The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Nigerian politics

  • Yoruba and Obasanjo in Nigerian politics

    If there is one person whose personage in national polity offers a case study, it is no other than General Olusegun Obasanjo. Whether in his career in the military or his debut into Nigerian politics, he is so far the luckiest person in Nigerian public life.

    To some, he is seen as the symbol of Nigerian unity. Some will not even mind giving him the cognomen of one that can lay down his life for Nigerian cause. What such people may not remember however is that whether in the military or in government, his so-called courage is shielded by mortal cowardice. Various accounts of the war showed him as somebody gifted in hiding himself away from trouble zone only to emerge from nowhere to take credit that he did not deserve.

    But even if we did not have details of his military career, the incident of February 3rd, 1976 when even as number two man, he had to disappear upon hearing the news of the assassination of his principal, General Murtala Muhammed. He was later to be located somewhere in the Ikoyi home of late Chief S.B Bakare.

    Even after surfacing, he could not on his own muster the courage to take the leadership position until the necessary courage was instilled in him by the likes of Danjuma, Shehu Yar’Adua and others. At that critical stage in his life, Nigeria was not worth dying for. It turned out to be a peculiar idiosyncrasy to him that the first thing he usually did with sword of authority was to turn that sword against those who risked their life to give it to him.  Just as it was with the likes of Alani Akinrinade, Alabi-Isama in the war front, so also was it with the Danjuma, Babangida etc. at the Dodan Barracks. The story is not different with those who equipped his wardrobe for presidential garment in 1999. Atiku Abubakar, Danjuma and business moguls like S.O Bakare, Fasawe, and Orji Uzor Kalu among others have different stories to tell on the 1999 episode.

    One may wonder, why in spite of all these, he is still being seen as the symbol of unity in the country. The reason for this is not far-fetched for those who care. The case of Obasanjo is the myth or paradox of the man who loves his distant cousin better than his direct sibling. The paradox is the passion of sacrificing the blood of his sibling brother to save the life of his cousin.

    The political narrative of that analogy is that in selling himself to other federating units of the country, he always sees his own race, the Yoruba race as the pawn or tool to ignite the lamp of Nigeria. Mention any Yoruba man, living or dead aspiring to the leadership of the country, Obasanjo would be quick to portray him to the other zones either as a tribalist or a Yoruba irredentist.

    Going memory lane, it was Obasanjo who, as military Head of State coined the slogan ‘the best candidate does not have to win at all costs in a democracy’. He deliberately coined that to quench the flame of the rising profile of Awolowo’s four cardinal programmes of the UPN.

    As if that was not enough, he arranged an official state visit to the eastern part of the country where he held clandestine meetings with the Igbo leadership regarding Awolowo’s role as Federal Commissioner for Finance which changed the face of the currency that finally led to the collapse of the Biafra dream.

    That for the East, for the North on the other hand, he would never miss the opportunity to remind their leaders that for him, one of them, Shagari could not have emerged as President in 1979 when he used his executive prowess to foil Awolowo’s aspiration.

    As it that was not enough, Obasanjo did not change his colour in 1993 during Abiola’s presidential bid. He did not hide his endorsement of the 1993 election annulment in ‘national interest’. His response to the Abacha clampdown on Yoruba leaders was a tacit endorsement of the anti-Yoruba Abacha agenda until nemesis caught up with him. In a nutshell, anything anti-Yoruba is to him in the country’s national interest. Needless going through the intrigues that brought him to power in 1999, it suffices however to state that all those who contributed in one way or the other for his emergence were to be paid back with the tag of either being a thief or crook.

    Although, ostensibly, the presidency was zoned to the South-west in 1999 at northern initiative, to assuage the pain of the Yoruba for the annulment, the period turned to be the worst for the South-west in the political history of the country. All sensitive positions that should ordinarily go to the South-west were given as bonuses to other zones with a view to portraying himself as a nationalist, in fact, as the only nationalist in Yoruba land; as against tribalists, which he had branded all other Yoruba leaders.

