Category: Sam Omatseye

  • Ambode’s pilgrim’s progress

    Ambode’s pilgrim’s progress

    The Lagos State government decided no trips to Mecca or Jerusalem on the tax payer’s purse. It was striking it happened in Edo, Kaduna and a few other states. But for it to happen in Lagos is especially significant. Lagos, for one, embodies to two pilgrimages, unlike others. That made Akinwunmi Ambode’s move especially bold. Two, Lagos spends more than any other. For some pilgrims, it was both escape and escapade, not a real pious experience. Three, it affirms that pilgrimages are not compulsory in either faith. It is mentioned in Islam. It is not even suggested in the Bible. Four, the economy is stumbling, and it is no time for pious jamboree.

    It does not make progress for any pilgrim to go. They often see it as pork for politician, and vanity for many others. It does not necessarily make them better Christians or Muslims. John Bunyan wrote an allegory titled Pilgrim’s Progress, and it tracks a man’s hard and exacting journey through sin and redemption. This is the time for a true pilgrim’s progress. Let individuals who must go toil to afford it and appreciate it like Bunyan’s protagonist.

  • When a village fails

    When a village fails

    Lupita Nyong’o, perhaps Africa’s front-line actress in Hollywood, confessed to fear. She played the role of a nubile girl in a play set in the Liberian civil war. In the drama, three girls wallow as sex slaves to the vile virility of a rebel soldier.

    The play, titled Eclipsed, and written by a Zimbabwean writer, Danai Gurira, shows how a human can translate from innocence to beast, and even sometimes enjoy that bestial metamorphosis. That explains why Lupita was terrified to act that part.

    If an actor quakes over that role, imagine the innocents who have lived it, and those now living the nightmare as though routine. If to pretend offends, imagine the life Ese Oruru just walked out of. Imagine the others now highlighted profusely in the media, like Progress Jacob, Blessing Gopep and Lucy Ejeh. They are all underage, human and enslaved.

    We can lament this about religion, and it is true. We can grieve over the impunity of some bigots who have claimed that being Muslims make them lords over a young girl’s flesh. We can also wonder at the perverse stamina that propels a young man to take a 13-year-old on a 15-hour road trip into servitude. Then we imagine her. A girl who grew up in trousers and tee-shirt, in skirts, her waist that wiggled to the beats and subversion of rap music, who walked free on the street, who loved the vanity of braids and other hairstyles, who knew only play and school work and mother’s errands. This same girl, only 13, is now presented as suddenly wise or wild. We are told that she left all that to a devout devotion. She became Muslim, and followed a man up North without her parents’ consent. And they expect us to accept it.

    We also imagine the sort of conversation she now gets accustomed to. She speaks a different language, and when she speaks to her mother in Urhobo she is bullied into speaking an accepted one. Imagine the cuisine. She did not have the right to be hungry for the right food. She, an Urhobo girl, was not permitted to crave usi and banga.

    If the matter lasted a week or two, we might have excused all the big names and institutions involved. But it lasted an eternity from August 2015 to February 2016. It might have lasted longer but for the audacious front page of The Punch, in language and aesthetics. It said Ese Oruru was abducted and “forcefully” wedded. The right, word, “forcibly,” tells the right story. Not to worry.

    So all that time, no big man could give an order to release the girl? The Governor, Seriake Dickson, was busy swaggering around over election, and he did nothing about it. Was that not irresponsible of a governor who is the chief security officer? He woke after the media hoopla and issued a rhetoric of concern. Neither the Emir of Kano nor Emirate Council have acted with wisdom.

    The police, the DSS and others kept silence. Why? They did not want to offend the big power vortex. They did not want to lose their jobs for doing their jobs. It is because we have not decided what law is important. That is the bigger issue. Where is our loyalty? Is to tribe, faith or royalty? So, when we brandish our fidelity to the rule of law, we must ask ourselves, what law? Is it the rule of Islamic or royal or Christian law? Or is it the federal constitution? That was the innuendo buried in the IG’s words that Ese’s matter lay in the hands of the Emir of Kano.

    We are in a democracy but we do not have a democratic sensibility. We are in a modern world but we still exude ancient values. Laws will make no sense until we have sorted out what kind of society makes sense. We still live in a universe where a senior lawyer can cloak impunity and ask a flock of senior lawyers to defend him. These are SANs sans shame. It is no different when an adult debauches a minor. King Solomon calls it “folly set in great dignity.” So, for a rule of law to make sense, we have to decide whether sharia law has a place in Nigeria, and if it does, when and how. We have to decide what law takes precedence, the constitution or the sharia, or the renegade fury of a monarch. The Nigerian conscience is a war zone between the “king is law” and the “law is king.”

    When Vladimir Nabokov wrote the novel Lolita, the western world fell into a scandalised rapture. The novel, rated one of the best ever written in the English language, was about an adult romping with a girl of Ese’s age all over America. The lascivious man did not end well, the girl ruined for life. The movie is hardly acted because the girl who acted Lolita the first time was unable to soar in her career. A stigma sullied her brilliance.

    The prosecution of pedophile Yunusa and the battle release of others, including Lucy Ejeh, will help begin that sojourn to our concept of the rule of law. The legal positivists tend to give credence to the sources of law over the concept of natural law. I think when natural law supervenes, we have justice. We must have all those involved fall under the hammer of the Nigerian law. We either have Nigeria or not.

    The most disappointing for me is the silence of President Muhammadu Buhari. He cannot wage a corruption war and act as though the Ese saga is not corruption. Corruption of childhood, of law, of religion, of natural rights. A girl was abducted, coerced into the family way, and made to swear to a God against her will. You cannot be the president of all and cocoon yourself in silence. It is not right, nor presidential. It is even more potent since he is a devout Muslim.

    The failure to tackle the Oruru matter is a failure of Nigeria as a village. Hillary Clinton wrote a best-selling book, It takes a Village, and showed that nurturing a child is a communal effort. She took her inspiration from African ethos. Of course not the Africa that failed Ese. Ese means gift in Urhobo, and Oruru means it’s well done. Nigeria gifted Ese an abduction, and early pregnancy and eviscerated future. Girls of that age know little about motherhood. As a reporter in the U.S., I reported a story where teenage girls simulated the lives of mothers. They had toy babies that woke up at night, cried at odd moments, etc. The girls told me they would only become mothers when they were temperamentally ready. In the movie Spotlight, a character says, if it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a village to abuse it. That was Ese’s story.

