The Nation Newspaper

Category: Opinion

  • President drowning in scepticism

    In the matter of the National Conference, very many informed Nigerians simply cannot trust President Goodluck Jonathan. In the same vein, they cannot trust the President of the Senate, or the National Assembly. In this very critical development in the history of our stumbling country, the credibility of our whole federal establishment is close to zero.

    The president said this week that our politicians should cease speaking against the conference. But he needs to get the truth loud and clear. It is not only our political leaders across the country that are sceptical about the president’s actions concerning the National Conference – it is most of us Nigerians. Even the ones among us who most strongly support President Jonathan’s re-election bid do not believe that he sincerely intends to get any fruit out of the National Conference that he has initiated. What they believe is that his initiating a National Conference is just a smart move to rally support for his re-election bid – and that, after the election, he will do nothing about the outcome.

    And the reasons for all this disbelief, distrust and scepticism are obvious. We Nigerians are not used to honesty and straight-forward conduct in our government – especially in our so-called federal government. And so we are not used to trusting it. Since independence, the federal government has been no more than a tool for the accomplishment of hidden, special, and even narrow personal, objectives. For most of us in most parts of Nigeria, the federal government is a stranger – an imposition. The fact that we elect representatives to the National Assembly does not make any difference. Our running around at election time in order to get this or that favourite son or daughter elected to the National Assembly is a waste of our time. Once they get to Abuja, they almost invariably cease having any memory of us, or of our desires and expectations. All they do is to focus on their own business – which is to benefit personally from the largess that Abuja controls aplenty. That is the way the system has been deliberately developed. Most members of the National Assembly hardly ever utter any significant sentence throughout their tenure.

    Naturally in the circumstance, the National Assembly has always been easy to manipulate and use by those who come to it with some sectional or other narrow agenda. And the opinions and expectations of the rest of us in Nigeria have not the least chance there. That is why nothing important to the improvement of governance, or important to the welfare of Nigerians, hardly ever passes through the National Assembly. A resolution legalising for all Nigeria the marrying of under-age girls (a practice unique to a narrow part of Nigeria) might pass excitedly and noisily through the National Assembly; but very crucial measures like the Uwais Report on Electoral Reform has no chance of being tabled and debated there for years upon years.

    The presidency is not better. In many respects it is even worse. No person holding the position of Prime Minister or President of Nigeria since independence has ever treated all Nigerians as his people or all of Nigeria as his country. Partly pursuing the agenda of his ethnic group or the religious agenda of his faith, partly pushing the narrow, and sometimes criminal, objectives of a party, usually treating some Nigerian nationalities as enemies that must be disrespected, marginalised or even subdued, and always engaged in sordid schemes of personal aggrandizement, the top executive of Nigeria’s federal government has usually been like a spoilt conqueror ruling over a conquered country. Even on those few occasions when citizens from the marginalized and subdued parts of Nigeria manage to sneak, providentially, into the position of president, they too cannot resist the temptation to operate like conquerors, and to behave as if only they know what is good for Nigeria. That is why, to most people who knew General Obasanjo and the place of his origin in Nigeria, his eight-year presidency turned out to be a shocking betrayal and disaster.

    And that is why, as things stand today, President Jonathan needs to be told an unpalatable truth – namely, that most Nigerians just do not trust him. Providentially, he found his way to the presidency from the most brutalised and most abused corner of Nigeria. Countless youths of his home area have sacrificed their lives in the fight against the excessive powers that have been grabbed for the federal government, and against the excesses of the manipulators of federal power. Naturally, as he stepped into the presidency, the expectations were very high that he would lead Nigeria onto the path of change. Countless citizens were poised to back him on that path of change. But all we have seen in him for about four years is just another typical Nigerian president sunk in the excesses of federal power and money.

    Admittedly, by announcing his decision, on October 1, to initiate a National Conference, President Jonathan suddenly upped his chances of being better assessed by a lot of Nigerians. But all these people have become used to not trusting him and, therefore, their attitude has been mostly to wait and see. Even though what he was convening was not the Sovereign National Conference that most people have been demanding, a lot of citizens were still willing to wait and see.

    However, sadly, a few days ago, President Jonathan made the staggering statement that his intension was that the report of the National Conference would be submitted to the National Assembly, so that the National Assembly may use it to amend some sections of the Nigerian constitution. As far as most Nigerians are concerned, that is limitlessly bad news. Its effect on the president’s credibility and image are simply disastrous. For President Jonathan to rise out of the hole into which that statement has tossed him, he must urgently revise his plans concerning the National Conference and inform our country without delay. Nigerians know what the National Assembly, as it is today, will do with the report of the National Conference. The leaders of the National Assembly will put it away in a locker, where it will gather dust for years and years to come – or perhaps even forever.

    In the characteristically Nigerian presidential super-wisdom (which most Nigerians have always detested, and which has always poisoned Nigeria), President Jonathan turned down the Sovereign National Conference that most Nigerians asked for. To now insist on putting the decisions of the National Conference in the death-dealing hands of the National Assembly will just be too much for most Nigerians to accept. Nigerians want, at least, a National Conference of the Nigerian nationalities which, by its rounding-up resolution, will specify the fate of its own decisions. And most of us would insist that that rounding-up resolution must be obediently adhered to by the Federal Government of Nigeria. For a change in Nigeria’s history, the dog refuses to be wagged by the tail.

    President Jonathan must stop giving the impression that he is playing tricks with the National Conference issue. It is too late in the day for most Nigerians, as individuals and as nationalities, to tolerate such a game.

  • Reality of Rice Revolution

    Four decades of Nigeria’s food balance sheet history were filled with rhetoric, regrets and rots arising from a decline in local food production profile while the food import bill was on the rise. Rice, a food commodity, initially occasionally consumed by households, mostly ceremonially, soon became a daily household staple, a first choice at public gatherings and a common food item in our growing fast food outlets. What governments and individual consumers have failed to reckon with, over the years, was the insidious destruction the growing appetite for rice has caused to Nigeria’s economy, especially when two-third of the rice consumed is imported.

    Nigerians seem either unaware or nonchalant on the health, security and economic implications of such importation. Foremost, no exporting country will keep old stocks in store while exporting fresh harvests. As such, the first-in first-out principle of stocking food applies, wherein such nations push out stocks of five years and above as exports, while retaining new harvests. The health implication to importing nations can be better imagined, especially when the quality of old stocks may have deteriorated, or when we consider the impact of storage chemicals on consumers, where such chemicals are used, or when the nutritional values have deteriorated due to long years of storage.

    Secondly, the security of any food-importing nation is questionable due to the vulnerability associated with economic and environmental shocks, shortage of supplies and deprivation of local farming population who become jobless and constitute social threat to their own country. The economic implication, not only derives from the security (social) implication, but also complicates it. What is gain to the exporting nation is a commensurate loss to the importing nation. This needs some elaboration.

    The annual foreign exchange outflow goes to enrich the producer and exporter nations. Farmers in importing nations are deprived of incentives to produce in a competitive way. Thus, a vibrant farming population is discouraged and displaced from farming.

    To the discerning, an annual expenditure of $11 billion on food importation is alarming enough, with rice importation alone constituting about N365 billion ($2.4 billion or one-fifth of total annual food import bill), meaning that nearly N1 billion has been spent daily for rice importation for so many years. For how long then can we, as a country, afford to tie our food needs to importation, with a population growing at a geometrical rate? At what point should we stop, ponder and change the rising and seemingly irreversible but undesirable trend that is digging a big hole in our national treasury?

