front burner for the already centrifugally transformed party, with the countdown to the country’s all-important general elections reportedly scheduled for January/February 2015 by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    For Jonathan, it is time to transparently let the public into his inner life, after prolonged hedging and evasiveness, as the extant political parties are, by regulation, expected to publicise lists of their candidates for political offices not later than 60 days before Election Day. With formal campaigns for offices in 2015 likely to begin in August/September, he cannot enjoy the comfort of keeping the people guessing or extending his game of calculated suspense for much longer, particularly given the threatening rival presence of the increasingly strengthened and potentially overpowering All Progressives Congress (APC).

    His moment of inevitability has come, and thankfully so for the polity; for there is no denying the fact that his apparent silence about his aspiration was never golden, but rather a source of torture in his party circle and beyond, spawning a chain of group crises that continues to lead downhill. So decisive will be Jonathan’s eventual signal of his political direction that it may either ameliorate or aggravate tension in the political space, particularly in the light of allegations that the subject of his possible continuity in office is at the bottom of the major security challenges facing the country, which have been attributed largely to a pull-him-down conspiracy by those opposed to his emergence in the first place and unenthusiastic about any extension of his glory days.

    Understandably, this is against the background of the PDP’s contentious review of its zoning formula which eventually resulted in the crowning of Jonathan for a full four-year term, rather than a northern candidate following the death of former president Umaru Yar’Adua two years into his presidency. Interestingly, and with gravely negative implications that continue to haunt not only the party but also the polity, Jonathan who as Vice-President stepped in and completed Yar’Adua’s term subsequently shunned arguments against contesting for the throne for his own first term. Notably, Jonathan has rejected any talk of his alleged prior agreement to a one-term presidency, insisting that he is constitutionally eligible for another term.

    It is interesting that Jonathan is perhaps subject to pressure equilibrium, with loyalists as fiercely combative as his antagonists, and the defining factors may well be his own personal disposition to power, which is suspiciously self-serving, and the depth of his love for the country, which is speculatively suspect.

    Without doubt, Jonathan must be fully conscious of the combat ahead, especially within his party, if he sticks to his guns about his legal right to presidential aspiration in 2015. His language in recent times suggests that he may be ready for battle, in spite of all odds. He has increasingly attributed his rise to divine agency and intervention, saying on one occasion at the Apostolic Faith Church, Jabi, Abuja,” But I assure you in this congregation and all Nigerians’ that by the will of God and your support, I am here today from nowhere. Any child of Nigeria can be where I am. I come from the smallest state in this country; even within the state, one of the smallest communities in Bayelsa State. Even within the community, I am from one of the smallest families. But I am here today (as President) by the grace of God.”

    In another related circumstance at the Catholic Church in Area 3, Abuja, Jonathan declared, “Despite our challenges, all what we continue to request from you is your continuous prayers because we believe…And luckily we are in a Christian congregation, we believe that no matter what an individual thinks he is, if God doesn’t want you to succeed in achieving anything, you will not. You will get so close to it but at the end of the day, you will not get it.”

    It will be a serious misreading if the fatalism expressed in these quotations is taken at face value, for Jonathan is definitely not sitting idly, waiting for the manifestation of the hand of God. Otherwise, he would not have been associated with conduct, by himself and on his behalf, which unapologetically demonstrate his interest in holding on to power.

    Certainly, it is too predictably cheap to speak about the mediation of God in human affairs, while he continually resorts to self-help, usually of the most reprehensible kind. One noteworthy example reflecting the fact that the first family is not necessarily guided by its sermonising is the developing crisis in Rivers State, the First Lady’s place of origin, which is about a clash of egos but, more fundamentally, about a sense of entitlement arising from a position of superior power as demonstrated by the naked abuse of federal might apparently in a bid to keep the state governor, Rotimi Amaechi, on a leash. Mrs. Patience Jonathan has been accused of displaying inordinate ambition by allegedly seeking to be the de facto governor of the state; and her husband cannot feign ignorance of her excesses. The still unfolding episode sufficiently illustrates the possibility that Jonathan and wife are operating with a deluding God-mentality that makes them believe they can have their way in Rivers State.

