The Nation Newspaper

Category: Columnists

  • The harvest after

    The harvest after

    •After the flood, what does Nigeria do to ensure food security?

    BEYOND the immediate sorrow and biting anguish of the flood that has plagued the country, the full impact of the disaster would dawn at the time to harvest crops. Is Nigeria then likely to face dire food shortage next year?

    With farmlands washed away, and many farmers ruined in parts of the country mostly affected by the flood, that possibility is real; and the likely dire food situation daunting. But if Dr. Akinwunmi Adesina, the Minister of Agriculture is to be believed, the Federal Government is already thinking of ways of tackling the problem; and he promises the damage would be reduced to the barest minimum.

    What are the minister’s plans? During a tour of affected places in Kwara and Niger states, Dr. Akinwunmi said the government had decided to embark on irrigation-driven massive cultivation of crops during the coming dry season. This programme of accelerated production of food, he added, had as part of its components, giving farmers high-yielding varieties of rice, cassava and yam seedlings, as well as early-maturing maize seedlings, to be ready for harvesting within two months of planting. That is not all: the plan, which the minister dubbed “Flood Recovery Food Production Plan” is complete with fertiliser supply. Both the fertiliser and seedling would be given free to farmers.

    This policy, if well implemented, is a good one. Aside from showing the Federal Government as caring, it has the potential of helping the victims rebuild their businesses; and getting over the acute pain of the present disaster. On the macro-level, it would help the country avert a very likely food crisis and, if the government can move from the template of an ad hoc response to tackle a disaster to deliberate and sustainable programming to massively improve agricultural yields, it would really be salutary for the Nigerian economy, particularly if storage and processing are factored into the mix.

    It is in this distinction between ad hoc response to disaster and deliberate and sustainable policy that the minister’s plan is self-impeachable. Make no mistake: the minister’s plan – again, if well implemented – is commendable. Still, it need not be that only a sweeping disaster like this would bring forth such plan – except of course, the plan had always been there; and it took the disaster to publicise and market it. That however would push credibility beyond reasonable elasticity.

    Still, it is better late than ever. The Federal Government would therefore do well to use the opportunity of this tragedy to institutionalise a vibrant agricultural policy, under which the emergency plan would be a subset. Otherwise, the experiment would be no better than a knee-jerk emergency response doomed to gradually fade as the anguish of the tragedy ebbs.

    Then there is the implementation question. The Federal Government has no land of its own, except the parcel in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory. So, for the rescue plan to succeed, the states must be fully integrated. It is not clear how well integrated the states are into the plan, but certainly the minister cannot say it is given. It is a programme like this that shows the inappropriateness of a central ministry of agriculture in a federal state. With the approving authorities so far away from implementers, it is no surprise the central agriculture ministry’s projects often end up as scams. This food rescue project must not end up that way.

    The minister did not mention anything about dykes to keep flooding at bay. True, dykes are big capital projects. But if prevention is better than cure, the Federal Government, in concert with the states, should think along that line as possible antidotes to the floods next time. At least that would reduce the number of farmlands that will be washed away.

     

  • Ondo: now the crunch

    Ondo: now the crunch

    Lionisation and demonization come with electioneering. You lionise your own and demonise your opponent; and vice-versa. It is all a show of emotions, as contestants cosh their opponents with a quick one, and hope to sucker in the electorate with a quick vote.

    As in shooting wars – despite the Geneva Convention – all appears fair in electoral wars. And so it has been with the Ondo gubernatorial electioneering, with the election billed for October 20.

    The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) has “rushed” incumbent Olusegun Mimiko with a charge of Judas to South West integration; and a likely scapegrace to pan-Yoruba economic integrity and prosperity, in a troubled Nigeria not all sure of its future. They have also taunted Iroko with the paucity of his Labour Party (LP) platform: it is a small pond in which the Iroko loves to play as a big fish. In due time, the ACN insists, both dried pond and dead whale would be history.

    But the Iroko has charged back waving the primordial card, claiming some indigenes of Ondo State are more indigene than others. He fingered Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, the ACN national leader, as head of “aliens” come to invade his native Ondo in political conquest; and dismissed Rotimi Akeredolu, SAN, the ACN candidate, as no more than a colonial day District Officer (DO), come to underscore that conquest. All foul is fair in electoral war!

    Why, even Lawyer/Cleric, Pastor Tunde Bakare who, were he making his argument in court would have been dismissed as a meddlesome interloper, has waded into the fray; consolidating his emerging notoriety of abusing his pulpit and insulting his congregation with brazen political yammering passing as activism, instead of preaching the gospel as his calling demands. The learned man of God is all scholarly, all articulate and appears to have mastered the devastating polemics of the political gospel. Yet, he appears to have totally lost the Christ message to the lowly and the humble: it is not what you eat that defiles you. It is rather what you say!

    Even in the media, gladiators have weighed in on both sides. That is quite legitimate, for media endorsement or non-endorsement is part of a rich and robust legacy in a democracy; so long as such interventions help the voter to make reasonable choices.

    Yet, many writers on the Ondo election are beginning to manifest the partisan conspiracy and media charlatanism that made many in 2011 glumly rationalise that grand folly: claiming to vote for Jonathan, not his Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Now, one year after, there is mass lamentation and gnashing of teeth over the ill luck of Goodluck! Talk of the burden of bad choice!

    That brings the discourse to the electoral crunch of October 20. But before then, a preface of the dramatis personae.

    Two governors would qualify as among the most pivotal to the fortune of Lagos State: Alhaji Lateef Jakande (1979-1983) and Asiwaju Tinubu (1999-2007).

    In plucking the proverbial low hanging fruits and boasting rapid fire responses and achievements, Alhaji Jakande is second to none. His progressive mass education policy and rapid, almost breath-taking delivery of housing stock, as landmarked by his numerous people-named “Jakande Estates” that dot the metropolis, not to talk of his futuristic Metroline fast rail mass transit that the military killed in 1984, are the stuff of which legends are made. But the Action Governor only built on traditional governance as he knew it.

    Not so, Tinubu, who opted for governmental modernisation. That explains the exponential growth in internally generated revenue from N600 million monthly to some N23 billion now. True, Lagos had always been blessed with good administrators according to Gov. Fashola at an ICAN annual lecture. Perhaps too, Lagos had always been “rich”, compared to other states.

    But the Tinubu era fiscal modernisation policy vaulted Lagos from its “rich” potentials to an active driver of its economy, independent of a bloated and arrogant central government, despite Nigeria’s flawed federal system. The immaculate Babatunde Fashola government is ample proof of this transformation.

    Now, what have all these got to do with Ondo? Plenty! October 20 is an electoral clash between following a present routine; or upping the stakes with a new paradigm.