    Under the Transformation Agenda of the Jonathan administration, it was decided that Nigeria, as a nation, cannot afford to continue to toe this line ever so blindly. This paved the way for the rice transformation agenda, an intervention that led – within the past two years – to a massive reduction in Nigeria’s dependence on rice importation. The flood of 2012 became a blessing in disguise as it served as a springboard for possibility thinking, involving the inputs of local and international experts assembled by the Minister of Agriculture to think through on how to produce massively to make up for whatever food shortage was occasioned by the flood.

    Ten states of northern Nigeria were systematically and methodically selected for the dry season incentivised irrigated rice production, a project that committed 264,000 hectares of farmland to dry season rice production, yielding about 1.1 million metric tons of rice within five months, keeping the farmers busy at a time of the year they were traditionally idle, and putting more money into their pockets. The experiment arising from the flood of last year, has led to a policy direction of entrenching the dry season rice farming into Nigeria’s agricultural calendar, now to do massive production in 20 states, going forward.

    The dry season intervention, being the first of such an attempt, arose out of the panic scenario that was painted by many economic analysts after the flood. It was an emergency response then, with limited time to plan and execute, a chosen line of decision, taken instead of succumbing to self-serving suggestions coming from traders who would rather that Nigeria imported food to make up for perceived losses arising from the flood. If 10 states, on an experimental and emergency basis (as it were), could produce about a third of what is yearly imported, and done in response to a disaster, then let us think of what more states would produce under a deliberately planned and systematically implemented programme.

    It is premature for any pundit in the comfort of an office to cast aspersion on the agricultural transformation programme implemented in rural communities simply because it has not done a magic, or because its results are not felt everywhere yet. The confounding variables in agriculture are more complex, more complicated and more far-reaching in implications than in other sectors.

    Let us think about it: we are talking about agriculture, operating under harsh logistic environment, supporting resource-poor farmers, tilling the ground, reaching farming population in remote areas, dealing with unpredictable weather, building trust, persuading the financial institutions to play in the sector they hitherto avoided and regarded as risk-prone, and restoring confidence in doubting farming population who have been used to years of deceit from previous governments, government interventions and government officials.

    The journey to make Nigeria a global powerhouse in food production is ongoing. The results achieved in just two years give a signal of progress and a cause to cheer. The flood plains of River Niger, just outside Lokoja, have been there for years, unutilised, until Governor Idris Wada of Kogi State, working with the federal government’s team, turned the area to a massive rice-growing field during the past dry season.

    Large-scale commercial rice producers are already expanding their production of rice locally. Fourteen large-scale integrated rice mills have been established by the private sector in just two years, producing international quality long-grained parboiled rice. Arising from the recent dry season rice production, local large-scale millers now have access to locally-produced raw paddy as could be attested to in Bakolori scheme in Zamfara State, Argungu plains in Kebbi, Wamakko or Tambuwal local governments in Sokoto State, the Eko Rice, coming from Kebbi paddy fields in Suru, exposing the futility of requests for waivers to import rice, which President Jonathan turned down.

    Taraba is another state worth mentioning, wherein a single investor, working with a cluster of out-growers, embarked on large-scale rice production on 30,000 hectares. Working with state indigenes, Dominion Rice Farm is embarking on what promises to bridge about 15 per cent of imported rice through a local production.  Olam, another private firm, is expanding its rice cultivation by 6, 000 hectares for the same reason. And just last month, a Nigerian investor commissioned Quarra Rice in Kwara State, a mill with capacity of 30,000 metric tons per annum, with commercial rice farms on thousands of hectares.

    To further build the resilience of our food system, the government has completed a total of 10 new silos for strategic food reserves within one year, expanding Nigeria’s silo capacity by 400 per cent. These silos are now being provided under concessions to the private sector, for the establishment of world-class agricultural commodity exchanges.

    Times have changed. Considering the dynamics in Nigerian agriculture, especially in the past two years, the jinx has been broken. Nigeria will soon be free from rice imports and will produce, not just enough for local consumption, but will have excess to store and even export! Nigerians need to be patient and see the positive side of the changes taking place on the fields, translating to improved rural economies, rising volume of locally-produced rice stock and freeing our economy from the stranglehold of decades of import-dependency.

     

    • Dr. Oyeleye is Special Assistant, Media & Strategy to Agriculture and Rural Devt. Minister.

  • Abati’s albatross

    In a rare and revealing interview dripping with circumstantial logic, Dr. Reuben Abati, Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity, illuminated his official philosophy and guiding principle in the face of perhaps well-founded accusation of changeability in his practice. Not surprisingly, he spoke defensively, but unwittingly betrayed his self-serving thinking and superficiality.

    “An invitation to serve your country is the highest honour that can be bestowed upon anybody,” he stressed with a hint of vainglory, grossly playing down the implication of the nature of the administration. There is sufficient evidence that political progressivism is alien to his boss, President Goodluck Jonathan; and his inclusion in the team of old ideas not only contradicts his professional antecedents as a presumably forward-looking high-profile newspaper columnist, it also questions the perception.

    Abati’s apparent explanation of the incongruity was an exercise in sophisticated sophistry, leaving him open to even worse delineation, for he then presented the image of a hitherto uninformed commentator, which is absurd, given his status. According to him, “And having spent some time in government, I have seen that public officials are there also to make a difference.” Could this admission of education mean that his days as a notable government critic were informed by ignorance, which he now regrets? What does this picture say of his past glory? Even more, what is the public supposed to believe, now that an analyst and event-interpreter of his standing has, by implication, disclaimed his history?

    It is fascinating that he chose two uncomplimentary metaphors as self-description, saying, “I do my best as the President’s parrot and town crier.” Within the framework of this understanding of his work, it was strikingly incongruous when he claimed, “I don’t lie to the public. I explain things to the public. I put things in context…” Clearly, there is some confusion here because, by definition, a parrot is a quintessential mimic, meaning that if Jonathan is lying, then his mouth-piece must be lying as well. Also, the town crier is well defined by his slavish labour, meaning that whatever explanation or contextualisation he does is controlled by the authorities he represents. It is interesting and rather unflattering that the import of his self-qualification was apparently lost on Abati who, incidentally, has a doctorate in Literature, a subject that is concerned with diction.

    One aspect of the interview was a perfect example of that logical fallacy called Argumentum ad hominem, which involves an assault on a critic in order to discredit an argument or opinion. It is noteworthy that such method is generally regarded as the weapon of the immature or unintelligent who are unable to counter the other party using sound logic or superior intelligence. In short, it is the refuge of the dodger. Abati’s words : “From what I have seen , people who criticise me and say he is no longer critical, he has joined them, he is now eating, can’t you see he has added weight from too much eating, are just being mischievous or hypocritical.” His defence, presumptuous and suggestive of blackmail, was: “The same people will wish to be on this side, they will wish to be in government, and I see many of these same critical persons, perpetually hanging around government looking for this and that, practically begging, soliciting, hustling, but they go out there and pretend to be otherwise. But that is a story for another day. And their story will be told someday.”

    When will Abati be generous with such tantalising and damning exposé? Given that he demonstrated an overwhelming sense of outrage, it would have been more like human nature if he had revealed identities. Why should the public applaud his dramatic mud-slinging at no one in particular, but at nebulous ghosts? On specificity, which is at the heart of journalism, his first love, and communication in general, he scored an abysmal zero.