    Even with the PDP facing a transformational collapse following a marked exodus of its members to APC, Jonathan is unlikely to interpret the disaster in personal terms as a disincentive to running for office a second time. Tragically, he will probably fail to understand that the crumbling party could be a divine message about the mind of God concerning the second-term project. Nevertheless, it is at least reassuring that he appears to have a sense of limits imposed by the divine, even if it is just a modicum.

    This implies that he might be ready to concede defeat if he is floored, whether in his party, which seems improbable, given the influence of incumbency, or at the presidential poll, which could happen despite possible manipulation by the incumbent, given the unprecedented muscle of the opposition.

    As the country waits with bated breath for his climactic moment, specifically, his uncovering of an ambition that was never perfectly veiled, it would be interesting to see how he will go about it, and what reactions he will get, after living in denial for so long in spite of telling signs.

  • 2014: Issues miscellaneous

    The year 2014 is right here. It is a year that holds a lot for this country depending on the angle from which one looks at it. January 1, marked 100 years of the amalgamation of the northern and southern protectorates to form the country known today as Nigeria.

    This stands out the year in a very significant way. For a country that has come through very challenging moments, this ought to call for celebration. Expectedly, the leadership of the country has risen to the challenge. A lot of programs to underscore the significance of this historical event have been lined up. Part of the goal is to demonstrate in very clear terms the tortuous road this country has successfully passed through and rekindle hope that at the end of the tunnel, there will be light. This has become more compelling given contemporary events in this country.

    Coming on the heels of sharp divisions in the country, questions are being raised regarding the relevance of the celebration especially against the little efforts recorded in inculcating a common sense of belonging among the disparate peoples that were joined together by this historical union. Matters are not helped by the increasing slide to primordial and sectional predilections. At no other time than now have ethnic, religious and sectional tendencies been on very high ascendancy. This has led to questions as to whether the union will eventually rupture. With increasing slide towards centrifugalism, it is not surprising that doubts have been expressed on the overall value of the centenary celebrations.

    Some schools are of the opinion that the event is not worth celebrating because the ideals behind the unification are still far from being realized. To this school, that amalgamation has become more of a liability than a blessing.

    But there are some others who hold the view that substantial progress has been made but more time and patience are still required for us to reap the huge benefits of that union.

    If the justification for the celebration of the centenary is contentious, contemporary events seem to have marked out the year in another remarkable way.

    A lot of processes were initiated within the political front last year that may come to assume more definite shape within this time frame. And the direction they go will have a defining effect on the way this country progresses in the days ahead. In this regard, one has in mind the competition for power at the centre; the ensuing altercations and realignment of forces it has generated. At the centre of it all, is the crisis in the ruling Peoples Democratic Party PDP over which side of the nation’s geo-political divide should corner the presidency come 2015. The bickering and bad blood have been so much so that both the north and the south-south have threatened fire, lime and brimstone should they not capture that coveted national office. As the fight rages within the ruling party because of the advantages the power of incumbency confers, another bold step to give the electorate an alternative political choice was made with the formation of the All Progressives Congress APC. And with the spread in the membership of the APC given the three political parties that coalesced into one, the new party began to offer a new source of hope. APC took advantage of the crisis within the PDP to woo its aggrieved members to its fold. This has paid off as the standoff in the PDP has led to defections by some of its governors, senators and House of Representatives members. The way things stand, there is palpable fear that there may be leadership change in both chambers of the National Assembly as the APC strives to muster a majority. This could assume more dangerous dimension possibly cascading into leadership changes in both chambers of the National Assembly and the impeachment of the president as has been severally canvassed by the APC. But the PDP has not gone asleep and may come up with its own counter strategy.

