The Nation Newspaper

Category: Saturday

  • Terrorism, politics and the law

    The bombing of a church in a military barrack in Kaduna in Nigeria and the placement of a bounty of 50m naira by the army on leaders of the terrorist group Boko Haram highlight Nigeria’s intractable and messy problem with terrorism. Unlike Nigeria, however Egypt faces a new problem from the use and misuse of power from its new president Mohammed Morsi, who recently issued presidential orders granting him powers that are not challengeable in any court in Egypt.

    In Nigeria again, in a strange concoction of politics and finance, the nation’s Central Bank Governor Lamido Sanusi, the Champion of Islamic banking in Nigeria asked the Federal government to sack 50% of its civil servants because it is spending 70% of its revenue on paying the salaries of these civil servants. In far away New York, the UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon asked the UN Security Council to approve the sending of an ECOWAS force to Mali to rescue that nation from invaders both Tuaregs and religious militants but asked the UN body not to provide the funds said to be worth $50m.

    The issues highlighted above raise issues of terrorism, authoritarianism, economic planning and finan ce, national, regional and global stability and I intend to highlight these issues in that light and context today. Let me stress that it will require a huge balancing act to do this and it is in that regard that I will make reference to an article by Burmese leader Aung San Suu Kyii titled -‘A Sense of Balance‘in The Economist which stressed that both peoples and nations will need to balance their acts to make the world a peaceful place to live in.

    In that fine article Suu Kyii noted that the end of authoritarianism is not synonymous with the end of dissent or the demise of fundamentalism. Dissent she said should be channeled towards concensus and compromise while she stressed that fundamentalism, which can be volatile in times of change and uncertainty, is in reality the natural enemy of balance. Suu Kyii identified terrorists as those people lacking in self respect who are incapable of compassion and restraint when they have an opportunity to deal with those who they think put them in a state of incapacity to attain what they perceive as their deserved niche. Such people who lack self respect are incapable of respecting others. The terrorist mentality she concluded is spawned by intellectual and social influences that widen to an extreme ‘the gap‘ between the terrorist and others – and this destroys the essential balance that promotes a common bond of humanity.

    It is in the light of the wisdom of the Burmese and Nobel laureate that I take on the issues raised first on terrorism in Nigeria and the resurgence of authoritarianism in Egypt in the wake of President Mohammed Morsi,s surprising and bold move to concentrate power in his hands. In Nigeria terrorism is waxing stronger as terrorists this week bombed the headquarters of the special police unit in Abuja where terrorists are being kept and some were said to have escaped. There have been reports that some suspected terrorists were found round the State House in Ekiti State while Members of the National Assembly are said to be apprehensive that the Assembly could be the target of Boko Haram terrorists.

    It is my considered view that no government should allow terrorists to operate with such impunity as this weakens respect for constituted authority and casts aspersion on the sovereignty of the state. It is ironically to protect such sovereignty that President Mohammed Morsi in Egypt seized the powers of the courts and decreed they could not be used to challenge him in his bid to control law and order in Egyp. In Nigeria’s case it is apparent that the state is lax in tackling insecurity and terrorism for reasons best known to the authorities. But human lives should not be treated with levity and nonchalance by the rest of us because we have not any relatives killed by terrorists. It is dehumanizing to see churches bombed on a weekly basis while Christians elsewhere and those not directly involved just pause for a moment and move on while the state wrings its hands in futile admonitions and does nothing to deter the terrorist against the next attack.

    In Egypt where there is no such terror as in Nigeria, President Morsi has seized power ostensibly to forestall such state impotence in the face of expected terror. Morsi is acting proactively in anticipation of spurious litigations to hamstring the state even though his anticipation and actions are decidedly undemocratic. The difference between the Nigerian and Egyptian situation is that the party of President Morsi, the Islamic Brotherhood is a Fundamentalist Party and secular Egyptians are afraid that Morsi and his party will use the power he has seized to introduce Sharia Law in Egypt, to the detriment of opposition parties and other religions in Egypt. Whereas in Nigeria the terrorist is rampant and running amok as it were.

    Yet, there is still some caution and restraint in the way the stakeholders and politicians in the Egyptian state deal with each other. When the demonstrations against Morsi started, the Muslim Brotherhood planned its own counter one for last Tuesday. But it cancelled this to avert bloodshed when it saw the turn out at Tahrir Square against the president’s usurpation of the power of the Egyptian Courts.

    Such restraint is barren in the way Boko Haram bombs Churches killing and maiming Christians and passers by in Nigeria. Worse still the business as usual stance of the security forces as well as the ‘not my turn yet‘ attitude of the rest of us has portrayed Nigeria as a nation of people thick skinned to murder and mayhem in their midst. Which simply means that human life is cheap here as in the Hobbessian theory that says that in a state of terror, where might is right, human life is violent, brutish and short. Surely that is a sad and unfortunate image for any nation not enmeshed in America’s war on terror like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq where suicide bombing has made a mockery of the sanctity of human lives.

    Again, it is in that light that I consider the call by the CBN governor to sack half the work force of our civil service as well as the posture of the UN not being ready to spend money on rescuing Mali. The CBN governor’s call reminds one of ‘the shoot the messenger‘ syndrome while the UN parsimony on Mali’s survival reminds one of the proverbial cat that would eat fish without getting its paws wet. What the CBN governor has said is the correct thing for any government spending 70% of its revenue on salaries to do but even he knows that no politician or government in Nigeria will do that and survive.

    Even the host governor at the venue where the CBN delivered his stricture said it was not possible. So the CBN governor was just barking at the moon even though every one knows that sacking of civil servants was never part of his schedule of duties and that makes the civil servants happy as they plan his downfall in the full Nigerian retaliatory syndrome. Anyway, the CBN governor is as impervious to criticism as the politicians in the way he carried through his Islamic Banking agenda which is in tune with his Master’s degree in Islamic studies from the University of Khartoum. Really what is good for the goose should be good for the gander.

    Lastly, Ban Ki Moon has shown that he or the UN does not understand the gravity of the situation in Mali. ECOWAS states alone cannot fund the reclamation of Northern Mali because they all have financial problems of their own .They mostly rely on Nigeria as the father Xmas of such military adventures. But Nigeria has problems of its own such as the one pointed out by the CBN governor, the oil subsidy theft, the huge allowances of its legislators as well as the fight against Boko Haram to which huge funds have been committed.

    The UN should not turn the proposed Mali ECOWAS force into another laughing stock like the blue beret UN Congo troops who stood by and watched unconcerned as M23 rebels seized the town of Goma from government forces in the DRC recently. Mali is a member state of the UN that is in trouble because of regional problems stemming from the growth of militancy and fundamentalism on the northern part of all ECOWAS states and needs help, especially the financial type to maintain its stability and sovereignty.

    If Mali falls there will be a wrong signal to militants in the Sahel that they can simulate the situation in Mali in any state in ECOWAS. That is one message that is lost to the UN Scribe for now. Not funding the military rescue of Mali can be counter productive and very costly for the UN in the short run not to talk of in the long. A word is enough for the wise.

  • Nigeria after Boko Haram

    Nigeria after Boko Haram

    Given its rage and capacity to cause maximum damage, not to mention the tough talk of its leaders, will there ever be Nigeria without Boko Haram? Is there any chance that one day the guns of the Islamist sect will stop booming and its bombs silent, the energies of its leaders and suicide bombers channelled to healthier ventures?

    My answer is yes.

    True, the group has terrorised the country enough for everyone to take it very seriously. Tons of blood is continuously spilled. The dead victims are gone, never to contribute anymore to the growth of their families or country.  For survivors, life will never be the same again after their encounter with the sect.  Many may never walk again. As for property lost, it can only be measured in billions, perhaps, trillions. Boko Haram has also caused all sorts of problems for government across the board, the security community and virtually everyone else. Relentless terror has taught public officials to have a healthy fear of the group, just as day-to-day life has substantially changed, especially in the North.