    In a display of wrong-headed satisfaction with his performance in allegedly taming the opposition, Abati’s crowing was a sad commentary on civility. Referring to his verbal battles, he gloated, saying, “ Fashakin has learnt to conduct himself like a gentleman. Even Lai Mohammed has since become a fine gentleman. They all seem to understand the ground rules now.” This was his conceited way of saying that he had employed sewer language to answer critics of the administration, and was unapologetic about it. According to him, “If you try to ridicule the President, I am not likely to be nice to you at all. If you throw a punch, I will connect you with an upper cut and maybe a kick to the groin.” Certainly, Abati is entitled to his pugilistic imagery and karate fantasy, but he might be mistaken in supposing that he could make gentlemen of others through thuggish means.

    Perhaps the greatest indication of Establishment mentality was Abati’s promotion of a simplistic interpretation of the government’s failings. He reduced the alarming and fundamental reality of a visionless government to a far-fetched argument about petty political rivalry. It was a moment of ironic vacuity when he offered what should pass for embarrassing thoughtlessness. According to Jonathan’s spokesman, “What we have seen is that immediately President Jonathan won the election, the bad losers in the other political parties just resolved that they would not allow his government to function. That is not statesmanship or sportsmanship and it is cruel.”

    It is unclear whether Abati himself believed his own words, which would be not only absolutely pathetic, but also utterly amusing, if he did. It was a glaring demonstration of how not to think, and a large discredit to his learning. It is even more disturbing that he claimed to be unchanged, saying, “It is still the same head, the same personality.”

    In the end, it would appear that the attraction of public office has become an albatross around Abati’s neck, which is a cause for concern. Sadly, he seems too engrossed to recognise that he needs contemplative sobriety. “Exciting!” he responded to a question about his experience in office. “In fact, I am enjoying the work. It provides me an opportunity not just to serve but also to learn,” he added. The big question is: what has he learned?

    • Macaulay is on the editorial board of The Nation

  • National Conference, Tinubu and Presidency’s diatribe

    This Presidency will perhaps go down in Nigeria’s history as the most averse to its people asking questions of it. Yet again I read with amusement, its response to legitimate questions posed by Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu on its proposed cryptic “constitutional conference or dialogue”. All the mainstream dailies carried screaming headlines such as “ Presidency, Tinubu in slugfest over conference “,  “Presidency attacks Tinubu”, “Presidency, Tinubu clash over National Conference” etc and I thought to myself, what manner of Presidency is this ?

    For me where a whole institution of the presidency takes on a single individual (Tinubu), who made it clear he was merely stating his opinion (though his opinion was in line with that of many discerning Nigerians), apart from reducing its stature, it unwittingly was paying Tinubu a back hand compliment. It is even worse when its response to legitimate questions is a non sequitur in form of diatribes. One would have thought it was an opportunity for the presidency to further explain issues concerning the controversial “conference” but no.

    So let’s try again.  It is often said that the devil is in the detail. Unfortunately it appears in this case there are no details and so it’s even more difficult to search for the devil even though you know he or it is in there somewhere, but search we must.  Yes it appears the presidency has perfected the more you look the less you see format but we will continue to ask questions no matter whose ox is gored.

    Perhaps the most important question Tinubu asked which was never answered was the auspiciousness and timing of the conference.  Why now?  Common sense, logic and intellect do not agree with the planning and execution of two major, delicate and difficult projects in any country within one year.  A national election and a national dialogue? How feasible are these?  Even with the best of intentions, will the planning and execution of one not take away from the other? Or is this a mere smokescreen or subterfuge? Why is this coming at the time the President’s party is disintegrating and his chances of winning re-election are dimming by the day? At what point after years of playing the ostrich did the President change his mind about the desirability of a conference? Why is the outcome of the conference going back to the National Assembly for legislative imprimatur as the President has now told us, suggesting that the exercise could be a waste of time if the National Assembly disagrees with its output.  How then is it different from the constitutional amendment exercise we have just gone through which gulped several millions of naira? Pertinent questions that require answers.

    In looking at the history of several countries including the 13 colonies of the United States that have sat together to fashion how to live together, such conferences have been done at auspicious times and not during the pendency or imminence of an election.  The best time for the conveying of such a conference that could have far reaching implications for the country would be the very first year after an election in this case between 2015 and 2016 and definitely not 2014 a year to elections and few months before party primaries, especially when you have an interested party in the outcome of the elections.  There is a rat somewhere and it stinks to high heavens.  Hear Mr President: “those who continue to say that the initiative is diversionary or aimed at promoting certain political ambitions are in error. Our sincere objective is to create an acceptable and workable platform for a national dialogue or conference that will help us to resolve the issues that still cause tension and friction in the polity, reinforce the ties that bind the countries many ethnic nationalities and ensure that Nigeria’s immense diversity continues to be a source of strength and greatness”

    Mr President, good talk but a year to a major election?

    Whilst the President’s statement sounded presidential and conciliatory, hear the other one of his aides: “We wish to state categorically that President Goodluck Jonathan has shown convincingly that he is a credible, reliable and capable leader by his unprecedented achievements in such a short space of time. He most certainly does not flip flop as the opposition politician insinuates blah blah blah” Oh really?

    Now the closest attempt to address issues was made by Kingsley Kuku, the amnesty guy. He detailed accomplishments of the amnesty programme.  I do not know Kuku and I have nothing against him but on this one he missed the point. Simply put; a drain pipe is a metaphor used in ferrying money out of the treasury or if one is to be more charitable a way to suck money from the system unnecessarily.  The point he missed is that even where you are able to show that certain things have been done in the name of amnesty, such does not negate the “drain pipe” fact. To put it in ordinary language easy to understand, if I am able to show as a governor that I have bought syringes for all government hospitals in my state at the cost of 500 naira when the actual cost was 10 naira per syringe, does the fact that all hospital now boast of syringes negate the fact that the programme of syringe purchase is a drain pipe? Ditto Sure P.

    If our President is desirous of having a national dialogue, I can give him some suggestions on major critical areas demanding dialogue which will be less impetuous and which can be started and finished within three months with no implication on the coming elections. He can start by convening a national dialogue on education (ASUU strike), Power, non implementation of budgets, oil theft and a national dialogue on our true finances as a country and whether or not the country which has been unable to pay its bills or allocate states their revenue for three months is broke.

    Hon Gbajabiamila is the leader of opposition, House of Representatives

  • Africa’s trauma epidemic

    LAGOS — It was dusk and I was on my way home from Abeokuta, a vibrant city in southwest Nigeria. My driver had switched off the car’s air-conditioning so I could open the windows and feel the breeze. He was weaving between potholes in the road when suddenly, the scene ahead changed.

    A large truck had pulled out carelessly onto the road, knocking a car straight into the median.

    That stretch of road is notoriously dangerous, not just because of traffic accidents but also because of armed robbers. It’s for that reason that I suppressed my natural instinct to stop and help.

    I was filled with guilt as we passed the wrecked car, because I knew that if the young man at the wheel had been badly injured, there was only a small chance that he would get the emergency treatment he needed.

    I knew this because I am a trauma doctor and the founder of West Africa’s first indigenous air ambulance service. Nigeria, a country of more than 170 million people, has no organized trauma response system and no formal training for paramedics. Injured people are often taken to the hospital in a car or minibus or draped across the motorcycle of a good Samaritan, sometimes several hours after the accident has occurred.

    Even if the patient does reach a local hospital, it may not have the skilled staff or equipment needed. (There are only a few that do, and there are huge distances between them.) Most of those who are seriously injured probably bleed to death.

