Category: Banji Akintoye

  • Here is Yoruba unity

    The history of a people determines their desires, expectations, and group behaviour as a people.  The Yoruba people have had a great history in the world.  About 500 years before the earliest European exploration of the coast of West Africa in about 1500 AD, or about 1000 years before the coming of British imperialism in about 1900 AD, the Yoruba had built a rich and sophisticated urban civilization – the most advanced urban civilization in the history of Black Africa.

    Upholding this urban civilization was a great economic culture – sophisticated and highly productive agriculture, rich manufactures and crafts, and great commerce with tentacles reaching into most parts of tropical Africa. Yoruba trading colonies existed in the lands of the Upper Niger (modern Mauritania, Gambia, Senegal and Mali), in all coastal lands of West Africa, in the towns of the Hausa, Nupe and Kanuri, all the way to parts of the Upper Nile and the headwaters of the Congo. In a large part of West Africa, the Yoruba language was the language of commerce. A senior French missionary who visited much of the West African coast between 1634 and 1640 wrote that the Yoruba language “is universally used in these parts, just like Latin in Europe”.

    Inside Yorubaland itself, large towns flourished. The first Europeans to enter into the Yoruba interior (a group of explorers in 1825-6), wrote that “large towns at the distance of only a few miles from each other” characterized the whole of Yorubaland, and that most of the towns were “densely inhabited” and were “clean habitations”.  The approach to almost every town was “through an avenue of noble trees”, and in each town, public places were abundantly decorated with works of art, especially sculptures. These explorers added that the Yoruba people “have a genius for the art of sculpture…and some of their productions rival, in point of delicacy, any of a similar kind…in Europe”.

    The whole country was connected by a cobweb of well-kept and safe roads, protected by the governments of the kings. Where necessary, armed guards sent by the kings accompanied caravans of traders. On these roads, large numbers of traders and their porters were on the move at all times, day and night, usually in caravans numbering hundreds of people. A European missionary wrote that, near Ibadan in 1854, he travelled with a caravan that numbered over 4000 persons.  An American missionary who travelled extensively in Yorubaland about the same time, wrote that if caravans happened to merge, “imposing numbers” of people stretched “over several miles in length” across  the countryside. Along roads throughout the country, there were, wrote the 1825-6 explorers, “rich plantations of yams”, “extensive plantations of corn and plantains”, “plantations of cotton”, many “acres of indigo”, etc. In their summary, they wrote that the Yoruba people were “an industrious race”.

    Every town had large marketplaces, each heavily crowded when in session. A Dutch trader who visited some of the marketplaces between 1702 and 1712 recorded that there were, “without exaggeration more than six thousand” people in one marketplace. In one large town, the 1825-6 explorers counted seven marketplaces. In parts of the country, some marketplaces specialized in night-time trading. One American explorer wrote that the goods produced in “the Mediterranean and Western European coast…and the productions of the four quarters of the globe” could be found in every Yoruba marketplace.

    Over all this order and prosperity, kings (or Obas) of the many Yoruba kingdoms reigned. The Yoruba founded their first kingdom (the Ife kingdom) in about 900AD; and between that date and 1600AD, they founded over 70 kingdoms more. In about 1600, one of their kingdoms, the kingdom of Oyo-Ile, expanded its territories, conquered many non-Yoruba peoples, and established the largest empire in West Africa.

    The political system of the Yoruba was considerably democratic. An Oba’s government was government by a council of chiefs – the chiefs being representatives of the extended family groups (or lineages) of the royal city. Apart from the lineages, society in each town was organized into many associations. The whole system made each town a home of peace and order, of enterprise, of commerce, of entertainments, of large and colourful festivals. The 1825-6 explorers wrote that the Yoruba people were a peaceful people who loved order, who had great respect for the law, who had a lot of self-respect, and who were generally clean in their clothing and in their personal appearances. They recorded that, unlike in other parts of Africa, they could not persuade any Yoruba young men to carry their older explorers for them in a hammock, for any amount of pay whatsoever. When approached for this, Yoruba boys always answered that that was “a task fit only for horses”.

    Living in these systems and conditions made the average Yoruba person a freedom-loving – and a fashion-loving – individual. In meetings at every level in the system, the guiding principle was that everybody had full freedom to speak – that everybody, young or old, “has some wisdom to contribute”. All the world over, kings are succeeded by their offspring – usually their first child – and the citizens have no voice in the matter. In contrast, the Yoruba select their Obas from the pool of princes. All the people of the lineage compounds, in open lineage meetings, selected the chiefs.

    All these made the Yoruba person a very confident person – confident in his person, confident in society, accustomed to being respected by those who ruled over him. Yoruba women enjoyed more respect than women in most other cultures. The fact that Yoruba women controlled most of the enormous trade of their country contributed to making them free and enterprising, and made them control much more of their country’s wealth than women in most cultures in the world.

    The above, briefly, is a sketch of where the Yoruba have come from. To understand Yoruba behaviour in the affairs of Nigeria, one must understand these things. In the politics of Nigeria, the Yoruba may look “disunited”, but in reality, they are solidly united in their ideals and purposes.

    So, what do the Yoruba want for themselves and for Nigeria? First, the Yoruba want governments that are dedicated to the welfare and prosperity of their people. That is why the Western Regional government of the Awolowo era – 1952-62, is revered among Yoruba people today – and will probably be revered forever.

    Secondly, the Yoruba individual wants to be free in society, and to be able to make political choices and express himself freely. That is why Yoruba people usually look as if they are divided in the political life of Nigeria. But they are not divided; they are only more democratic than most other peoples.

    Thirdly, the Yoruba person desires that the rulers of his society should respect him. That is why Yoruba people always feel insulted and very angry when powerful politicians come and rig their votes at elections. It is why Yoruba people have put up most of the violent responses to the rigging of elections in the history of Nigeria.

    Fourthly, the Yoruba person wants to feel free to practice any religion of his own choice without molestation by anybody. That is why Yoruba people of all religions are very nervous about the perpetual Islamic radicalism from the Northern Region.

    Fifthly, Yoruba people strongly desire an orderly country. They therefore want the various nations of Nigeria, large or small, to be given due recognition and respect, and they want that the constitution of Nigeria should enshrine such recognition and respect. This is why the Yoruba elite have always advocated a rational federal structure for Nigeria – a federation based, as much as possible, on ethnically compact states, and in which the states will have the resources and constitutional powers to promote the development of their people. It is also why, though the Yoruba enjoy population strength and many other kinds of strength in Nigeria, they have never desired to dominate any other nation or to dominate the whole of Nigeria. Their rich civilization teaches them to despise any notion of ethnic domination, or any claim of ethnic dominance, as uttermost folly, a kind of destructive folly that endangers any nation that holds it, and that will ultimately make Nigeria unworkable and impossible to keep together.

    Finally, the Yoruba desire that individual Nigerians should be free and safe to live and do business anywhere in Nigeria. That is why they smoothly welcome very many non-Yoruba immigrants in their homeland. The Yoruba always give careful respect to other people in whose land they go to trade or do business, and they expect other people who come to trade or do business in their land to respect them also.

    The Yoruba are strongly united around these principles. Leaders may come and go, but the generality of Yoruba people remain united over what they love and desire.

  • Stop resistance to restructuring of federation

    I have just re-read the written message brought by a distinguished delegation of Northern leaders, representing the Arewa Consultative Forum, to a meeting of the Yoruba Unity Forum holding at Ikenne on December 15, 2012. Arewa Consultative Forum is the topmost organization of the Hausa-Fulani political leadership of the North; and the Yoruba Unity Forum is one of the topmost organizations of the Yoruba political leadership of the South-west. The said document is therefore a message exchanged between two organizations representing the two largest nationalities of Nigeria – the Hausa-Fulani and the Yoruba.  That makes it a truly historic document. What the prestigious delegation of the Hausa-Fulani leadership had to communicate to the august gathering of Yoruba leaders that day at Ikenne says much about our country.

    But before I come to the core of the ACF message, I take some liberty to comment on the delegation from the North and the way they handled their message. I must give honour where it is due. The ACF message was very expertly and carefully worded. It was printed, with late Sir Ahmadu Bello’s picture emblazoned on it. And the ACF representatives thoughtfully made some copies available for distribution at the YUF meeting, and generally delivered their charge with great dignity – dignity appropriate in the communication of one great nation to another great nation. I read this document a day or two after its message was delivered at Ikenne and I was highly impressed then by its form and formalities. I am still impressed by the same today.

