I’m certainly not a fan of Nnamdi Kanu or the method in which he had sometimes talked about securing his conviction. But introspection would help us understand that a line should be drawn between a man, his ideology and the method he seeks to achieve this ideology.
History might not have spoken convivially of Nelson Mandela if he had instituted a guerrilla army and told the Black folks in Soweto to go about and hunt down white folks in a bid to secure the freedom of the black people in South Africa, which cause has been described as the Noblest of all. Another example is Ghandi whose peaceful political movement raved in India in the second quarter of the 20th century and eventually eased India into her independence. Conversely, the Niger Delta militants’ tactics in seeking for fair treatment in the Nigerian federal set-up is one which is condemnable by any civilized mind; however, their cause cannot be faulted if we choose to be true to ourselves.
Yet, the agitation of the militants of the Niger-Delta region of Nigeria is no less noble than the agitations of Mandela or Ghandi; the difference only lies in the method employed in attainment of the cause. That difference notwithstanding, it would not accord with sound reasoning to dismiss the method employed in attaining such cause together with the ideology or cause.
The ideology of and agitation for Biafra is one of the least problems of Nigeria, especially to a ‘’non-Igbo’’ since its attainment would hardly have any effect on them. In truth really, the Biafra ideology and agitation rather than a problem is a solution to the country’s problems because it asks fundamental questions of our foundation as a country and the workings of our federalism, which is probably the most topical issue in contemporary polity. If this ‘’Biafra issue’’ is legitimately addressed with a sincerity of purpose and not cowed into a coma or buried in a shallow grave with the force of firearms as was done between 1967-1970, we might just have solved a problem rather than created one.
Closure, just like patriotism is not what a country foists on her citizens, but what by honest interaction/communication, altruistic and fair disposition towards the aggrieved/assaulted group, that group is made to see reasons to accept and abide by. The U.S.A, which is the paradigm of federalism the world over, at the end of their civil war did not pay lip service in their policy of assimilating the secessionist south but made honest efforts in that respect which ultimately led to a dissident-free U.S.A in which all the federating units, both North and South have worked in unison to create a country most of our leaders queue up to get their visa. Perhaps if this method were adopted by the Nigerian government at the end of the civil war, The Nation’s Sam Omatseye would probably have applied his ink towards a more problematic facet of our collective everyday lives rather than fervently and fervidly trying to convince us of the death of something that confronts and stares at us every day.
Just like the MKO Abiola issue which successive administrations have repeatedly and earnestly tried to shut out from our consciousness, The Nation despite those cowardly attempts has consistently featured articles in which writers have tried to relive our consciousness of that unfortunate incident and I think it would be offensive to the Yoruba psyche and inappropriate for any person to tell the Yoruba people that that issue is dead and buried, more so if this ‘’insight’’ comes from a non-Yoruba.
The Yoruba community even with the appeasements and propitiations that was made to them by the military administration at the wake of the fourth republic (which they have termed as a façade) to serve as atonement for scuttling the entitlement of their kinsman, they still do not feel assuaged and would become confrontational if you try to play down the effects of the ramifications of the June 12 debacle and rightly so.
Now to the Biafra issue. I believe the fundamental question every person should ask first is this; have these people who are seeking for Biafra been treated fairly in this Nigerian union compared to the regions? If your honest answer is ‘’yes’’, then you can go ahead to criticize. But if your answer is no, then you can now without prejudice to the fundamental question criticize the methodology and the person behind it and maybe proffer an honest solution, as a person who is his brother’s keeper.
Secondly, if a people say they want to go or do not seek to be part of a union, I don’t think wisdom backs the option of telling them ‘’No’’ you must remain part of us. I don’t think we should split our hairs about it. I don’t think it is the path trodden by reasonable men to oppose a people who would rather go in peace than remain in war or disunity, lest we forget what happened to Pharaoh and his people because of the Israelites.
If any other tribe or part of Nigeria decides to quit the Nigerian union; a democratic union where the will of a geo-political zone dictates the fate of the remaining five geo-political zones, for whatever reason whether noble or bad and they don’t intend to kill or maim any person by their leaving, why would I oppose them? What is the essence of the right to self determination enshrined in the United Nations declarations? Is it just to decorate the pages of the treaty with unrealizable rights?
If a people say they are going, why not let them go? If I think their venture is folly and I call myself a friend, I would only advise them on what I think best for them but not oppose them or write articles that are offensive to their psyche in a bid to stop them. I don’t think I would lose sleep because a section of the country says they want to go or start writing volumes of polemical pieces about the idea. Such disposition smacks of desperation and may suggest that the writer is not as altruistic as he wants us to believe he is.
My idea is, if a part of Nigeria says it wants to go and seeks to adopt a civilized method of going, why would I try to stop them? As a writer, I would rather channel my energy, resource, time and talent in writing about more pressing issues gnawing at the country than trying to stop a people who have decided to assert a right internationally guaranteed.
In his Nobel Prize acceptance speech, William Faulkener said that a writer must leave ‘’ no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and the truths of the heart, the old universal truth lacking which any story is ephemeral and doomed-love and honour and pity and pride and compassion and sacrifice. Until he does so he labours under a curse. He writes not of love but lust…not of the heart but of the glands. Until he relearns these things he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man.’’
I want to end this piece by re-echoing the words of the American revolutionist Patrick Henry when he said; ‘’…no man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as the abilities of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the house. But different men often see the same subject from different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful of those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do, opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve…it is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at the truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself guilty of treason toward my country and an act of disloyalty toward my conscience and the Majesty of Heaven, which revere above all earthly kings.’’
It is in the light of the sentiment above expressed that I write.
- Oluigbo writes from Onitsha, Anambra State.