    So I couldn’t help it when, a few moments later, I said “Stop the car, please.”

    I grabbed one of our emergency response bags from my trunk and walked back. I tried to concentrate on the types of injuries the driver might have rather than how unsafe it was walking on that stretch of road, particularly in the evening. Was he bleeding? Was he conscious?

    The crash scene had quickly attracted some of the people who typically gather around accidents in Nigeria. Bystanders were pulling the driver out of the car. Before long they were joined by a barefoot “prophet” in a white robe. No Nigerian accident scene is complete without a prophet who commands everyone to stand by while he loudly predicts that the patient will stop bleeding. The patient is often drained of blood by the time the prophecy is complete.

    Sadly, these prophets are the best hope that many Nigerians have. Trauma has become a silent epidemic in Africa, an epidemic that will only spread as the economy grows. More and more Africans are buying cars and working in heavy and dangerous industries. At the same time, infrastructure is poor, safety laws lax, and cars badly maintained.

    Sub-Saharan Africa has the world’s smallest number of motorized vehicles but the highest rate of road traffic fatalities, with Nigeria and South Africa leading the pack.

    The World Bank predicts that in the next two years, road accidents could be the biggest killer of African children between 5 and 15. By 2030, according to the Global Burden of Disease study, road accidents will be the fifth leading cause of death in the developing world, ahead of malaria, tuberculosis and H.I.V.

    If you add to these numbers the injuries caused by violent crime and communal conflict, then you have all the ingredients for a public health emergency.

    And yet, trauma receives only a tiny fraction of the attention and money given to these three infectious diseases. Every health care conference I attend focuses on vaccines, treatment and training to combat the infamous “triple epidemic.”

    Over the last decade, billions of dollars have poured into Africa with the laudable aim of defeating these killer diseases. But that most basic killer, injury, remains neglected.

    Part of the problem is that the solutions are so complex. It’s easy to quantify interventions like the number of AIDS-fighting anti-retrovirals or mosquito nets distributed. Pills can be counted, flown in on cargo planes and delivered to large numbers of people in a short time period. But a pill would do very little for someone on a rural road in Nigeria with a head injury and a collapsed lung.

    We need to put in place systems to provide lifesaving care for accident victims. They need to be moved to a fully equipped hospital — one with X-ray machines, CT scanners, a burn unit — within the space of 45 minutes. We need at least 10 of these proper hospitals. We need to improve our roads, and we need a high-quality ambulance system to drive on them. And we need paramedic schools — like the one my company is helping to open, the first of its kind in Nigeria.

    Some countries in other parts of the world have come up with proactive solutions. In Israel, a group called United Hatzalah helps volunteer emergency workers get quickly to accident sites, by “ambucycle” or on foot, if necessary. But Africa’s challenge will require an African response — and international support.

    On the road that night, I quickly assessed that the young man needed urgent medical attention. I gave him oxygen and inserted a makeshift airway. I noted that he probably had internal bleeding and did my best to stem whatever external bleeding I could detect.

    A passing taxi then transported him to the nearest hospital. He had a fighting chance. But too many injured Nigerians, forgotten on the side of the road, do not. It’s time the global public-health community paid attention to Africa’s urgent need for emergency medical care.

     

    • Orekunrin a trauma doctor and managing director of Flying Doctors Nigeria, contributed this piece for International New York Times

  • Religion in age of social and moral crises

    One of the most notable developments in religion in Nigeria since Islam and Christianity supplanted the indigenous systems of belief and worship is the transformation of the adopted exogenous faiths themselves. A particularly momentous phase of this transformation began in the last five or so decades, in the course of the socio-economic turbulence that has characterised much of the postcolonial era.

    Like most changes in the country since independence, the developments in religion have not been particularly positive, or done much to sustain the values and ideals of religion. For one thing, the country has lacked the political/intellectual/clerical leadership capable of applying the essence of the adopted faiths to the practicalisation of a functional ideology or ethic. And even though the universities have done little to explore the ancestral religions for their philosophy and potential in spiritual and moral values, devotees of the dominant proselytising faiths have proved largely incapable of assimilating their adopted creeds’ basic ideals.

    These ideals themselves have subsequently all but disappeared into the maws of postcolonial adversities. Thus, what passes for religion today is little more than a compulsive recourse to vacuous, superstitious rituals, for evoking supernatural “breakthroughs” to prosperity. Practically devoid, if not contemptuous, of values or genuine spirituality, the most “successful” of the new churches are veritable commercial ventures. Besides, while posing as a salvationist institution, like politics with which it has become closely allied, religion has become a major component of the country’s fundamental problems.

    Ironically, the impetus for what grew to become an unconscionable “materialisation” (or despiritualisation) of religion began as a crusade for “holiness”. This mission was organised by university students in western Nigeria, who were members, in the early 1970s, of the then students’

    Christian associations. The prayer and bible-reading groups eventually started a revival emphasising the fundamentals of Christian belief and the need to be “born-again”. From the universities at Ibadan and Ile-Ife, the new movement gathered strength and spread to other parts of western Nigeria and the rest of the country, especially the large urban centres. Most significantly, it was individual members of this students movement that subsequently founded or reinforced what became the “Deeper Christian Life” and the “Living Faith” (a.k.a. Winners Chapel), the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) and other big charismatic Christian churches.

    Within the constraints of the experience and resources of its organisers, the Nigerian university students’ Christian awakening of the 1970s would compare favourably with the 18th Century evangelical revival in Europe, especially its Wesleyan manifestation in England. One might find the revival’s fundamentalist worldview and the fetishisation of the Bible medieval, but the spiritual aspirations appeared to have been genuine, while the idea of turning away from old ways, and of making restitution for moral infractions were taken seriously. However, the striving after “holiness” soon yielded to a harnessing of faith with crass materialism, with far-reaching adverse consequences for societal mores and values.

    Although the prosperity gospel was developed in the United States, the aggravation of socio-economic instability in Nigeria from the early 1980s made the new doctrine attractive as a magic-formula remedy to all problems, material or spiritual. Yet, what was generally being interpreted as spiritual issues and therefore amenable to prescribed rituals and faith, were basically existential and psychological problems arising from the failure of governance. This is why Pentecostalism has been truly described as a Third World phenomenon.

    The prosperity doctrine itself is simple enough: Believe in Jesus as Lord and Saviour. Thereafter, since God can do all things (and there are scriptures aplenty to “prove” this), all that is needed is faith. Thus the prosperity gospel became the fountain of unlimited hope (some would say illusion) regardless of the reality of ever-declining prospects of minimal survival for most people.

    This was the beginning of an explosion in the building of churches and mosques, many of them ramshackle structures. There was also a new class of clerics, the so-called pastors many of whom were produced outside the established mission churches. As long as these barely literate preachers could read the Bible and pay for half-an-hour air time on public television, they were in the business of making a living off the dissemination of pseudo-spiritual, often socially toxic, doctrines.

    The ensuing commercialisation of religion was a product of multiple factors, for example unemployment and growing destitution, which created clients of disoriented folk that needed the services of freelance “pastors” posing as diviners and undertaking “deliverance” from “demons”, “witches”, and other occult malevolent forces allegedly responsible for every imaginable distress. It was graduate charismatic pastors, like Oyedepo and Oyakhilome, who transformed evangelisation into big business, while the likes of Adeboye brought their neo-Christian Pentecostal churches into increasing liaison with incumbent rulers.