    Even so, I find the core proposition of the message shocking and embarrassing. The central proposition of the message was that no real change is needed in the way that Nigeria is organized and managed today! That proposition is summed up in the following staggering sentence: “Today, we have reached a point at which certain groups are calling for a re-negotiation of many settled issues in our nation”!

    What does ACF mean here by “many settled issues” – that “certain groups are calling for a re-negotiation of”?  Surprisingly, as they spell out quite unmistakably in their message, they mean the structure that the Nigerian federation has today – the structure that, gradually and deliberately between 1966 and 1999, the Federation of Nigeria was given by a succession of northern military dictatorships punctuated now and then by northern-led civilian presidencies.

    The ACF message urges that, in discussing the issues relating to Nigeria’s decline and near-failure, we should eschew recriminations. I agree with that. And I am sure that most Nigerians would agree. Recriminations will not solve the titanic problems of our country.

    But I am sure too that most Nigerians want Nigeria’s political leaders to be sincere and open in discussing Nigeria’s problems. Our country’s situation is desperate, to put it mildly. The war on corruption by the present Buhari presidency is a step in the right direction; but the most important step in the right direction would be to restructure our federation properly. Corruption is one of the symptoms of Nigeria’s decline; the warped and distorted structure of our federation is the root of our country’s decline.

    Any group that continues to insist now that our federation’s structure as it is today is “settled” and not open to discussion obviously needs to rethink in the interest of us all. In the interest of Nigeria’s recovery, orderliness and prosperity, we should all tell the ACF and its principals that continued resistance to a proper restructuring of this “federation” by a prestigious nation like the Hausa-Fulani nation is dangerous to Nigeria.

    The stakes are simply too high to allow for continued evasions and dogged stonewalling. This country must sincerely and seriously sort itself out. Our country is a country of many nations. These nations had evolved over thousands of years before the British came along and used their stronger technology to push all of us together into one country. In spite of 100 years of living together in Nigeria, these nations are still alive and strong. Even in similar multi-nationality countries where the nationalities have lived together as one country for many centuries, the general tendency today is to give each nationality some local autonomy to manage its affairs in its own way and to make its own kind of contribution to the country it belongs to. Britain, India, Switzerland, Indonesia, Spain, and others, are doing just that. I repeat that even the British who forced all our nationalities together to create Nigeria are now pursuing the policy of “Devolution” – which means giving each nationality (the Scotts, English, Welsh and Irish)  the freedom to design its constitution, control its own national government, and develop its own economy – in the context of the oneness of Britain.

    As we prepared for independence in the 1950s, our political leaders were in no doubt that our nationalities should be given the recognition and the development freedom that they deserved. That is why they agreed to a federal structure for Nigeria. And that is why they allowed each of the regions of the federation to manage itself in its own way. The regions made commendable achievements in development, and at independence, our country was a land of hope and pride, a country that the world viewed with great expectations. All that was needed was to take the regional autonomy lower to the level of the nationalities – to grant the petitions of the group of minority nationalities in each region for a region of their own.

    But, unfortunately, after independence, the northern politicians who controlled the Federal Government decided to themselves that the Federal Government must control all things in Nigeria, and that the federating units must all be subject to the whims and caprices of the controllers of the Federal Government. By the beginning of the present century, our country had become a battered and broken entity on the edge of a precipice. An overwhelming majority of our citizens, in all regions of our country, are wallowing in poverty and hopelessness. Even the North was beginning, as at independence, under Sir Ahmadu Bello’s highly respectable leadership, to make impressive economic and social progress. In a group of youths visiting the Northern Region from a school in the Western Region in 1961, I had the privilege of visiting this great premier of the North in his office, and of listening to him for a few minutes as he told us, his sons, what he was doing for the people of our Northern Region. I left his presence very proud of him, and very proud of my country and myself.  Now, the North is sunk and sinking in poverty, and countless youths of the North are reacting to their hopelessness by giving their energies to callings that are dedicated to destroying, killing and wrecking. And yet, some of the men whom God has elevated to high positions of leadership in that same North are telling us and the world that the distortions that have led our country to these disasters are “settled” and not open to discussion? It is unbelievable!

    Most Nigerians are saying that the present structure and situation of their country is untenable and unsustainable. The Yoruba nation, the Igbo nation, the nations of the Delta, the nations of the Middle Belt, and the Kanuri and related peoples of the Northeast, all speaking through countless voices and organizations at home and abroad, are saying so. It is time the Hausa-Fulani leadership come forth to say so too.

    The dream of a Hausa-Fulani domination (or of a Yoruba or Igbo domination) of Nigeria is anachronistic and unattainable. Striving for it is chasing shadows – and chasing shadows in a manner that only generates Nigeria’s decline and promotes ever-increasing poverty and hopelessness for the millions of Nigerians. The dream of a prosperous and great Nigeria is attainable. We can make Nigeria prosperous, and we can all prosper together in Nigeria.  That is the goal worthy to strive for.

  • Whither is Buhari really taking Nigeria?

    President Buhari, and many spokespersons for his presidency, are saying that the Buhari presidency will eliminate corruption and strengthen the unity of Nigeria. That Buhari is seriously set against corruption is not in doubt. That he is already weakening corruption in significant sectors of the public service is self-evident – and that is a commendable accomplishment. But the millions of Nigerians who wish that Nigeria should attain true unity, survive as a country, and go on to prosper, are waiting to hear what President Buhari intends to do about a sustainable basis for the unity of Nigeria. I am sure that most Nigerians regard this as more important than the war against corruption.

    For a start, by appointing nearly all the non-ministerial officials of his presidency from the North and virtually excluding parts of the country, Buhari has aroused fears among very many Nigerians about his true intentions for Nigerian unity. Anyone who wants to know how worried Nigerians are becoming about this should just look in the media, especially the social media on the worldwide web. This is not a partisan issue at all; as many members as non-members of Buhari’s party are voicing concern. Even some northerners are voicing concern. The growing question is this: Is Buhari leading us back to the same old path of “unity” that was designed to be enforced by an Arewa North domination? Certainly also, it does not help that the formal organization of the president’s party, the APC, is given scant regard in the president’s actions. Does this portend that the president will be leaning mostly on some hidden back-door advisers and organs of his own, rather than on the political party that procured the votes of Nigerians, the party that promised CHANGE to us all? Does the quest for unity, for democracy, and for accountability, not demand that the open, constitutional, and formal establishments and processes of governance be openly upheld and employed for our country’s government?

    But there is a much more important issue – namely, the constitutional structure of our federation. I mean the need for restructuring our federation in such a way as to ensure harmony among our various peoples, and in ways to ensure that each federating unit of our federation shall be able to develop its resources competently, provide for its citizens, conquer poverty among its citizens, and make its own kind of contributions to the overall prosperity of our country. I am not urging President Buhari to implement, or not implement, the decisions of the National Conference that his predecessor organized. What I urge him to do is to recognize that this issue of sane restructuring of our federation is the issue that will determine whether Nigeria shall be stable, and whether Nigeria shall survive as one country; and then I urge him to do something about it immediately. In all his public utterances, including his address to the country on its 55th anniversary, he has artfully evaded making any kind of statement on this issue. He must not continue to evade it. His whole legacy hangs on what he does about it.

    The basic truth of our country’s existence is that ours is a country consisting of many different nationalities – each living in its homeland, with its own culture, desires, and self-image. In recognition of these facts, the founding fathers of our country bequeathed to us at independence a federation in which the federating units (called regions) commanded the powers with which to develop their domains. By using those powers, those regions pushed our country admirably along the path of progress and prosperity.