    Still, a post-Boko Haram era is possible, whether government succeeds in crushing it or the group, by itself, refrains from its acts.

    But I have an enduring worry: are we preparing for that peacetime? You can grapple with the tensions and challenges of the moment, even manage to contain them (as the military do), but there is more work to be done. Preventing a repeat scenario of those tensions and challenges is where the ultimate victory lies. That is the peace era, defined not merely by momentary cessation of violence but by the sustenance of law and order and mutual respect for one another. Peace era stimulates creativity, productivity and growth. Is the Jonathan administration merely working towards the end of Boko Haram, or is it looking to evolve sustained peace?

    Niger Delta militancy in the last decade is a relevant scenario. Like Boko Haram, it started with isolated cases of disorder before it got everybody in the region and beyond worried. Before we knew it, not only oil facilities were being blown up, nor were expatriate workers the only targets and victims of kidnappers; local chiefs, grandpas and grandmas and their grandkids were being taken too, to be ransomed at handsome fees. Naturally, business activities declined in the region, to take root beyond our national borders. And then President Umaru Yar’Adua came along, succeeding to get the region’s fighters to lay down their arms and embrace amnesty. It worked. Tensions cooled and, to boot, some of the former militants have been trained in entrepreneurship skills to help them get a life worth the name.

    Yet, and this is my major concern, I do not think government has really come to grips with the issues that remotely caused or precipitated the militancy in the first place. Life in the oil-rich delta is still pretty much unflattering. Several communities are left without power, clean water or any viable means of livelihood. Many areas lack schools of any kind, and where they are available, are not worthy of the name. Regional soils and waters are despoiled, leaving residents with few sustenance options. The Jonathan administration can look beyond the amnesty-induced peace and work towards evolving enduring harmony propelled by capacity-building and growth. The rehabilitated ex-militants represent a tiny fraction of the Niger Delta population, much of which live in abject poverty. Resolving infrastructural challenges will help to check gloom in the region. In other words, the government merely looked to contain the militancy, which it did, but has failed to create an environment that will be sustained on growth based on needs met, not on fires put out.

    The Boko Haram matter should be approached from a wider, more comprehensive perspective. So far, government’s response is not flattering. Predominant assessment is that it is not doing enough to halt the sect. The move by the Jonathan administration to stop the United States government from designating Boko Haram as a terrorist group has also worsened matters. But I think that, one way or another, the terror reign will end someday; how that will happen is beyond me. Yet, one question remains: what happens after the guns and bombs of the sect cease? Beyond politics and rhetoric, has the Jonathan administration assessed the factors that gave rise to the emergence, and ferocity, of the sect and mapped out strategies to contain them? Is neglect of the people one of the reasons? Is infrastructural challenge another? What about youth unemployment?

    I have argued in this space that the federal government does not need to create a Ministry for the North to pacify Boko Haram, my position being that such creations are largely political and have very little positive effect, anyhow. The Niger Delta Ministry has changed little in the region. Still, there is a lot a federal government can do to solve problems and stimulate growth in the states. Apart from initiating and executing its developmental programmes, it can inspire the state governments to drive growth and put their people out of misery. To inspire, it must shed party toga. Its intentions must also be transparently genuine and the president must be fatherly and above board. He must be courageous, with an eye on enduring legacy.

    That is one way to prepare for a post-violence era and make way for the emergence of a new Nigeria.

    First published on August 19 under the title ‘Are we preparing for post-Boko Haram era?’

  • New global strategies and economic realignment

    Nothing  illustrates what I have in mind today better  than two diplomatic   shuttles  involving the President of the US Barak Obama, his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton   and the continent of Asia in recent times. While  US President  Barak Obama was facing the heat of  his election campaign and reelection,  his Secretary  of State  Hillary Clinton was on  a diplomatic shuttle in Asia  and was  very assertive  in Burma. Immediately after  President Obama secured his re – election   he followed his Secretary of State again  to Asia to the Summit of South East Asian nations and  still   to Burma  where  both removed their shoes as they worshipped in a  temple with their hosts.

    Around the same time as these shuttles,  the Israeli air force was shelling  Gaza,  while Hamas was shooting rockets into Israel. Yet,  it was only after Obama and Hillary had  completed their assignment in Asia that Hillary headed to Israel and the Gaza Strip while the US president went back to the White House in Washington. Yet,   Israel  has not changed as the cornerstone of the US Middle East Foreign Policy.  A few years back, it would have been unthinkable for a US Secretary of State to be in the Pacific while Israel was being attacked and was indeed contemplating a  land invasion not to talk of a US president talking business with China, Thailand and Japan while Israel was on a high security alert.

    But  times have changed and I can imagine Barack Obama chuckling   quietly to himself as he recalled the response of a  former British PM  Lord  Palmerstone to his attackers in the House of Commons on the charge that he was creating colonies overseas  for Britain at the start  of what was to become the Colonial era  for Britain. ’I have brought  a new world into existence to  redress  the  balance of  the old‘ – was  Lord Palmerstone’s historic response  in the Commons and I think that would be a very apt  retort by Obama  and Hillary to any charge of having abandoned Israel   under attack; and I can bet there will be no shortage of such charges in the foreseeable future.

    Undoubtedly the US president is changing US diplomatic landscape and policy and is doing it in a big way that even his opponents must concede has made a triumph of his first option of making diplomacy work. It  is pertinent to recall that he was given the Nobel Prize for this just after he had only made the Cairo Speech  just  as he was elected for his first   term. I  confess  that  I was one of those who thought he had not done enough then  to earn  the Nobel  prize. But now after the Asian shuttle preceded by the Spring Revolution in N Africa and the exit of the Arab despots, Obama is really now earning his Nobel Prize.

    Before  going on to dilate on Obama’s Asian trip let me shed more light on the role of Lord Palmerstone in British diplomacy during the reign of Queen Victoria. Lord Palmerstone was disliked by the British monarch because Palmerstone thought Britain should use its  power to expand its empire overseas and in pursuing this policy Palmerstone  created embarrassing moments for the  monarchy. This was because  the monarchy  believed the government should be more active in curbing the  rebellious activities of those asking for republicanism in Europe as Queen Victoria and her consort  Prince Albert were cousins to many of the ruling houses in Europe  instead   of   expanding the Empire as Palmerstone was more interested in. But Lord Palmerstone was  a  popular politician of his time and the Queen found it difficult to sack him. Palmerstone became Secretary at War in 1809 and served  for 20 years  under  five PMs  and was also Foreign Secretary   which was when he made the famous quotation,   before he too  became PM in 1855  at age 70.

    Hillary Clinton to me is  to the US President Barak  Obama what Palmerstone was to Queen Victoria. The difference is that there  is no hostility between the US duo  unlike their British counterpart and the US and its business interests are the better for it. At  a time when the EU, America’s natural and historic economic partner is comatose economically, Asia provides a life line for new business and investment for American firms and corporate business giants. Hence Obama’s  swift visit to a meetng of the South East Asian nations involving nations like China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and so  on in Canbodia. At  the meeting President Obama met outgoing Chinese leader Wu Jia Bao and had a farewell meeting as it were  with the Chinese leader who confirmed that US- Chinese business relations had never been better and that the good business will continue under China’s new leaders.

