President Buhari whose commitment to the Nigeria project has never been in doubt has gone through severe stress and strain since the Fulani herdsmen’s last round of killing which claimed another 73 lives in Benue. With renewed and continued restiveness between those regarded as his people and farmers across the country, with emirs trying to dictate from their fiefdoms to governors of federating states, with the northern-dominated security apparatus of state unable to arrest let alone prosecute anyone in the last two years, and with Miyetti Allah Cattle Breeders Association threatening to resist anti-grazing laws in some 75 local government areas in 21 states where they are already active, Buhari needs no enemies as he weighs his options as to whether to seek reelection in 2019.
These are times when for Buhari, who like other Nigerians should have no apologies for the tribes they belong to, membership of his Fulani tribe becomes more of a burden than an asset.
But beyond the threat to Buhari’s election, I think we must start to get worried about the danger some Fulani leaders with a mindset of “born to rule’, two centuries after the age of ‘divine right of kings’ poses to our corporate survival as a nation. History tells us that the Fulani arrived Nigeria with about 200 families in early 1800 and under the leadership of Uthman dan Fodio, an Islamic scholar, and their revered warrior, conquered Gobir and overran all other Hausa states between 1904 and d 1908, planting 11 Fulani and one Hausa as rulers of the conquered territories. But two centuries after and in an age when democracy has long become the reigning god, his descendants have continued to insist they are born not only to rule their great-grand father’s conquered territories but the rest of the country. Indeed until recently, car plate numbers in Sokoto where the ruling Fulani caste constitutes less than 20% of the population, carried ‘born to rule’ as “Cross of St. Christopher”.
Unfortunately, any perceived threat to this pathetic and farcical mindset has since the run up to independence in the 1950s met with “fire and fury”. Enahoro’s 1953’s motion ‘that this house accepts as its primary political objective the attainment for self-government for Nigeria in 1956″ which Ahmadu Bello considered a threat to the north was received with a threat of secession and reference to Lugard’s amalgamation of the north and south as the “mistake of 1914 coming to light”. And reacting to insults hauled at his entourage by Lagos mob at Ido railway terminus, he had said “when next I come, I’ll come with a sword’ and was overheard later talking about a union with French Niger”. If secession was averted at that point, it was largely due to the effort of Dan Bappar Mujibir, one of the three northern minsters who had argued “with patience, the north will win at the end, while to cut the rope under the chain now was to concede defeat to the south”.
With the control of the security apparatus of state power firmly in the hands northern leaders (Prime minister Tafawa Balewa, in control of the police and the army, Ribadu, as minister of defence and Shehu Shagari, as internal affairs minister), social conflicts that required political solution such as the quest for self- actualization by the Tiv of Benue valley and other minority groups in the north were met with force. Their sympathisers such as Awolowo and his Action Group (AG) that had canvassed ‘one man one vote’ as the shortest route to throwing off the Fulani hegemony were not spared.
Awo’s other cardinal offence, according to Trevor Clark was that he “enraged the Sadauna and permanently antagonised the Muslim northerners by a gratuitous reference to ‘the bones’ of Shehu dan Fodio; the tactlessness of this manner of naming the revered warrior was something neither he nor the other southern members were able to recognise, let alone admit then or since” .
Consequently, cashing in on intra-party crisis within AG, security probe of how public fund was channeled to AG account (which was not different from the practice of NPC since that was the source of implementing their different party programmes) was ordered and this led to Coker Commission of Inquiry.
When Awo was charged for treasonable felony over what he had dismissed as fabrications, Shehu Shagari as internal affairs minister was on hand to ensure that Gratian, Awo’s British lawyer who was also a member of Nigerian Bar Association was barred from entering Nigeria.
With the victory over Awo, Balewa on behalf of the north that had wanted secession but reluctantly agreed to a federal arrangement which they were sure to control in the run up to independence, held a press conference where he predicted “there would be such a time when we would have a unitary government in Nigeria. It may be after me, but I am certain it would certainly happen”.
But when the equation changed in January 1966 with temporary take- over of power by Igbo, Ironsi’s Decree 34 of 1966 which turned the country to a unitary system was met with “fire and fury” by northern mutineers led by Murtala Mohammed who after ferrying their wives and children to Kaduna in a hijacked British aircraft, threatened northern secession and sinking of Lagos with a bomb.
Just as Ahmadu Bello conceded leadership to a “fulanised “ Tafawa Balewa, a minority from southern Bauchi whose grandmother had prayed that Fulani be driven from their land or be killed, as Prime Minster in the first republic, Murtala Mohammed also conceded leadership to Yakubu Gowon, a Christian minority from southern Zaria after the July 1966 vengeance coup. That both were answerable to their northern natural leaders was indisputable. For instance, Balewa who as Prime Minister whimsically imposed a state of emergency on a federating region over throwing of chairs inside the assembly by some opposition members, an event that lasted for less than five minutes, was unable to act when violence engulfed the west with dead bodies littering the streets because Ahmadu Bello was on Hajj to Saudi Arabia. Similarly, after the vengeance coup of July 1966, Gowon saw the resolution of the national question from the stand point of the north, a decision that plunged the nation into a civil war.
From their baleful legacies such as taking the country for a dubious eight years transition only to annul an MKO Abiola’s pan-Nigeria mandate to satisfy some northern leaders, creation of more states and local council areas for the north and imposing Obasanjo, their preferred candidate to replace MKO Abiola who died in military custody protecting his mandate in spite of protest of Yoruba leaders, and the imposition of the current unitary military constitution on the country, it was very clear whose interest Babangida, Abacha and Abdul Salami Abubakar were out to serve.
Opposition to restructuring is today loudest among northern governors, emirs, and others benefitting from current unjust system. Others of course include “fulanised’ northern minority leaders who also share a mindset that only Fulani can provide leadership. In this category, we have David Mark who says restructuring is in our minds and Audu Ogbeh, who sees creation of dominions for cows across the country as substitute for an economically viable state or zone made up of Benue, Plateau, Taraba, Kogi and other areas, with state and local police to protect farmers from cross-border infiltrating Fulani herdsmen.
Besides the Fulani with a mindset of born to rule, the other threat to President Buhari’s re-election bid is the prevailing perception of victims of current Fulani aggression that Fulani, whose aspirations they believe he shares, only want Nigeria they can continue to exploit.