    Unfortunately, the political leaders controlling federal power at independence wanted the Federal Government to have unrestrained control over the regions – because they wanted their own particular Hausa-Fulani ethnic nation to control all of Nigeria. They started by disrupting the Western Region. They did succeed in disrupting the Western Region, but the effort generated unexpected side effects, and Nigeria’s whole governmental system more or less crashed. That gave the military the audacity to take over. Under the mostly northern military command, a northern political and military axis gradually distorted the federal structure, subdued all powers and all resource control to the federal establishment, and subdued the federal establishment to northern control. The Federal Government became a ponderous, incompetent and hugely corrupt entity presuming to micro-manage all aspects and all corners of Nigeria, and the states became mostly impotent entities incapable of doing much for the well-being of their citizens. In the context of this monstrosity, corruption took over the life of Nigeria, and poverty and hopelessness became the lot of the overwhelming majority of Nigerians. And this is how matters still stand today.

    The demand for the restructuring of our federation is therefore a desperately important demand. It is about how to restore progress to our country and give all Nigerians a chance to hope again. Ultimately too, it is about whether our Nigeria will, or will not, survive as a country.

    Those who are involved in this mission of saving Nigeria by demanding federal restructuring must never cease pointing out the example of India, a country that is very similar to Nigeria in ethnic composition. At independence in 1947, inter-ethnic conflicts threatened to break up India. The far northern provinces seceded and became independent countries of Pakistan and Bangladesh, and the rest of the country seemed to be headed towards disintegration. Large numbers of Indians who wanted their country to survive embarked of a vigorous demand for a proper structuring of the Indian federation. The Indian politicians gradually yielded to these voices and saved their country by sensibly restructuring their federation on the basis of ethnic nationalities, and by devolving a lot of powers and resource development to the states. The larger nationalities became states; contiguous small nations joined hands to form states. India became a union of 28 states, each state designing its own internal structure and constitution. India then redistributed powers between the federal and state authorities, giving to the states control over their resources, and much more to the states than to the union in all revenue allocation. India did not only survive; it began to prosper.

    Some of those who oppose the restructuring of the Nigerian federation usually voice the accusation that a desire to break up Nigeria, or to secede, is the real motive behind the call for the restructuring. Many who make such accusations are just “smart” politicians playing clever games – politicians who are using these accusations to hide their secret personal or ethnic agendas and vested interests. They are merely trying to obstruct.

    However, there are some Nigerians who honestly and sincerely fear that using our nations as basis for the states of our federation could lead to secessions and the breaking up of our country. Some prominent Indians had the same kind of fear about India in the early 1950s too; but those fears have never materialized. Instead, India stabilized and grew stronger, because the nationalities became more comfortable about being part of India. Most Nigerians who want their nations to secede from Nigeria today are simply tired of Nigeria’s confusion, insane inequalities, corruption, and conflicts. If Nigeria becomes a more orderly and stable country, most of today’s desires for secession are likely to vanish – similar to what happened in India.

    In summary, there are two options facing us Nigerians.  If we leave our federation as it is now concocted, with an irrational states structure and a federal authority that controls all aspects of our lives and virtually all our country’s assets, the obvious contradictions, and the inevitable deprivations and conflicts, will break up our country sooner or later. If we courageously do what the Indians did, and restructure our federation, using our nationalities as basis for state formation, and giving significant amounts of responsibilities, resources control and funding to the state authorities, the chances are that our country will survive and thrive.  This is a matter over which every Nigerian must step forward and speak up. President Buhari must take the lead.

  • Urgent tasks for S/west leaders and governments

    Since the brutal attack by Fulani cattle herders on one of the most important fathers of the Yoruba nation, Chief Olu Falae, most Yoruba people have been, at last, waking up to a realization of the dangers that threaten their Yoruba nation in Nigeria. The signs of the shock, and the growing anger and outrage, are spreading in all directions among Yoruba people. A Yoruba leaders’ summit meeting even threatened secession from Nigeria on account of the incident – although many other Yoruba have denounced that threat, rightly insisting that, for a large and prestigious nation like the Yoruba, talk of secession ought to be over much more substantial and structural issues, and ought to be arrived at through very thorough considerations.

    Virtually all Yoruba are agreed, however, that the attack on Chief Falae represents a warning alarm to all Yoruba people and their leaders to brace themselves for the protection of their nation, and their nation’s interests and integrity, in Nigeria. When different nationalities, each living in its own homeland, different in culture and religion, are forced together into one country, dark forces of rivalry, envy, fear, ill-will, hatred, and primitive ambitions by some to dominate or even eliminate others, can sometimes be generated in the hearts of some of the nationalities against others. That is what happened in Yugoslavia, producing the horror of genocidal brutalities when that country disintegrated in the early 1990s. It has happened in many Black African countries too. It is the duty of the leaders of each nationality to ensure protection for their people in such a setting.

    Signs of these dark forces are strong in Nigeria. Some nationalities harbour ambitions to dominate others or even to dominate all. Some nations are trying to seize the homelands of the smaller nations. Some nations disrespect and try to destroy the traditional farming economy of other peoples. Some nationalities compulsively behave in unruly and disruptive ways in the homelands of others. Some try to use violence to force their brand of religion on others.

    If Nigeria is to be able to live down these fault-lines and become a stable and prosperous country, then Nigeria would need to be much better structured, and much better governed, than has been the case since independence. Also, much will depend on how much Nigerian nationalities respect one another. Those who migrate to other peoples’ homelands and choose to be disrespectful of their hosts, and to indulge in aggressive and unruly claims and behaviour against their hosts, and those who seek to dominate others or to destroy the economies of others, must know that they are essentially making Nigeria impossible to hold together.

    But also, very importantly, the leaders and rulers of each Nigerian nationality owe the duty of ensuring that inter-ethnic relationships in their own homeland shall develop in an orderly and healthy manner. For instance, nearly all Nigerians relocating from their ethnic homelands today are heading to the Yoruba South-west. Already, the coming of many of them is disorderly and unhealthy, and manifestly brewing conflict and confusion. Yoruba leaders, and Yoruba state governments, are doing little or nothing to respond to this growing crisis in their homeland. They are thus preparing the ground for big trouble in the Yoruba homeland – since it is impossible that the masses of common Yoruba people will forever tolerate being insulted and trampled underfoot, and having their means of livelihood destroyed, by immigrants from other parts of Nigeria. No matter how much Yoruba political leaders may be committed to Nigeria, the masses of Yoruba people are likely to react someday to these provocations.

    Hospitality to strangers is a well-established icon of Yoruba culture. Moreover, welcoming people from other lands is something that can add greatly to prosperity in Yorubaland over time.  However, the large-scale immigration into Yorubaland today creates many serious problems – problems that Yoruba people, Yoruba leaders, and especially Yoruba state governors and legislatures need to find answers to.  Yoruba leaders should establish some modicum of unity in their own ranks, at least for the purpose of facing these serious problems together. The six governments of the Yoruba South-west should put heads together to find and implement answers to these problems.

    The problems are many and complex, but they are soluble if seriously confronted. The leading problem is that the Yoruba South-west is not generating enough economic development, and enough jobs, for its burgeoning population of indigenes and immigrants. Among the Yoruba people themselves, in spite of their solid education, enough businesses are not emerging – largely because the governments are not guiding their people to develop a modern entrepreneurial culture. As a result, most educated Yoruba youths are unemployed, and most of the immigrants are unemployed too. Huge numbers of the immigrants, and many of the Yoruba youths, take to petty peddling of merchandise on the streets, which is a classic example of “under-employment”.

    The state governments must arise to this situation. The governments must create programmes of human development – improved basic education, job-skills education, entrepreneurial development and promotion, small business promotion, modern farmers’ programmes, and well-managed micro-credit systems, for all (indigenes and immigrants alike). The objective must be to achieve the purpose of the old Yoruba adage – “that the owners of the home and the strangers in the home may all have plenty to eat”.

    Another problem is the serious shortage of shopping centres in Yoruba towns. The old marketplaces are still offering great service, but more modern shopping centres and malls are urgently needed. Also needed are proper licensing of traders and stores, introduction of sales taxes, proper urban zoning, and proper control and management of street peddling. Laws should also be made to prohibit the existence of exclusive “tribal” marketplaces or shopping centres, so that all marketplaces and shopping centres shall be the common property of the community, equally open to all. Serious provisions also need to be made for the proper enforcement of law in business competition in Yorubaland, as well as for the prohibition of ethnic-based, or other, monopoly or cartel practices – including illegal or violent acts aimed at eliminating business rivals.