    Even his Vice President, Atiku Abubakar drew his anger in his bid to revive the SDP confraternity of the Babangida era. Atiku started by initiating a regular progressive meeting with the AD governors who were his political soul mates in the SDP days. Obasanjo tacitly queried him for undue interference in his political zone.

    He found a way of admonishing the AD governors for fraternizing with a Fulani man at his own expense. He thereafter initiated his own rapport with his ‘brother governors’. We all saw the end of that rapport. He made sure all the governors, except Bola Tinubu lost their second term bid. Only Tinubu can tell the story of what he went through in the hands of Obasanjo before he could secure his second term.

    Where other leaders used the opportunity of their incumbency to raise their people, the reverse is the case with Obasanjo. The Awujale had just narrated how he dealt the Mike Adenuga. Maybe one day, somebody will also tell the story of Chief Bakare of the Oluwalogbon fame in the hands of Obasanjo.

     

    • Sanni sent this piece from Ibadan.

  • Akintola: Continuity and change in Nigerian politics – 1

    It is 50 years since Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola was brutally cut down by a band of rebellious Nigerian soldiers who participated in a coup d’état that led to a chain of events disrupting a normal democratic trajectory of Nigeria, the consequences that are still with us today. Fifty years in many countries provide a timeframe within which an objective assessment of past events can be viewed. The dust of history presumably would have settled and the emotional trauma would somehow have been healed because time is a healer. Man is the centre of politics because man constitutes a variable factor in social science, it is difficult and problematic formulating general laws in social science unlike in physical and experimental sciences. Therefore, what happened in the past even though it has implication for the present and for the future does not necessarily determine the trajectory of events in the present. History repeats itself and as George Santayana said, when history repeats itself it comes as a tragedy and those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. This is why it is very important to study the past in other for the present not to repeat the mistakes of the past. Unfortunately, people do not learn from the lessons of the past and this is why we keep doing the same thing and expecting different outcomes or result. The study of historical personages or characters provides the historian the opportunity to learn a lot about the past because dominant personalities play fundamentally significant roles in history. It is impossible to study the past of modern Britain without the full knowledge and study of Winston Churchill neither can we understand modern Germany without the study for bad or for ill, the impact of Adolf Hitler. The development of modern historiography in Nigeria is at its infancy but at least now we have a century of the role of important personalities in the history of our country from people like Sir Akintoye Ajasa, the Emir of Kano, Sarkin Mohammadu Abass and Alafin Ladigbolu the first and others. It is in this respect that a careful and analytical study of the life and times of a major historical figure like Chief Samuel Ladoke Akintola may elucidate the past and foreshadow the future of our country. There is no doubt that Chief Akintola first as a central minister, leader of opposition in the federal parliament in Lagos, successful mover in 1957 of the motion for independence of Nigeria and lastly premier of Western Nigeria from 1959-1966 was a formidable figure in the politics and evolution of Nigeria. The child is the father of the man and we are products of our environment so hence before a detailed analysis of his role in Nigerian politics, I will like to situate him within the context of his environment and his people respectively Ogbomoso and Yoruba. Politics is about competition of ideas and people, sometimes in the interplay conflict almost seem inevitable in the life and times of politicians. It is when compromises cannot be reached that you sometimes have open rebellion, disagreement and breakup of political parties. Historically in the Yoruba past, wars were a feature of Yoruba politics. Between 1783 and 1884, almost a century, the Yorubas were involved in internecine fratricidal war particularly after the collapse of the old Oyo Empire and Ogbomoso; Chief Akintola’s hometown produced one or two Are-ona-ka-kan-fo as a major war leader in old Oyo. It would therefore be necessary for me to say a few things about Ogbomoso.