    Hillary also  had blazed a trail in getting the military in  Burma to release Aung San Suu Kyi  the Burmese political icon who had been under  house arrest for decades after winning the fairest election in the history of her nation. Suu Kyi is to Burma what the illustrious Nelson Mandela has been to S Africa, and the whole world, the epitome of freedom and the unbreakable spirit of  human dignity.   Unbelievably the military junta released her and allowed her party to contest  elections into parliament even though military appointees are in majority in the new Burmese parliament. Hillary’s diplomatic shuttle have been rewarded by the military who have relaxed some of their dictatorial policies  in Burma and even though the military is still in control,  Obama’s visit was to encourage the military to move towards democracy. However  Suu Kyi herself warned that the journey is long and people must not be complacent or have a false sense of accomplishment now so as not to be deceived eventually.

    Nigeria too is not to  be left behind in the quest of seeking new partners and  business realignments  for  national and global  economic survival. President Goodluck Jonathan was on the front page of newspapers on Thursday showing his arrival  at the Benazir Bhutto  International Airport in Pakistan‘s capital Islamabad,  for a meeting  of the D 8 nations hosted by Nigeria in 2010. According to the Nigerian president’s address on the internet,  he thanked the host of the Summit President Asif Zardari of Pakistan to whom he handed over the Chairmanship in Abuja two years ago. According to President Jonathan,  Nigeria values its membership of the D8 as a platform  for economic cooperation  and promotion of trade for sustainable development and welcomes investment in the country from member D 8 nations. President Jonathan noted that Nigeria has been very active in hosting many meetings of  D 8   and values   the goals of solidarity and joint and joint trade and commerce inherent in the association. To build on these gains President Jonathan said that Nigeria  and the Islamic Republic of Iran have jointly hosted the Working Group Meeting  on Small and Medium Enterprises –SMEs –which are vital to the growth of the G8 economies.

    The  D 8 nations are made up of  nations with a large Muslim  population and include host Pakistan, last host Nigeria, Turkey, Egypt, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Iran. Egypt is not attending as President Mohammed Morsi is staying put in Cairo to monitor the Israeli – Hamas feud over Gaza  and the testy ceasefire that came into effect last Tuesday. Aside from this however Egypt just  got a huge loan from the IMF for its migration to full blown democracy,  stemming from the Arab Spring and the Tahrir Square Street revolution that overthrew the Housni Mubarak regime,  and may not be that hungry for D 8  businesses.

    In addition there is the danger of being seen as hobnobbing with Iran which has UN sanctions round its neck over its Nuclear Uranium enrichment program, a fact which does not seem to bother the Nigerian president very much. In  addition Egypt does not support the Bashar Assad regime in Syria firmly supported by Iran in suppressing the popular uprising in Syria against the Assad dynasty. Surely political and diplomatic issues as well as regional differences still color pragmatic economic instincts by nations as they forge alliances and realign  economic  strategies to make ends meet in a fast changing world.

  • Re: Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations

    Re: Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations

    •Tribalism is not just Yoruba and Igbo problem but that of the whole country. Apart from tribalism, I want to say that we should equally eschew religious and political affiliation if we want to move ahead as one country and please let bygone be bygone. God bless Nigria, Don Ezeala, Port Harcourt, 08064843000.

    •Awolowo said in 1966 that if East goes west follows. But when Ojukwu declared Biafra, Awolowo did not declare ODUDUWA REPUBLIC. Instead he was working against Zik’s return from exile and he said at a Tinubu Square Ministry of Finance Headquarters news conference that starvation is the best weapon to win a war. I am a Yoruba man like 1964 born Segun Ayobolu. Yoruba leaders are treacherous. Tell them in your column to stop it, Ambassador Fagbongbe, Abuja, 07054666333.

    •I think your piece on ‘Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations’ said it all about what Achebe must have had in mind in his comment on Awo’s role during the civil war. Of course, excessive deification of our heroes can sometimes make us forget that they, however seemingly peculiar or sacrosanct in their socio-political conduct, still have their own failings. Awolowo no doubt was one of the great Nigerians nay Africans that ever lived. But like every one of us he had his biases and uncomplimentary sides. He was the war-time Finance Minister who designed the policy of food blockade that saw the death of millions of Igbos during the war. By blaming such death on him, Achebe was merely stating the facts of history which was arguably not meant to diminish Awo’s status or greatness whatsoever. How this would generate these kinds of Attack on Achebe only goes to confirm that after all here is Nigeria, Emmanuel Egwu, Enugu, 08037921541.

    •Sir, can you recall Achebe’s comment on Wole Soyinka’s Nobel prize award in 1986? Inferiority complex is his problem, Tayo Ayoola, 08035297811.

    •Segun, I just read your piece on ‘Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations’. I must admit that it is the most dialectically rational and impassioned analysis of the viewpoints expressed by Achebe. Among the cacophony of abuses and rebukes – one ridiculously canvassing the delisting of ‘Things Fall Apart’ from our schools’ curriculum – your piece appears to have recast a wider perspective from which Achebe’s position should be viewed. May your ink never run dry, Barrister Samuel Ehis Irabor, Makurdi, Benue State, 07035680060.

    •Your piece on Achebe’s book in ‘The Nation’ is an intellectual gift to Nigerians. IUnlike many myopic and parochial thinking Nigerians who see nothing beyond ethnic sentiments, yours was devoid of tribalism. While drinking from Achebe’s “well of wisdom”, you are equally nourishing us with more wisdom, 08099312423.

    •Hi Segun, thanks for using fewer words and no bitterness to make all the clarifications and points to be made about Achebe’s memoir and the major contending issues it raises. Yours is a very articulate and level headed presentation, Amanze, 08037988252.

    •I read your write-up on Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations. I must confess that you are intelligent but a core tribalistic person. This is for public consumption, try and balance things than playing tribalism, 08035091248.

    •Your memoir on the rivalry between Zik and Awo is quite impressive. However, it has also gone ahead to justify the claims in Achebe’s book. That is to say that the starvation of Biafra as recommended by Awolowo could be seen as a continuation of this same rivalry since Zik was a Biafran. If this was the case, then Achebe was right, 08033337981.

    •Sir, your article today on Chinua Achebe’s new book is very interesting and educative. However, you are still scratching the surface on the real hindrance to the long awaited handshake across the Niger. Remember that Zik is not so much loved by the new generation OIgbos, Chinua Achebe inclusive. Our main grudge is that Awolowo goaded us into a war only to turn back to join our enemy to attack us. At the end of the day it was Awolowo’s intelligence that won the war. For a true handshake across the Niger, Yorubas need to apologise to the Igbos and compensate them. Look at how the Igbos compensated the South South. Why don’t the Yorubas support the Igbos for 2015 for a start? It will go a long way to heal the old wound instead of all these denials, Andrew Udeze, Abuja, 08133790744.

    •Mr Segun, I must thank you for illuminating someone like me, in fact, I love you even though I have never seen you in person. May the Almighty God bless you and keep you for we the younger generation, Anyanwu Ben, Enugu State, 08062992066.

    •War is a large scale conflict where one seeks to defeat the other by whatever means. War is a matter of life and death. Therefore, woe betides anyone who provokes a war which he lacks strategies and capacity of prosecuting to a logical conclusion. Achebe’s submission betrays high intelligence he is known for. He has made it clear that being a literary icon is not synonymous with having sound judgement and being objective. For whatever reason, Ojukwu fought gallantly but lost to superior brain and fire power. Simple!, Gbenga, FCE, Pankshin, 07034887257.

    •Dear Ayobolu, your article – Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations – lacks the usual poignanct and depth that characterize your writings because you were begging the issues. As a young ladin Biafra, I know that all the relief materials that made its way into the Biafran enclave was through air lift, which was constantly under federal fire. Why did the questionable philantrophists and even more doubtful federalists want a land corridor to bring food into Biafra? No commander-in-chief of Ojukwu’s ilk will, after the Aburi saga and Awo’s failed promise to declare Oduduwa Satte, trustingly allow an enemy easy access to his heartland under the pretext of food supply, Elder Victor, 08036675773.