    The point being raised here is that this year is politically loaded. Most of the processes that were activated last year are likely to play out within the current year. The same last year, former President Olusegun Obasanjo wrote a stinker on the administration of President Jonathan. Jonathan has since replied challenging Obasanjo to produce evidence of some of the innuendo-laden allegations. It is possible Obasanjo will react to the new challenge since he threatened dire repercussions should Jonathan prefer to go for broke.

    It is also possible that the government may further take Obasanjo to ask on some of the issues he raised in his open letter since the National Human Rights Commission has been directed to investigate the veracity of some of the allegations. All these are bound to play out within the current year. Matters are not helped by recent allegation by the Yoruba socio-cultural organization, the Afenifere that some of the issues raised by Obasanjo could lead to the subversion of democracy and the constitution through the overthrow of the government of the federation. Afenifere cited at least three previous instances where Obasanjo’s similar conduct had led to the overthrow of governments.

    Central to all these is the speculated ambition of Jonathan to go for another term in 2015. It was one of the issues raised by Obasanjo and the real force behind his sharp disagreement with Jonathan. He had accused Jonathan of nursing the ambition to contest the presidential election in 2015 despite his pretences to the contrary.

    In his reaction, Jonathan was evasive preferring to speak on the matter some time this year. The step Jonathan eventually takes will harbinger what to follow. The possibilities are: Jonathan will run or he will decline to run. If opts out of the race, the PDP will quickly settle for a northern candidate who will now slug it out with the APC candidate also from the north. Some of the defected members of the PDP may hurry back to the party because of the awesome powers of the incumbent. All the ills they hitherto accused the ruling party of will disappear overnight.

    But if Jonathan goes ahead to run, those who have ganged up against him will begin to play out their scripts in very quick succession. Jonathan may then apply the big stick. The big battle will commence.

    The ban on political campaigns will be lifted sometime this year. This year is therefore very symbolic in more ways than one. Much of the activities that will shape the direction and contest for political power next year will be determined in 2014. The way they go will mirror the possible outcome of the coming general elections.

    If the bitterness, acrimony and blackmail that characterized 2013 spill over to the current year and possibly get more reinforced, the 2015 elections are likely to be entangled in serious controversy. That could also precipitate the conditions which the Afenifere feared in Obasanjo’s letter. These are the potent dangers and they call on all genuine patriots to ensure that nothing is done to compromise our hard earned democracy through unwholesome means. Those who want regime change have the constitutional road for direction.

  • My Governor of the Year 2013

    My Governor of the Year 2013

    It took only 30 minutes for Borno State Governor Kashim Shettima to qualify for the accolade, and his eligibility was perfected in highly remarkable circumstances. Shettima on December 15 reportedly departed from Abuja on a 7pm Arik flight to Lagos, where he was scheduled to participate in three meetings. A little over two hours after he left the federal capital, specifically at 9.15pm, the governor was having dinner at Mummy B Food Canteen, located in Onigbongbo, Maryland, Lagos, which he last visited some 20 years ago. He was drawn to the local restaurant with only four tables for 10 customers at a time by his love of amala, which he reportedly “missed so much”.

    So irresistible was his craving for the particular food, prepared in a particular way, that it was Shettima who gave directions to the official convoy, and he reportedly trekked to the eating spot in the company of two commissioners, his special adviser on media, staff of Borno Laison Office in Lagos and security aides. Interestingly, he was recognised as an old customer by the restaurant owner, Iya Moriya; and for his meal, he insisted on being served with the same kind of plates he was used to two decades ago. By the time he left the place at 9.45pm, word had travelled round the neighbourhood that a VIP was around.

    In significant ways, Shettima’s amala activity represents an enlightening metaphor for political leadership in a pluralistic polity. To start with, the 47-year-old leader born in Maiduguri, Borno State, in the country’s northern region, demonstrated that he was ethnically accommodating by his taste for food of a different cultural provenance from his own. Amala is a cultural dish popular among the Yoruba in the country’s Southwest region, and to have a northerner who would readily eat it without discrimination is a plus for Shettima’s pan-Nigerian credentials.