  • The king reigneth

    The king reigneth

    His real name is not King. But his lifestyle was. He snagged the name to match the majesty of his position. His real name is Chukwuemeka Ezeugo. He had a regal life until he thought everything he did was legal.

    Silence had drowned his drama of about a decade ago until the Supreme Court’s gavel fell. Death by hanging to the king. Some are rejoicing. Others are mourning. But most of these emotions are alive for the wrong reasons.

    Those who are rejoicing are thinking revenge, or revenge as justice. Those who are mourning are his followers, although some of them think that he will never die. Did Jesus not say, “some of you will never taste of death?”

    Those who are thinking revenge as justice miss the point. The man deserves to be punished, but it has nothing to do with the future. A hanged king will not wipe out the sort of followers of the Christian Praying Assembly. He will die, but the gullible will crave for and believe in the coming of another king. In fact, the dying of a king will only pave the way for another.

    It is like the endless yearning for a hero. We seek them. They materialise and answer our material needs. It does not matter that their lifestyles and preaching contradict each other. They are human when they sin, but they are divine when they preach. For their followers, the dichotomy is easy. They put the men of God in context and they are at peace with God.

    Reverend King was one of such lucky fellows. Until last week, that is. He was like the rich man in the story of Lazarus. He was on the table that flourished with the opulent cuisine, and wine, and fruits. Lazarus is not angry. He is grateful for a place on the floor. In his benevolent plenty, the rich man tolerates him in spite of his ruffian’s appearance and ulcerous sores. Crumbs drop from the rich man’s table and sustain the humble mendicant.

    Reverend King was not only a preacher of the word. He was a lecher of the world. He combined the flesh and spirit to win over the people for God. For those who say he was a lecher and a fake, his followers will point to examples of miracles, of their changed lives, of his spiritual gifts. Some will say he healed them of cancer. He made them rich. They found love, they found family. They found joy. So, argue with them, and you fail against the evidence of their eyes.

    Men like King combine what Dostoyevsky, in his Brothers Karamazov, sees as the trifecta of control: authority, mystery and miracle. Hence the Russian novelist writes, “anyone who can appease a man’s conscience can take his freedom.”

    Such anecdotes lift the man on the throne. Everything he says becomes everything God says. Mysticism overthrows materiality. He lived the glamour life. Mansion. Food. Limousines. Women. Wine. The blessing of the Lord maketh rich. Who can argue with that? If you tell the adherents that God that made you rich does not condone a pastor that makes you a fool. They will say they are no fools. They believe in God and his prophet, so their lives are established. And, a God that says thou shall not kill would not condone a servant who burns a person alive, pouring petrol on the flesh and his eyes still light up with righteous indignation. They will say the Lord works in a mysterious way. It is wrong to question the servant of God.

    Then you quote Prophet Jeremiah: “A wonderful and horrible thing is committed in the land. The prophets prophesy falsely and the priests bear rule by their means, and my people love to have it so.” Or you quote Jesus: “They be blind leaders of the blind. If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the dish.” Or Isaiah: “The leaders of these people cause them to err, and they that are led of them are destroyed.”

    They will merely respond that you quote the Bible upside down. So the solution is not in hanging the leaders like King and others who mislead.

    Around the world we have such groups, and they have not stopped erupting. We had Jim Jones and we have many around. A few years ago, some students in Obafemi Awolowo University waxed into a suicidal group. In Colorado, a cult leader, Warren Jeff, led his cult from prison. The evisceration of one group does not destroy its rebirth.

    Such leaders have special gifts, which for lack of a better word, we call charisma. They have, what the Bible calls appearance of holiness. They have smooth tongue, vast knowledge pool, suave manners, intuition, street wisdom, and they are clever risk takers. Those who are not suave have the façade of noble rascals, strong, aggressive but strategically kind.

    Such pastors are still around, and it only takes the wise to discern the word from the sword of rascals. It is about religion, but it is not about religion alone. It is the people’s search for identity, for a place on earth. Once they meet that leader who can flatter their secret hopes, they yield. Like a smart Alec as suitor. The fair lady falls.

    Did we not see men of God ape Jonathan and even campaign for him? If they had vision, why did they not warn us about the filth in Jonathan’s cupboards, the billions stolen, the reckless fascination with filthy lucre? Were they asking us to vote in another season of kleptomania? Since the flood of revelations, none of the clerics has explained to their adherents how they led them to vote for thieves when the good books says, thou shall not steal. In spite of how bad things are, imagine if we would have Nigeria today if Jonathan got re-elected? I believe all the clerics who roared gospels to support Jonathan’s re-election owe everyone an explanation, or an apology! They have misquoted Romans Chapter 13 and distorted the term higher powers to mean all adherents should be subject to the government of the day when it means the church authority that does right.

    Many died. Families fell out of joint because of Jonathan-era thieving. Many followed apishly. They are not different from all the King’s brethren.

    And the solution is education? Not necessarily book education. I swear that Reverend King had well-read people as followers. Just like Jesus of Oyingbo who married mothers and daughters and their daughters of his own flesh. His incestuous holiness!

    The Islamic world has the same hobgoblin. An expert said some Western girls flocking to ISIS are merely sex-starved, seeking a romp with the “spirit.” King is no better than Yusuf who birthed Boko Haram.

    We need emotional education, psychological education. Jack was sent to school to learn to be a fool. Book education is not adequate. And it is not about religion alone. Our politics is full of it. People rally behind men who appeal to tribe and faith.

    We sometimes kid ourselves that because we are in a democratic era, men like King cannot con us. History tells us that moments of democratic impulse yield to the eruption of monarchs. In his great study, Michael Scott captured this in his book, From Democrats to Kings, where he tracks the downfall of Athens to the “epic rise of Alexander the Great.” Napoleon also prospered on mass movement.

    Whether King dies or lives, the king reigneth in the eyes of his followers.

  • The slaughter of kings

    The slaughter of kings

    Thank God for democracy. Thank God for kings. It is a contradiction that works well here. No matter how avidly we proclaim our republican virtues, we are, at heart, all royalists.

    The earlier we admit this to ourselves the better it is for us to make our so-called republic worth the while. Recently, a ranking of Yoruba monarchs stirred a little unease in some quarters. The Alake of Egbaland, Oba Adedotun Gbadebo, unveiled the hierarchy from his own point of view. He said the Ooni of Ife was numero uno, followed by the Alafin of Oyo and Oba of Benin respectively.