    •God will bless you. I just finished reading your good presentation on Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations. You have said it all. Your last paragraph rested every contention. Once more, thank you, Isichei O. S, 08035906787.

    •Wonderful write up today. Though I haven’t seen or read Achebe’s book, a lot has been said but you looked at it differently, Dr. Iyekolo Oluwaseyi Gbenga, 08059391879. •Dear Segun, eziokwu bu ndu, and it will follow you and, of course, be perpetuated in your lineage. Your prescription is more or less the panacea to the doldrums and abyss the country has found itself. It is in sync with Dr. Ezeife’s vociferous recommendation (campaign). Be multiplied and blessed, P.L. Osuagwu, 08093912933.

    •My dear Segun, your piece titled ‘Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations’ is very good. You exhibited an exemplary judgement which if followed will do the Igbos and Yorubas a world of good. Thanks for your sense of balance, Chief Okey Muo Aroh, 08033125794.

    •Sege, bawo ni. Read your today’s stuff. Great as usual and soothing too. Problem is, instead of fixing their mercantile political trait, our ‘brothers’ lazily prefer to look for non-existent fall guys. Anyway, sorry about the proof reading goof in paragraph 3 – (legitimate instead of legitimize) because I know you are a thorough guy. Printer’s devil may be. Happy weekend, Olu.

    •Segun, the thorough manner you handle issues and dexterous touch of syntax and diction makes you my idol. Bravo, a writer par excellence, Livinus Nwaugha, Benin City, 08061260517.

    •Thank you for your honest and candid analysis of Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations. It is unfortunate that people quarrel with history, what is already known and even in a black and white colour. The position of Achebe is immutable, Abaranoye Onwukwe, 08153987618.

    •Mr Ayobolu, your illuminations column was so objective. Many past commentators have pitched their arguments as Igbo or Yoruba jingoists – for or against Achebe or Awolowo. I have not read Achebe’s book, neither am I Igbo or Yoruba. Your objective presentation will help us understand the book well. Keep on, Kessim, Abuja, 07036991406

    •When Achebe rejected a national merit award, few Nigerians hijacked the media to say bravo. Their man whom I think is suffering from incurable senility now wants to sink Nigeria in the ocean of ‘ethnic –war- war’. Those who know Achebe should tell him that we have gone beyond the era of our civil war. What we need is how to build a better society where peace, unity and solidarity prevail. Achebe, I beg you to focus on things that can bind us together, Ehi, 08076823815.

    •Your article on ‘Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations’ is the most objective and historically balanced view on the issue so far, Okoro, Ibadan, 08065312667

    •I love you Segun. This is very objective and fair. Well done sir, Ambrose Onwuebguzie, Isheri, 08023157952.

    •You are a bit right but what about the 20 pounds policy? Wasn’t Awo the architect?, 08186136551.

    •Segun, thanks for your piece on Achebe’s new book. I know that the Yoruba race has its hands full of independent-minded scholars like you who can fetch ideas from among the thorns of conspiracy of tribalism. Your likes can save this already doomed Nigeria. Keep on teaching our ignorant people, Dr. Sam Madugba, Owerri, 08037110950.

  • Westerhof’s reckless statement

    Many have described him as the messiah of our football. Some believe that he achieved much because he had the ears of the government top shots. Many players ascribe their emergence on the European football scene to his technical savvy. Others feel that the Dutch was overrated especially as he couldn’t replicate his feat with the Super Eagles.

    But the Dutchgerian, as the media later tagged him, deserves all the accolades that the beautiful game has brought to this country. He laid the structure that transformed our football to the heights where most countries watched in awe as our hitherto rookies dazzled top stars with their sublime skills, zest and an undying determination to excel, despite the odds.

    He left in controversial circumstances in 1994 after guiding the country to her historic debut at the USA’94 World Cup. Since his exit, the Super Eagles have been tottering. The once famed Super Eagles have earned the sobriquet Super Chicken after a series of shambolic outings. Pundits have rooted for his return to tinker the Eagles, especially after his second-in-command, Johannes Bonfrere, handled the country’s U-23 side to win the gold medal of the football event at the Atlanta ’96 Olympic Games.

    Clemens Westerhof has fouled the air with his unsubstantiated allegation that players bribed their way into the Super Eagles before he took over the squad. He alleged that these corrupt players paid as much as $15,000 to get shirts to play for Nigeria.

    Westerhof chose the international media to make these claims about Nigerian’ coaches and players. There isn’t any problem with that. But he should have had the courtesy to name the culprits, if he was convinced that he was saying the truth. Making the allegations without providing these details isn’t fair to our Europe-based players.

    Westehof’s uncouth utterance is capable of ridiculing our foreign-based stars. It also suggests that we are cheats. It gives the impression that our players are desperate and could be prone to receiving bribes to fix matches, since they have the culture of inducing people to play.

    We may flip over it because he didn’t provide details. But in other climes, Westerhof would be challenged. In England, Spain, Italy and Germany, for instance, a judicial panel would have been constituted to probe the veracity of his claims. Many eminent coaches such as Adegboye Onigbinde, Sebastin Brodericks-Imasuen and others, have coached the Eagles. Westerhof’s reckless statement is targeted at them. I just hope that Onigbinde can challenge Westerhof to name the coaches and players, or face a legal battle.

    He has unwittingly smeared the character and reputation of the coaches before him. The biggest people slandered by his shameful talk are the coaches in the squad that he replaced.

    Westerhof’s jibes add vent to previous claims that Nigerian coaches take bribe from players to play for the national teams. Will NFF men cast an indulgent eye on Westerhof’s claims because the era wasn’t theirs? Is it right for the NFF as the regulatory body to ask the Dutchman to substantiate his allegation at a time when he is doing football business with their affiliate football federations in the states? Westerhof must be called to order. He can’t be doing football business with us and deriding us. We are not a polity of cheats nor are we a people who earn things through inducements.

    Akpoborie did not spare Westerhof, who had the balls to lift the lid on the bribery scandal in Nigeria’s national team in the past.

    “My question to him (Westerhof) would have been, was it the bribes he received, then, that made him not to play me at the 1992 Africa Cup of Nations? He was chief coach, so that statement does not separate (exonerate) him,” he said.

    Good question, Akpoborie. What was Westerhof before he came to Nigeria? What did he achieve after the Eagles’ feats? Don’t we know how Westerhof was employed through the back down? Can we call that bribery? Did Westerhof go through any open screening before he was employed? Was it not through the Nigeria way of peddling influence that he got the job? Would it be fair, Westerhof, if those who lost out of the Eagles job then, allege that you paid those influence peddlers to get it?

    Ikhana’s needless attack on Green

    It appears too that we are in a season of allegations. Most people have saluted Coach Kadiri Ikhana for having the courage to resign after leading the Super Falcons to its worst football outing on the continent.

    I waited patiently to comment because I know that many a Nigerians is not known to surrender such jobs without potshots at his employer. I didn’t wait too long. I read Ikhana’s tales against NFF’s Technical Committee Chairman Chris Green.

    Ikhana alleged that Green and indeed, the NFF failed to secure the release of two players for the assignment. Ikhana showed clearly that he didn’t watch his country’s female teams that played in the two age grade World Cup competitions. If he did, he could have seen some girls that would have done the job.

    Ikhana ought to have known that he would fail, having not handled a female team before. Why he accepted the job speaks volumes about the absence of structures in our football. It is laughable that Ikhana could accuse Green of sabotage in his post- competition technical report after he told us that he picked the best for the country. Not once in the competition did Ikhana tell Nigerians that the Falcons wouldn’t lift the trophy, despite their uninspiring performances. If Ikhana had issues with Green or the NFF technical committee, he should have dumped the Falcons before the competition. Having accepted what has turned out to be a poisoned chalice, he should keep his traps shut.