    Those going berserk over Mimiko’s “achievements” are resigned to the present Ondo cosmetics of churning around fat Federation Account receipts (and Ondo earns highest in the South West, as an oil producing state) with mediocre vision and pedestrian projects as Mimiko has done for the past four years; or opting for a new paradigm to vault the state, ala Lagos, to start running its show, and deliver prosperity to its longsuffering people, in the context of an integrated South West, however Nigeria navigates it shark-infested pseudo-federal waters.

    So, those who dismiss Akeredolu as just another DO from the Tinubu colonial army, would do well to vet the track record of previous DOs: Babatunde Fashola is first, and his record in Lagos is universally acclaimed. Many, in the passion of winning an argument at all cost, tend to separate his tenure from its Tinubu era nativity. But that is tantamount to separating an aircraft in full flight from its belaboured take-off. It is a most asinine and illogical distinction.

    The second DO is Kayode Fayemi in Ekiti. Despite its universally acclaimed brain power, it has taken the coming of Dr. Fayemi to start a deliberate and consistent pattern of development, contrasted to the ruinous ad hoc methods of past years.

    The third DO is Rauf Aregbesola. In less than two years in office, he has stamped his infrastructural genius on the State of Osun (as he before did in Lagos urban renewal, as Tinubu’s Works and Infrastructure commissioner); and proved that Osun need not be at the mercy of the visionless and the dim-witted.

    Ibikunle Amosun (Ogun) and Abiola Ajimobi (Oyo) have barely scaled their first anniversary for any vigorous assessment. But whatever path they choose to tread, it won’t be for lack of directions, from party mates, heading older governments in the South West.

    True, there are some quality governors, even in the PDP, which boasts no coherent post-election compass. Rivers’ Rotimi Chibuike Amaechi is one. Niger’s Mu’azu Babangida Aliyu is another. But all these are scattered across the country.

    No part of Nigeria, as at now, boasts a bevy of contiguous states under one party, which not only has a coherent and integrated plan but also a demonstrable prototype of implementing that plan. ACN, to be sure, commits avoidable hubris by preening it has the Yoruba integration franchise.

    But it can claim legitimate bragging right that having demonstrated competence in other neighbouring states, the Ondo electorate has something novel to look forward to, en route to economic integration of the South West, if it wins on October 20.

    That is the exciting prospect before Ondo voters. They should not allow anti-Tinubu bogey and allied fears to blight that prospect. It is time to think right and vote right; and in so doing, avoid sure future lamentation.

     

  • Achebe’s horde of attackers

    Achebe’s horde of attackers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Dancing with the people

    Dancing with the people

    As the Ondo governorship polls loom, I am sad at the humour of the hour. The irony of comedy is that it accepts the malady of our civilisation more than its triumph. Comedy emerges from the imperfections around us – a stumble, a misspeak, an act of naivety, an inefficient regime, etc. They often, on a higher level, point out the darkness of great vices: murder, betrayal, lies, hypocrisy, theft.

    That is why some of the great writers from Shakespeare to Soyinka have deployed humour to squeeze out laughter. After that, we scowl. When Chinua Achebe writes A Man of the People, he drapes his tale with a satiric robe so that when we laugh, we end it with a grimace. That was why playwright Bertolt Bretcht inaugurated a new form of theatre to moderate laughter and tears because, sometimes, we are carried away with the giddy sway of the laugh.

    So, if you look at the Southwest today, you will realise how much laughter we have lost. From Ogun State to Ekiti, we have gradually lost that belly laugh that often reminds us of the grotesque. We no longer have the Ibadan episodes with a man who tormented us to mock his beaded vainglory and party flourishes. Nor are we risible at the other governor with a perpetual sad-happy mien who brandished occultism as a brand of political coercion, or the Gestapo man who broke our ribs with his compulsive dalliance with the gulag. Of course, we cannot forget the delusion of grandeur from the one with the phony Awo cap. They all gave a sort of absurd humour. But the humour was not because they made our roads or empowered the feeble or fed the hungry or healed the sick, but because they celebrated a world of impotence in which their feathery bowers and ungainly steps recalled the reign of peacocks without beauty.

    The humour came out of sadness, because their kingdoms were founts of oppression. Where things go well, we see few examples of humour. “There is no humour in heaven,” quips Mark Twain, perhaps the foremost satirist in the world of letters.

    Ondo’s Mimiko belches out humour because his basic crust is betrayal at every level of a people, the Southwest Yorubas, who are on a train of togetherness based not just on kinship but on the high road of collective empowerment.

    It was to support the agenda of togetherness that Dante Alighieri, the Italian poet extraordinaire, noted “That every part to every part may shine/ distributing the light… from race to race, from one blood to another/ beyond resistance to human wisdom.” Dante writes his epic about heaven and hell, and he lists the names of people, great and small, who will find themselves where they belong based on their deeds or misdeeds.

    The verse called Divine Comedy is a sad story, emphasising Twain’s reference to humourless heaven. So whether you are governor or senator or president, stewardship is important, and when you fail, you find yourself in hell. Dante is not concerned with Biblical heaven or hell but the judgment of history. Those who misrule go to hell. Abacha, for instance, goes to hell.

    One governor who does not want a part of Dante’s poetic inquisition is Dr. Kayode Fayemi, the governor of Ekiti State, who is marking his second year in office. His road to the throne overflowed with thorns. He set out on a battle to win a mandate and turn the state into a model. When he was sworn in two years ago, I noted in this column what an uphill task lay ahead. He had a pedigree not only of a man who had dripped with promises, but who had staked out his personal integrity as an activist. As I left town that evening with a few other journalists, I wondered how he was going to make a difference. Ado Ekiti lay prostrate, dust heralded us from street to street, the houses looked forlorn but the people slobbered with hope. Under Governor Oni, they had the sort of look and life that Dante painted: “without hope, we live in desire.” To have desire for food, good education, infrastructure and jobs without visible prospects of fruition maligns the soul. Hope encourages desire, or else blind desire leads to crimes of fraud and violence that Seneca describes as the sources of all human injuries.

    The next day, I spoke to him on phone and he said in his baritone: “I have no choice. We have to fight poverty and eradicate it.”

    I visited at his first anniversary, and he had set the tempo. The next time I visited was during his mother’s burial and entered Ado-Ekiti with a friend from the United States. We had problem navigating the city. It was dusk, and everywhere work was going on. “This looks like a construction site,” was the comment of my friend, and that was before we entered the entrails of the city. That was when we knew the extent of work going.

    The city was a massive construction site, and I learned in a subsequent visit that it was even more elaborate than I thought, and he had spread the tentacles of development far. I noted in this column that in a phone-in radio programme, some callers wondered why he took on many roads simultaneously. They were afraid he would not complete any. To mark his two years in office, he inaugurated 10 roads of 103 kilometres about the distance between Lagos and Ibadan. This is with the accompaniment of drainage, setbacks and greenery. Those who feared for him did so because they were not used to a furious pace of development. He also commissioned five water treatment plants, one of which I had seen.