    Furthermore, it is commendable that Shettima remembered. Not only did he have a clear memory of the enjoyable taste of the particular amala, he also could recollect the route to the restaurant, even though he had not been there in years. It is striking that he even remembered the plates of yesteryear. More importantly, perhaps, he remembered that he had not always been a governor and that he had a past. His remembrance of things past mirrored his modesty, despite the context of high political office.

    In a manner of speaking, Shettima’s interaction with the restaurant workers can be likened to a descent from an Olympian height. It was a rare event that held lessons for the powerful. He certainly could have avoided eating in the lowly restaurant, given the fact that he had people at his beck and call that could have gone there to get a take-away meal for their boss. It is pertinent to wonder at the cost of eating in such a cheap restaurant, when he could have opted for a five-star hotel in the megacity, all at government expense.

    What was Iya Moriya’s recipe that made her amala so unforgettable for Shettima? His visit to the eating place must have made her day, not necessarily in financial terms, but on the psychological plane. Shettima returned to her restaurant as a governor, which was something to be proud of; and the happening may well have elevated her profile in the area, apart from giving her understandable bragging rights. By his association with the people, and his electrifying presence, therefore, Shettima scored well.

    For the avoidance of doubt, it is relevant to highlight Shettima’s education and exposure for the benefit of the narrow-minded who might consider his behaviour as perhaps informed by possible lack of sophistication. A Masters degree holder in Agricultural Economics from the University of Ibadan, Oyo State, and a former lecturer in the same subject at the University of Maiduguri, Borno State, and a one-time top-level banker, he served as Commissioner of the Borno State Ministry of Finance and Economic Development and Commissioner in the Ministries of Local Governments and Chieftaincy Affairs, Education, Agriculture and later Health before his election as governor in 2011 on the platform of the then All Nigeria People’s Party (ANPP), which this year merged with others to form the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    It is significant that Shettima governs the terrorised Borno State, which is currently under emergency rule imposed by the federal government, along with Adamawa and Yobe states, in a controversial anti-terror measure specifically introduced to check the murderously rampaging Islamic religionists known as Boko Haram. It is a reflection of his sensitivity that he lately overlooked his personal security in a visit to Bama local government area of the state, which is officially regarded as exposed to Boko Haram insurgents and the scene of carnage in recent times. At the palace of the Shehu of Bama, Alhaji Kyari Ibrahim El-Kanemi, where he donated N100 million toward the rehabilitation of terror victims in the community, Shettima said momentously, “I took an oath of office as the governor two years ago to work for the people devoid of ethnic, religious and political affiliations. That is why it becomes a duty for us to share in your moments of grief.” It is noteworthy that his gesture tellingly contrasts with the rather detached attitude of the central administration on the contentious issue of compensation for casualties of the mayhem.

    In another defining instance, Shettima demonstrated understanding leadership during an unscheduled visit to Gen. Mohammadu Shuwa Memorial Hospital in Maiduguri, where he donated blood to an expectant mother in need of transfusion. According to the Commissioner for Health, Dr Salma Kolo, “The governor was disturbed by the condition of the woman and wanted to help. He later discovered through the medical attendants that his blood group matched that of the woman, so he decided to help out.”

    Remarkably, in these days of self-described professional politicians who go to extreme lengths to remain politically relevant, it is food for thought that Shettima has a vision of his post-governorship years. “I have a Masters degree, but after the political interregnum I wish to go back and get a PhD so that one can become a true intellectual in the real sense,” he said, while receiving the governing council of the University of Maiduguri (UNIMAID) in his office.

    In the end, there seems to be a fine quality to his personality that should naturally dovetail with good governance. Regrettably, his story is the stuff of fantasy in the real world of the country’s largely unfeeling politicians.

    Dear reader, this column wishes you a New Year of blessings beyond your imagination.