    Again, Ikhana should apologise to Nigerians for the shameful showing of the Super Falcons. He should pray against the temptation that brought him out of retirement to accept such a sensitive job. Ikhana’s decision to coach the Falcons has rubbished his feat as the first Nigerian coach to tinker with a domestic club to lift the Africa Champions League diadem, after 38 years of misadventure. Ikhana was the coach of Enyimba FC of Aba in 2003, when they lifted the Africa champions League diadem.

    Amadu’s Freudian slip on Onuoha

    My heart bled when I read the report credited to NFF General Secretary, Musa Amadu that Nedum Onouha must show interest to play for Nigeria before he can be invited to the Super Eagles.

    The statement was unlike what Amadu could say. I hesitated to comment on it, but it is over three weeks and no retraction has come from Amadu.

    Amadu sir, I had the privilege of talking with Onuoha’s mum, a medical doctor, and her grouse was that Samson Siasia treated them with levity by asking Nedum to travel from Manchester to Newcastle to see him.

    Onouha’s mum couldn’t understand why Siaisa could visit Shola Amoebi where he lived and not visit them. Indeed, her angst heightened when Siasia sent the message through an intermediary or what she called an agent. Onuoha’s mum was miffed that the former Eagles coach could treat them with disrespect after keeping them waiting.

    Siaisa never forgave me that I broke the story, especially as he felt that I had provided the side he may have hidden from his employers.

    The truth must be said sir, that no professional player would call NFF, seeking to play for Nigeria. If Siasia could hop into the plane to visit Ameobi in England and then head for Germany to talk with Sidney Sam, it was only fair that he visited the Onuohas at home, even if he felt he didn’t need him. It smacked of double standard.

    I was excited when Stephen Keshi told me that he had spoken with Sidney Sam. That is the way things are done. Our football officials must know that the world is a global village. Whatever we say is read globally, hence the urgent need to guide our utterances.

    Cote d’Ivoire wanted Crystal Palace FC of England’s whiz-kid Wilfred Zaha to play for them, rather than for England. Cote d’Ivoire’s FA chiefs sensibly sent Didier Drogba to woo him. England got wind of Drogba’s move and capped Zaha for six minutes against Sweden, which the Three Lions lost by 4-2, a game where Zlatan Ibrahimovic scored easily the best goal ever seen in the world.

    Joseph Yobo convinced Victor Anichebe to play for Nigeria because they were mates at Everton. Anichebe didn’t call NFF that he wanted to play. Yobo introduced him to our football chiefs and they contacted him. Yobo again troubled everyone about Emmanuel Emenike’s exploits in Turkey before he was invited.

    So, Amadu, let’s contact Onuoha, if we truly need him. You will appreciate what the boy is going through, if he tells you his story. I wish Onuoha’s mum a speedy recovery from her ailment. Please, don’t ask me what the ailment is.

  • New  global strategies and economic realignment

    Nothing  illustrates what I have in mind today better  than two diplomatic   shuttles  involving the President of the US Barak Obama, his Secretary of State Hillary Clinton   and the continent of Asia in recent times. While  US President  Barak Obama was facing the heat of  his election campaign and reelection,  his Secretary  of State  Hillary Clinton was on  a diplomatic shuttle in Asia  and was  very assertive  in Burma. Immediately after  President Obama secured his re – election   he followed his Secretary of State again  to Asia to the Summit of South East Asian nations and  still   to Burma  where  both removed their shoes as they worshipped in a  temple with their hosts.

    Around the same time as these shuttles,  the Israeli air force was shelling  Gaza,  while Hamas was shooting rockets into Israel. Yet,  it was only after Obama and Hillary had  completed their assignment in Asia that Hillary headed to Israel and the Gaza Strip while the US president went back to the White House in Washington. Yet,   Israel  has not changed as the cornerstone of the US Middle East Foreign Policy.  A few years back, it would have been unthinkable for a US Secretary of State to be in the Pacific while Israel was being attacked and was indeed contemplating a  land invasion not to talk of a US president talking business with China, Thailand and Japan while Israel was on a high security alert.

    But  times have changed and I can imagine Barack Obama chuckling   quietly to himself as he recalled the response of a  former British PM  Lord  Palmerstone to his attackers in the House of Commons on the charge that he was creating colonies overseas  for Britain at the start  of what was to become the Colonial era  for Britain. ’I have brought  a new world into existence to  redress  the  balance of  the old‘ – was  Lord Palmerstone’s historic response  in the Commons and I think that would be a very apt  retort by Obama  and Hillary to any charge of having abandoned Israel   under attack; and I can bet there will be no shortage of such charges in the foreseeable future.

    Undoubtedly the US president is changing US diplomatic landscape and policy and is doing it in a big way that even his opponents must concede has made a triumph of his first option of making diplomacy work. It  is pertinent to recall that he was given the Nobel Prize for this just after he had only made the Cairo Speech  just  as he was elected for his first   term. I  confess  that  I was one of those who thought he had not done enough then  to earn  the Nobel  prize. But now after the Asian shuttle preceded by the Spring Revolution in N Africa and the exit of the Arab despots, Obama is really now earning his Nobel Prize.

    Before  going on to dilate on Obama’s Asian trip let me shed more light on the role of Lord Palmerstone in British diplomacy during the reign of Queen Victoria. Lord Palmerstone was disliked by the British monarch because Palmerstone thought Britain should use its  power to expand its empire overseas and in pursuing this policy Palmerstone  created embarrassing moments for the  monarchy. This was because  the monarchy  believed the government should be more active in curbing the  rebellious activities of those asking for republicanism in Europe as Queen Victoria and her consort  Prince Albert were cousins to many of the ruling houses in Europe  instead   of   expanding the Empire as Palmerstone was more interested in. But Lord Palmerstone was  a  popular politician of his time and the Queen found it difficult to sack him. Palmerstone became Secretary at War in 1809 and served  for 20 years  under  five PMs  and was also Foreign Secretary   which was when he made the famous quotation,   before he too  became PM in 1855  at age 70.

    Hillary Clinton to me is  to the US President Barak  Obama what Palmerstone was to Queen Victoria. The difference is that there  is no hostility between the US duo  unlike their British counterpart and the US and its business interests are the better for it. At  a time when the EU, America’s natural and historic economic partner is comatose economically, Asia provides a life line for new business and investment for American firms and corporate business giants. Hence Obama’s  swift visit to a meetng of the South East Asian nations involving nations like China, Japan, Malaysia, Thailand and so  on in Canbodia. At  the meeting President Obama met outgoing Chinese leader Wu Jia Bao and had a farewell meeting as it were  with the Chinese leader who confirmed that US- Chinese business relations had never been better and that the good business will continue under China’s new leaders.

    Hillary also  had blazed a trail in getting the military in  Burma to release Aung San Suu Kyi  the Burmese political icon who had been under  house arrest for decades after winning the fairest election in the history of her nation. Suu Kyi is to Burma what the illustrious Nelson Mandela has been to S Africa, and the whole world, the epitome of freedom and the unbreakable spirit of  human dignity.   Unbelievably the military junta released her and allowed her party to contest  elections into parliament even though military appointees are in majority in the new Burmese parliament. Hillary’s diplomatic shuttle have been rewarded by the military who have relaxed some of their dictatorial policies  in Burma and even though the military is still in control,  Obama’s visit was to encourage the military to move towards democracy. However  Suu Kyi herself warned that the journey is long and people must not be complacent or have a false sense of accomplishment now so as not to be deceived eventually.