    Yet another problem is that, though Nigeria’s laws vest the management of the land of every state in the state government, most Yoruba states have evolved no land policies and no clear land transfer systems, and the states that have evolved such laws are not properly enforcing them. Therefore, land acquisitions and land transfers are occurring on a massively chaotic scale in all parts of the Yoruba South-west – obviously threatening the interests of indigenes and immigrants alike. The state governments need to deal urgently with these matters.

    Moreover, it is time to eliminate cattle herding in the Yoruba South-west, and the dangers that it brings to Yoruba farmers and urban dwellers alike. There is really no place for unrestrained cattle herding in a country like Yorubaland where there are cities and towns at short distances from one another all over, and where most of the rural folks live on peasant farming. The answer, undoubtedly, is that the Yoruba state governments should speedily promote modern cattle ranching in the Yoruba grasslands in the northern parts of most Yoruba states, encourage and assist Yoruba people to become ranchers there, and establish modern abattoirs for the slaughter and distribution of beef. All of these will discourage and ultimately eliminate unrestrained cattle rearing.

    In short, the impression must be eliminated that the Yoruba homeland is a “no-man’s-land”, a land without rules or order or leadership, where people from other parts of Nigeria can come and do as they wish. The Yoruba people can, and must, change all that – for their own good, and for the good of all residents in Yorubaland.

  • Some lessons from other people’s history

    I wrote this article last Friday, September 18, for another purpose. That was three days before Chief Olu Falae was attacked and kidnapped on his farm by persons suspected by police to be Fulani cattle herders. Written before the unthinkable outrage against Chief Falae, this article proves surprisingly prophetic.

    The country named Yugoslavia in southeastern Europe broke up in 1990. While it existed, it was similar to Nigeria of today in many ways. Like Nigeria, Yugoslavia consisted of many different nationalities – the Serbs, Croats, Slovenes, Bosnians, Macedonians, Montenegrins, Albanians, etc. Britain had thoughtlessly pushed many nationalities together to create Nigeria in 1914; Britain and France also thoughtlessly pushed many nationalities together to create Yugoslavia in 1918.

    Like Nigerian leaders, Yugoslav leaders were never able to manage their inter-ethnic relationships amicably. Like Nigeria therefore, Yugoslavia was always unstable. Under a dictator, Josip Tito, in 1945 to 1980, Yugoslavia’s ethnic hostilities were forcibly kept under control. But after Tito died in 1980, the instability returned in full force.

    Most of Yugoslavia’s ethnic leaders did try to save the country. Throughout the 1980s, they held national conferences to find a settlement. But the Serbs (the largest of the nationalities) foiled all the attempts – because the Serbs would not accept any agreement that did not guarantee their dominance. The country slipped on – until it exploded in 1990.

    The final break-up started when some of the nationalities announced secession. The Serbs mobilized a large army and tried to suppress them, but more nationalities announced secession. Yugoslavia descended into a horrendous conflagration.

    We must now note the particular experience of one of the nationalities – Bosnia. While the other nationalities had attended to their own homelands in the 1980s, the Bosnian nation had been very careless about its own homeland and its future – just as the Yoruba are today in Nigeria. Like Yorubaland in Nigeria, Bosnia had attracted many immigrants from the other nationalities of Yugoslavia, as traders, job seekers, and settlers. The leaders of the Bosnian people had paid no attention to that development. Just as the Yoruba are doing today, the Bosnians had let the immigrants do as they wished. Bosnian politicians gave all their attention to Yugoslavian politics and did nothing as troubles openly brewed in their own homeland – exactly as Yoruba leaders are doing now in Nigeria.

    When the Yugoslav conflagration finally came in 1990, and Bosnia announced secession like the other nationalities, the Bosnians immediately found themselves in hell – real hell. Some of the immigrant groups claimed parts of Bosnia as theirs, and tried to create small countries of their own in such places; and armed groups came from their homelands to help them. Serbian armies also came to suppress Bosnia’s secession. In the confusion, Bosnian people were killed in their tens of thousands, and their women were raped and killed. Bosnian towns and cities were devastated. This horror continued until NATO and the United States mercifully intervened, stopped the carnage and destruction, and helped Bosnians to have their country.

    Yes, the Bosnians did get their country. In addition, many of the persons who had brutalized them during the secession confusions were later arrested by international authorities, hauled before the International Court of Justice, tried, and harshly penalized. But the Bosnians are still living with the scars and the painful memories of their horrific suffering, and they will live with such forever. Had Bosnian leaders been more dutiful to their nation instead of expending all their energy in partisan political wrangling in the 1980s, Bosnians would never have suffered as horribly as this.

    The lesson here is clear. When different nationalities, each living in its own homeland, different in culture and religion, are forced together into one country, dark forces of rivalry, envy, fear, ill-will, hatred and domination can sometimes be generated in the hearts of some of the nationalities against others. That is what happened in Yugoslavia. It has happened in many Black African countries too. It is the duty of the leaders of each nationality to ensure that their people are not left unprotected.

    Signs of these dark forces are manifest in Nigeria. Sure, Nigeria enjoys some fragile peace. Many Nigerians desire that Nigeria should become a harmonious and peaceful country and thereby exist for long as one country. However, for that to happen, Nigeria would need to be structured into a proper and well-ordered federation – with all of today’s over-centralization eliminated.

    Much will also depend on how much Nigerian nationalities respect one another. Those who migrate to other peoples’ homelands and choose to be disrespectful of their hosts, and to indulge in aggressive and unruly claims and behavior against their hosts, and those who seek to dominate others, must know that they are essentially making Nigeria impossible to keep together.

    Also, very importantly, each Nigerian nationality owes the duty of making inter-ethnic relationships in its own homeland orderly and healthy. Nearly all Nigerians relocating from their homelands today are heading to Yorubaland and, already, the coming of many of them is disorderly and unhealthy. Yoruba leaders need therefore to remember the experiences of the Bosnians. Like the Bosnian leaders, today’s Yoruba leaders may be preparing the grounds for the suffering of Yoruba people too. These Yoruba leaders may also be unknowingly strengthening the forces that can break up Nigeria – since it is impossible that the masses of common Yoruba people will forever tolerate being insulted and trampled underfoot, no matter how much Yoruba leaders may be committed to Nigeria.

    Hospitality to strangers is a well-established icon of Yoruba culture. Moreover, welcoming people from other lands is something that can add greatly to prosperity in Yorubaland over time.  However, the large-scale immigration into Yorubaland today creates many serious problems – problems that Yoruba people, Yoruba leaders, and especially Yoruba governors and legislatures, need to find answers to.  Yoruba leaders should establish some modicum of unity in their own ranks, at least for the purpose of facing these serious problems together. The six governors of the Yoruba South-west, and the six legislatures, should establish ways to put heads together to find and implement answers to these problems.

    The problems are many and complex, but they as soluble. The leading problem is that Yorubaland is not generating enough economic development, and enough jobs, for its burgeoning population. Among the Yoruba people themselves, in spite of their solid education, enough businesses are not being created – because the governments are not developing their people. As a result, most educated Yoruba youths are unemployed, and most of the immigrants are unemployed too. Huge numbers of the immigrants struggling for survival, as well as many of the Yoruba youths, take to petty peddling on the streets, which is a classic example of “under-employment”.  In their frenetic hurrying around, they make the main streets of most Yoruba cities look like trash-dumps churned by whirlwinds.

    The state governments must arise to this situation. Obviously, what the governments need to do is to create programmes of human development – improved basic education, job-skill development, entrepreneurial development, small business promotion, modern farm programmes, and well-managed micro-credit systems, for all (indigenes and immigrants alike). The objective must be to achieve the purpose of the old Yoruba adage – “that the owners of the home and the strangers in the home may all have plenty to eat”. That “plenty” must also include housing space – meaning that public authorities must aggressively build housing estates.

    Another problem is the serious shortage of shopping centres in Yoruba towns. The old marketplaces are still there, but more shopping centres and malls are urgently needed. Also needed are proper licensing of traders and stores, introduction of sales tax, and prohibition of street peddling in designated residential zones of every city. Laws should also be made to prohibit the existence of exclusive “tribal” marketplaces or shopping centres, and to make all marketplaces and shopping centres the common property of the community, equally open to all. Provisions also need to be made for the proper observance of law in the commercial life of Yorubaland, as well as laws for the prohibition of ethnic-based, or other, monopolies or cartels.