    Ogbomoso, the town where Chief Akintola was born, and which has a current population of over 500,000, is the fourth largest town in Nigeria. It is located in the drier part of the rain forest belt and is a city in a transitional zone between the rain forest and the savannah.  It is, perhaps, the openness of this environment and the shortage of adequate employment opportunities at home because of over-population which, among other factors, made Ogbomoso people wander as itinerant traders throughout West Africa and particularly into Northern Nigeria. This wandering has in turn tended to make them accommodating and adaptable in the various alien places where they have settled.

    Ogbomoso people are Oyo-Yoruba and form part of the larger Yoruba nation that spreads from South Western Nigeria westward into the Republics of Benin and Central Togo. The Yoruba are a highly homogenous people in terms of culture, and while they speak a variety of dialects, these are intelligible to most of the Yoruba. The Yoruba number around 40 million in Nigeria and West Africa. The Yoruba form a well-defined society with a common history, shared experience, a distinct and common language, a single and contiguous geographical area and even the belief in common eponymous ancestors, Oduduwa or Olofin.

    This is not to say that Yoruba people themselves do not recognise sub-groups or regional traits and characteristics. In fact, throughout most of the 19th century, the Yoruba were engaged in civil wars after the collapse of the old Oyo Empire when new centres of power were established and new political alignments were being made to ensure peace and good governance.

    Most members of the Yoruba nation would also acknowledge their membership in sub-groups such as Ekiti, Ondo, Oyo, Ilorin, Ijebu, Ikale, Ilaje, Ijesha, Awori, Akoko, Owo, Okun, ibolo, Igbomina and some would say Itshekiri. Contact between the Yoruba and other Nigerians, particularly the Edo, Nupe, Borgawa (Ibariba), Hausa-Fulani, Kamberi, the Fon and Aja speaking peoples in Benin Republic (Dahomey) goes back thousands of years at least, it certainly predated the coming of the Portuguese during the fifteenth century. The contact has been of two kinds. In some cases, it was for trade and in others, contact took the form of conquest. In these relations, Yoruba culture has influenced others and has in turn borrowed from others. The mutuality of this contact in the case of the Yoruba, Edo, Igala and Nupe can be seen in their fairly similar political organisations and in the similarity of the material artefacts of their past civilisations.

    The British first made an inroad into Nigeria by the invasion and annexation of Lagos in 1851 and 1861 respectively. From that time onwards, they spread their tentacles all over Nigeria through either diplomacy and cunning or outright conquest. By 1914 modern Nigeria came into being after the amalgamation of the separate administrations of Northern and Southern Nigeria. The country was put under an autocratic governor, Sir Frederick Lugard, who succeeded in isolating one Nigerian group from the other and maintained the political status quo then prevailing as much as possible. Through this administrative unification, the state of Nigeria was preserved for the British, who used Nigerian men and resources in prosecuting two World Wars. But by and large, Nigerian leaders until 1914 were not brought together to advise the British about the direction of policy. The so-called “Nigerian Council” created by Lugard and to which belonged important indigenous rulers like the Alafin of Oyo and the Emir of Kano, was no more than an ineffective talkfest or causerie if it was even that, since “discussions” such as they were, were carried on in English, and these rulers spoke no English at all. It was not until the 1930s, through the meetings of native rulers organised by the British that the traditional elite in Nigeria began to perceive their common nationality and identity. Of course, the ordinary Nigerian people continued to engage only in trade relationships as before, and to regard themselves different from other Nigerians.  It was, for example, quite normal for one group, particularly one which did not have much external contact before the advent of the British, to regard other groups as bogeymen and strangers with whom it was unsafe to associate.

  • My rift with Obasanjo over, says Atiku

    My rift with Obasanjo over, says Atiku

    Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar has said the rift between himself and former President, Olusegun Obasanjo is all over, re-iterating that he harbours “no hatred or enmity” against his former boss.