    Nigeria too is not to  be left behind in the quest of seeking new partners and  business realignments  for  national and global  economic survival. President Goodluck Jonathan was on the front page of newspapers on Thursday showing his arrival  at the Benazir Bhutto  International Airport in Pakistan‘s capital Islamabad,  for a meeting  of the D 8 nations hosted by Nigeria in 2010. According to the Nigerian president’s address on the internet,  he thanked the host of the Summit President Asif Zardari of Pakistan to whom he handed over the Chairmanship in Abuja two years ago. According to President Jonathan,  Nigeria values its membership of the D8 as a platform  for economic cooperation  and promotion of trade for sustainable development and welcomes investment in the country from member D 8 nations. President Jonathan noted that Nigeria has been very active in hosting many meetings of  D 8   and values   the goals of solidarity and joint and joint trade and commerce inherent in the association. To build on these gains President Jonathan said that Nigeria  and the Islamic Republic of Iran have jointly hosted the Working Group Meeting  on Small and Medium Enterprises –SMEs –which are vital to the growth of the G8 economies.

    The  D 8 nations are made up of  nations with a large Muslim  population and include host Pakistan, last host Nigeria, Turkey, Egypt, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Iran. Egypt is not attending as President Mohammed Morsi is staying put in Cairo to monitor the Israeli – Hamas feud over Gaza  and the testy ceasefire that came into effect last Tuesday. Aside from this however Egypt just  got a huge loan from the IMF for its migration to full blown democracy,  stemming from the Arab Spring and the Tahrir Square Street revolution that overthrew the Housni Mubarak regime,  and may not be that hungry for D 8  businesses.

    In addition there is the danger of being seen as hobnobbing with Iran which has UN sanctions round its neck over its Nuclear Uranium enrichment program, a fact which does not seem to bother the Nigerian president very much. In  addition Egypt does not support the Bashar Assad regime in Syria firmly supported by Iran in suppressing the popular uprising in Syria against the Assad dynasty. Surely political and diplomatic issues as well as regional differences still color pragmatic economic instincts by nations as they forge alliances and realign  economic  strategies to make ends meet in a fast changing world.

  • Obasanjo the incomparable

    Obasanjo the incomparable

    He should not have slammed Jonathan on security and corruption

    Delivering his damning verdict on the Jonathan administration the way he did, was impertinent, tending to speak more, negatively, about the ex-president and less about the man he criticised.

    Last week, in Warri, Delta State, at what was otherwise a commemoration of Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor’s 40th anniversary as a preacher, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo lashed out at the federal government, pooh-poohing its handling of the Boko Haram insurgency. Obasanjo likened the sect’s terror, which has claimed thousands, to a sore that Dr Goodluck Jonathan failed to treat early.

    “My fear is that when you have a sore and you don’t attend to it early enough, it festers and becomes very bad,” he said. “Don’t leave a problem that can be bad unattended.”

    He also dismissed Jonathan’s anti-corruption efforts, and those of Umaru Yar’Adua, and appeared to be looking back with nostalgia to the days of Mallam Nuhu Ribadu as head of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

    Was he entirely off the mark? Not quite. Even President Jonathan knows that most Nigerians expect more in containing Boko Haram than he has delivered. The people also know that sleaze remains a present danger to the health of the country and everything it holds dear.

    Still, the former president should have held back his fire until he had left the public space and had the ears of the current commander-in-chief he helped to install. More importantly, he was not qualified to deliver that sort of verdict.

    But we know the Egba chief enough to expect the unexpected. We hate him. We love him. And sometimes we are not quite sure what we feel. To the man himself, what we feel may really not matter. He has this aloofness about him on what people think of him and his actions or inactions. He said, for instance, that he did not read local newspapers, and so essentially did not care what Nigerians said about him. Whether that detachment is a natural trait or derives from the stubborn airs that come from long years of running the country, or even from his phenomenal good fortune, is difficult to determine. He first presided over Nigeria’s affairs as an army general, easily having his way, according to the traditions of the military. Then, he returned as a two-term civilian president who would have preferred to keep having his way. That return to power was in itself quite memorable. We were told that influential people were visiting to persuade him to run, even though he was just fresh from prison. We were told that everything was in his favour. He is from the Southwest whose people were still smarting from the denial of an Abiola presidency. He is of the military constituency and was considered capable of checking the power lust of military adventurers. He feared no one, just the type of leader Nigeria needed. That could have filled any mortal with a sensation of immortality. How many parade such a profile?

    As president we found him quite enigmatic. After leading us to believe he was overflowing with knowledge, he went back to school to study for a degree at the Open University. When we hoped to see him leave Aso Rock at the end of eight years in power, the infamous Third Term agenda popped up. When we nudged him to speak up on the matter, he declined, until the people’s voice drowned it out altogether. Thereafter, Obasanjo said he never really wanted a third term and that God would have obliged him if he asked. In retirement, his opinion was still sought after, but sometimes he disappointed news hunters at airports, preferring to dance for them, rather than answer their questions.

    When we expect him to remain at his farms, we are somewhat shocked to see that the world still seeks his wisdom. In February, to mention a recent development, he was in Senegal to mediate the country’s political upheaval as Senegalese protested yet another presidential candidacy of 85-year-old Abdoulaye Wade. This month, Obasanjo was selected to head a 250-strong ECOWAS election observer mission to Ghana ahead of the country’s polls on December 7. He is to help promote transparent and credible elections there.

    A man of such stature should know when to speak publicly on issues that disconcert him in the government he helped to install. He ought to be better advised too when making comparisons. In Warri, Obasanjo recalled the Odi invasion, implying that he prevented a worse security situation by deploying troops to the Bayelsa riverside community. He said the troops killed all the youths accused of killing policemen in the town. He did not say the invaders also killed innocent residents, including the aged and utterly devastated the town. In any case, militancy in the Niger Delta started in his time.

    Obasanjo wrote off Jonathan and Yar’Adua in fighting corruption, conveniently glossing over the fact that his own administration hardly did any better, in spite of Ribadu’s best efforts. How many high-profile thieves were jailed in his time? How many fraudulent elections were upturned in the courts?

    Last week in Warri, the enigma simply continued.

  • Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations

    Achebe, Awo and Igbo-Yoruba relations

    When I wrote in this space two weeks ago on Chinua Achebe’s new book, ‘There Was A Country: A Personal History of Biafra”, a number of readers wondered why I was silent on the on-going controversy on the role of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, Minister of Finance and Vice-Chairman of the Federal Executive Council, during the war. Is it true that he described starvation as a legitimate weapon of war even as millions of hopeless people were dying from hunger and easily preventable diseases?

    Well, I chose not to focus on that aspect of the book because so much has been written already on the issue. Secondly, I really do not think it is a productive debate. It has generated more heat than light. Perhaps the fairest and most objective piece I have read on the controversy is that of Simon Kolawole, the perceptive This Day columnist. He contends that the Biafrans were wrong to have rejected the opening of a corridor to get food to the starving population. If there was fear that the federal side could poison the food, simple laboratory tests would have proven if this was true or not. On its side the Federal Government ought to have done more to ensure food got to millions of starving people. It could have more actively involved international organizations in this respect. Furthermore, if the Federal Government could bomb Biafra intensively, it could have used the same air planes to bombard Biafran towns and villages with food. After all, the logic of the war from the federal side was that there was no Biafran state in any meaningful legal sense of the word. In the eyes of the Federal Government, therefore, Biafrans were Nigerian citizens and extra effort could have been made to prevent the mass starvation so graphically depicted in the Achebe’s book. That would have placed the General Yakubu Gowon administration on a higher moral pedestal.