    Yet another problem is that, though Nigeria’s laws vest the management of the land of every state in the state government, Yoruba states have evolved no land policies and no land transfer systems. Therefore, land acquisition and land transfer are occurring on a massively chaotic scale – obviously threatening indigenes and immigrants alike (and the whole society) with mightily confused land problems. These need to be corrected.

    Yet another serious problem is that, in many rural areas, migrant Fulani cattle herders from across the Niger, pushed south by drought, and by attacks by cattle rustlers, are increasingly clashing with Yoruba farmers on their farms, and becoming more dangerously armed and more aggressive  – resulting in serious harm to farmers and cattle herders alike. Yoruba leaders and governments must find sensible and sustainable answers to this situation.

    There are more problems, but we will stop here. Altogether, the impression must be eliminated that the Yoruba homeland is a “no-man’s-land”, a land without rules or order or leadership, where people from other parts of Nigeria can do as they wish. The core need is that Yoruba leaders and state governments must urgently rise up to their duties of ensuring orderly progress in their homeland.

  • Yes, ours are respectable nationalities

    In the past two weeks, I have highlighted the distinctive existence and virility of the many nationalities that make up our country. The reason for this is that the central government of Nigeria since independence has operated on the dangerous agenda that our nationalities should be subdued and destroyed in order to build a united Nigeria. For this reason, we often hear some prominent Nigerians telling us that we should detest our identities as Yoruba, Igbo, Urhobo, Kanuri, Nupe, etc, and identify ourselves only as Nigerians. For this reason also, the federal government has followed policies aimed at destroying our nationalities – by, among other things, accumulating all power and resource control in the federal centre, by turning the states of our federation into impotent entities, and by banning the teaching of our nations’ histories and languages in our schools. The thinking behind these policies is that when our nationalities’ languages become extinct and we forget our nationalities’ histories, our nationalities will die out and Nigeria will emerge united and strong.

    But assuming that we can build Nigeria upon the ruins of our nationalities is a false and dangerous assumption. Countries that are homes for many nationalities are many in the world – such as Britain, Spain, Belgium, India, Switzerland, Indonesia, etc. In some of these countries, the nationalities have lived side by side for hundreds of years. In not a single known case has any of the nationalities died out. In every case, the wise policy pursued is to let each nationality enjoy some freedom or autonomy to manage its life according to its culture – and thereby make its own kind of contributions to the prosperity of the country to which it belongs.

    Part of this wise policy is that India restructured its federation properly after independence, allows much autonomy to its states, recognizes 22 national languages and supports their being taught. Even the Union of South Africa has now recognized 11 national languages. Britain pursues a policy of devolution – meaning, giving much autonomy to each nationality. It is only in the countries of Black Africa that the rulers are trying to destroy their indigenous nationalities – and the result has been conflicts and bloodshed. Those who think that destroying our own nationalities in Nigeria is the way to build Nigeria are trying to create a time bomb that may someday destroy Nigeria. It is in the interest of our posterity to resist and stop this evil agenda and make our country pursue the path of sanity.

    To show how virile and worthy of respect our nationalities really are, we have looked at our three giant nations – Hausa-Fulani, Igbo and Yoruba. But virility does not belong to these giants only; very many of our smaller nations are strong and respectable too. Today, we will highlight the Kanuri and the Edo.

    The Kanuri people in the Lake Chad valley had, by as early as the 14th century, evolved into a large empire, the Kanem-Bornu Empire, ruled by emperors who bore the title of Mai. Very successful farming in the lands of the lake and its rivers made this empire a land of prosperity and thick population. To this prosperity, long distance trade contributed enormously. Northwards, trade routes connected the empire with the Mediterranean territories to the north, and with the lands of the Nile and Arabia to the north-east. With such connections later came the religion of Islam, and with it came literacy in Arabic. Westwards and southwards, trade routes linked this rich empire with the lands of the Hausa and of Mali and, later, of Songhai, and, across the Niger, with the countries of the Yoruba and other forest peoples of West Africa. Before the 16th century, probably most of the trade of the peoples of the country now known as Nigeria with the outside world through the Mediterranean passed through the lands of Kanem-Bornu as centre of exchange. By the late 16th century, the government of Kanem-Bornu maintained regular diplomatic relationships and embassies with the Ottoman Empire in the Mediterranean world. The court officials of one Mai who ruled in the first years of the 17th century gave the world perhaps the earliest history book written in the interior of West Africa.

    This empire suffered some decline in the course of the 18th century. In the early 19th century, the Fulani-led jihad movement in Hausaland made a bid to conquer Kanem-Bornu, but the old empire defended its territories successfully. While defending itself, the empire revived much of its old strength and glory.

    Without doubt, by the late 19th century when the European imperialists began to come, this empire of the Kanuris was a coherent and strong state, a state with a lot of proud history. But the British and French empire builders came in the last years of the 19th century, seized the area, set up boundaries of their own making, and created new countries. The heart of the old Kanem-Bornu kingdom was ultimately incorporated into British-owned Nigeria and the rest into French possessions to the east and north. European imperialism thus snuffed out a strong and beautiful nation-state that had existed for many centuries.

    Next, we will look at the Edo nation in the deep forest country to the southeast of Yorubaland. Here, the old Edo kingdom of Benin was, by the 19th century, a rich land of commerce, culture, power and pride. Its capital city boasted broad streets, great market centres, a splendid palace and collections of art, gorgeous royal ceremonies, and an impressive system of city walls. Its central province was the homeland of the Edo nation, and its subordinate provinces the territories of Edo-related peoples (like the Ishan and the Afenmai). Altogether, territorially, it was larger than many of today’s nation states of Europe – such as Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, and the Republic of Ireland. It undoubtedly commanded a first-rate capacity to become a prosperous nation-state or country in the evolving modern world.

    The Benin kingdom had been one of the foremost centres of trade with Europeans along the West African coast since as early as the late 15th century. Benefiting massively from the trade, the kingdom had evolved into a powerful commercial empire, with commercial tentacles reaching out for hundreds of miles in neighbouring counties.

    Alarmed by the news of the activities of European imperialist agents in other parts of West Africa in the course of the 1890’s, the Benin kingdom adopted a defensive mode. While still fully welcoming trade with the Europeans, the Benin authorities tried to limit contacts with agents of European imperialism operating on the coast. But the British were already active in seizing territories in West Africa, and were determined to seize the Benin kingdom.

    In 1897, the British asked for permission to send a delegation to the Benin palace, and the Benin government refused to grant the permission. In defiance of the explicit Benin refusal, the British sent envoys from the coast to the palace of Benin, accompanied by some troops. Benin’s security forces ambushed and wiped out the intruders. Seizing on that as declaration of war, the British mounted a massive invasion, and overran the Benin kingdom. This proud kingdom was ultimately forced into the British Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, and then into Nigeria – where it became one of the many small nationalities in a large multi-nation country.

  • Yes, ours are respectable nationalities

    Last week we considered the Hausa-Fulani and the Igbo. Today, we consider the Yoruba. The Yoruba are the largest nationality in the tropical forest country south of the valley of the River Niger. In land area and population, they are larger than most of today’s countries in the world. Their distinguishing characteristic in their history has been their urban civilization. Much more than any other people of Black Africa (indeed more than most other peoples of the world), the Yoruba have lived in towns and walled cities throughout the past 1,200 years.

    By the time the first European explorers navigated the sea passage to the coast of West Africa in about 1450, most of the large Yoruba towns were already flourishing. In the 19th century, some more towns were founded – like Ibadan, Abeokuta, Shagamu, Modakeke, new Oyo, Aiyede-Ekiti, Oke-Agbe in Akoko, etc.

    The first Europeans to penetrate into the interior of Yorubaland did so in the early 19th century. In 1825-6, the English explorer, Hugh Clapperton and his team entered Yorubaland from Badagry and travelled north to the great city of Oyo-Ile near the Niger. What they found surprised them, because it was considerably different from the rest of tropical Africa. Towns existed at short distances from one another in all directions. According to the explorers, many of these towns were “densely inhabited”, and were “remarkable for their cleanliness”. Most were “clean habitations’, were “delightfully situated”, and were approached “through a beautiful walk of trees” or “through a spacious avenue of noble trees”. Very good roads connected town to town. The explorers recorded that the roads were, in many parts, “a long broad and beautiful avenue”, were “as level as a bowling green”, and were well protected and “carefully watched by overseers”.