    In a brilliant but characteristically unwieldy rebuttal, Odia Ofeimun harks back home and anoints the Oba of Benin on the prime spot. Ofeimun begins by disavowing any fidelity to kings, and apes the chic fashion of calling oneself a republican.

    I am not interested in the hierarchy. But neither am I happy with the slaughter of kings. By the way, that phrase comes from the Bible where Abraham makes mincemeat of pagan kings.

    Since the British slaughtered our kings metaphorically to make Nigeria a colony, we have pretended to have outgrown them. But the wise among us know better. So, they engage the royals. We can recall the recent spat between Oyo State Governor, Abiola Ajimobi and the Olubadan-in-council over the elevation of the irritant Ladoja and other chiefs without regards to due process.

    It was billed as a standoff of two antipodal worlds. Modern versus ancient, republican versus royalist, bureaucratic versus traditional, the past versus the future, indigenous versus foreign.

    But the cards lay in the governor’s hands. The law gives him the power. He held his grounds. But some elders pitched in and they both etched peace and ended the furore. That was principally because the governor understood the intricacy of traditional mores. The matter was resolved with the understanding that their elevations held as long as they provided documents of their medical and security screening.

    Gov. Ajimobi showed a hand of cultural nuance and maturity rather than a modern radical in power. He did not act like President Kongi in Soyinka’s bleak play Kongi’s Harvest, who places the king under lock and key.

    But not long after, Ibadan tells us another story. The Olubadan dies and a transition beckons. But not to worry. There will be no night of long knives dripping with intrigues and backstabbing. No dark horses emerging, no permutations, no politicking, no underhand manoeuvres. Forget the tale of bribery from a chief. The rules shun the stealth of filthy lucre.

    Ibadan has a smooth transition. The successor is known and he will step right on the throne of the fathers once all rites are fulfilled. Yet Ibadan history is rooted in the republican principle. Founded on a highland, it gathered migrants from the wars bursting all over Yorubaland. The new citizens made themselves a new society with kings not based on the old ways. It was a town of generals. The men who rose were not of the royal blood line. They were swordsmen who shed blood for the new land. The Ogunmolas and Latosas earned their epaulets by gallantry.

    But the society has not ended up a democracy, but a feudal redoubt. That’s the irony. It is like Igboland, where kings are nothing, but it blends republican ethos with social rules that invoke a feudal milieu. In Ibadan, it is a sort of gerontocracy, where the oldest becomes king. It works and our politicians have called for a politics where rules work, not chaos. Not the power of the strong man.  In Ibadan, they teach us the supremacy of the rule of law.

    Unlike our politics where a transition leads to fear and trembling, and where in some kingdoms heads roll, Ibadan is easy. The departed Olubadan embodied the full persona of Nigerian power, and Gov. Ajimobi serenaded him as a soldier, politician, bureaucrat, king.

    All of that is in us. We may say we are no royalists. But we show it everyday. We bow to the elder. In Urhoboland, the younger says migwo, (I am on my knees) to the older person. The Onyisi syndrome is alive and well in Igboland. The Yoruba still gleefully prostrate. In weddings, a 30-year-old suitor prostrates to a two-year-old in-law, at least in theory. The baba gan refrain riffs through the culture. Ranka dede, a northern term of obsequious subordination, only became temporarily antiquated in the last election cycle when Buhari’s fans chanted Sai Baba.

    The top of all obeisance lies in the throne. It is the apex court of genuflection. It is only the king that cannot bow, a taboo that Soyinka hints at with revulsion in Kongi’s Harvest.

    In my first visit to the United Kingdom, a hotel hand was cross at me for ruffling a British currency note with the picture of the queen. Oliver Cromwell who presided over the killing of Charles 1 was not bold enough to decree a farewell to the monarchy. Part of the sanity of the British democracy comes from the stabilising awe of royalty.

    For all his republican craving, Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself king in Rome and his seductress and wife Josephine as queen. In the United States, we see the appetite of royalty. Once, the Kennedy family was their unofficial royalty. In their absence, we have all forms of royalty, high like the imperfect Bush family, or low like the Kardashians. It is probably the reason America is the celebrity capital. As men seek gods, societies seek kings and princes. In fact, some Americans wanted George Washington to be crowned king. Others wanted him to reign as president till death. It is not for nothing that this celebrity fascination has drowned the world. In his novel, The Prince and the Pauper, Mark Twain, an American, emphasised the integrity of royalty by showing that a prince could never act as a pauper, or vice versa.

    In Yorubaland, a saying goes thus, “we cannot serve the father and also the son.” That has been used with the Awo clan. That is probably reinforced because the palaces in Yorubaland still retain a certain grandeur. We were all witnesses to President Jonathan’s peripatetic folly of begging about the palaces of the Southwest.

    I know many who say bad things about royalty in a democracy. If, for instance, chieftaincy titles were stopped, they would be the first to cry foul.

    Rather than disavow royalty, we should learn how to make it work. We already have it in the way we organise our families, villages, local government, politics, business, etc. Rather than deny, let us explore it and make something out of it as Governor Ajimobi did. We may devise a new society and ideology from it. Just maybe. We may call it royal democracy. As we have social democrats, Christian democrats, etc, we may have royal democrats. Rather than savage the kings, we could salvage a system.

  • Fest of the First State

    Fest of the First State

    Governor Akinwunmi Ambode inaugurated a committee to showcase Nigeria’s iconic city and state at 50 last week. To chair it is our own Wole Soyinka, whose trajectory has been tied to this city. Lagos deserves all the attention. It began, like New York, as a small trading post. It once was specially occupied by the British and later annexed, and then blossomed with the genius and fortitude of its people. It buoyed into a renaissance by the burgeoning presences of the Yoruba in the southwest.

    It has become over the years not only iconic, but a beachhead of progress. Nothing is authentically Nigerian until it is Lagosian. Governor Ambode knows that, and it cannot be a Nigerian fest alone. That is why he chose W.S., who will bring to bear the prowess of his imagination and the breadth of his influence to make the celebration a world-class showcase.

    Lagos has also had the example of the stellar governors beginning with Mobolaji Johnson up till the evolving saga of Ambode today.

    We await the fest of Nigeria’s first state.

     

  • A court for blood

    A court for blood

    The law is one thing, but justice is quite another. What makes the law just depends on the judge because between the law and justice is judgement. Once the judge errs in judgment, it implies a chink in the imagination. Therefore, justice is denied. For all its sweet ambiguity and protestations of grand ideals, justice depends on human beings.