    He has complained about the frustrations of the elements. Rains have stood in the way, and he has quite some more work going on. But his heart is in the right place.

    The Ekiti people have been known for their love of education, and the challenge should be to encourage the people to see education not as an end in itself. They love their books and their PHDs, but that is not the way to go. In the United States, states with the higher levels of education like New York, California, Colorado, North Carolina have the highest levels of prosperity. The problem with us as a people is lack of productivity. That was why Fayemi has fought a few battles. One of them is the battle over teacher tests. He was resisted, but he has stuck to the principle that those who teach must know. And he is winning that battle. Another challenge to education is standards. A private school pupil received a scowl from his teacher the other day in Lagos when he corrected her (the teacher’s) English. That is why Fayemi’s stand is in the right place.

    His Ikogosi project is in advanced stage and I visited the place with all the chalets and the warm springs and the business potential. It reminded me of the poet Dryden’s phrase, “Here’s God’s plenty.” It was when we walked down from one set of chalets that we met a group of women, dressed as if from some social event of joy, singing in gratitude for his social security programme. The governor danced with them. The intellectual governor, as some have caricatured him, was in sync with dance and song with the old women.

    With such performance, he can dance. Just as Fayemi is dancing, can Mimiko boast such gyrations based on performance? That is the humour of the hour we seek.

  • Runny, not running, stomach

    DAILY SUN of October 11 abused two headlines: “UNIPORT alumni condemns killing” No news: alumni (plural); alumnus (singular). The confusion usually arises from ‘alumni association’ which takes a singular verb.

    “Blood thirsty cannibals?” Beyond blood-thirsty (take note of the hyphen) cannibals, are their cannibals that are not blood thirsty? Flesh is intertwined with blood.

    From National Mirror of October 11 come the following lexical tragedies: “Jonathan tours flood ravaged (flood-ravaged) states today”

    “FG sets up committee on teachers (teachers’) housing projects”

    “TDNA: Ekiti secondary schools’ teachers dump ASUSS” Get it right: school teachers. This personalisation of collocation is wrong because teachers teach students—not schools!

    “…the outcome of the investigation by the police of (into) the contentious SSS report….”

    “…they will be further emboldened to create even greater harm to our fledging democratic experiment.” Is our democracy still fledgling (note the spelling)?

    Still on National Mirror under review: “…were wasted by yet to be identified gunmen.” Gripping fear, gaping security deficit: yet-to-be-identified gunmen.

    “Like (As) before, a major scarcity of petrol is being currently experienced….” ‘Is currently being’ is antithetical to existential humanism! Yank off ‘is’ and ‘currently’.

    “…who recently offered a clue on (to) the issue….”

    “The NNPC is known to have imported more fuel into the country….” Where else would it have imported it into? Delete ‘into the country’!

    “…re-channel same (the same) through uninhabited areas?”

    “Education Minister threatens contractors’ revocation” Contract revocation is not the same thing as contractors’ revocation. In other words, the minister threatened contractors—not revocation!

    “Ghana: Groups call for scraping of study leave” Spell-check: scrapping.

    Lastly from National Mirror: “… while Nokia, Blackberry rating drop (drops).”

    The Guardian of October 9, starting from its front page sub-headline, nurtured copious flaws: “Northern Christians reject govs (governors’) peace forum” Apart from the lack of a basic stress mark (an apostrophe) after the word in question, there are standard abbreviations in English language—‘gov’ is certainly not one of them. It is just like writing ‘Pres’ for ‘President. Such careless writing highlights journalistic ignorance and laziness under the cover of house style!

    “NEMA alerts on (to) fresh plans to release water from Camerounian (Cameroonian preferably) dams” Alert by/to or simply alert, depending on context—not ‘alert on’.

    “Meanwhile, the Lagos League of Political Parties (LLPP) has congratulated…for (on/upon) his victory at the tribunal….”

    Still on THE GUARDIAN of October 9: “Akpabio worries (worried) over rot in judiciary” Except if the reporter is imputing that the governor—not the NBA president!—will keep worrying, which I contest!

    “We have had a useful business to business (business-to-business) roundtable, which is a follow up (follow-up) to the meeting between….”

    Still on the preceding affliction: “NDE, Ondo to partner on job creation initiatives” Adjectival appointment: job-creation initiatives

    Lastly from Rutam House as I welcome Martins Oloja, an urbane friend of mine, to the noble editorship of THE GUARDIAN. “Lagos Police Command reads riot act to criminals, seizes (arrests/apprehends/rounds up/picks up…) 130 hoodlums that rape, rob victims” Do we need ‘victims’ here? It is implied! And ‘seize’ is contextually wrong in this lexical environment because it lacks expressive technicality.

    Last week’s edition of this medium offered its numerous readers a few school-boy howlers: “2014: Battle for Anambra governorship race begins” ‘Battle’ and ‘race’ cannot co-occur in the same space. So, it is either the battle or the race that has begun. Therefore, 2014: Battle for Anambra governorship begins or Race for Anambra governorship begins or, preferably, Anambra governorship battle (race) begins.

    “My ordeal at the hands of Abacha—Aborisade” Let bygones be bygones: in (not at) the hands of Abacha.

    “…ready to be deported back to Nigeria….” Yank off ‘back’ in defence of our lexical freedom!

    “…formerly (formally) flags off (sic) an intensive search for Igbo unity over 2015 presidential election….”

    “Dangote sets (set) to invest in Sudan”

    Lastly from THE NATION ON SUNDAY under review: “Stopping a running stomach” Your health: a runny, not running, stomach!

    “As Gofamint commissions (launches) micro-finance bank”

    “Lagos alerts public over (to) Boko Haram crises”

    “Oyo SSG escapes assassination attempt” ‘Attempt’ is clearly redundant here. If the man escaped assassination, it means it was an attempt on his life.

    “Now she (no to gender insensitivity!) has joined (climbed or jumped on/aboard) the bandwagon of states worldwide which (why the pronoun deviation?) recognize….”

    “…the lawmaker took a wholistic assessment of active governance in the country.…” No parley: holistic assessment.

    “The Ministry of Finance performed creditably well….” Still keeping track: The ministry performed creditably or well; both words cannot co-function.

    “In this exclusive chat, the group talked about their musical carrier (career) and their relationship with other hip-hop groups in the country.”

    “It takes sometime (some time) to build a road.” There is a clear distinction between ‘sometime’ and sometime’.

    “…for the new thing God has in stock (store) for them.”