    But then, were Awolowo’s actions during the war motivated by a desire to eliminate the Igbos and so as to pave the way for his vaunting ambition to rule Nigeria as Achebe asserts? I think this position is rather far- fetched. There is absolutely nothing in the vast civil war literature to legitimate this allegation. Furthermore, Awolowo’s strenuous efforts to help prevent the war are copiously documented and he wouldn’t have gone to such length if he really wanted the East out of Nigeria. However, it is important to note that Achebe indeed recognizes Awo’s talent and said so much in the book. For example, on page 45, he writes: “By the time I became a young adult, Obafemi Awolowo had emerged as one of Nigeria’s dominant political figures. He was an erudite and accomplished lawyer who had been educated at the University of London. When he returned to the Nigerian political scene from England in 1947, Awolowo found the once powerful political establishment of western Nigeria – sidetracked by partisan and intra-ethnic squabbles. Chief Obafemi Awolowo and close associates reunited his ancient Yoruba people with powerful glue – resuscitated ethnic pride – and created a political party, the Action Group in 1951, from an amalgamation of the Egbe Omo Oduduwa, the Nigerian Produce Traders Association and a few other factions”.

    Achebe’s unsavoury perception of Awo’s role in the war must be understood within the context of Igbo/Yoruba relations in both the pre-colonial and post-colonial eras. The relationship between these two ethnic groups in turn centred essentially around their two most formidable and charismatic leaders – Nnmadi Azikiwe and Obafemi Awolowo. The rivalry between this two, their mutual suspicion of each other thwarted any meaningful political handshake across the Niger and had profound effects on the course of Nigerian history. For instance, in the 1940s, both Zik and Awo were members of the Nigerian Youth Forum, the pre-eminent nationalist organization of the time. In 1941, the seat of Sir Kofo Abayomi as a member of the Legislative Council representing Lagos became vacant. There was therefore an election to fill the position. While Awolowo, an Ijebu, backed Earnest Ikoli an Ijaw man, Azikiwe threw his weight behind Samuel Akinsanya, an Ijebu man. After an acrimonious campaign, Earnest Ikoli won the election. Azikiwe subsequently resigned from the Youth Movement claiming that there was a tribal gang up against Akinsanya that resulted in the latter’s loss to Ikoli! This further strained Igbo/Yoruba relations as most Igbos left the Nigerian Youth Movement and it became an essentially narrow Yoruba organization.

    Another case in point was the 1951 western regional election. Azikiwe contested the election on the platform of the NCNC and won a seat to the Western House of Assembly. His aim was to become Premier of western Nigeria and he had sufficient political following in the West to achieve this. But by then, Awolowo had transformed the Egbe Omo Oduduwa into the Action Group (AG), one of the most disciplined and well organized parties ever in Africa. The Yoruba political establishment resented that Zik had such large following in the West when no Yoruba politician enjoyed the same following in the East. They could not envisage a situation in which an Easterner was Premier of the East, a northerner would be Premier of the North and then another Easterner would be premier of the West. Thus no stops were pulled to thwart Azikiwe’s ambition. An incomparably astute politician, it is difficult to understand how Zik could not have seen that, no matter how much he was loved in the West, there was no way he was going to become Premier in Ibadan given the geo-political configuration of the time. On the day of the convocation of the Western region Assembly, the Action Group had a majority of elected members and was able to checkmate Zik and produce the Leader of Government Business in the person of Awolowo. But then, not content with aborting Azikiwe’s premiership ambition, the Action Group capitalized on indiscipline within the ranks of the NCNC and prevented Zik from being elected from Ibadan to the centre as a federal legislator. Of this incident, Chief Bola Ige wrote in his political treatise that “since the Action Group had shown their majority on the floor of the House, there was no need to over-kill Zik by denying him election to the federal legislature”.

    At the time of the 1951 carpet crossing incident at the Western House of Assembly, Achebe was a student at the University College, Ibadan. He watched the situation closely and was disappointed at what he perceived as the introduction by the Action Group of tribalism into the country’s politics. It is within this context that we can properly appreciate Achebe’s perception of Awo and his role during the war. The 1951 incident has over time haunted Nigerian politics making a handshake across the Niger impossible. If historical animosities can be overcome and hurting memories healed, there can be a strong Igbo/Yoruba political alliance that can link up with progressive forces in the north to win power and lead Nigeria in a new direction.

  • A word on Nigerian coaches

    They have caused us pain. They have brought us shame. They have stained our sports. They have refused to change. They are unwilling to improve on their skills. They still do things in the past, yet expect to compete with the world’s best. They are unperturbed by the downward slide in our sports. They insist it is their birthright to tinker with our sports, despite the shambolic results. But I ask, can we not do without these coaches for a while? For me, Nigerian coaches should just leave us alone.

    Nigerian coaches are not ready to learn. I have witnessed several coaching clinics. Nigerian coaches don’t attend them. I tried to ask some of the big ones why they didn’t participate in those courses. I was shocked to hear them say what was it that they hadn’t read in the past? Some of them described such courses as waste of time and another attempt by the organisers to grease their palms wit free cash.

    I have heard Adegboye Onigbinde cry over the poor rating of Nigerian coaches. The respected tactician is miffed that Nigerian coaches still rank in CAF’s grade C (the equivalent of primary school certificate) and has taken pains to upgrade our coaches. Yet, they are not prepared to move with the times. Onigbinde has, however, blamed the NFF for foot dragging on the matter. The truth is that Onigbinde didn’t wait for any NFF for him to be eminently qualified to perform in FIFA’s and CAF’s technical matters.

    Onigbinde sir, this is the way forward. Our coaches must emulate you by upgrading their knowledge. Our coaches must know that learning is a continuum. The only way that they can be relevant is to attend courses. We are tired of their archaic tactics.

    Honourable Minister sir, Chief Molade Okoya-Thomas stirred the hornet’s nest when he lampooned Nigerian coaches. He identified our coaches’ incompetence as the problem with table tennis – a sport in which Nigeria was Africa’s King Kong, but has, sadly, fallen on bad times.

    He didn’t stop there. He urged the National Sports Commission (NSC) to head straight to either Sweden or China to recruit ping pong coaches to rejuvenate the game. Okoya-Thomas’ therapy for table tennis is the elixir that sports needs to compete with global giants. Indeed, a Nigerian international of yore, Kasali Lasisi, led Congo to qualify for the table tennis event at 2012 London Olympic Games. Lasisi achieved this feat when his wards beat Nigeria at the Africa Championships. In recognition of his tactical savvy, the Africa Table Tennis Federation named Lasisi to lead the continent’s squad to the world tourney. Is anyone asking questions about Lasisi’s whereabout?

    Yes, only the Sports Minister, Bolaji Abdullahi. Interestingly, Abdullahi is talking about the need to involve the private sector in funding sports. Okoya-Thomas has the clout to get Nigeria three good table tennis coaches, with all the expenses paid by blue chip companies, who know his worth.

    Okoya-Thomas has singlehandedly sponsored the Asoju Oba Cup for 44 years. This year’s edition is the 44th. The amiable business guru knows his onions, when it comes to ping pong. He could have kept quiet and concentrated to his competition. But he passionate about the game. Having seen the tourney through 43 years, he knows that the standard has fallen and feels strongly that it can be revived, with the good coaching of emerging stars at the grassroots.

    The sore point of Nigeria’s participation at the last Olympics was the coaching. We saw how our coaches couldn’t match their foreign counterparts. We lost at crucial stages due to our coaches’ inability to read games well and provide counter strategies. It is three months since we returned from a medal-less outing, yet no action plans have been drawn up, except for the Presidential Sports Retreat held in Abuja. The talk in high places is that we are waiting for the current sports federation’s term to lapse. I ask: what are we doing with those federations whose tenures have lapsed? Should the members surrender the running of such federations? Is this not the time to remove them? Shouldn’t we show those waste pipe federations still hanging in there the new direction for our sports by replacing their members?