    A statement released and signed by the former VP’s Media Office read that he spoke on Tuesday in Abuja when he granted audience to the leaders of the Northern Youth Leaders Forum, a group that recently embarked on a mission to end the rift between the former President and his deputy.

    The release stated further that the team, led by Comrade Eliot Afiyo, had weeks ago met former President Obasanjo in Ota, at which event he announced that he had forgiven his former vice president.

    He was quoted to have said: “I don’t harbor any grudge against my former boss. Yes, we had disagreements in office. These were mere disagreements. I harbor no hatred or enmity against him or anybody. I never had anything against him and I will never have,” Atiku said while responding to the group.

    He explained that in politics, he has opponents, but no enemies. “Politics is not war,” he emphasized.

    Atiku thanked the group for successfully brokering peace between him and President Obasanjo, adding that this single effort had marked the leaders of the youth organisation as serious-minded people who are fully prepared to take over the leadership of the country from their seniors.

    Meanwhile, Atiku reflected on the current security situation in the country appealing to the Federal Government to take the challenge more seriously. “If we can go to other countries to rid them of these kinds of problems, it shows that we have the capacity to put this one down immediately so that the suffering of the people can be reduced.”

    In an earlier speech, chairman of the group, Comrade Afiyo described Atiku as an “honest and forthright leader, a courageous and dogged democrat, a loving and compassionate guardian, an accommodating and caring shepherd and a role model.”

    He expressed happiness and satisfaction with the joint decision by both Obasanjo and Atiku to accede to their request to bury the hatchet, adding that this is a development that will go a long way in healing the rift in the country.

  • Of Pope Francis and Nigerian politics  

    SIR: There are some interesting coincidences between Spain and Nigeria in respect of Saint Ignatius of Loyola, Ibrahim Babangida, Muhammadu Buhari and Sanusi Lamido Sanusi; All Muslims. Spain used to be a Muslim Country.

    Pope Francis is a Jesuit meaning he belongs to the Society of Jesus founded by Ignatius of Loyola. Pope Francis was head of the Jesuits in Argentina.”On the morning of the 15th of August, 1534, in the chapel of church of Saint Peter, at Montmartre, Loyola and his six companions, of whom only one was a priest, met and took upon themselves the solemn vows of their lifelong work”. Babangida was born August 17 1941. Babangida was given the Argentinean name MARADONA by the Nigerian Press. Pope Francis was born December 17 1936 and Muhammadu Buhari December 17 1942.  The Pope is a Head of state and Buhari ex Head of state.  Pope Francis is austere and Buhari is known to be stern. July 31 is known as Saint Ignatius of Loyola Day and Central Bank Governor tipped as a possible Presidential candidate like Buhari was born on July 31, 1961.

    The registration of the All Progressives Congress (APC) was accepted on July 31 2013 by the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC).

    Ignatius of Loyola was born in Northern Spain in 1491. He was a soldier. Ibrahim Babangida was born in Northern Nigeria in 1941 also a soldier. 1491 could be said to be a rearrangement of 1941

    Babangida is an ex General of the Nigerian Armed forces and Ignatius a Superior General of the Catholic Church.

    Ignatius took up arms for the Duke of Najera. Broke his leg and injured another was known to limp, had surgery and spent a long time recovering after being taken home by French Soldiers. Babangida fought in the Nigerian Civil war. Sustained a leg injury, known to limp, had surgery and spent a long time recovering in a Hospital in France Najera sounds like Nigeria Najera is associated with the river Najerilla. Nigeria is associated with the river Niger.

    Ignatius lived in the Castle of Loyola in Spain

    Babangida lives in a Mansion in Minna, Niger State.

    July 31 is known as the feast of Saint Ignatius of Loyola. Ignatius of Loyola died July 31, 1556. On July 31, 1991 Babangida declared open the Executive Chamber of the Presidential Villa (where maters of state are deliberated). Interestingly, Raymond Dokpesi, the director of the then Babangida presidential campaign organisation is an old Boy of Loyola College Ibadan.