    “Resting in the bossom of God” An improvement: Resting in God’s bosom (note the spelling).

    “Okupe was not happy because the governor complained against (about/of) the criminal neglect of federal infrastructures in his state.”

    “In his interview with our reporter, he touched on many issues that bother (border) on the nation’s economy.”

    “The high population of students in (on) these campuses….”

    “There were instances where legislators and other party leaders threw decorum to the dogs and engaged in abusing themselves (one another) and challenging the authority of the Federal Government.”

  • Achebe: Some things are better left unsaid – A rejoinder

    Achebe: Some things are better left unsaid – A rejoinder

    Any deep thinking person who had followed up on the reactions of some Nigerians to Chinua Achebe’s latest book, There was a Country, would easily come to a conclusion that ethnic bigotry has remained the fundamental problem this country is yet to sincerely engage. The unintellectual and jingoistic dismissal of Achebe’s book by many a Yoruba Nigerian was as disappointing as it was laughably sad. Prominent among these sentimentalist criticisms of Achebe’s book was the one written by Mr. Idowu Akinlotan.

    Mr Akinlotan’s grouse with Achebe’s book is what he calls the “author’s unrepentant and undisguised partisanship.” He writes thus: “After reading the Guardian (London) excerpt of the book, I concluded this was a book he [Achebe] should not have written, for sometimes, the merit of a book is compromised by just one page, one paragraph, even one sentence. …Achebe should have left unsaid many of the things he wrote in the book. His reputation as a world-renowned writer was already secure, having written one of the 50 most influential books of all time. Why did he feel impelled to write this [fated] book, one which doubtless reinforces the suspicion many hold about his private and public animosities?”

    Interestingly, Mr Akinlotan had earlier informed the reader of his column that he had not read the book and would refrain from doing a review of the book. What do we call what he has written above: a pre-review, the type that comes with presumptions, assumptions and illogical judgements perhaps? The sharp-witted columnist was quick to “conclude” that Achebe’s memoir will be of little “value” and perhaps should be disregarded. Achebe’s only crime in the excerpt is that he dared accuse Chief Obafemi Awolowo of genocidal intents against the Igbo through his blockade policies that led to the deaths of many Igbo civilians during the Civil War. Most Yoruba in Nigeria are often quick to throw reason and caution into the air to defend the person and deeds of Awolowo.

    Mr. Akinlotan should have waited to read the book before jabbering. In this same book which Awolowo only got about two paragraphs of deserved criticisms that seem to have upset some Yoruba to frenzy, the likes of Ojukwu and Gowon have pages of criticisms on the egotistical roles they played during the Nigerian Civil War. But the typical “unreading” Nigerian who becomes an authority on hearsay would like Palladium shout abuses only to realise they have misjudged their target.

    Ethnicity blinds us! I felt my sensibilities assaulted when I read Mr. Akinlotan’s rationalisations of war crimes. All wars have moral question marks on them and I am yet to see a just war. But in his defence of Awolowo, Mr. Akinlotan struggles in vain to rationalise the moral questions he himself found as problems in the excerpt from Achebe’s book. For one, he sees nothing wrong in having millions of Igbo civilians killed in a war the Federal forces claimed was a “police action” intended to keep the country together. Starvation for the columnist suddenly becomes a lofty weapon of war without any “diabolical” intent. Mr. Akinlotan sees nothing morally wicked in a rehabilitation and reconciliation process that saw the Federal Government give £20 to Igbos wanting to convert their Biafran currency back into the Nigerian pounds irrespective of whatever amount of money they had deposited into the banks. Nor did Akinlotan say anything about the policy of indigenisation which at the instigation of Chief Awolowo the Federal Government introduced after the war to further deplete the economic base of the Igbo who mostly relied on the commerce of imported second-hand wares to survive. For the columnist, to maintain the saintly and heroic qualities most Yoruba have constructed and attributed to Awolowo, the aggrieved Igbo and other minority groups in Nigeria must be hushed to silence. Awolowo’s villainous roles during the war, for him, are at best mere “guesswork” and cannot be validated by any form of historical reflection. Suddenly, Ojukwu and Azikiwe have become canonised for their villainies too, all to ensure that Awo’s false reputations are not stained. Not until we come together as a people to acknowledge the heroic as well as villainous deeds of our so-called past heroes, not until we come to terms with the fact that we are not happy with one another, that we are living a lie, we will remain in the doldrums.

    For a columnist who is known for his deft analyses of socio-political and historical happenings in Nigeria and beyond to lose his sense of moderation and restraint in discrediting a book he knows nothing about simply because few lines supposedly put Awo (his tribal hero) in a bad light means that ethnicity should be the first of the problems we must engage should we want to be a country. For Akinlotan, the few lines Achebe penned, justified and historically valid indictments on Awolowo’s roles during the war, necessarily mar his book. And since, for him, Achebe lacks the intellectual acumen to interpret human motives and actions, not minding the fact that he (Achebe) has written one of the “50 most influential books of all times,” we should dismiss the old writer as “paranoid”. But let’s humour Mr. Akinlotan a bit since he is a master of human motives: How does one explain that a federal troop that mostly consisted of Northerners, who had earlier carried out a genocidal butchery of the Igbo, would now engage the Igbo in a brotherly and humane war? Or that the great Awolowo whose undisguised ethnic politics and sentiments would be so humane in prosecuting a war against a people whose political representatives proved to stand between him and his ambitions of ruling the country? Why is it so difficult for many Yoruba to accept faults in Awo? Does Palladium expect Achebe to praise Awo for initiating a harsh policy that led to the deaths of his tribesmen?

    If after 40 years Achebe still manifests “a disturbing streak of extreme traumatisation” as Mr. Akinlotan would have us believe, it only means that the scars of the war are anything but healed. It means that many more Achebes and other vicarious victims of the war are still pining in the injustices done to them by their fellow compatriots. It means that we are yet to become a country. Palladium believes Achebe has written the book for fame. He writes: “[Achebe’s] reputation as a world-renowned writer was already secure, having written one of the 50 most influential books of all time. Why did he feel impelled to write this [fated] book, one which doubtless reinforces the suspicion many hold about his private and public animosities?” It is only people of little minds and meagre ambitions that will think that a man in the twilight of his life, a man who has won all the fames deserving of his name, would release a book at 81 for fame and reputation. Achebe must remain silent in the face of historical injustice simply because he wants to keep his reputation intact. If Achebe had only blamed Ojukwu or Gowon, the Yoruba critics may not have been enraged this much. But now, his genius is challenged for daring to accuse Awo of genocide.