    Once the humans have a distorted sense of the law, the people cannot get justice. This prompted the first seer of civil disobedience, Henry David Thoreau to say, “The law never made anyone a whit more just.”

    When the Supreme Court gave its reasons for giving Nyesom Wike victory at the court, the Governor had already disabused the minds of fair-thinking Nigerians. In a church thanks-giving service, he uttered what psychologists call a Freudian slip. Perhaps too inebriated with joy, he told his holy audience the following: “Let me thank our former governor, Dr. Peter Odili. He will call me midnight to tell me what to do….he will say ‘go so so place.’ I took all his advice, and here we are today.”

    Wike defiled two temples. The temple of God and the temple of temporal justice. He spoke of influence in a church where it is forbidden. He implied that forbidden act influenced the temple of justice.

    The odd thing is that neither he nor his votaries denied this. They merely said his gubernatorial rival, Dakuku Peterside, was out to cause confusion for unveiling the facts.

    A few days after, Wike appeared before the Body of Benchers. These two developments only suggest that justice on Rivers State was not about justice, it was about imagination run foul, about viewpoints of the judges, a febrile, tendentious sense of reality, a decision that upsets the equipoise of a civilised society.

    First, why would Wike need advice from former Governor Odili when the matter lay only in the hands of the Supreme Court? Was Odili doing anything to make the result for which the thanksgiving happened? He said, “I took his advice, and here we are today.” It is obvious that between Odili and the Supreme Court verdict, an abracadabra of justice took place.

    For the purpose of transparency, what were those pieces of advice? If Odili asked him where to go, he needs to let us know where he went, to whom, and how it led us to the decision of the Supreme Court. Odili also needs to be clear to Nigerians about his midnight counsel.

    The point has been made that Odili’s wife sits on the Supreme Court. So, some people have asked, what has his wife got to do with his advice? Maybe nothing. But transparency is important. Nigerians need to know, or else we are left to believe that some vermin and worms of action, beneath the eyes of the normal Nigerians, took place in the catacombs of the Nigerian judiciary that dispensed justice to Wike.

    With this background, we can see why the court where Mahmud Mohammed presides has raised legitimate questions about not only its competence but its rectitude. By hiding under the veil of technicality, it has canonised blood and death. It says the tribunal was not properly constituted. It says card readers do not count enough. It says the issues of violence and irregularities were not sufficiently proven. Therefore, Wike becomes governor. Next to the Treasonable Felony verdict against Awolowo in the 1960’s, this is the most perverse verdict from the top of the Nigerian bench. It is an intellectual corruption of justice.

    Card readers did not amount to a rejection of voter’s register. It was meant to validate it. Society, including the judges, knew that technology saved the election from the militancy of the riggers, from bloodthirsty hoodlums who privatised the polls. They wrote the elections. They decided who voted and who did not. Those who fought against the card readers warmed with nostalgia for the old ceremony of violence.

    The justices, in the name of technicality, manifested a wistful longing for the atavistic past of blood and death. Go ye into any election. Plunder if you can, kill if you will, write your results. Any criminal can win because the saner person cannot prove it. Mohammed and his men also hid under technicalities when they said the Tribunal was not properly constituted. What has that got to do with substantial justice? It reminds one of the famous case in the State of Alamaba when a thief of animal skin was let go because the prosecution did not say whether it was cowhide, or that of a goat, sheep, etc. The thief is a thief, and a skin is a skin.

    Before the Rivers verdict, Chief Justice Mohammed had lamented that the lower courts dabbled in inconsistent verdicts. His observation was mistaken. I thought he was referring to irreconcilable judgments on the same matter that gave off the impression of a chaotic bench. What he meant, with hindsight, is that he wanted them to be consistent in puerile verdicts.

    On Wike, was it not the same governor who wanted to pay Justice Mohammed a visit, and he declined to see the governor? Was that not sufficient ground for him to recuse himself from seating on the case since it was widely speculated that Wike wanted to see him over the impending judgement?

    It is clear that the days of majestic judges are not here. As Professor Itse Sagay noted, we do not have the Eshos and Karibi-Whites. We have shadows of justice, dark, distorted, haunting. They have no reverence for lustitia, the Roman goddess of justice, who is called lady justice. She is presented in some courts blindfold and holding a sword in one hand and scales in the other. The blindfold meant the judge did not show bias where the scales tilted. Unlike blind love that does not see foibles, judicial blindness does not see favour. This Rivers State verdict does not favour the people. It has anointed bloodshed. The verdict also implies that Goodluck Jonathan could have won in court and probably won the opportunity for a rerun without card readers. It would be back to 2011 where he swept phony votes all over the country. That is the implication of the court of Mohammed. His court shows us the other side of blindness.

    Philosopher and critic Paul de Man had written a ground breaking book, Insight and Blindness, and showed how in the analysis of texts we see a side and not see another, and yet come off with a triumphal conclusion. Before he died, he was hailed for the integrity of his vision. After he died, we learned he was a Nazi collaborator in Belgium. While he was showing us how to see, we were blind to his other side. In his novel, Blindness, Nobel laureate Jose Saramago shows that whether blind or seeing, we see what we want to see. The Supreme Court saw a society handcuffed to electoral violence. It is a grim and pharisaic court.

  • The marathon

    The marathon

    The race is not for the swift.” That proverbial wisdom of the great King Solomon came into play in the Lagos Marathon where young men and women had to sacrifice speed for distance. While Governor Akinwunmi Ambode set the athletic figures in motion last weekend, hardly did he know he confronted the nation with a figure of speech.

    Long distance, by its nature, calls for endurance, managing the borderline between athletic and lethargic. The opposite – the 100 metres race – inspires the fleet-footed, the blood afire, the eyes alert, the heart beating like the petulant wall clock. The first is an eagle, the latter a meteor. When Ambode was sworn in, he entered the position with the temperament of the long-distance runner. But he got badgered. The traffic. The crime. The chaos.  His accent. Anything.

    But patience outlasts. Now like a torch light through a fog, the path ahead is clear to many. The cacophony has subsided. Not out of a rush, but out of a methodical working of government. So we see that while one man spent N4.6 billion to placate priests under Jonathan, about the same sum gave Lagosians helicopters, cars, boats, motorcycles and automated gadgets. Result? Crime rate cascades, traffic sanitises, etc. Now Oshodi prefigures a modern 21st century park-and-ride. Road transport workers now bow to a republican ethos, rather than the old, manipulative barbarity. Roads are looking up; some dark alleys are lit up at night. The narrative continues.