    In the context of this urban civilization, the Yoruba had long developed a very rich economy – in agriculture, artisanship, crafts, manufactures, commerce and the arts. All along the roads, the Yoruba people’s strength as farmers was obvious. The countryside was  richly farmed – with “fields of Indian corn”, “plantations of cotton”, “extensive plantations of corn and plantains”, “rich plantations of yams”, “acres of indigo”. The explorers summed up their impression by writing that the Yoruba were indeed “an industrious race”.

    Yoruba crafts and manufactures were highly sought in many parts of tropical Africa. The Yoruba also had the greatest art culture in Black Africa. In every town, the Clapperton group saw large numbers of sculptures decorating public buildings and family compounds. They remarked that the Yoruba people “appear to have a genius for the art of sculpture” and that Yoruba artistic productions “rival, in point of delicacy, any of a similar kind” that they had seen in Europe.

    In every town, the explorers saw large and crowded marketplaces where innumerable kinds of merchandise from various ends of the earth were spread out for sale. They counted as many as seven large marketplaces in one large town. On a busy market day, the collective swell of bargaining in any of these marketplaces could be heard from many miles away like the roaring of the sea. Some market places specialized in night-time trading, with every trader using an oil lamp to illuminate her merchandise. When one approached one of such marketplaces in session, it was as if one was heading towards a sea of stars.

    Other European and American explorers later in that century confirmed all that the Clapperton group had seen. In particular, these had much to write about Yoruba trade. They were greatly impressed by the ancient Yoruba institution of trade caravan (made up of many traders and their porters travelling together). One British Anglican missionary estimated that a caravan that he travelled with near Ibadan in 1854 consisted of “not less than 4000 persons”. The American missionary, William H. Clarke, who travelled all over Yorubaland in 1854-8, wrote:

    “The trade in native produce and art keeps up continual intercommunication between the several adjacent towns, the one interchanging its abundance of one article for that of another. Thus on those smaller routes may be seen caravans of fifties passing almost daily from one town to another, acting as the great reservoirs of trade. (On the longer routes) a network of trade is carried to a distance of hundreds of miles, and with an energy and perseverance scarcely compatible with a tropical people. Hundreds and thousands of people are thus engaged in the carrying trade”.

    Clarke added that whenever some caravans happened to merge, “a correct idea of the extent of trade may be found in the imposing numbers that stretch over several miles in length” on the road.

    Most of the trading happened in the marketplaces, but there were various types of travelling traders – the owners of the caravans. Two of the richest traders in Yorubaland in the century were women – Madam Tinubu in Lagos and Chief Efunseyitan Aniwura, the Iyalode of Ibadan. The Iyalode owned not only one of the largest commercial businesses in the country but also a large farming enterprise which, in the 1870’s, employed more than 2000 workers. In the port towns of Lagos and Ajase (Porto Novo), very many rich merchants grew up, and some of them even owned shipping lines.

    According to the Clapperton group, the Yoruba people lived under very respectable government and paid “the greatest respect to the laws”. Yoruba people were also happy and wonderfully hospitable. “We experienced as much civility from them as our own countrymen would have bestowed upon us in our own native land.” In every town or village, the explorers were thronged by inquisitive crowds who “were, generally speaking, neatly dressed…and very clean in their personal appearance”, and “pleasing in their manners” and self-respecting. The explorers wanted to pay money to young men to carry their ailing leader (Clapperton) in a hammock, but found, in town after town, that no Yoruba youth would do such a thing for anybody; the boys always responded that it was “a task fit only for horses”. However, rich Yoruba folks as well as the chiefs and kings were always ready to help the explorers and to lend them the use of horses.

    At the bottom of all this prosperity, order and peace, was Yoruba cultural unity. Though the Yoruba lived in many sovereign kingdoms, they were united by a common culture in language and patterns of life, powerful traditions that “proved” a common national origin and identity, and a common national pride as a superior civilization.

    The very sophisticated Yoruba political and governmental system had a significantly democratic character. Unlike among most other monarchical peoples, Yoruba kings were not automatically succeeded by their biological sons, but were selected by their subjects from the pool of eligible princes of the royal lineage. The chiefly lineages also selected the chiefs.  The culture demanded serious respect for the right of speech for all, and had a uniquely strong kind of respect for women. Rich Yoruba women traders were regularly among Yorubaland’s richest and most influential people. And every Yoruba kingdom had traditional women chiefs. All these made the individual Yoruba a confident and freedom-loving person.

    The Clapperton explorers noted repeatedly that Yoruba rulers were dignified, professional and highly respectable. William Clarke wrote that, surprisingly, the Yoruba had long mastered the principle and practice of “balance of powers” in governance – probably better than many European peoples.

    Then in the second half of the 19th century, the strengths of the Yoruba nation were powerfully reinforced by new, non-indigenous, cultural assets. European Christian missionaries had started to bring the Gospel message and Western education to Black Africa by the middle of the century – and the Yoruba had immediately jumped far ahead of the rest of Black Africa in taking advantage of the Western education. Yoruba language became a written language. By the 1870s, a Yoruba literate elite (of lawyers, doctors, engineers, journalists, accountants, etc) had risen and was expanding, and Yorubaland already had newspapers. Among other things, the literate elite initiated a movement of Yoruba Cultural Nationalism which promoted studies and writings in Yoruba culture and history, and which greatly added to Yoruba national unity.

    All in all, the Yoruba nation was a large Black African nation absolutely able and ready to evolve into a nation-state or country of its own in the modern world. European imperialism did the horrible harm of pre-empting that. Nigeria is now engaged in the horror of attempting to suppress and destroy the Yoruba nation and other Nigerian nations. Denial, by Nigeria’s so-called “federal” centre, of the existence of the Yoruba and other Nigerian nationalities, and banning the teaching of their languages and histories in the schools, are abominations that can only boomerang someday – to the huge detriment of Nigeria.

  • Yes, ours are respectable nationalities – 1

    A number of times in this column, I have urged caution and common sense in the way we handle our many nationalities in the course of our efforts at building Nigeria. I have urged that we can build a harmonious, stable and prosperous country only if we build everything upon a culture of respect for all our nationalities, large and small, and if we structure and manage our country according to that culture. Repeatedly, I get compatriots who ask me whether I am right in comparing our nationalities – Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Kanuri, Ijaw, etc – with European nationalities like the English, French, Germans, etc. I am asked whether our nationalities are not too primitive to be compared with these European nationalities.

    The answer is NO. Our nationalities are like any other nationalities in the world. Every nationality has its own uniqueness. On every continent, different nationalities have survived for many centuries as members of large countries (for example, the English, Scots, Irish and Welsh in Britain, or the Spaniards, Basques and Catalans in Spain). Therefore, we must assume that our nationalities will most likely be alive for many centuries to come in Nigeria (if Nigeria lives that long). It is extremely foolish to behave as if we are sure that our nationalities will meld together and disappear as distinct entities. To bequeath a stable and peaceful country to our descendants, our only sensible option is to handle our nationalities carefully and make each confident that its interests are protected in Nigeria.

    In answer to those who believe that our nationalities are primitive entities that we can deal with anyhow and treat anyhow, my answer is to describe a few of our nationalities – especially our three largest nationalities – Hausa-Fulani, Yoruba and Igbo. In population and land area, each of these three is larger than most nationalities of Europe. I need to give some space here to each of the ones I choose to describe, and therefore I may have to extend this answer into next week. I start with the Hausa-Fulani and Igbo today.

    The Hausa nation is the single largest nationality in the broad West African grassland north of the Niger valley and south of the Sahara Desert. The Hausa had lived in their homeland for thousands of years, and had developed into a number of kingdoms (each with a main town) many centuries before the 19th century. Though separated by vast grasslands, the kingdoms had the same national culture and language, and were interconnected by powerful traditions. The Hausa country was copiously interconnected by trade, and had culturally and commercially rich contacts with non-Hausa neighbours in all directions. Located immediately south of the Sahara Desert, the Hausa country benefited greatly from the trans-Saharan trade with the Mediterranean world, and some of its towns ranked among the leading trading centres in the West African Sudan and Sahel. With this trade also had come Islam, with the result that the Hausa kingdoms and rulers were mostly Muslims, with the important cultural asset of literacy in Arabic.