    Mr. Akinlotan must understand that Achebe was only trying to call the attention of the country to the massive injustice it has done to some of its citizens. It is a cautionary book which in my own opinion seeks to draw our attention to the fact that a man who chooses to forget where the rain has begun to beat him will never know when and where it stops. Why do we shy away from our history and yet hope to progress? For Palladium to dismiss Achebe’s call for the Civil War to be included in the teaching curriculum of schools in Nigeria is sad. For us to grow as a nation, we have to be more cautious and tolerant of others’ feelings and opinions. We have to be fair and courageous enough to see faults and strengths alike in the people we uphold as heroes and villains. Nothing should be “left unsaid” if truly we desire reconciliation and progress.

     

    • Anyaduba is a graduate student of Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife

     

  • Happy Birthday, dear ol’ girl! (part 2)

    Happy Birthday, dear ol’ girl! (part 2)

    There is so much madness in the land

    One giant Mental Institution, that’s our Nigeria!

    Did you hear the one about a mentally unstable man who was released from an institution for good behaviour? Well, his doctors felt he was sufficiently healed to be let into the society so he got out and went on the streets. Two hours later, he was back at the institution. What was the problem? He said that while he stood by the road side, he saw a man wearing thick glasses riding a commercial motorcycle and carrying a pregnant woman who had a child on her back, and another one who carried three passengers on his motor cycle. He also saw a taxi driver who had carried seven passengers in his four-seat vehicle and a policeman who only laughed and collected some money from him. Then he thought, ‘the people out there in the world are all madder than me, and I am the one committed!’ So, to avoid being contaminated, he went back.

    This last week, I listened in on a radio programme celebrating World Mental Health day. And I thought, ah, mental health! That is the inability of the mind to distinguish between what is socially acceptable and what is not. For example, since most husbands have not been able to distinguish between what is domestically acceptable (such as leaving all their month’s pay in the pockets of their pants for their wives to find) from what is not (such as leaving those pants on the kitchen table), we can assume that their mental health is challenged. There’s someone else whose mental health is challenged: my dog. For reasons best known to him, he thinks barking is beneath him. Do what you like, he just won’t bark. To harass visitors therefore, he simply, err, licks their feet. Grrr! That dog is so in need of a specialist.

    Obviously, then, anyone whose mental health is challenged needs help. I can count the people who need help. All taxi drivers need help. All Lagos bus drivers need help. All okada riders need help. Believe me, all husbands need help. How else can you classify a husband who sells his wife for a sum of money if not someone in need of help? No, that happened in literature. But I know one who nearly sold his wife because she was costing him too much to feed. Really, what constitutes mental health is a matter of perspective. After all, I once drove the car into one of the walls of the house. No, no one pushed me; I just thought the road extended there. Of course, need you ask? Those around me went, ‘But, were you mad?!’

    So, like everyone else, I interpreted the mental health day to mean the day we pause in our respective tasks, think for a moment about any mad person we know, say a little prayer for them, and then move on to choose what we are going to have for dinner. Not so, explained the resource person, it means the day we examine our mind and clear it of debris such as excessive love of money, excessive hatred of our noisy neighbour and too many death wishes such as driving the car at one hundred and forty kilometres an hour on Nigeria’s rough roads. Or, we can just use the day to think about those who appear well on the surface but are really sick beneath, like Nigeria.

    Reader, pause awhile and say a prayer for Nigeria for we have, by our behaviour, converted it into a mental institution. Seriously. The poor thing thinks it is well but it is really, really sick. Just think about the antics of her citizens. Where else in the world can you find a people so cheerfully bizarre, yet uncompromisingly devilish? Where else can you find a people so nice and yet so wicked to each other all at once? I say, where else can you find a people so artful at biting each other and so equally artful at blowing palliative air to soothe the pain? Where else but in this your good ol’ country can you find people perpetually screaming at each other ‘You hit my car, are you mad?! You beat my son, are you mad?! You stole my prayer, are you mad?! You stole my future, are you mad?! You stole all the meat in the pot, you this stupid child, are you mad?!!!

    When we think of the fact that what peoples the walls of this country is a veritable mix of schizophrenics, psychosomatics, psychopaths, sociopaths, sociogoths and psychogoths (if you know what those are cause I don’t), repressed and depressed joy killers, quarter-mad, half-mad and fully-mad individuals, and all in need of specialists, then we know we need to tread a little. If you don’t believe me, just take a look at the Lagos traffic and transport system. That is pure madness. Whoever contrived that system should be hung up for the world to behold as the example of a mad man. Or, you might look at Abuja driving. For exercise, drive to and from Abuja and you will see what I mean. Clearly, every driver along that route needs a specialist. The ones inside the city itself appear to be beyond redemption, so the government appears to have left them alone to finish one another off. When they finish getting rid of one another, to the last one of them, then we can claim the city back from madness. Right now, it is on the brink.

    When we think of the mad things we have done to this country, then we would agree that it is all but hanging on a thread, or just hanging. And it all began when we stood the country on its head, much like when you stand logic on its head. Again, pause a while and let us go over the facts together. Is it not in this country that people who have been convicted or are under suspicion are also ‘elected’ into political office? Is it not in this country that people who say they are trying to salvage the country’s economy ask to be paid in foreign currencies? Don’t these things boggle your mind? They do mine.

    Sadly, it is also in this country that people go out to kill in the name of God and still preach that that God, in whose name they have killed others, stands for love. Hmm. Strange love. Anyway, this is also the country that houses the highest number of people who steal from the government so that they and their children will never be poor again. Yet another kind of strange love. So, with so much strange love going around, are you surprised that there is so much madness in the land, and we are all ensconced in this giant mental institution?

    The World Mental Health day came and went without too many people noticing it. Perhaps, those who did were the only sane ones among us. I dare say the rest of us were too busy displaying our mental instability to notice. So it comes down to this. The mental health of this country is in your hands. Stop screaming at others; stop driving recklessly; stop embezzling recklessly; stop killing in the name of God, and begin now to take care of yourself and others in this mental institution. Who knows, if we begin to behave ourselves we might be let off, and be allowed to join the comity of sane nations soon, real soon.

  • Vice presidential debate: Obama gets a temporary balm

    Vice presidential debate: Obama gets a temporary balm

    •Political Campaigns can be distilled to the practice of turning your lies into truth and your opponent’s truth into lies.

    Last week may have been President Obama’s most painful as a politician. After a brittle debate performance, his election campaign fell into a tailspin. Voters abandoned him as if he were leprosy stricken. The noticeable lead enjoyed over his opponent was erased simply due to one uninspiring performance. In one national poll, Obama suffered over a ten percentage point dip, going from a six-seven point lead to a five-point arrearage. After the debate, a greater number of people opined that Governor Romney would more skillfully handle the economy than the president could. His electoral advantage among women evaporated as had much of his “likeability” advantage over his opponent. The implausible suddenly loomed real: he could lose.