    But the marathon that Lagos birthed beckons the national stage to a more intricate matter. Some are saying that law should give way to impunity. They are not saying it in that language but when some commentators are caviling at the courts for releasing Dasuki, they are ignoring the power of law in a democracy. Law is a slow grinder but, to paraphrase poet Longfellow, it grinds small.

    The debate is one of the few where you cannot question the nobility of both sides. Those who call for law want justice. Those who are impatient with the law want to punish the thieves of our patrimony. The war on corruption has revved up the rage in the streets. But it is still a muffled indignation. The Naira figures were stunning, but as billions top billions, we are losing our capacity for shock.

    For many Nigerians, there is no need to try these men. Just jail them. Former Chief of General Staff under Babangida made a public comedy when a business titan was being tried. “We are going to jail him,” he announced in a press conference. His media adviser, Nduka Irabor, crouched towards his ears and noted that he needed to be tried first. In an apparent deference to the advice, Augustus Aikhomu bellowed, “Yes, we shall try him and jail him.” Under the military, it was a laugh act. Impunity bustled in their veins. Even then, we realised the folly.

    It seems this is what some are calling for. I have wondered over DasukiGate. Have we heard from Dasuki? What if Dasuki merely acted on instruction, and what are the details of instructions? Do we convict without being convinced? The worry of many is the corruption of the courts and our lordships. But there is a double standard here among many Nigerians. The courts have not been innocent for a long time. Some are calling of mass action in place of the law. They have stopped short of saying it, reflecting the impotence or lack of rigour of their ideas. They seem to say “we want the law, but the law cannot work.” Is that not a recourse to impunity?

    This brings to mind the new sorry tales coming out of Ekiti polls. New revelations from Tope Aluko have not only reflected the failings of our electoral system, but also the shortcomings of our judiciary. More importantly, they show that many are in office who should have been in jail. The courts fail us. But the mob cannot replace the courts. Neither should official impunity. The Buhari administration was the product of law. It cannot overthrow that same process without enthroning hypocrisy. In a democracy, the quality of the law prospers on equality before the law. In an earlier article on this subject, I noted that only a movement against corruption can make the anti-corruption drive work. It is still a Buhari move, not a mass sentiment. If it is a mass sentiment, it is a muted and callow one at best. The people support Buhari, but they are not sure how to help him other than to encourage him to break the law. He said the judiciary is his headache. It has been the headache of this democracy for a long time.

    Those Marxists and civil society mavens who are angry with the law, should focus not on Buhari but the bench. They should encourage open disgrace of judges. We should also encourage mass protests against unpunished electoral criminals. The Ekiti elections that ousted Dr. Kayode Fayemi as governor ignited lines of prescience from then Lagos Governor and now three-in-one minister Babatunde Fashola, SAN. In his takeaways, he showed how imbecility is accepted as official result. He endured many flaks then. We all know better now that Fayose’s victory has been disgraced in public.

    That is the sort of society that emerges out of impunity. No society has prospered or even prospered for long on impunity. Even in the age of the divine rights of kings, the English under Oliver Cromwell led a revolt that led to a chain of events that brought England back to the full virtue of political liberties, especially after the Glorious Revolution. After the phony glory of Lenin’s coup, Russia grabbed Gorbachev’s coattail out of the impunity of almost a century. Putin is still harking back with agony. Chinese writer Mo Yan recounts the consequences of the Cultural Revolution in his excellent novel, The Garlic Ballads. Its economy groans today because it is at pains to open the country to the virtue of law instead of law and order.

    In the modern era, the First World War ended with the streets exploding with calls to punish the Germans till their “kids squeak.” The Versailles Treaty handled justice cavalierly. It led to the Second World War. The Nuremberg Trials redressed the mistake in the open with fair prosecution even though the world was witness to Nazi butchery. Apartheid ended in South Africa not by subjectivity but by subjection to the law. De Klerk was South Africa’s clerk of change by law.

    The answer is to organise mass movements against the judges and line up scapegoats. It should be carried out as an urgent matter for justice. All the civil rights gains in the United States were sown on the streets and media and reaped in the courts. The U.S. justices also resisted the change. But once the streets screamed, the courts yielded. That is the way of democracy. Buhari is coming round to this virtue even ahead of the irascibility of the ideologues. Witness the new draft laws he sent to the National Assembly.

    The looting of our treasury was massive, but justice must come with imagination. It is, like the work of Allan Sillitoe, the “loneliness of a long distance runner.” We need first to make the law work by holding the bench to account. I won’t ape Shakespeare who said: “The first thing we do. Let’s kill the lawyers.” We cannot do it in a hurry, however angry we are. A Yoruba proverb says, words are the key to unlocking mysteries. Governor Ambode gave us the figure of speech to recover all the outlandish figures and punish human figures who wronged us – the endurance of a marathon. As an African proverb says: “If you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go fast, go together.” That’s how Americans succeeded in the Progressive Era in the turn of the 20th century. We also can. But the law alone, the bench alone, the president alone, the EFCC alone, cannot do it.

  • Flee enterprise

    Flee enterprise

    We all want freedom, but sometimes when the price is high, we justify servitude. A few western clerics in the slave trade era found portions of the Holy Bible to anoint an economic system that put whites and blacks apart, except when the blacks groaned under the whites.

    “When everyone is free, no one is free,” wrote Nicolo Machiavelli, who had no patience for liberty. The notion of freedom has come to play in our economy today. It was easier to define in the Goodluck Jonathan administration because our foreign reserve was robust with the price of oil cresting at $114 for a barrel. Nigerians were free to import as much as we wanted, from Ferrari to toothpicks. We could afford them. Oil dividends glittered in our pockets and lifestyle, although it was mainly the lifestyles of the rich, the footloose political class and their conniving business elite. Day after day, they are making headlines for the billions of Naira they stole in the Babylon the Great of the Jonathan era that has now fallen.

    Now the story is different. Nigerians cannot shop on the streets of London or Manhattan with the swagger of a few years back. Their ATM cards may not be honoured. Even their children schooling in the tony colleges and universities abroad are not attending classes because their parents cannot transfer funds. But that is not the only story. Investors are fuming. They cannot buy or sell, and they cannot import even materials they usually ferried into the country like clockwork.

    Now here is the grim story. Between June and December 2015, we spent over $180 million on BTA and PTA. The airlines gulped $584 million and school fees lapped up over $284 million. In 2014, the foreign reserves stood at $38.3 billion, while today it is about $28 billion.