    Another ethnic group, the Fulani, a mostly nomadic people, who had for centuries migrated slowly from the grasslands far to the west, had become part of the Hausa towns and countryside by the 18th century. In the first years of the 19th century, some of the town-settled Fulani started an Islamic reform movement, and launched a jihad against the Hausa kingdoms. The Fulani immigrant people were very few in comparison with the Hausa, but their call for reforms in Islam won the support of the masses of Hausa Muslim folks. The jihad quickly subdued the rulers of the old Hausa kingdoms and replaced them with Fulani rulers with the title of Emirs. Loosely federated, Hausaland became one large Fulani-ruled empire or sultanate.

    This homeland of the Hausa (more correctly Hausa-Fulani from the early 19th century) then grew more rapidly in commerce and wealth, as well as in Islamic literacy and scholarship. There is no doubt whatsoever that this sultanate, as it stood by the late 19th century, before the coming of the British, commanded the capacity to evolve into a dynamic and prosperous modern country of its own  in the heart of West Africa in our times. This was one large nation-state with clear attributes of a nation-state – a commonly accepted government, reasonably clear boundaries, common language (the Hausa language), a culture of writing, and a well-developed economy in agriculture, animal husbandry, very ancient and far-flung commerce, and a rich multiplicity of crafts and manufactures in iron and other metals, in leather, wood, otton, dyes, etc.

    Then, let us look at our Igbo nation. In the country east of the Lower Niger, the Igbo nation had evolved probably 6000 years before the coming of the British. They had early evolved a rich and artistic culture, mostly in small village polities that were parts of larger entities such as clans. All were however united by one cultural heritage, language, religion and customs. By the 19th century, the Igbo were a great trading people, and the available evidence indicates that they had been a trading people long before then. They were a major contributor to the very substantial trade that evolved with the outside world along the Lower Niger in the course of the century.

    Probably more than that of any other major Black African people, the image of the Igbo nation has, since the beginning of the 20th century, suffered much distortion and downgrading at the hands of European colonial agents, colonial scholars, and colonial propagandists. It has also suffered the same in the hands of even some Nigerians who believe that building Nigeria requires that the various nationalities in Nigeria be pushed down and suppressed. In general, the tendency among such writers has been to take the absence of large political structures (kingdoms, empires, etc.) among most of the Igbo as proof that the Igbo were a primitive people – or that they were not even a definite people or nationality at all.

    Happily, however, in more recent times, though that tone has not been completely silenced, stronger and more scholarly voices have arisen to restore to the Igbo nation a more balanced picture for its image. It would be difficult to doubt today that the Igbo nation had the cultural attributes that might have transformed their nation, on its own, into a virile and dynamic nation state in the modern world.  But then, in the last decades of the 19th century, the Igbo were forcibly incorporated into the evolving British Empire in West Africa, ultimately becoming part of Nigeria.

    In the course of the 20th century, the Igbo have proved to be a very dynamic and modernizing people. They command a kind of national uniqueness that would have built a restlessly exploring, experimenting, and pushful country in the eastern part of West Africa. The Igbo nation is an indisputable example of an African nation denied the chance, by European imperialism, of growing into a prosperous country on its own in the modern world.

    Once, in Obafemi Awolowo University in the mid-1970s, in one of the introductory Nigerian History classes that I loved to teach, one of my young Igbo students asked me a touching question. “I strongly believe, sir”, he started, “that if we Igbo people had been allowed to have our own country from the beginning of the 20thcentury, even if we had been a British colony, we would be easily competing with a country like Japan today in technology, industries and world trade. What do you think, sir?” I answered that I agreed absolutely with him, and I could see that he was surprised that I would agree so promptly and so definitely. The truth is that nobody who has spent a whole adult life learning the history of our Black African peoples, as I have had the privilege of doing, can deny that any of our peoples (Igbo, Yoruba, Hausa-Fulani, Kanuri, Edo, etc), is a proudly achieving nation that commands the native and intrinsic capability to make a success of its life in the modern world.

    I believe that we should, and can, stop the crudely integrationist policies, and the destructive centralization of power and resources, that we have been pursuing since independence.  I repeat – we need to make everyone of our nationalities feel belonging. Such steps are crucial to making Nigeria live long in stability and prosperity.

  • Buhari must initiate process for dealing with Nigeria’s fundamental problem

    I applaud President Buhari’s courageous and focused assault on the hideous evil of corruption. I believe that if he succeeds with it, he would give our country some moral strength and a fair chance to return to the path of socio-economic progress.

    But that is not all that our country needs. Our country’s most important need is to find ways to be a stable country – to find ways to make our hundreds of nationalities live together in reasonable harmony as members of one country. It can be done. Many multi-nation countries like ours – such as India, Switzerland, Britain in its own way, and others – have done it or are doing it with reasonable degrees of success. Without finding a reasonably broadly acceptable solution to this problem, we are not likely ever to make Nigeria a stable country; in fact, we doom our country to continued instability, conflicts and probable ultimate break-up. President Buhari is the President of Change and Hope that Nigeria has long needed and desired. He must not continue to appear to be unaware of, or to be ignoring, or to be evading, this fundamental problem.

    This fundamental problem is not peculiar to Nigeria; it is common to virtually all Black African countries. And it is because no Black African country has found a broadly acceptable solution to it that virtually all Black African countries are forever going through turmoil and conflicts. And the reason no African country has found a solution to it is that African leaders, in general, do not accept fact as fact concerning this problem and deal with it as reasonable humans should.

    The root of this fundamental problem is that Black Africa is peculiarly a land of mostly small nationalities. After its three largest nationalities (the Yoruba, Hausa-Fulani and Igbo of Nigeria) and a few sizeable ones, the remaining thousands of Black Africa’s nationalities are very small – many not more than a few hundreds of thousands, or even only tens of thousands, in population.

    With this minute ethno-linguistic fragmentation of the Black African sub-continent, virtually every Black African country of our times comprises tens of nationalities. Nigeria, the largest in population, with some 170 million people, has over 300 nationalities – of which the three largest share about 130 million.  Clearly, over 100 of Nigerian nationalities have populations of only a few hundred thousand or even less each. The small Republic of Benin next door, with a population of about eight million, is home to about 40 nationalities. Tanzania, with a population of about 38 million people, has about 120 nationalities.

    Therefore, no matter how Black Africa had organised itself into new modern countries at the beginning of the last century, this fundamental problem would have been indeed a difficult reality to handle – since almost all countries would have needed to contain many nationalities. But, in fact, and unfortunately, Black Africa’s organisation into our modern countries actually happened in the worst way imaginable. It happened through conquest, control and direction by European imperialists who had no respect whatsoever for Black African peoples. In the process, these European imperialists compounded and confounded Black Africa’s fundamental problem. They twisted and mangled this problem, and now it is a tenacious nightmare for all the countries, and all the peoples, of Black Africa. Approaching African peoples with deep disrespect, the European creators of our modern countries simply trampled down our various nationalities, cut boundaries through the homelands of countless nationalities, and created new countries in such ways as to make room for little or no likelihood of cohesion or stability ever.

    To convey some picture of this sordid disrespect, let’s quote statements of two participants in the creation of our countries. In 1884-5, representatives of leading European countries met in Berlin in Germany to share Africa among them. One of those representatives later wrote: “We have been engaged in drawing lines on maps where no white man’s foot has ever trod; we have been giving away mountains and rivers and lakes to each other, only hindered by the small impediment that we have never known where the rivers and lakes and mountains were”. One British official who took part in creating the eastern boundaries of Nigeria wrote later: “In those days, we just took a blue pencil and ruler, and we put it down at Old Calabar, and drew that blue line to Yola. I recollect thinking when I was sitting having an audience with the Emir (of Yola) surrounded by his tribe, that it was a very good thing that he did not know that I, with a blue pencil, had drawn a line through his territory”.

    That is the ignorant, disrespectful and shoddy manner in which our country, Nigeria, was created – and in which all other countries of Black Africa were created. That is also the ignorant and disrespectful manner in which the internal boundaries of our Nigeria were created. When we feel like making noises about our Nigeria or about our North, or whatever, we need to remind ourselves of these sorry pictures. Starkly put, our country and its international and internal colonial boundaries are one package of ignorant and presumptuous errors. They are a package of wounds that still pain many of our nationalities.