    Never before had one debate so altered the political landscape. For one so confident in his ability to communicate and also as sensitive as Obama, this unexpected rejection by a large segment of the electorate must have been numbing blow, the political equivalent of a concussion. President Obama had built his political strategy on a surplus of goodwill among the electorate. He entered the debate cockily assured all he needed was to make a passive appearance devoid of monumental error and all go well for him. When the crunch came, his vaunted goodwill with the public deserted him like a freeloader leaving a party once the punchbowl had gone dry and the hors d’oeuvres were finished. What he thought was a rock-solid political asset proved to be shifting sand.

    Although the president’s debate outing was tedious, it did not warrant such a public reaction. An unnamed force was in operation. Obama’s diminution in the polls was half his fault. The other half was attributable to the voter’s biased perception of the debate. A reasonable hypothesis is that at least 90 percent of those who have turned toward Romney in the debate’s aftermath are white, independent moderates. Obama’s performance finally gave them a defensible excuse to do what their biased hearts had wanted them to do: ditch the president. Prior to the debate, Obama seemed visibly better than Romney. Yet, these people remained undecided or only begrudgingly for Obama because Romney had not achieved the minimum threshold he needed to be considered a credible alternative. Romney had gone too far right and was forever stumbling during this course of this conservative migration. Still, these voters held out for the slightest excuse to kick Obama down the stairs. When Romney veered back to center and away from the Republican extreme and Obama stammered through the debate, the desired excuse had finally presented itself. With this, many whites happily flocked Romney’s way; supporting him felt more in keeping with the traditional order of things. It was a restoration.

    The move away from Obama constituted a form of white flight. It also signaled that he has yet to understand the racial outlook of much of white America. His objective to be one of the guys, to be the great black moderate, continues to elude him for it is a mirage. America has not yet reached the stage where elite black mediocrity will be as richly rewarded as its white counterpart. Obama was elected in 2008 because enough white people saw him as a rare leader, one who was clearly superior to his rival. Unless he proves himself demonstrably superior to Romney, Obama will forfeit the larger slice of the heretofore undecided portion of the electorate. The election could lean in the balance.

    Obama’s post-debate conduct did little to stem his decline in the polls. He rationalised his flat debate performance by claiming his mistake was being “too polite” to his opponent. The president remarked that repetitively pointing out Romney’s many untruths might have come across as offensive. This remark was beneath the man and the moment. Taking his rival to task would not have been half as unsettling as President Obama’s passively taking in Romney’s ballooning fabrications. With this post-debate excuse, Obama showed that he was as capable of the brazen lie as Romney had been during the debate. Unless he knew beforehand that Romney would engage in serial prevarication, the president’s excuse defies logic. When confronted by Romney’s first lie, the president could not be sure more untruths would come or how many there might be. At that moment, the question of repeatedly confronting Romney could not have weighed down the president’s mind; he only had sure evidence of the first lie. At that point, he should have confronted his opponent. If he had, this might have disturbed the Republican’s stride, perhaps deterring many of the untruths that were to come.

    Some things came to help the president even when he was doing poorly helping himself. Unemployment figures for September showed considerable improvement, dropping from 8.1 to 7.8 per cent. Harangue from conservatives that the jobless figures had been manipulated to promote the president’s reelection served to remind the more thoughtful moderates that the Republican Party had become the garrison of rightist zealots possessed by an ideological perspective at variance with the interests of the middle class. The unemployment numbers and the crass Republican reaction to them stemmed some of the Democratic bleeding.

    The most effective curative for what ailed the Democrats was Vice President Biden’s debate performance. Biden was an unlikely hero. Prone to the verbal gaffe, the impromptu Biden is the opposite of his tightly-scripted boss. Months ago, wishful speculation among Democrats worried about the election had Obama replacing Biden with Hillary Clinton. Today, those same Democrats are celebrating that their hopes went unrequited. Biden has something Obama does not. Biden has fight in him. Where Obama is cerebral and emotionally aloof, Biden is a combative, sometimes combustible, man who wears his emotions openly. Obama painstakingly measures his words as if on trial. Biden has the tongue of a carefree raconteur. Obama is a rapier while Biden is a broadsword. Where Obama flinches from confrontation, Biden relishes the hurly burly. Obama views debates as drudgery that he might lose. Biden sees them as a game he can win. Moreover, Biden epitomises Main Street America. Born to a working-class family in a working- class town, Biden talks for the common man. More than Obama because of his race or Romney because of his money, Biden can relate to working class white America. He comes from them and it is the undecided voters within this group who will decide the fate of this election.

    Additionally, Biden is as loyal a subordinate as can be found in this day and age. Coming into the debate, he knew he had to rally the Democratic Party. As a result of the drop in the polls following the presidential debate, Democrats were downcast. Their enthusiasm had been doused by gloom. Meanwhile, the Republicans, who were almost ready to mail their concession speech two weeks ago, had renewed vigor. Suddenly, a victory that seemed as distant as a star now appeared close enough to grasp. Biden’s objectives for the debate were two-fold. First, he had to stop his own party’s retreat. Second, he had to expose Republican policy inconsistencies. Biden undertook these tasks with the alacrity of a junk-yard dog gnawing a moist bone.

    At the presidential debate, Romney had executed a policy shift of exquisite cynicism. To clinch the Republican nomination, Romney campaigned as a staunch conservative, ceding the moderate ground to Obama. Obama established homestead in this centrist position but failed to erect strong defenses against trespass because he thought Romney would continue to tack sharp right. At their debate, Romney invaded the middle ground but Obama failed to evict him. The Republican understood the closer he drew his positions to Obama’s, the more undecided white voters would tilt his way. Given a choice between a white man and black man signing essentially the same tune, these voters would be pulled to the white man as if by magnet. Credit goes to Romney; he has played the race card as subtly as it can be played, so subtly that few observers will dare mention it.

    Against this backdrop, Biden’s performance must be measured. Garrulous and interrupting his opponent every time Congressman Ryan spoke an untruth, Biden had the expression of a lion uncaged. By contrast, Ryan hoped to repeat the strategy that proved successful for Romney in his debate where Romney proved to be a master of the lie, sincerely told. Where Obama gave Romney a free pass, Biden pounced on Ryan like a weightlifter on a scrawny thief.

    When Ryan claimed the Obama fiscal stimulus was an inefficient waste that burdened the economy, “fuss and guts” Biden exploded that Ryan had glued himself to hypocrisy. Saying Ryan had written for stimulus funds for projects in his state, Biden reminded the Congressman that his request letter said the stimulus money would create jobs and help the state economy. Biden asked the man how he could write a formal letter asserting that the stimulus funds were condign then lie to the entire nation that the stimulus failed. Ryan could do nothing but tender a nearly unintelligible reply.