    What this means is that our unending quest for toothpicks, flowers, shoes, textiles and even imported cowhide known as pomo, has placed extraordinary pressure on our currency and reserves. It is such that we demand about $4.6 billion monthly for foreign exchange, while we only cart in about $1 billion. If we continue this trend, we shall see our reserves dwindle until they crumble. When the price of oil soared, we had no such quandary about whether to import certain items or open our liberal doors.

    Now, the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Buhari administration decided to take a few measures. It was to place restrictions on foreign exchange. Many groaned and caviled, and proponents countered with the logic that it was time to rein in our appetite. The alternative: Look inwards.

    It has challenged our economists, especially as we see the value of the naira cascade so steeply that at the last check, the naira exchanged at the parallel market for over N300 to a dollar. Only a year ago, we wept when it exchanged for about NI65 to a dollar. In spite of this, the call for devaluation has hit the rafters. But the Buhari administration says no. Devaluation has its costs.

    Devaluation will make foreign purchases less attractive because they will be expensive. But it will fire up local inflation and create a social crisis of its own. Many will lose jobs, and those who cannot pay house rents might look glumly into the streets. The scenario appalls the conscience. Devaluation does not also guarantee that we shall rake in enough foreign exchange to shore the present deficit. Countries that work its monetary policies with such confidence do so with the backing of a buoyant economy. But here we rely predominantly on oil for foreign reserves and the price of oil hovers around $30 a barrel.

    What this means is that the market is not free even for the rich anymore. If it has not been for the poor, it is even worse now. If we have to buoy our foreign reserves, we have to run a productive economy. We have not been doing. We had oil to thank for that.

    The CBN reversed its measures under pressures and allowed the old regime of allowing our companies and individuals buy forex and send them abroad. But it still has its problems. We cannot sell when there is no dollar backing, and we cannot buy for the same reason. As Isaiah says in the Bible, “as it is with the seller, so it is with the buyer, as with the lender, so with the borrower.”

    The danger is that we shall have to look inwards. For starters, the refineries ought to be revived locally. In the aftermath of the fuel subsidy riots in 2012, the Jonathan government promised what it called ‘greenfield refineries.” A nifty phrase.

    But we had neither green fields nor refineries. Now, importation of refined fuel consumes 40 per cent of our foreign exchange earnings. If we want to free our economy, it is not from foreigners or the west; it is from our greed and lack of planning.

    The only way to boost the economy is to focus on what is termed comparative advantage. Already reports have it that the locals have stepped up the output of eggs, rice and other poultry products basically because imports of some items have been discontinued because they endanger our health. Before they arrive here, some of the imported rice is stored in Asian warehouse for years and the poultry products are preserved with the same chemicals used to keep corpses from disintegrating.

    The CBN has to keep our foreign reserves from falling, and its quandary between allowing the foreign market to reign or rein in our excesses can only grow.

    The world economy is not showing any promise. The U.S. economy stopped bleeding, but its recovery has not led to individual prosperity, and it is the same in Europe. China’s inability to match internal consumption with a sunny endogenous profile has led to negative growth with its reverberations around the world, including Nigeria. We need a Nigerian economy, and that comes when we rely more inwards for what we need than outside.

    The irony of globalisation, according to political scientists, is that it has made nationalism more potent. A globalised economy works when a nation prospers within the rubric of laissez- faire. We have to make internal productivity work for us by stressing our areas of strength. The Buhari government’s talks up agriculture but we are still waiting for its blueprint or vision. America and Europe developed theirs. They even over-produce. The U.S. pays farmers not to produce. In our agriculture belt around Benue State, we record phenomenal losses in yams, plantains, tomatoes, onions, etc, because what the farmers produce, they never sell. Yet we import them. Recently, newspapers reported that we import tomato paste worth billions of Naira yearly. Shall we say we have free enterprise? No, we have chaos. By our conduct, we are saying, “flee enterprise.”

    It is not free enterprise for the local egg farmer when “killer” eggs are imported to overwhelm nutritious local alternative. When between 2005 and 2015, the nation’s import rose from N148 billion to N917 billion, it is not free enterprise for the locals. It is greed. That is why our forex policy is problematic.

    Seventy cheers to Uncle Joe

    There are many unsung Nigerians who have over the course of their lifetime done good to their nation. One of such men is Joseph Agbro who turns 70 Tuesday. He has served as an entrepreneur and worked even in the entrails of Nigerian politics and in the swaggering world of public relations. He has lived in the North, West and Niger Delta, and his cosmopolitan virtues compel emulation.

    He has been a fan and critique of In Touch, often holding a point of view that contradicts my more frontal style. We have squared a number of time, and I have benefited from his more quiet suggestions of restraint. His restraint sometimes passes as passivity for me, but it is always heartfelt, and that does not stop him. He is on the right, I am on the left, and I defer always to his wisdom, even when my more assertive impulse resists. Many more years on earth, Uncle Joe.

  • ‘Karl Marx, He dead’

    ‘Karl Marx, He dead’

    I take the title of this essay from a passage in one of 20th century’s most controversial, if seminal, novels. Chinua Achebe called the author of Heart of Darkness “a thorough-going racist.” He might be right about Joseph Conrad. But Achebe ironically owes his inspiration from the Polish-born English novelist for his popular work, Things Fall Apart. Heart of Darkness paints Africa as the “night of first ages” famished for the civilising light of Europe. But the novel’s darkest creature is a white man, who milks and tyrannises over the Africans to enrich Europe with all its smug morality. His name is Kurtz, and he eventually dies of his own barbarous entrapment.

    One of his African victims gloatingly announces his passing in the memorable phrase: “Mistah Kurtz: He dead.” That phrase, with its many-layered meanings, haunted the American literary imagination about a century later. Critic Richard Gilman borrowed it when he panned the decline in the prowess of the playwright Tennessee Williams who could no longer match the sublimity of his earlier plays like Cat on a Hot Tin Roof, A Streetcar Named Desire, Glass Menagerie, etc. Gilman titled his literary obituary of one of the best playwrights of the 20th century thus: “Mistuh Williams, He dead.” If Conrad’s Kurtz was real in fiction, Gilman’s Williams was unreal in non-fiction.