  • Now Jonathan has replied

    Now Jonathan has replied

    Writing under the title ‘A season of open letters’ I had in this column last week, examined some issues arising from the open letter written by former President Olusegun Obasanjo to President Jonathan in which he raised several damaging allegations against him. That article was largely based on extant facts even as Jonathan was yet to provide his own side of the story. There was also the suggestion that even before the column is published, we could be treated with more letters.

    That prediction came to pass as Jonathan’s response made the headlines the very Monday the said article was published. Since the previous one was done without the side of the accused, it is only apposite that issues are put in their proper context now we have heard both sides. This is more so given Obasanjo’s reaction to the effect that he was not going to address the new issues raised in Jonathan’s reply.

    Obasanjo’s new position may have been borne out of one or two reasons. It could be to stave off the heating up of the political space and the prospects of the controversy precipitating crisis or he has taken to the caution by some other elder statesmen that issues of that nature are not sorted out the way he set out or both.

    He may also have reasoned that those who live in glass houses do not have to throw stones as the outcome could be the destruction of their mighty glass edifices. This line of thought is further reinforced by some of the incontrovertible insights brought to the fore by Jonathan’s reply.

    Whatever the reason, it is clear that by not rising to the new disclosures by Jonathan, Obasanjo has wittingly or unwittingly whittled down the import of the acerbic allegations he purported to have made in the overall national interest. If he was acting in the overall national interest, the minimum expectation is that he should further join issues with Jonathan so that the nation can benefit from it. But if he is not prepared to go the whole hog, why embark on a futile journey? Not with the weighty allegations Nigerians are eager to know their final outcome. Why whet the appetite of the people by raising accusing fingers if only to allow issues hanging? And of what value are allegations and counter allegations without efforts to establish their veracity?

    These posers are raised given the avalanche of public demand that Jonathan should respond to the issues raised and the obvious insinuations that had gone with them. Even then, there are still those who feel Jonathan’s response has not been far-reaching enough. They would therefore want him to proceed further to investigate some of the alleged infractions he associated previous regimes with including that of his traducer. There is a valid point here.

    With the volte-face by Obasanjo, it would appear nothing will be gained from this dialectics. And given the debilitating crisis this country is entangled in, the minimum expectation is that the simmering contradiction will come with some heuristic value. It is perhaps, the first time in our recent history that a former president and a sitting one will engage each other in such open accusations on the sundry ills that have buffeted this country over the years. Such a clash ought to activate the social dynamics of history. The envisaged clash between thesis and antithesis should give rise to synthesis. Its outcome ought to benefit the society better. That should be the envisaged outcome of those inquisitions. It would appear it is this historical motion that Obasanjo wants to stall by now opting to remain silent. He must not be allowed to do so at this point.

    He spoke of the Arab spring and the turn of events in Egypt. He spoke of rising corruption, insecurity and the gradual slide to dictatorship in a democracy. Jonathan has responded to the issue of corruption, insecurity and the accusation that he was training snipers to assassinate his political enemies. He has even gone further to show that terrorism did not start during his regime while there has been no record of political killings.

    By way of contrast, there were political killings during Obasanjo’ regime and some of the very well known cases of corruption during the same period included the scandals involving Siemens and Halliburton. Jonathan would want to know the status of these cases and what the sitting President did then. He has also challenged Obasanjo to produce the list of the 1000 people under political watch and the agencies of government detailed to monitor them. He also reasoned the allegation may be a subterfuge to embolden all manner of killers to strike only to turn round and heap the blame at the door steps of the government. This is a very grave issue.

    In sum, he accused Obasanjo of instigating the crisis in the PDP to harass him out of an undeclared ambition in 2015 so as to install one of his acolytes. Even as some of Jonathan’s responses are already in the court of public opinion, Obasanjo owes it a bounden duty to this country to rise to the challenge of his self-assigned role of being the conscience of the nation. He has further been challenged by former Chief Security Officer to late Gen. Sani Abacha Major Hamza Al Mustapha to a public debate on some of the issues he raised.