    Meanwhile, the Pentecostal explosion had compelled the established churches to modify their mode of worship and to adopt some of the Pentecostal doctrines in order to survive. The influence of Pentecostalism on Islam has been no less profound. It is not far-fetched to see the rise of militancy within Muslim sects and the violent uprisings that began in northern Nigeria about the mid-1980s as reactions, at least in part, to the spread of neo-Christian influence.

    Among the factors which ultimately changed the face of religion in Nigeria was the predatory materialism of a bubble prosperity from an oil rentier economy. The crisis in this economy in the late 1970s, and from the early 1980s to the end of the millennium and beyond, was another factor. These crises fueled instability and engendered considerable hardships. Above all, one of the measures for safeguarding economic collapse, namely currency devaluation, under a “structural adjustment programme”, evoked massive erosion of societal values unprecedented since colonial times.

    The socio-economic upheavals ultimately translated into social, psychological and medical problems which failure of governance practically put beyond anything but fitful amelioration. This was the background to the pretensions of religion as the panacea to every problem facing the country. Accordingly, a metaphysical explanation ascribing these problems to evil and other occult powers was put forward. Then, a comprehensive therapy consisting of “deliverance”, “exorcism”, and wish-making a.k.a prayers) was introduced. These “ministrations” at “revivals” and “vigils” have gone on now for over four dacades. Yet, the problems, rather than ameliorate, have worsened. But the crowds at the vigils and religious houses have not abated, nor has the faithfuls’ hope diminished that, someday, the prophetic panaceas will, with prayers, materialise. In the meantime, the combination of faith in magical prosperity, which preachers have encouraged believers to crave and expect, in addition to increasing aggravation of socio-economic woes, has begotten what may, for want of a better term, be called a “popular religion” which has become a symbol of Nigeria’s identity, as well as an accessory to decadence and widespread corruption.

    Popular religion is a complex of conditioned attitudes, rituals, and beliefs, acknowledging the supernatural as a “power” resource to be invoked for magical success in all ventures, and for the solution of all imaginable problems. Essentially composed of beliefs, mythologies and rituals of Semitic provenance, it also displays basic traditional African elements, as well as imprints of contemporary socio-economic turmoil. However, the amalgam is neo-Christian in the garb it wears, in its doctrines, and in rhetoric.

    Popular religion is, nevertheless, not to be equated with Pentecostalism from which it has, admittedly, borrowed several elements. Indeed, popular religion owes a lot to popular culture and worldview, and it is as much a cultural phenomenon as a development in religion. Besides, many who may be seen as being within the psychological ambit of popular religion usually belong to various other religious denominations. Muslim politicians consult reputedly powerful sooth-saying pastors, and Muslim women often attend Christian vigils. In general, the elastic fold of popular religion embraces members of the intellectual, bureaucratic and political elite, as well as workers, market women, shopkeepers and artisans – that is, people from all strata of society, especially those weighed down by deprivation, and by inability to meet basic everyday needs.

    Apart from deprivation and worldly cares, ambition could also push one into the mystical embrace of popular religion. It could predispose the well-to-do hustler to explore metaphysical avenues to advancement and power. The aspiring politician, the business executive, the avaricious bureaucrat and banker, and the advancement/power-craving academic – all are susceptible to the pretensions of mountebank “men-of-God” claiming to have the power to conjure “breakthroughs” via the agency of a God supposedly ever preoccupied with the interminable vanities of miserable mortals.

    The crux of the matter is that popular religion has developed a quasi Darwinian ethic in which the only recognised moral imperative is success and survival. Thus, just as every organism strives to survive by adapting so as to live by all means possible, the contemporary popular religious faithful equates morality with what it takes to “master his environment”, if need be by cannibalism, so as to achieve success/prosperity. This is why pious Nigerian rulers, in order to perpetuate themselves in office, appropriate and loot public resources, rig elections, and rid themselves of human obstacles, after which they proceed to the mosque or to the church in ecstasy, saying, “To God be the glory”, or “God is great”!

    “Civilization” and development, as well as other utility objectives that were part of the proselytising faiths’ mission in Nigeria, were supposed to be a prelude and foundation for the introduction of the putative higher social, moral and spiritual values of Islam and Christianity. Unlike today, “prosperity”, per se, was thus not the preoccupation of the new faiths. Similarly, the determination by the agents of Islam and Christianity to root out the indigenous religions was due to the assumption that the latter were lacking in the new faiths’ spiritual essence. What an irony, then, that these same adopted faiths have proved largely incapable of meeting postcolonial challenges without practically losing their values. The question thus arises: is the current devalued form of the adopted religions (that is, contemporary popular religion) the answer to the country’s problems, as is usually glibly claimed by Nigerian rulers and clerics?

    Obviously, the country’s problems are essentially socio-economic. They are, thus, ultimately, matters of governance and of competent, dedicated leadership. Religious institutions and leaders have neither the authority, nor the means to address socio-economic problems, or to enforce compliance with social/legal regulations, norms, and values. Pretentions to such powers through any metaphysical agency on the part of “magicians”, charlatans, and influential pastors who are past masters of spiritual scams, have transformed much of contemporary religion into criminal enterprise. This would explain why corruption and crime are escalating with the explosion of religious houses advertising spurious powers to wipe out the ills of society.

    Dr Akinola contributed this piece from Ibadan.

  • Jonathan’s national conference and the true believers

    Jonathan’s national conference and the true believers

    Permit me to begin this contribution with the words of Senator Femi Okorounmu who is the Chairman of the President’s Advisory Committee on the National Conference. In the February 12th edition of the National Mirror Newspaper, he said the following about President Goodluck Jonathan-

    “Jonathan has betrayed the goodwill of the Yoruba. The man doesn’t seem to have a clue about anything. First, he has no clue about governance- it appears as if he does not even have any slightest idea of what he wants to do. He never thought of becoming President and what he would do as President. He was just talking of transformation and I don’t even think he knows the meaning of transformation. The man is just being pushed around everywhere and to anywhere. The only thing he understands is that he wants to make money and he is making a lot of it. And because he wants to make money, he cannot tell people not to make money when they are making their own. So a lot of people around him are making money and he cannot do anything.”

    This is quite an indictment and more so these words were spoken only seven months ago. Okorounmu is a man of honour. Anyone that knows anything about the struggle for the emancipation of the nationalities, restructuring and self-determination in Nigeria can testify to the fact that he is not only a much-loved and deeply courageous man but he is also one of those that has dedicated his entire life and distinguished political career to the noble cause of creating a new Nigeria where regional autonomy is established and where power is devolved from the centre. One wonders what made this distinguished elderstatesman change his mind, put his reputation on the line and accept to chair a committee that was set up by the very same man that he dismissed with such contempt only a few months ago. Yet the truth is that people do change their minds about others from time to time and I am prepared to give Okorounmu the benefit of the doubt for doing so.

    Yet in this matter we must be candid. The truth must be told and that truth is as follows. If any serious-minded person thinks that a ‘’national conference’’ that is not ‘’sovereign’’ and whose recommendations are subject to the will and caprices of the President and the National Assembly can make any difference in our country or bring any meaningful change then they are living in cuckoo land. Besides which nothing good can come from Jonathan and his PDP. The whole thing is an attempt to divert attention from their own shortcomings and dwindling fortunes and to divide the ranks of the opposition.

    For the last 20 years some of us have been calling for a national conference but we have always insisted that the resolutions of that conference must be ’’sovereign’’ and binding on all, that it must comprise of representatives from every nationality in the country (no matter how big or small) and that it must have, as it’s first item on the agenda, whether Nigeria should remain as one and, if so, under what terms.