    Last weekend at the Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, I thought I inhaled a decomposing Karl Marx. It was during a fete for Professor Biodun Jeyifo at his 70th birthday. It was a two-day affair of intellectual fare, bonhomie, introspection and trips back into the past. It was a crowd of Marx disciples, from Governor Rauf Aregbesola, to Playwright Femi Osofisan, Arigbede, Femi Falana, Edwin Madunagu, Odia Ofeimun, Dipo Fashina. Of course, Professor Jeyifo, fondly called BJ, stands out as one of the most articulate of that tribe ever born. A few attendees like yours truly and Dr. Yemi Ogunbiyi have been inoculated against Marx.

    But the BJ fete only revealed the unflagging zeal of the faithful. In one of the sessions, I titled my contribution, “BJ: A Marxist in a post Marxist world.” Of course, some of the panelists, including Ofeimun, objected, arguing that Marx was alive and well. But mine was still a tribute to BJ’s staying power. As a public intellectual he has tried to pursue his creed without cant or doctrinaire obsession. His column, first in The Guardian and now in The Nation, has continued to pursue his belief.

    But the crucial revelation of the weekend was the talk by Edwin Madunagu. He kept the audience spell-bound when he took his listeners back to the mid-1970s. It was a time when young Marxists formed a commune in a Southwest community. They made it a collective. Their goal was to ignite a revolution in Nigeria. They cast their lots together and formed common cause with the Agbekoya folks. These young men sacrificed their vital years brainstorming, plotting and living on spare resources. They had to surrender their earnings to the common pool, like the Christians in the Acts of the Apostles. Madunagu tells the story of how he was singled out as a mole, and he had to be held as prisoner to BJ as he was being investigated. He noted that so grave was the air that they had the means “in the next room” to end their lives. Madunagu, who turns 70 in May, still betrays that “babyish” innocence not only in his relationships but also in telling the tale of those boisterous years.

    His exculpation lay with his wife of about four months who was to answer questions confidentially in a form and it had to be sealed in an envelope. The wife, who was present at the telling last weekend, viewed with awe. She was learning of the import of what she wrote for the first time, according to Madunagu. The mathematician, who became a well-known columnist in the feisty days of The Guardian, said the collective eventually freed him of all charges.

    BJ who had been taciturn on this subject also confirmed Madunagu’s story and described himself as his warder. BJ narrated how the commune experience endangered their family lives. Tension bustled in his home with his African American wife who was puzzled at the comings and goings of BJ’s comrades. Once BJ told her that it was better she did not know much about them. One of the members, BJ noted, once asked the commune to dispose of his wife and children in order to free him for the revolutionary work. The commune cautioned him. Another member slept off in any of their brainstorming sessions unless the topic was how to overthrow the Nigerian state with arms struggle, beginning with the American ambassador.

    I told myself that this was one other reason why we should study our history in schools. Too many puzzles and mysteries. This story bears comparison with the pre-Menshevik, pre-Bolshevik Russia. The custodians of these vital narratives are in their hoary years, and no one has put down the ins and outs of this tale to enrich our self-knowledge as a people.  For the great things said about BJ, his prowess as a thinker, his ideological subtlety, his plebeian lifestyle, his passion and empathy as a teacher, the best authority on Soyinka, etc, what struck me most was his audacity as a man. Lean, tall, urbane and without airs, BJ’s revolutionary story was unknown to me other than his duels in ASUU, his leadership role in the left to enthrone an egalitarian society. But those were halcyon times in comparison with the risk they took. They might have been rounded up by the military and executed for treason.

    BJ himself said, with irony, that they did not expect to outlive 40. We need to know what stories inspired them. Did they also take something from the fervour of the American founding fathers? When the commune life came to an end, Madunagu told the villagers who asked for his forwarding address. He gave them his full name. It was then they asked, what Ijesha name was Madunagu? He had blended so irretrievably with the community. He spoke Yoruba like locals, ate their food, dressed like them. He was a perfect example of the death of alienation. The locals shed tears as he left town.

    As I told Kunle Ajibade, who paid a glowing tribute to BJ as a teacher, the risk of BJ and company recalled Soyinka’s third force exercise in the tempestuous hours before the civil war. I also thought their commune died just like Christian communalism in Aiyetoro, a sad narrative revisited recently by The Nation’s writer Seun Akioye. They, however, did not eat up their own flesh in the mould of William Golding’s chilling novel, The Lord of The Flies. But how did the commune end? What was their day-to-day life? Why did they have weapons with them? What pacts did they sign, if any? Etc. We need to know. Only a tome of a narrative can document this for history.

    So, for such a revolutionary as BJ, he must have watched with denial as communism fell. The 2008 economic crash brought Marx from the dead. Some young American Marxists found solace in a novel, Indecision by Benjamin Kunkel. For BJ though, he is no more the romantic of mass movement and the cliché the dictatorship of the proletariat. He is Marx the physician but not Marx the priest; Marx becomes a good tool for diagnosis. But the solution? No. Not because he does not believe it, but it is becoming less likely with the Trojan called capital. That is what I mean by denial. Playwright Eugene Ionesco once accused Jean Paul Sartre of silence over the Gulag in Russia. Raymond Aron, Sartre’s friend, and nemesis of Marxists, also said the famous Marxist philosopher and playwright acted as though Soviet invasion of Hungary did not happen. BJ’s is not denial as self-deceit or conceit, but as a realist. If you specialise in Soyinka and Achebe, you absorb something of their nuanced essences.

    At 70, still energetic, BJ is one of the great lights of his generation anywhere in the world. We still need him around.

  • Memory without memorial

    Memory without memorial

    History shone like a headlight. It did not happen alone in Lagos, where the life of Festus Samuel Okotie-Eboh, swam under searchlights. Samuel Akintola of the acerbic wit also roared from the grave. In the North, the Sardauna of Sokoto, swaggered for attention.

    The triumph was for history. In a nation doomed from generating a new generation of historians for banishing history from the academic curriculum! Never mind that in those events you find only those who studied history or witnessed it.

    At the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs, I moderated a colloquium on Okotie-Eboh, and the speakers were mainly witnesses of the life and doings of the colourful Nigerian politician. The speakers included Dara Mbazulike Amaechi, a surviving First Republic minister; Alhaji Ahmed Joda, Chief Philip Asiodu, Senator Ben Obi and Chief Brown Mene.

    If last week marked 50 years of Okotie-Eboh’s death, it was five decades since five majors popped our political cherry. The soldiers stepped over the lion’s piss, played Samson to the head of the pride, shaved off the mane and raped the lioness. The offspring was a hybrid political system that gave us neither the sophistication of man nor the ferocious dignity of a cat.