    Ryan cited the unemployment rate in Biden’s hometown of Scranton had risen during the past four years. Then he tried a cheap trick by asserting Scranton’s increase was representative of the national trend. Before he could complete the falsehood, Biden snapped Ryan was misleading the public and that unemployment was going down throughout the nation.

    When Ryan tried to blame Obama for the lagging economy, Biden retorted Ryan’s culpability exceeded the president’s because Ryan had supported all the Bush-era policies of waging two wars while simultaneously executing a steep tax cut for the wealthy. On health care, Biden chastised Ryan for offering a voucher plan that would not give the poor and elderly enough money to afford decent insurance coverage. Biden reminded the audience Ryan had been a long-time proponent of privatising Social Security. Had Social Security been privatised during the 2009 recession, the life-savings and retirement nest eggs of millions of American would have evaporated due to the greedy speculation that Republican policies had encouraged in the financial system. Time and time again, Biden returned to the theme that the Republicans had a long history of attacking vital social programs. Thus, the Republican ticket’s sudden, late-hour support of these programs was more than suspicious. It was an attempt to win the contest by hoodwinking the public. A passionate Biden emphasised that Obama had always championed the middle class and thus was more trustworthy than these recent converts.

    On foreign policy, Biden claimed Ryan and Romney were engaged in empty posturing. While claiming that Obama’s foreign policy was weak, Ryan and Romney could not offer any concrete ideas of what they would do differently in foreign policy, Biden complained. The Vice President said his opponents were silent on alternatives because they had none. Again, Ryan’s reply was feeble and unpersuasive.

    Sadly, on the most important foreign policy matter Biden did not adequately dog Ryan and his dangerous logic. Ryan alleged the Iranian “Ayatollahs” were intent on acquiring a nuclear weapon; that current sanctions and negotiations would not dissuade them. He then echoed the vague and frightening postulate that Iran should be stopped before it acquired “the capability” to create a nuclear weapon. Advanced to their logical conclusion, these statements basically mean that Ryan has determined that war is inevitable. If this reflects Romney’s thinking, America will likely be at war with Iran within a year should a Romney Administration be inaugurated.

    Biden was not perfect and made a few misstatements including one about the Libyan consultant attack. Still, in winning the debate, Biden achieved his primary goal. The Democrats are revived and no longer despondent. He also showed his boss how to handle the chameleonic Romney. As good as Biden performed, the effects of his labor will not live beyond the next presidential debate on October 16. This one will be telling. After the first encounter, Romney demonstrated he had the ability to embrace multiple positions on one issue. As such, he showed himself to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing pretending to be a sheep in wolf’s clothing pretending to be a wolf in sheep’s clothing. On the other hand, Obama has simply been a sheep in sheep’s clothing. If he keeps at this defenseless posture, he will be badly hit. October 16 might be night of the most momentous debate in the last fifty years. Despite his failings, Obama is a safer bet than Romney. If Ryan spoke the truth about his boss’s Iranian policy, they will ignite another war in a region already beset by too many conflicts; they will rush to war without compelling reason. One dares not underestimate the dangerous consequences of their coarse aversion to diplomacy and decadent affection for pummeling weaker, rival nations.

  • Happy birthday, jare, Gov Okorocha

    Happy birthday, jare, Gov Okorocha

    How can anyone accuse the governor of extravagant celebration?

    GOVERNOR Rochas Okorocha of Imo State has been in the news again of late. As usual with people who would not give the governor a breather, it is for the wrong reasons. The bile this time is the governor’s 50th birthday, which ought to have been marked on September 28, but was postponed to October 8 to coincide with the 10th anniversary of the governor’s foundation and schools. This is where the critics first got it all wrong. If Governor Okorocha had been as flamboyant and wasteful as he is portrayed, he would have celebrated the two ceremonies differently. Because both were landmarks in their individual rights would have called for double celebration. The birthday would have been marked on September 28 and the foundation and schools that clocked 10 would also have had their day on October 8.

    Apparently, Governor Okorocha knew that armchair critics would take him to task if he did that; so, he decided to collapse the two ceremonies into one, thus killing two birds with one stone. Some savings had been made from this decision; obviously, from whichever coffers the money for the celebrations came. Not a few had speculated it must have come from the public till; some were even so categorical that the money spent on the ceremonies was from the government coffers as if the state’s accountant-general has furnished them with the necessary papers to make such a categorical assertion. Now, even if that were so, people still have to realise that money had been saved all the same because money would still have had to come from wherever if the governor had not been considerate enough to collapse his twin celebration into one.

    I can smell two rats in all these criticisms: poverty and envy. The problem is that many of those complaining that the governor is extravagant did so because they did not know how it feels to be 50, especially so when one has the deep pocket to let the invitees eat and drink to their full and still have more than enough to take away. Many of the critics must have matched the array of personalities at the ceremony: former (self-styled) President Ibrahim Babangida, former Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Mr. Morgan Tsvangirai, governors of Anambra State, Mr. Peter Obi; Rivers, Hon. Chibuike Rotimi Amaechi; Delta, Dr. Emmanuel Uduaghan; Katsina, Alhaji Shehu Shema, and Bauchi, Mallam Isa Yuguda with what these and other dignitaries consumed, and the exotic wines that they would have used to flush down the small chops and sumptuous meals, and concluded that it must have cost a fortune to put together such an event. That is poverty at work. Or is it at play?

    As ‘King Sunny Ade once sang, when the poor gets to the mansion of the rich, as he is cursing God, so would he be speaking so disdainfully of Him, wondering why He should create some people tall and others short; they would be wondering whether it was not the same God that created the rich who is spending so lavishly, and the poor who like Lazarus must wait to feed from the crumbs falling under the tables of the rich.

    The interesting thing is that Imo people did not behave like that, at least not the hoi polloi, which really is soul-lifting. That is to say that those protesting the governor’s ‘extravagant spending’ on the occasion of his Golden Jubilee are essentially busy bodies who delight in their fantasy that no good can ever come of the ‘Okorocha Nazareth’. Now, how do I know? A commentator’s ‘notorious fact’ revealed this in his description of the arrival of Babangida to the Heroes Square, venue of the celebration: “Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, who in company with the governor, rode into the square with some streak of a triumphant entry, as the mass of the people who had gathered at the square since 8.00 a.m. rose in loud ovation on sighting their governor and his array of important guests”.