    The point here is that Obasanjo has set in motion a seemingly system sanitizing process. He says his motivation is to serve the overall good of this country. Given that the ills which he accused Jonathan of are at the root of stultifying this country’s efforts at meaningful development, it is only proper that we get at the root of the matter.

    It would not amount to demanding too much if some of the corruption related scandals and political killings mentioned by Jonathan are now probed. The case of Bola Ige who was assassinated in his bedroom as a minister even with the retinue of security men detailed to protect him is still very fresh. There are some others also.

    In effect, the nation ought to gain something from the altercations that have arisen from Obasanjo’s letter. There are issues some of these leaders know and actions they have taken they may not be willing to tell the people. Now Obasanjo has opened our eyes to the rot that can go on in the name of governance, it is time a high powered inquisition into the activities of all past regimes commenced. Most of those who have ruled the country (military or civilian) are still alive. It might not amount to demanding too much to probe such people now.

    Increasingly, it is dawning on us that some of these people constitute the greatest liability to this country. They have their hands every where and in every thing in the warped thinking that without them Nigeria cannot be. But besides this claim to patriotism, is the hidden urge to gain selfish and sectional advantage. That is why Obasanjo had to insult our collective sensibilities by telling us the number of northerners he helped to power. Now he is seeking another opportunity and it appears elusive, the incumbent must be caught down. He must show all the evidence with which to prove Jonathan wrong or take the responsibility for the outcome of the dangerous issues he canvassed. It is possible to resolve our suffocating national problems from this clash depending on its handle.

  • Love story of the century

    Love story of the century

    What went through the mind of Winnie Mandela when the world serenaded her dead husband? Was she lamenting what might have been? Why was it that she, once lionised as the angel of the struggle, had fallen into a sorry footnote of the Mandela legend?

    Theirs was not just a love story, a partnership, or marriage gone sour. The story of Winnie and Nelson was the love story of the 20th century. With about one and half decades gone in this century, no love story has surpassed their fiery narrative of the heart.

    It is essentially a great love story because of its failure, its inevitable run against the rock, its tragic filaments. All great love stories are tragic. Shakespeare had to kill Romeo and Juliet to bring fairy to their romantic tale. In the novel The Great Gatsby, a man spends his whole life to acquire a big mansion and lavishes the whole town with party after party to gain a girl’s attention. He fails to enthrall the damsel but dies for her. Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau blighted his fabled reign with his marriage to Margaret Sinclair whose love he could not combine with his work as the nation’s helmsman. The list is benumbing. Humphrey and Lolita. Samson and Delilah. Kafka’s Gregory Samsa. Anthony and Cleopatra. Achilles and Helen of Troy. Flaubert’s Madame Bovary. Jackie was the last American queen because she knew John F. Kennedy. Not Marilyn Monroe whose story was another bloodied odyssey of love. As for JFK, some accounts link his assassination to some love trysts.

    Mandela was married not to Winnie, not to Graca, but the world. But he died without what was dearest to him: love of family. Nothing personified that love more than Winnie. In an interview with American Charlie Rose, an embarrassed Madiba spoke about his time in jail, his preference of his family to the love of the world, and how he sometimes had self-doubts about the struggle and wondered if it was worth all the sweat and solitude, especially given the harassment his wife Winnie suffered in the hands of Apartheid goons.

    In his reticence and shadows on his face in his Charlie Rose interview, Mandela could not conceal the love he still had for Winnie. Yet Winnie’s part in the collapsed romance has tended to fire the interests of feminists. “What did you expect Winnie to do with the husband in jail for 27 years?” ask her defenders. She had blood flowing in her veins, she had suitors in the struggle, she was young, bewitching, eminently sexual. The husband ought to understand that he was not available to sate her needs.

    By the time Mandela left his gaol, Winnie was no longer young, about 60 years. So why did she not abandon the honey, unlike Winnie the Pooh, and go back to her husband? Why did she not mortify her flesh? Rather, she kept on pursuing the romance with one of her gang leaders, who was already married when Mandela left jail.