    Anything short of this is fake. It is nothing more than a palliative. It is a ‘’made in China’’ copy of the original. If you take the ‘’sovereign’’ out of the ‘’national conference’’ it is like taking the ham out of a ham sandwich. All you will have left is a talk shop whose recommendations will eventually be tossed into the dustbin by both the Federal Government and the National Assembly.

    The almighty Federal Government of Nigeria is not about to give up it’s awesome authority and ability to control literally everything and everyone in our country by allowing devolution of power from the centre, resource control, autonomy for the regions, derivation as a principle for revenue allocation, the right of every nationality to self-determination and to seceed from the federation, the confirmation of the secularity of the state, the confirmation of the rights of all religious, gender and ethnic minorities and all the other wholesome, progressive ideals that the true believers hold so dear.

    The PDP is simply incapable of delivering all these things and no PDP President, least of all one like Jonathan, would ever make such concessions. The PDP is a party of wily old dinosaurs and conservatives. When the time for a real conference comes it will not be by government fiat but as a consequence of a series of unpleasant, unforseeable and violent events that will compel us all to come to our senses, to come to the table and to once and for all sort out our differences or just go our separate ways. That is the bitter truth. It will never be given to us on a plate.

    Today, there are many within the corridors of power that have made their position clear and that have left no-one in any doubt about where they stand on this issue. One of them is Senator David Mark our amiable Senate President who recently said “I’ll crush the bid to add ‘sovereign’ to the National Conference’’. Many of us may disagree with Mark on this but at least he has the courage of his convictions and he is not one of those that relishes in double-speak and subtefuge. He has told us that he wants a conference but that he doesn’t want it to be ‘sovereign’. Good for him. My only prayer is that the Senate President himself doesn’t get ‘’crushed’’ in the process of trying to resist the ‘’sovereign’’ in the conference because when it’s time comes, no force on earth can successfully resist the people’s will, the forceful struggle for freedom and the right to self-determination.

    Permit me to end this contribution with the words of another man who was painfully honest about his intentions right from the start and who also had the courage of his convictions. In 2001, when pressed on the issue of the virtues of convening a sovereign national conference, President Olusegun Obasanjo said ‘’I cannot surrender the sovereignty that was given to me by the Nigerian people’’. Many of us found Obasanjo’s position on this issue unacceptable and downright repugnant. Yet one thing that we could not take from him was that he did not offer what he was not prepared to give. He went on to convene a national conference in 2005 but, like Jonathan’s one today, it was not sovereign and consequently it had little relevance or meaning. Many of us lampooned Obasanjo for outrightly rejecting the idea of a sovereign national confrence at the time and on March 18th 2001, I wrote the following words in a scathing essay for the Comet Newspaper (which later transmuted into The Nation) titled ‘’President Olusegun Obasanjo, The National Question And The Imperatives Of A Sovereign National Conference’’. I wrote-

    ‘’As a direct consequence of the gradual degeneration of the Nigerian state, the passionate campaign and vigorous agitation for the convocation of a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) is once again steadily gathering momentum. For even though we have a “democratically” elected government in power today, the fact remains that the, “National Question” is yet to be answered. And until we have searched our souls and settled some outstanding fundamental issues that still exist among our varous nationalities, until the brutal role of internal  colonialism has been completely and irrevocably shattered, Nigeria cannot possibly prosper and neither can she achieve her full potentials. This is because there can be little doubt that the many problems that this country faces cannot be solved simply by the establishment of democracy, the provision of good government and the equitable distribution of ministerial portfolios.

    There is far more to it than that and anyone that seriously believes otherwise must have been living on another planet for the last 41 (forty-one) years. And with all due respect to President Obasanjo’s efforts, it is painfully obvious that a sovereign national conference remains the only permanent solution to the myriad of complex problems in this country. For example, when did we as a people ever agree to stay together as one? And even if we ever did, what were the terms of our union? Did the people of the South ever agree to become perpetual slaves to the Fulani ruling class and their military collaborators? And even though we have a southerner in power today, what happens in 2007 after Obasanjo goes? Or can he remain there forever? Will the hegemonic forces, at that point, not insist on taking the Presidency back to the core conservative north? And in the event of this happening will we not have come back to square one? And in any case when did the south ever agree to assume the role of a wealthy yet submissive and timid wife that has been systematically and consistently cheated, raped and sodomised by a domineering and arrogant northern husband?’’

    Harsh words indeed but those days called for harsh words and extreeme measures. Needless to say, I wrote the essay one year before I met Obasanjo and after eight years of being radicalised by the annulement of the June 12th 1993 election of Chief MKO Abiola, five years of self-imposed exile in Ghana and six years of watching my people, the yoruba people of south-western Nigeria, being persecuted, tormented, butchered, jailed, tortured, driven into exile and humiliated by General Sani Abacha and his military junta. All that had a profound effect on me. These were the words of a man at war and to all intents and purposes, we are still at war in this country because nothing has really changed. The cry for a sovereign national conference is as legitimate today as it has ever been and until we have one Nigeria can never know peace.

    Those that have been seduced by Jonathan’s promise and charm offensive in this matter will soon learn that he is simply deceiving them. It is a poisoned chalice. At the end of the day, their greatest expectations, hopes and aspirations will be dashed and frustrated and they will be made to look like utter fools. A man that does not have the passion, strength and conviction to crush Boko Haram cannot possibly muster the necessary wherewithal or cultivate the strength of character to liberate the numerous ethnic nationalities that make up our country from the bondage, tyranny and oppression of an all-powerful centre. Some have said that the national conference is ‘’Jonathan’s gift to Nigeria’’. I strongly urge those that honestly believe that to remember the words of the Trojans- ‘’beware of the Greeks, especially when they bring gifts’’.

  • Dialogue or diatribe?

    William Isaacs in 1999 did a seminal work entitled “Dialogue and the art of thinking together”, yours comradely shares his perspective of dialogue as “a conversation with the centre, not sides”. Many thanks to the respected columnist Segun Gbadegesin for mainstreaming my side talk or “off-the-cuff remarks” (in his words) on the controversial national conference during interaction with some correspondents recently in Ilorin. Certainly a conversation with my main thoughts on the issue, not necessarily with a reported side talk would have been more fruitful. Whatever it is worth, Gbadegesin came out as a chieftain of a boring monologue. He is definitely not a promoter of conversation. Witness his posted “NLC vs. The people” of October 4, in The Nation. He generated more heat than light in his unhelpful commentary and a “reload” of a predictable old position. It is unacceptable for him to pitch my constituency, NLC against “the people” on account of what he terms my “off-the-cuff remarks”. With millions of organized members, NLC and “the people” are certainly not mutually exclusive. The received wisdom has it that those who demand for equity must at least come with some clean hands. If you espouse dialogue (or is it conversation?) from the roof top, kindly lift those of us below out of polarization and channel our energy towards some better understanding. The bane of the modern proponents of Sovereign National Conference (SNC) with its ever altered and distorted variants is their aversion to the very principles of dialogue. The late Alao Aka-Bashorun, my mentor, lawyer and one time NBA President initiated the demand for a national conference in the mid-80s. It was then not as fashionable. It was even riskier. Under the military dictatorship ala IBB, Aka-Bashorun courageously envisaged genuine conversation as part of the broad progressive strategy to ease out authoritarianism. Today with a constitution and its imperfections, over 50 political parties, 35 state assemblies, Senate and the House of Representatives, Aka-Bashorun would have opted for deepening democratic process through improved elections rather than parroting the present day fashionable mantra-dialogue already discredited over the years by embattled regimes of varying persuasions and their pen of uncritical supporters.