    Pray, how does this show disapproval with the governor’s ceremony? I am sure they must have sung ‘Happy birthday’ for the governor. Their representative/s must have joined in cutting the birthday cake, etc. How could people in this felicitation mood complain about the economy of the state shut down for just one day to mark the governor’s 50th birthday? Now, when these critics got to their wits’ end, they even contradicted themselves by saying the governor shut down the entire economy in the state by approving the holiday, when time and again, these same critics have always reminded whoever cares to listen that the state is predominantly a civil servant state. So, which businesses must have lost colossal amounts due to the declaration of a day holiday? Which man-hours could have been lost? If the major source of sustenance is the monthly federal allocation, how did the holiday affect the state’s share? Those who say basic infrastructure is weak if not non-existent in the state; and those who say the schools are dilapidated, that the people have no potable water and that healthcare facilities are inadequate, in short those who say Imo State is backward, thus trying to give the impression that the governor has not been working would see how little they are when they hear what some of the invited eminent persons said of the governor at the ceremony.

    Tsvangirai, in his remarks charged African leaders to look inwards by delivering those promises they made during their electioneering campaign, adding that the electorate expected more from them. He commended Okorocha for his milestone in ensuring that his people benefit from democracy dividends. General Babangida on his part extolled the virtues of Okorocha for his achievements in education, philanthropy and governance. He called on other leaders to assist the special citizens by providing for them at all times. What he did not add is that they should emulate Governor Okorocha. When these gods who have seen it all in public office have spoken, who are people who do not know how hot the seats on which the governor and other highly placed people are sitting (or once sat) to contradict them? What other testimonial could have been greater than these?

    All those who have been condemning this wise and prudent decision from an equally wise and prudent governor should ask for asagafurulahi so that God can forgive them. The governor’s ears must be full by now over this storm in a teacup. I plead with him not to let this stop the good works he has been doing in the state since his election in May, last year. That is the way it is. I am sure he must have heard of the wise saying that ‘uneasy lies the head that wears the crown’. The governor should not forget that when his predecessor was there, the people complained; they said he was present more on billboards than on ground.

    The problem with the critics is that they cannot see the larger picture that the governor is seeing. Governor Okorocha at the occasion restated his vow to put Imo in the map of the fastest developing states by executing only people-oriented programmes. That is to say more holidays are coming. Isn’t this one sure way to make that happen? Happy birthday, jare, your Excellency. Even on auto-pilot, Imo Ebeano!

  • Sultan, the Archbishop and the Nobel

    Sultan, the Archbishop and the Nobel

    It is the Nobel season once again. This time Nigerian names are in the frame more than at any time in recent memory. Already, perennial favourite, Chinua Achebe, has lost out in the literature stakes to the Chinese writer, Mo Yan.

    This year, in one of the more curious nominations, the shortlist for the Peace Prize has thrown up the names of the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Muhammed Sa’ad Abubakar III, and the Roman Catholic Archbishop of Abuja, John Onaiyekan.

    Ordinarily, the prospect of two of our countrymen picking up the coveted prize is something that should fill Nigerians with a sense of pride. Such an honour would be a welcome bit of good news amidst an unrelenting deluge of the bad stuff.

    But coming at a time when the brutal actions of the fundamentalist Islamic sect, Boko Haram, are threatening to tear the country apart, this ranks as another in the long line of controversial nominations for the Peace Prize.

    Without question the insurgency in large parts of northern Nigeria is the greatest challenge to peaceful coexistence this country has faced since the Civil War. The Niger-Delta insurgency was limited in scope to targeting Nigeria’s economic interests and making it impossible for multinational oil firms to operate.

    But Boko Haram, combining the incendiary mix of politics and religion, has set as its goal the toppling of the current constitutional order, and replacing it with a theocracy where Sharia law will be the law of the land.

    Such is the level of brutality deployed by Boko Haram in its campaign, that it has been cited – along with military agents of government – as committing possible crimes against humanity in the present theatre of conflict in the North-East.

    Human Rights Watch (HRW) estimates that in the last three years the intense war between the sect and Nigerian security forces might have claimed at least 2,800 lives. With their use of crude IEDs for mass killing, we can credit the bulk of that body count to the terrorists.

    A new report by HRW says some of these attacks were “deliberate acts leading to population ‘cleansing’ based on religion or ethnicity”. These are very grave charges indeed. They hold out the prospect that those being accused – whether on the side of the extremists or the government – could one day find themselves facing justice at the International Criminal Court (ICC) at The Hague.

    Despite its deployment of military force as the sect’s attacks became more brazen and catastrophic, the government has not been able to crush it. But many argue that this failure is also down to collusion on the part of local communities and their leadership who have shielded known elements of Boko Haram for years. This protective cover has made it almost impossible for security forces to get quality intelligence in their fight against the group.

    Of course, Boko Haram has been able to cow large sections of the North – both ordinary people and elite – by showing potential collaborators with the Federal Government that they and their families could only expect sudden, brutal death for their folly.

    A little over a year ago former President Olusegun Obasanjo embarked on a peace mission to Maiduguri to meet Babakura Fugu , the representative of the late Boko Haram leader, Mohammed Yusuf’s family. A few days later he was shot dead by assailants suspected to be from a faction of the sect.

    Little wonder that such collaboration has been few and far between, and over the last few years a blanket of silence has descended upon the entire region. It is hard to get any major regional leader to publicly denounce the actions of the sect with the kind of trenchant rhetoric they deserve.

    Where they have been forced to comment, such statements have been embarrassing balancing acts that in one breath offered anodyne words of condemnation while at the same time making excuses for the killers – or finding fault with the actions of the security agencies.

    There is no question that in the North the Sultan remains the most influential and powerful traditional-cum-religious leader. But beyond making the usual bland, politically-correct statements, I cannot recall when he ever denounced the activities of Boko Haram with force that they deserve.

    We do know that the sect are not exactly enamoured with him. If anything they hold defenders of traditional Islamic orthodoxy like him in great contempt, and would do anything to destroy his influence and all he represents. So it is a mystery that he has not come out as hard as he could have on the issue of Boko Haram.

    As for his fellow nominee – the archbishop, I have no doubt that as a man of the cloth he is equally committed to peaceful coexistence of the two major faiths in Nigeria. I recall seeing a picture of him serving fruit to some Muslims at a gathering he organised to help them break their fast during the last Ramadan.

    Still I am not convinced that such gestures alone, or offering the right platitudes after some terrorist outrage, qualify one to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

    But again, stranger things have happened. After all United States President, Barack Obama, while still trying to find his feet in office was handed the Peace prize on a platter less than one year after he was elected.

    In one of the most embarrassing chapters for the Nobel Academy in recent times, they strained for a reason for giving the prize to a president who at that point was superintending wars in two different theatres outside the American mainland. The best that apologists could offer was that the prize was to encourage the ‘apostle of hope’ to work toward global peace in the future – ‘a call to action’ they said it was.

    How I wish the Sultan and the archbishop will win. What I am not sure of is whether Boko Haram insurgents who have not responded to the deadly persuasion of Joint Task Force (JTF) bullets, would be impressed by some shiny medals minted in Sweden.