    This does not mean, of course, that Nigeria is impossible to keep together and to build into a successful country. What it does mean, however, is that those who manage the affairs of Nigeria must keep consciously aware of the fundamental realities of the country we call Nigeria. It means that we must consciously nurture a culture of respect for every nationality, large or small. It means that we must be committed to a true federation, and to a federal structure and order based on respect for our nationalities. With these, we can make success of Nigeria; without them, we cannot. President Buhari needs to show that he knows these things.

    President Buhari must show that he knows what is known by a total foreigner like Elliot P. Skinner who wrote, “African countries will continue to be racked by conflicts unless leaders agree about how to govern their multi-faceted nation-states and how to distribute their economic resources equitably. Without compromise that would ensure “ethnic justice”, neither so-called “liberal democracy” nor any other species of government will succeed in Africa”.

    In short, no matter what else we do, no matter how successfully we suppress corruption under Buhari’s leadership, we still must provide a broadly acceptable solution to the fundamental problem created by the fact that our country is a country of hundreds of different ancient nationalities. To make a success of Nigeria at all, we must provide solutions acceptable to our various nationalities.

    Some of our most prominent citizens think that the answer to this enormous problem is to keep asking us Nigerians to think of ourselves only as Nigerians and cease thinking of ourselves as Yoruba, Ijaw, Hausa-Fulani, Ibibio, Igbo, Kanuri, etc. Some think it is something worthy of pride to keep telling us that they see themselves as Nigerian leaders only and detest being seen as leaders among their own nationalities. It does not amount to a solution.

  • Message to Obasanjo

    I make it a point of duty to be respectful of President Olusegun Obasanjo, whether I happen to mention his name in public or in private. I am sure that is part of my respect for my country. For me, it is not a small thing that a person has once been head of the country of my birth.

    In the past few days, President Obasanjo has been widely reported to have made some thought-provoking statements about the issue of leadership in the Yoruba nation. I see no need to probe into his motives for making these statements – and I will not so probe, out of respect. Whether he is out to shoot barbs at some person or persons among the Yoruba people is not unimportant, but I choose not to step into such considerations. It is quite possible to look into the statements themselves on purely objective basis, and that is what I would rather do.

    Broadly, his statements deal with two periods of Yoruba history – the long pre-colonial period and the short modern, Nigerian, period. His views concerning both periods are, I believe, summed up in the sentence in which he said: ”Just as there was no single Oba having sovereignty over the whole of Yorubaland, there was no individual as leader of the Yorubas in Yorubaland. As it was then, it remains till now.” With all due respect, I think he is not exactly correct about either period.

    His mistake concerning the long period of the history of Yoruba kingdoms and their Obas (from about the 10th century to roughly the end of the 18th century) arises from his obvious confusion of the two concepts, “leadership” and “sovereignty”. Yes, no one Oba ever held sovereignty over the whole of Yorubaland; each Oba held sovereignty over his own kingdom. But that does not mean that the concept of leadership, or the concept of prominent influence, was totally non-existent in this long period of Yoruba history. Claims commonly made by various Yoruba circles today for the Ooni or the Alafin as “leading” father of the Yoruba nation is not without some historical foundation. The problem is that those of us making these claims do not try to differentiate between the eras when one or the other had more influence in Yorubaland.

    Historians would now say that there was an early era when the Ife kingdom was widely revered in Yorubaland and that, though the reverence for Ife never totally vanished, there was a later era when the Alafin ruled a large and proud empire consisting of much (though not all) of Yorubaland plus some non-Yoruba peoples, and when the Alafin had very high influence among Yoruba people. There was an era when Yoruba kingdoms that fell into political troubles resorted to the palace of Ife for traditions and rituals for sorting out their troubles. And there was a later era when high officials of the Alafin were commonly sent by the Alafin to go and settle disputes, and prevent conflicts, in totally sovereign and independent Yoruba kingdoms that were experiencing political troubles. The traditions about these things are unambiguous features of our history.

    To go on to the modern aspects of President Obasanjo’s statements, we find him saying very heavy things. He says that there has never been a Yoruba leader in modern times, that it was Chief Awolowo’s supporters who “fixed” the title of Yoruba leader on him during the Nigerian crisis situation in the 1960s, and that there is no need for a Yoruba leader.

    The statement that there has never been a Yoruba leader in modern Yoruba history is simply untrue. In general, in all parts of Black Africa, whenever any nationalities face uncertainties or difficulties in the countries to which they belong, their usual practice has been to generate a leadership to protect their interests. There is no known Black African nation that has never done this. In Nigeria, the examples are legion. In the late 1940s, in the general uncertainty accompanying British deliberations to formulate Nigeria into one country, many Nigerian peoples founded leadership groups for themselves – notably, Ibo State Union, Egbe Omo Oduduwa, etc. One of the most influential forces in Nigerian politics today is the Hausa-Fulani leadership organization called Arewa Consultative Forum.

    Egbe Omo Oduduwa and its leadership spoke very capably for the Yoruba nation and promoted Yoruba interests expertly. In various crisis situations in Yorubaland, it employed its influence effectively to broker peace. And, even in spite of the presence of two powerful political parties, AG and NCNC, in the Western Region, Egbe Omo Oduduwa continued to do these things until the regional crisis of the early 1960s. Is it possible that President Obasanjo does not remember these things?

    During the very troubling months leading to the Nigerian Civil War in the 1960s, prominent Yoruba of all political orientations formed the Yoruba Leaders of Thought, which met frequently to chart our nation’s path through the growing Nigerian nightmare of the time. Most other Nigerian nationalities did the same. We even set up a standing delegation which went to Gen. Gowon many times to present Yoruba positions and make Yoruba demands. Chief Awolowo, first Premier of our Region, and undoubtedly our nation’s highest political assets at that point, chaired the meetings and was appointed by us to lead the delegation.

    I remember the very meeting at which we suddenly chose him as leader of our nation. Nobody had planned any such thing. I know, because I was one of the young academics and professionals who served as organizers and messengers for those meetings of Leaders of Thought. Our nation was under enormous stress. During the days before, there had been a lot of fear all over our Region, because some of the Northern soldiers stationed in our Region had been reported to be threatening to kill members of our delegation. The Western Regional Military Governor, Gen. Adeyinka Adebayo, had appointed some Yoruba military officers to accompany our delegation. And we simply did what human groups do in such circumstances – we appointed a leader and prepared to stand for our nation. The talk that anybody among us opposed, or could have dared to oppose, what we did in that meeting, is totally untrue. President Obasanjo should not let anybody sell to him manifestly untrue twists of important historical facts.

    Also, during the Abacha dictatorship of the 1990s, when state terror was directed against the Yoruba nation, the Yoruba nation threw up a leadership group named Afenifere, which served the Yoruba nation’s interests, and mobilized the Yoruba people, very effectively. Afenifere called up the old warrior, Chief Adekunle Ajasin, to lead the nation; and when Ajasin passed on, they called up Senator Abraham Adesanya. A lot of people still remember that the then Gen. Obasanjo had dealings with either or both of these leaders in their status of Yoruba leader. Sure, many people now lament the fact that Afenifere made a serious mistake in choosing to be closely identified with a political party when party politics returned. But very few would contradict the assessment that Afenifere did, before then, lead the Yoruba nation very effectively. Can it be that President Obasanjo has totally forgotten these things?

    In the light of the above historical experiences, does it make sense to say today that no leadership is necessary among the Yoruba? These days, the Yoruba nation’s situation in Nigeria is more complex, and demands vastly more serious responses than ever before. The challenges are political, economic and cultural, altogether capable of threatening the Yoruba nation’s integrity. I can understand President Obasanjo, as a partisan politician, saying that certain other politicians do not deserve to be appointed as leader of the Yoruba nation. But to say that no leader or leadership is needed in Yorubland is a different thing altogether.Has he ever told the Hausa-Fulani elite that Arewa Consultative Forum is unnecessary and should be disbanded? Or has he ever preached the same to any other Nigerian nationality? Why should he seem to want the Yoruba nation to be different from, and weaker than, others?