    “Protest rallies on a regular basis” by labour must have captured Gbadegesin’s imagination.  But genuine observers of labour market issues know that social dialogue is the hallmark of trade unionists including me. After signing scores of thousands of plants, national and continental collective agreements over the years, through collective bargaining and genuine social dialogue, covering wages, hours of work, health and safety standards, gratuity and pension, maternity and child rights, I dare say I am a tested convert to dialogue. Present day SNC proponents are the ones who need a sermon on dialogue not labour. They often talk and reason but with themselves not together with others. And that may very well be the downside of the new conference. They   polarize and fight, instead of winning new hearts.

    My legitimate concern is that President Goodluck Jonathan’s latter day embrace of a national conference is an opportunistic and indeed belated diversion from the surmountable governance challenges he was elected to solve. I stand to be convinced to the contrary through greater persuasion not a feverish dialogue-phobia, unhelpful polemics and smear.

    Happily President Jonathan was more measured in his response to the concerns of the sceptics like me than the pen warriors of dialogue. In his address inaugurating the 13-man National Dialogue Advisory Committee, the President assured that “no voice is too small and no opinion is irrelevant”. He reassuringly observed that “the views of the sceptics and those of the enthusiasts must be accommodated”. Gbadegesin cannot be holier than the new Pope of national conference who also modestly accepted to be “one of those who exhibited scepticism on the need for another conference or dialogue” in recent past. “If indeed this ”Conversation is a People’s Conversation”, as President Jonathan assured, nobody dares shut some out through cheap diatribe.

    It is part of conversation too to express doubt about the so-called national dialogue as the likes of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Bishop Mathew Kukah and Professor Ishak Oloyede audaciously did. It would amount to literary terrorism to say APC is against the people, just because Asiwaju Tinubu said the proposed dialogue is a diversionary “Greek Gift”. To say the church and Supreme Islamic Council are against “the people” just because Bishop Kukah and Professor Ishak Oloyede (one-time co-chairmen of similar failed project under OBJ) respectively expressed doubt about national dialogue, would amount to dictatorship of monologue.

    The critical question begging for answer; is National Dialogue  a genuine governance imperative or another unbudgeted diversion? As measured and conversational the President was in his address, he was still not convincing. We must first hold President Jonathan accountable for his electoral promises made without pressures before we can consider new issues he latched on under duress mid-term in office.  I search in vain for a National Dialogue, National Conversation or National Discourse at his inaugural address in 2010.  On the contrary, I read about “our total commitment to Good Governance, Electoral Reform and the fight against Corruption”.  Indeed the President promised “ensuring the sustenance of peace and development in the Niger Delta as well as the security of life and property around the entire country…” Also in equal measure we had presidential “pledges to improve the socio-economic situation through improved access to electricity, water, education, health facilities and other social amenities”.  High sounding “National Dialogue” at this hour is not just a diversion from the above pledges, it also unacceptably adds to already high costs of governance.  For as long as this new debate continues, the President’s full time report on all these issues that affect the working class and Nigerian people in general may also suffer with all the implications for the development  of the country.

    Are we a debating society or a functional productive republic? We promise to be part of the 20 leading economies in seven years. Are the other 19 economies agonizing through a wasteful divisive conference of ethnic nationalities or working tirelessly to combine growth rates with job creation and poverty eradication? President Jonathan was very upbeat about the gains of the previous conferences. Labour’s experience is not as encouraging. The latest constitution review actually set to deform labour when at the behest of some self-serving governors, labour was whimsically removed from the exclusive list by the senators thus eroding labour gains and standards. I think the President needs genuine SWOT analysis of these past conferences. The weaknesses might very well outweigh the strengths. Even now the threats are higher for Nigeria.  With the likes of Gbadegesin exhibiting nostalgia for the lowly trademarks of ethnicity and language (not even class) and getting romantic with failed state projects like Yugoslavia or the Soviet Union, we may very well be convoking a dangerous diatribe in place of useful dialogue for a better Nigeria and a greater Africa.

    • Aremu, mni, is Vice President of Nigeria Labour Congress

  • Nigeria: The unavoidable realities

    Many Nigerians underrate the differences between the various nationalities that make up Nigeria. They think that those differences as fragile and can easily be eliminated to build a “united Nigeria”.

    Such people mean well, but they are wrong – very wrong. How seriously wrong they are can be shown from three perspectives: the virtually permanent differences in nations’ cultures; the permanence of each nation in its own homeland, and the certainty that each nation will someday choose a status for itself in the world.

    Countries made up of different nations are many in our world. Nigeria is one. Each Nigerian nation had lived in its own homeland for thousands of years before the British came and included all of us together as Nigeria. Let us take two examples of such countries in Europe. Britain, (the United Kingdom) has contained four different nations, each living in its own homeland, for about 500 years. The four are the English nation of England, the Scottish nation of Scotland, the Irish nation of Ireland, and the Welsh nation of Wales. Because all these nations have been living in one country, under one government, their citizens have been mixing and intermixing for centuries. Yet, today, their different cultures are still different and distinct. The same is true of the cultures of the Spaniards, Basques and Catalonians of Spain who have lived together in Spain for about 600 years. It is true in every old country that contains different nations. What this means for Nigeria is that, even if Nigeria is lucky to live for the next hundreds of years, there will still be distinctly a Yoruba people with their own culture, an Igbo people with their own culture, a Hausa people with their own culture, etc. Anybody who thinks that these peoples and cultures will melt away or melt together in Nigeria is not reading the history of the world correctly.

    The reason behind this is that each people and culture have taken thousands of years to evolve their own particular characteristics. As a result, the differences are not superficial, they are very deep. And each culture determines how its people respond to situations. For instance, politically, the Yoruba people, living in kingdoms and towns, evolved a political culture in which the ordinary people took part in the selection of their kings and chiefs, and had a lot of say in the affairs of their towns. That is why the Yoruba are so freedom-loving, so confident, and so hostile to election rigging, dictatorial or arbitrary leadership, and corruption, today. Throughout their history, also, they have been used to respecting the religious right of everybody, and that is why they are the most religiously tolerant and accommodating people in Nigeria today. On the surface, one might say that the Yoruba and the Hausa lived under kings (Obas in one case and Emirs in the other). But the Obas were selected by their subjects, could only rule through councils of chiefs, and must respect the families, priests and various organizations, whereas the Emirs, being leaders of a foreign conquering people, ruled at a level far above their Hausa subjects. The differences that these facts created in the political behavior of these two peoples are not likely to disappear in hundreds of years. And the Hausa and Yoruba are very different from the Igbo who, for the most part, never developed states and rulers but lived mostly in rudimentary village and clan settings. The Igbo are proud of the fact that they never lived under rulers, and they are entitled to their pride. However, making these different peoples, with these different cultures, to live in one country is proving very problematic indeed.