    Let’s swallow our pride and do what others have perfected. Emerging sports nations borrowed from working templates of winning countries. They sent their coaches to learn new tricks. They also sent their administrators, technical hands and ancillary staff to countries with comparative advantage in the sports in which they chose to excel. Today, little Jamaica (in terms of population) is a world beater in a sport that was America’s birthright. The Americans taught the Jamaicans what to do after the reggae-loving country fumbled at the 1996 Olympic Games. The Jamaicans learnt well; now, the Americans are considering going to their students for tutorials on the way forward in the sprint events.

    So, who are the Nigerian coaches? They are former ex-internationals and retired athletes who were not fortunate to hit the limelight. No problem with such call list, yet the disadvantage, as we have seen is that they are not equipped for the job. They have failed to appraise the finer details of their trade. It is alright that they played the game, but they must be trained in the rudiments of coaching. Coaching is an art that is dynamic. It requires that the coaches should be retrained periodically to appreciate the new trends in a particular sport.

    Many will argue that countries that have clinched the World Cup did so with their nationals as coaches. It must also be said that they have thriving domestic leagues- in the case of soccer- and that they made deliberate attempts to train and retrain potential stars into coaches. They have workable templates that predate this era where coaches have emerged. They have data which they rely on in times of crises. They have established institutes to train and retrain coaches. Things work in these climes because the blue-chip firms trust the administrators. Accountability is not negotiable, simply because laws exist to punish those found guilty of financial misdeeds.

    All hail Ameobi, Ideye, Ejide

    Watching the Super Eagles confront Venezuela in the wee hours of Thursday (from 2am to 4 am) in Miami, United States, three things remained on my mind. The first bothered on how well the new imports would fare in the game. Shola Ameobi, Bright Dike, Onavi and Austin Ejide provided the answers with their performances.

    The second poser that was answered was the fact that our best players are in Europe. There is the urgent need for Stephen Keshi to either compel some players to play in unfamiliar positions at the Africa Cup of Nations in South Africa, if he wants to compete with the best in the continent. These players will have to function in key areas in the team’s defence, given the glut of talents in other positions, such as the midfield and attack.

    The third poser answered was that some players, such as Emmanuel Emenike, Oboabona, Ejike Ezeonye and others are not needed in the evolving Eagles side.

    Ameobi may be 31, but his contributions for the over 30 minutes that he played, after replacing Obafemi Martins, showed that he is the right replacement for fumbling Emenike. The uncanny manner in which Ameobi held off his marker before passing the ball to an unmarked Onavi, underlined the reason why he is revered at Newcastle. He was a pain in the neck for the Venezuela defenders. His imposing presence on-and-off the ball gave the defenders a nightmare. Those who tried to muscle him off the ball were light weight. He didn’t play as an upstart. He was easily one of the men of the match.

    For goalkeeper Austin Ejide, his heroics ensured that Venezuela didn’t beat us. His timely saves held the game for us to seal the third goal off Ameobi’s visionary play.

    I hope that Keshi saw the way in which Ideye played with ease on the left side, striking a telepathic understanding with Ameobi. As the game ran its course, I pitied Keshi as I reflected on the team’s potentials. Osaze Odemwingie, Ikechukcu Uche and Ahmed Musa must fight for shirts. Still, it will be early to say that the Eagles will lift the trophy in South Africa. What I can say is that Keshi has a date with destiny, if he picks players on merit, not on what they had done in the past. The fact that certain players got Nigeria qualified for the Africa Cup of Nations should never be the reason for picking them- if others are better. I don’t envy you, Keshi.

  • Falling for Obama

    Falling for Obama

    We should learn from his election

    We have fallen for Obama, again. We might as well admit it. The man makes our hearts go pitter-patter. He did it on Super Tuesday when the United States of America, a country brimming with over 300m people, went to the polls and re-elected him. Barack Obama softened us all up that day, just as he did when he made history four years ago, sending us into a swoon.

    Late 2008 when he was first elected the name ‘Obama’ was on most Nigerians’ lips. We mouthed it everywhere. It boomed in the marketplace, echoed in the barber’s shop, reverberated in the offices. The bus driver knew it and, in some cases, even had it painted on his vehicle. Back then I feared we might also print Obama’s face on our textile materials. Some rich and influential people in our midst ate dinner over the name, even claiming to raise funds on its owner’s behalf, an assertion from which the Obama organisation distanced itself.

    Congratulatory messages poured out from everywhere. Our president hailed him. Our senators praised him. The House reps expressed their adoration. The entire nation fell for him.

    It was not for nothing. Obama was not just the first African-American to preside over the affairs of the most powerful nation on earth; he was also the first first-generation African-Americans to do so. His father was a Kenyan and died as one. So Obama achieved what many thought was impossible. He lifted our spirits. The smart politician that he is, Obama did not campaign on racial lines but when he spoke of hope in 2008, the African-American community also understood it to mean there was hope for them. So did the Nigerian, and indeed, the African everywhere. If Obama could aspire to such heights, so could we. If Obama could win, so could we. The man of magic renewed hope, and we could not help but say, or at least, feel ‘we can’.

    Last week, Obama did it again, besting his hard-fighting Republican challenger Mitt Romney. He sent us all to cloud nine, again, even though much of the hope he spoke about four years ago had slipped away with lost jobs. We were relieved when he rallied to win one of the tightest presidential races in memory with a comfortable margin, after sliding in the poll ratings following a disappointing performance in the crucial first debate with Romney. As he was re-elected, Nigerians were congratulating one another as though the winner were of Igbo, Yoruba or Hausa ancestry or of any of our tribes. President Goodluck Jonathan has since fired off a congratulatory message, as have our lawmakers. Other leaders have waxed lyrical, praising the system that produced last week’s election and our own Obama as president. One of them wished we could have that sort of election soon.

    Even in defeat Romney proved no less a leader. He looked forward to a new and better America under Obama. He not only showed much respect for the man who frustrated his attempt to rule America but also said he would pray for the success of the re-elected president. That was impressive.

    Obama was unmatchable in his victory speech, proving that words are as much a crucial aspect of great leadership as is action. He praised not just the man who nearly denied him a second term but also the man’s family which produced Romney’s father, who after serving as Michigan governor also ran for the presidency himself. Obama saluted the Romney family for their public service to the American people. The president praised his campaign organisation with enough words and, later tears, to inspire them the way money could not. To his workers he showed respect; to his wife and family love.

    From the eyes of his country men and women he drew tears of powerful, positive emotions when he told them the task of perfecting their union was moving forward. He spoke of the larger American family which rose from “war and depression” to the “heights of hope” and of a people free to “pursue our individual dreams”. He praised the voters, whether they voted for or against him. He reminded Americans that it is not their wealth that makes them rich, nor do they derive their strength from the country’s superior military. Obama said their much sought-after universities and cultures do not make Americans exceptional. What does, he told them, is their bond.

    As he spoke, sustained cheers forced him to pause.

    Obama urged his people to be stubborn in hope even when situations nudged them to give up. He dismissed politics as sometimes divisive, as we all saw in his famous duel with Romney, who got more white votes than he did. Obama rallied his compatriots, calling their country the greatest on earth.

    They lapped it all up. And so did we, outsiders. We loved his speech prowess, probably even envied the ability of a fellow black to carry along such a consequential country. For different reasons we fell for Obama.

    But what use is falling for him if we cannot learn from him? Will our politics ever produce respect among our politicians? Without aping Obama in speech, can our leaders truly rally our people with words even when action fails them? Obama said the best was yet to come for Americans. Is our best also yet to come or is it behind us?