    Okotie-Eboh, known as Omimi Ejo, was glamour as politician. Yet all we remember of this man was that he shepherded First Republic finances and was slaughtered savagely as well as Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa. The panelists showed that the Omimi Ejo’s narrative had been skewed by the false heroism of the majors, especially Kaduna Nzeogwu’s 10 per cent speech. So, if he was finance minister, he was the chief 10 percenter. As Amaechi noted, no one had evidence about these allegations. He said all NCNC office holders were obliged to pay 10 per cent of their incomes to the political party.

    The inimitable orator, Alhaji Maitama Sule, also his colleague, gave the keynote and rambled along elegantly about the virtues and humour of the man, his cosmopolitan virtues, his commercial acumen, his gregarious wit, his fierce nationalism, a man who was born Urhobo and died not only Itsekiri but also a Nigerian. The panelists reminded us that he gave us the Central Bank and the mint company, set up the financial infrastructure of Nigeria at independence.

    On wealth, they said he was richer than his political party before he became a party wheel horse or minister, that it was the great Zik who chose him to represent the NCNC in the cabinet against the ambitions of men like Sir Ojukwu, incidentally one of Zik’s close friends. They implied he was too wealthy for the corrupting wiles of office. He had built schools and other institutions.

    Some of these narratives shine in a book edited by Professor Jide Osuntokun titled Festus Samuel Okotie-Eboh: In Time and Space. What the colloquium achieved was to excavate the man from history. It beckoned us to look again at the man’s tale beyond the long, interminable, serpentine textile tail. We should examine him not as part of the vast sweep of that event alone but also as an individual, a visioner, patriot, bureaucrat, technocrat, parliamentarian, business mogul, cosmopolitan, etc.

    We know that the Nzeogwu coup came with a mixed bag. The young men wanted to save the country in their own light. They left it misshapen for half a century. No man can call them heroes in my book. They even knew nothing about organising a putsch. They ethnicised it, killed the Yoruba, killed the Hausa Fulani, left the Igbo unhurt, including Aguiyi-Ironsi. No one is sure who the leader was. Nzeogwu would not bow to Ifeajuna, while Ifeajuna bellyached that Nzeogwu would not acknowledge him as the sovereign of the conspiracy. They slaughtered Akintola and Sardauna, and that reflected their naivety. The shedding of blood never healed any society in history. Nzeogwu studied history amiss. Blood begets blood. Check all the revolutions. English. French. Soviet. Chinese. The turning points of Europe in mid-19th century. Napoleon’s bloodlust. Bismarck’s iron dream. Metternich’s nationalist fury. The Nigerian majors stepped onto the lion’s piss, shaved the beast and expected the raping of the lioness to achieve the weariness of all flesh. But the nation has paid with its pound of flesh year after year. Coup after coup. Corruption scandal after scandal. The topsy-turvy of its political elite. The friction over consensus. And the consequential slide in every facet of our lives.

    They exploited the frustration of the average Nigerian to satiate a lust of power. They claimed they wanted Awo to hold the fort. That sounds beautiful, but history is not about what might have been. If they bungled the coup itself, killed those who they should not and ignored those who they were supposed to kill, what else guaranteed that the Awo narrative was not part of a face-saving pastiche, a gimmick to salvage a flawed heroism? Or that after the quarry is quiet, they would not turn the hunting gun at each other. Just like Nzeogwu versus Ifeajuna, woeful losers with empty gunpowder.

    That is why today an Akintola can get a renaissance as well as the Sardauna. The southern elite defended theirs while the northern ones dangled swords for their icon. So, there. In spite of the spirit of contagion of coups in Africa, the base behaviour of our elite did not justify the mass slaughter. It ignited the rage that precipitated the pogrom of the Igbo that precipitated the civil war, a 30-month absurdity that bloodied the nation’s map.

    I noted at the colloquium that the phrase ‘a man of the people’ popularised by Achebe’s novel of that title had problematised the concept and conceit of a popular politician. Chief Nanga, with Achebe deft hand, turned out to be a man for himself. The Scandinavian playwright Ibsen wrote a play titled Enemy of the People, and it turned out that the so-called enemy was the friend of the people.

    That is why, for me, the beauty of this season is to wake up our study of history. It is clear we have not analysed our past enough. Because we have not researched enough, we make cartoons of our past. A man is either a villain or hero, depending on who subverts the narrative. When Okotie-Eboh’s daughter and former permanent secretary, Dr. Dere Awosika, put together the NIIA event, I recalled Winston Churchill’s words about what history would say about him. “History will be kind to me for I will write it,” he noted. He controlled his narrative, although that might be an exaggeration. Dr. Awosika and her family certainly gave the family patriarch the beginning of a make-over. The event was not an ethnic one, but a sweep of Nigeria’s ethnic physiognomy. Obj chaired it, and a broad spectrum of Nigerians from East, West and North were happy to be there, including the Emir of Kano, Sanusi 11, former Delta State governor Emmanuel Uduaghan, Chief Segun Osoba.

    If last week was a triumph for history, it was an episodic one. A few days later, we will be back to our default amnesia. The last time we had a feast like this was when General Alabi Isama released his epic account of the civil war, The Tragedy of History. How many schools study that book, or will study Osuntokun’s book on Okotie-Eboh? Triple-in-one minister Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN, who was represented at the event, hit the bulls’ eye when he mused on the absence of historical consciousness among our young. They know American history, and that’s because they schooled abroad. But they will have to learn our history. Was it not here that a student in Ikenne knew Obafemi the footballer and Obafemi the political genius? If they don’t know the story of the Sokoto Caliphate or the Niger Delta city states or the Yoruba wars of the 19th century or the so-called Benin massacre, what of a recent event like the civil war? Not many have ever heard of Gowon. In Journalism, I met some students who know nothing about Ray Ekpu or Dan Agbese. That’s why we have no fitting memorials for any period of time. We have memories. But memory without documentation or authentication is like oral history. We pass facts and parse them. We are left with biases, pastiches, myths and outright lies.

    Our amnesia reminds of Gabriel Garcia Marquez novel, Love in the Time of Cholera, where a man spends all his life waiting for the husband of the love of his life to die. By the time it happens, he is wrinkly, withered fuddy-duddy and the woman also an expired fig. They marry with no juice, a romantic desert. So, they go around in circles on a ship with no anchor but only a chorus of encores.

    If we don’t study our history, we will be, as the historian asserted, “a rudderless craft in the uncharted sea of time.”