    In spite of the mixing and intermixing of peoples in Nigeria also, the various homelands will always be distinct. Yorubaland will always be Yorubaland, Igboland, Igboland, Hausaland, Hausaland, and even small Biromland will be Biromland, etc. In Britain, the English, Scotts, Irish and Welsh have for centuries been intensely intermixing, and yet their homelands remain distinct. Because England experienced the heaviest industrialization in recent centuries, people came in enormous numbers from Scotland, Ireland and Wales to work and settle in England; even so, England is still England, the homeland of the English people. The homeland of even the smallest nation, the Welsh, remains distinct also. Whoever thinks that anything different from this picture will happen in Nigeria is deceiving himself. Nothing different is happening in any country consisting of different nations. Because Yorubaland is the most developed, most prosperous, and most free of inter-ethnic and religious conflicts in Nigeria, large numbers of Igbo, Hausa, and other Nigerian nationals are streaming into Yorubaland today. But, in spite of that, Yorubaland will always be the homeland of the Yoruba nation, even if Nigeria is lucky to exist for much longer. The differences between the various homelands of the various nations of Nigeria are very real indeed, and are virtually impossible to eliminate.

    Finally, nobody can dictate what each of today’s nations of Nigeria will ultimately choose to become in the world. How long will they remain together as one country? And how soon will some become separate countries in the world? One thing seems certain – that some parting of ways will come, one way or other, sooner or later. Worldwide, most nations that are parts of larger countries are breaking off today and becoming separate countries. In Britain, the Irish, Welsh, and Scotts began to agitate for separate countries of their own many decades ago. The Irish were allowed to go and create their own Republic of Ireland. Scotland is planning to hold a referendum in 2014 to become the separate Republic of Scotland. And the Welsh are following close behind the Scotts. That is the trend in the world in our times. The trend has resulted in the breaking up of the Soviet Union into 15 countries, Yugoslavia into five countries, Czechoslovakia into two, India into three soon after independence, Indonesia into three (with more on the way), Sudan into two, etc. It is threatening to break Spain into three, Belgium into two, Sri Lanka into two, Canada into two, etc. The United States, though comprising many nationalities, is different: none of its immigrant nationalities is settled in a separate homeland in the country. The United Nations has bowed to reality and passed a resolution affirming the right of every nation, large or small, to determine its own status in the world. The African Union has done the same.

    Some people think that it is because Nigeria is poorly governed and poverty-ridden that it may break into separate countries. But that is not so. Poor governance and poverty may speed up the break; orderly governance and prosperity may delay it for some time but cannot prevent it. Countries like Britain, Spain or Canada that are breaking up are not poorly governed or poor. It is just that breaking up seems to be, in our times, the destiny of countries that are made up of different nations with different homelands. Nigeria cannot avoid it. The only question is: how, and how soon, will it come to Nigeria? However, while we are still together, we Nigerians should strive to make our country a land of harmony and opportunity.

  • National Conference ruse  

    In proposing to convene a National Conference or Conversation, President Goodluck Jonathan is not attempting anything different from what past and now-discredited Nigerian leaders have done.  Former Military President, General Ibrahim Babangida did it; Former Military Head of State, General Sanni Abacha did it; and Former Civilian President Olusegun Obasanjo did it.  President Jonathan is now carving a place for himself among the failed and deceitful Nigerian leaders.

    To the discerning mind, all the conferences and talks had striking similarities.  First, it is no longer debatable that all the conferences referred to above were convened to further hidden and anti-democratic agenda of the convening incumbent.  In the case of Babangida, it was to create booby traps that would ensure an inconclusive transition Programme.  In the case of General Abacha, it was to create a seeming legitimate cover for his ambition to transform from a military Head of State to a Civilian President.  In the case of President Obasanjo, it was to promote and legalise his much-sought after (though often-denied) third term ambition in office.  (In the case of Obasanjo’s conference, it is almost hilarious, if it were not a serious matter,  to note that once the conference would not agree on a third term for the President,  he lost all interest in the conference he convened and never again referred to the work of the conference.)

    Second, the conferences and talks were convened by incumbent leaders who, having denied the need for, and benefits of, a Sovereign National Conference to discuss Nigeria and the fundamental issues that silently but poignantly threaten our unity, peace and progress, suddenly fell in love with the idea of convening these conferences and did a 90 degrees-turn on discovering the potentials of a conference to divert attention and legitimize their ambitions.

    Third, none of the conferences referred to above had the force of law or the force of the will of the people.  The reports and resolutions of the conferences were submitted to other persons and authorities who had the powers to alter them and thereafter give the force of law to aspects found suitable to the agenda of that ratifying authority.

    Thus, President Jonathan is merely playing an old hand as his proposal shares all the dubious features of the conferences gone by.  Is he not the President who, barely one year to general elections, is desperate to turn attention away from his colossal incompetence and failings that has led to unprecedented break down of law and order, tension in the polity and thievery of prized natural resources?  Is he not the President who, not so long ago, described the idea of a National Conference as dead and buried? And has he not, from the very outset, hinted that the conference or conversation will have no binding force at all and will be subjected to his and the National Assembly’s ratification?

    Should we then not be angry and deeply offended?  We should be offended that this administration is attempting to play on our collective intelligence.  Why has the President waited for this long to convene a conference and why convene a conference that has no power to do anything except submit a report that will be subject to the whims and caprice of the President?  If what the president wants is are optional pieces of advice, or a gauge of opinions to guide him, he can achieve that by holding widespread consultations with the different segments of the society without wasting the nation’s time and resources and diverting attention from urgent tasks rather than attempting to insult our collective intelligence by taking us all on a wasteful jamboree?

    We should be offended that this is another attempt to waste our resources and hard-earned tax payers’ money.  We should be angry and offended that the President has, by this laughable attempt, demonstrated his failure and inability to appreciate the enormous fundamental problems that affect and afflict this nation.  We should be angry that he is not aware that the anger and violence on display are outlets for deep-seated distrust for and disaffection with the current structure of government?  We should be angry that he has failed to grasp that the development of this nation has been held back by the failure to truly give the people a voice by convening a Sovereign National Conference backed by law to give a truly legitimate constitution to the people of Nigeria?

    I have always been an advocate of the need to convene not just a National Conference but a Sovereign National Conference because I realise that instead of denying our differences and attempting to force unity through a central government, we ought to discuss how the different ethnic and tribal nationalities will co-exist or if they want to continue to co-exist at all.  This is because, Nigeria, like most African countries, is an artificial creation and this artificial creation will only work if and when the federating units are given the opportunity to sit down to talk and agree on the rules for their co-existence.  The keyword is that the people should decide.

    Any conference that falls short of allowing the people to decide without interference should be rightly regarded as a ruse designed to further some hidden agenda.  To be credible and different from past deceptions, President Jonathan must demonstrate as follows:

    That there is ample and sufficient time for the conference to achieve anything meaningful and to implement the resolutions of the conference between now and the second quarter of 2015 when the term of the current administration must constitutionally end.  Realistically, it is now too late for that.

    That the conference will be all-inclusive and that the participants will be democratically chosen.

    That, the elections scheduled for 2015 will not be affected and that those elected into offices under the present constitution will not be eligible for election into those same offices under any new constitution emerging from the conference, if any.

    That the conference will not be barred from discussing any matter and, in particular, these four fundamentals: devolution of powers from the Federal Government; entrenchment of fiscal federalism, restructuring of the control of the Police Force and extensive electoral reforms.

    That the budget for the conference will not be profligate and capable of being used to ‘settle’ interests in favour of the ruling political party ahead of the 2015 elections.

    That the resolutions of the conference will not be subjected to ratification by the President or any other authority but subjected to ratification by a popular referendum.

    Without satisfying the conditions above, President Jonathan would merely be playing an old hand, consulting an old magic book and attempting to adopt a use-worn method to further his own agenda.  Time is precious, resources are fleeting and there are so many urgent tasks begging for attention than to leave the all-important task of charting Nigeria’s future to an incompetent and opportunistic administration.