    They argued that Winnie sacrificed flesh for myth, she lost the opportunity of being Africa’s greatest woman. She might have been at Mandela’s side, in the battle for Africa’s greatest struggles, against tyranny and dictatorship, and for equalities of all peoples and demographics. She might have finagled her way into the graces of the people and run for the presidency of South Africa.

    Rather, it was a divorce story that ruined the narrative. Mandela lamented that years after he left Robben Island, Winnie had not spent a night in his bedroom. Evidently, a cuckolded Mandela wanted his wife back after the romp with other men. He understood that Winnie had never been his wife, even before he went to jail. He was always in the fight, absent at home, in a peripatetic thrust for the freedom of his people. Winnie never enjoyed him before jail and when in jail. “Don’t ask of me, my love, the love I once had for thee,” crooned poet Mahmud Darwish. Mandela may have had part of that sentiment. When he left jail, it was Winnie on his side. He had her picture in his jail, and caressed it as though groping his wife.

    But the romance did not actualise when he returned. How could anyone blame Winnie, who had never connected with the man? That is the existential problem. Winnie lost the opportunity to be like women who grew into their own on their spouses’ shoulders. Corazon Aquino was leader of the Philippines, but before that she called herself a plain house wife. The assassination of her husband thrust her into greatness. She rallied the nation on behalf of her husband in what was called people power. She conquered the foes, became president and initiated solid reforms in the economy, human rights and democratic practices.

    Hilary Clinton stood by her man in the fiery days of the Lewinsky scandal. She was adroit a politician, a role she never could have attained without Clinton. The medical programme of Obama today was first initiated when she was first lady. Hilary became senator, the most travelled secretary of state and is still a possible nominee for president of the United States. Jackie Kennedy, in spite of her marriage to Greek millionaire Onassis, still earned the unofficial status of democratic queen.

    Argentina had Eva Peron, whose husband birthed what historians call the Peronist era in Argentine history. Eva was a beauty and star politician, thanks to her husband. She rose by fighting for her man while Juan Peron was in jail. Her loyalty touched the man’s tender parts. She was even rumoured to have mobilised the rally that freed him from prison. He married Eva, in spite of negative stories about the beautiful actress. She rose to become a great politician, feminist, fighter for social justice. She even soared to mystical grandeur. In all of Latin America, her picture stands next to the Virgin of Guadalupe as the most popular woman. Movies, plays, novels have bedecked her, and Madonna starred as Evita in a famous movie of that name.

    But Mandela could not blame Winnie for not soaring with him. He knew that he, in a sense, killed the woman’s spirit with his lack of romance. But Winnie made her choice. She opted for mortal joys in place of images like those of Aquino and Peron, or even Clinton. She chose to be martyr for love rather than country, and the wrong love. She opted against sublime immortality. But she has her immortality assured, but a much stained and low and humanised one. Maybe when the Madiba was being put to rest, she reflected back and wondered if she could have resisted the promptings of the flesh and stood by the man who was about two decades older. But Juan Peron was also that much older than Peron. Eva Peron died at 33, and she had a state burial. Some analysts said her advantage was a short life. But who knows.

    The Madiba story reincarnates a classic South African love story: between the warrior Shaka the Zulu and Noliwe, the beauty. In spite of his beauty, Shaka takes her life. Poets and historians argue that Shaka kills her because she humanises him, he is afraid of her, he cannot stand such glow of a humanity in his warrior life. So maybe the Madiba killed Winnie, that is Winnie’s love, so he could be the love of the world. The poet Senghor sums it in a poem Noliwe: “I would not have killed her if I loved her less/I had to escape from doubt.”

    Mandela died without his full manhood, having failed to conquer the love of his life. He gained the whole world but not his fairy. Winnie will go down in history as the one who pooh-poohed history, or was pooh-poohed by history since her story ended for us when she divorced the husband who romanced the world. Mandela did not love the country less, but he loved Winnie more. That pain followed him to his stately grave.