     

    •Augustine Togonu-Bickersteth,

    London, England

  • Evolution of Nigerian politics

    Evolution of Nigerian politics

    I thought Chinua Achebe has rattled Nigerian sensitivities with his recent book, There was a country until I read Emmanuel Osuchukwu’s ‘1966 Crisis and the Evolution of Nigerian Politics’. The book is insightful and did not spare any punches in discussing vital aspects of Nigerian history and politics. The book includes an excellent historical reconstruction of the traumatic events of 1966 and how they contributed to the current political malaise in Nigeria. The reader will enjoy the way Chief Osuchukwu traced the origin of Nigeria’s contemporary problems to the unresolved and obfuscated issues that erupted in that crucial era. In the introduction, Osuchukwu maintains that the country bequeathed to us by our founding political fathers in 1960 ended in 1966 and contemporary Nigeria is the construction of a sectional military cabal. Hence his assertion that 1966 remains the most eventful and traumatic year in Nigeria’s political history. Basically, on January 15th 1966, the Nigerian military fired the first shot that ended the first republic and thus silenced the first attempt in civil democratic governance. 1966 also witnessed the horrific mass pogrom of the Igbos in Northern Nigeria culminating in the almost three years of bitter civil war which ended in January 1970. Since then according to the book, Nigeria has never been the same and presently tottering on the brink of collapse.

    The first part of the book deals extensively with the largely unspoken massacre of the Igbos. It concluded that the 1966 massacre of the Igbos was a conscious and deliberate event initiated and perpetrated by highly politically motivated individuals of Northern Nigerian origin. The massacre was deliberately under played by the Federal Government of Nigeria but given its huge significance in the evolution of Nigerian politics, the book started with an exhaustive analysis of the phenomenon. Political leaders, policy makers, agents of social control will find this book an invaluable resource and will certainly benefit from the detailed analysis of the remote and immediate causes of the massacre.

    The book has done a wonderful work in examining and exposing the insidious role of ethnicity in Nigerian politics and equally the role of the military in exacerbating Nigeria’s political problems as initiators and active participants in the killings of 1966. One interesting revelation is the nature of the emergence of the military on the political scene and how it compromised their position as symbols of national unity and protectors of the citizenry. The military leaders that emerged from the catastrophic events of 1966 were as Chief Osuchukwu put it; ‘neither national patriots nor revolutionaries’. They emerged from the ethnic confrontation of 1966 and again as Chief Osuchukwu put it, they hardly grew above their tribal angst and ‘instead of engendering, they hindered a healthy national growth’.

    The second part of the book dealt critically with role of the military in Nigerian politics because the military undoubtedly occupies a pre-eminent position in the evolution of Nigerian politics. According to the book, the murderous intrusion of the Army into the Nigerian political space in 1966 ironically benefited the military establishment. From 1966, the Northern geo-political zone of the military won the power game and proceeded to maintain unchallenged political supremacy and consequently the consolidation of sectional political culture. It concluded that given the sectional and tribal nature of their emergence, the victorious Northern military clique were neither National Patriots nor revolutionaries and their presence rather than engender, inhibited Nigeria’s national growth.

    Many readers will find the third part of the book very interesting. It takesa novel approach and looked at the future of Nigerian politics. It maintained that since the creation of the country as an independent state in 1960 and particularly since 1966, the people of Nigeria have never been lucky to freely elect a government with a truly nationalistic and people oriented focus. Instead they have been burdened with mostly pathologically selfish and ethnic bigots masquerading as representatives of peoples interests. Today, Nigeria is paying the price for the atrocities and failings of the past leaders and the current state of the nation do not give much cause for joy. Hence the appropriateness of this book’s advocacy for a new perspective – politics of real issues that transcends ethnic bigotry and place all Nigerians as individuals with rights, privileges, interests and needs. The role of ideology in politics was fully explored and its validity in Nigerian politics was fully explained.