The Nation Newspaper

Tag: Remembering

  • June 12: 20 years after – remembering not to forget

    June 12: 20 years after – remembering not to forget

    • Ekiti State Governor Kayode Fayemi played a critical role in the struggle for the enthronment of democracy–which started with the June 12 struggle. He writes on the need to always remember the lessons of the struggle

     

    President Franklin Delano Roosevelt famously declared December 7, 1941 – the day on which Japanese forces carried out their attack on Pearl Harbour – “a date that will live in infamy.” There are dates that stand out in the annals of time, often because they carry such import that they can simply not be forgotten. Every nation has those dates that live on, as it were, in perpetuity beyond their first appearance in a calendar year. For us in Nigeria, June 12 is one of those dates that refuse to go away quietly. It is a date that clings on stubbornly to our national memory resisting all attempts to usher it into irrelevance.

    One of our great failings as Nigerians is that we do not remember enough; we do not rigorously fulfill the civic duty of memory, a duty of care that is incumbent upon us to guard our own history and keep alive through remembrance events of national importance as eternal flames of consciousness. Without a sense of history, not only shall we consistently prove prone to repeating the tragedies of the past; we will also be perennially incapable of seizing the future. A sense of history gives us a vital narrative context within which to situate our journey as a nation. It is through history that we find our bearings and navigate the terrain of national evolution, for within our history lies our hope.

    One of the alarming developments of our time is that history is no longer rigorously taught in our schools, and a generation has arisen that knows next to nothing about June 12; of the great sacrifices that were invested to secure the freedoms that we are now enjoying. They have heard nothing of the perfidies and betrayals orchestrated by the highly placed at the time or the epic courage of ordinary people who voted in Nigeria’s freest and fairest election, and taking to the barricades when their votes were casually nullified. We have as a nation almost completely forgotten the atmosphere of terror that suffocated life under the darkest era of military dictatorship in Nigeria’s history; the crude totalitarian abbreviation of liberty and life by overzealous security agents and murderous death squads. The stories have all faded from our collective memory – of intrepid journalists who went underground to continue their calling to publish truth as guerilla journalists risking the harassment of the wives and children they left behind; of brave activists that fled into exile and those unfortunate ones that were abducted, disappeared into the regime’s dungeons or assassinated.

    Yes, we commemorate certain days such as Independence Day or Democracy Day or May Day. But these commemorations have been reduced to empty rituals and shallow pageantry lacking contemplative depths. They do not inspire us to reflect on the sacrifices and toils of those whose courage and patriotic selflessness made these dates worthy of commemoration. Behind each of these national days, we will find stories of heroism, hope and faith starring Nigerians that gave their lives both figuratively and literally for a better future for their children. Sadly, the spiritual and ethical capital they stored up is inaccessible to much of the younger generation because they have not been taught.

    Our national anthem proclaims that the labours of our heroes shall never be in vain yet an alarming number of young Nigerians have scant idea of who these heroes are or what their labours were. Thus, we cannot draw inspiration from the past with which to contemplate our future.

    This devaluation of historical knowledge is worrisome if only because of the place of remembrance in the construction of a national ethos. The great nations of the world are distinguished by their assiduously maintained reservoir of national memory. The horrors of the holocaust are branded in the Israeli national consciousness. Americans look back at the words and deeds of the founding fathers in determining the contemporary essence of the American dream. South Africans can look back at a rich tapestry of suffering and struggle under apartheid that finally gave birth to a new democratic nation. Collective memory and a shared history is one of the pillars of nation-building.

     

    Nation-building is the work

    of generations each trans

    mitting the wisdom and epiphany accumulated from their life downwards. With this bequest of inherited memory and wisdom, each generation is progressively wiser than its forebears because of the gift of hindsight. It means that we need not reinvent the wheel and that we can recognize pitfalls on our path and avoid them. A lack of regard for history breaks the continuum of collective wisdom, rendering us both blind to our past and to our future. A lack of historical awareness does not simply diminish the quality of education our children are receiving; it also impoverishes public discourse. Much of the tenor of public commentary and punditry on our shores these days is needlessly negative and pessimistic, largely because there is no larger contextual sense of where we are coming from.

    We must seriously begin to remedy this deficit in how we raise our children and in how we frame public discourse. What the commemoration of June 12 does, therefore, is that it avails us of an opportunity to interrogate a seminal event in our history, to seek out new dimensions of wisdom that can be gleaned with the benefit of hindsight. It offers us an opportunity to reflect upon how far we have come and how far we have yet to cover on the road before us as a nation.

    Beyond Abiola

    In commemorating June 12, we are doing more than celebrating the life of Chief Moshood Abiola although his life is certainly worthy of celebration. It is impossible to discuss June 12 without dwelling however briefly on the man who was most closely connected to that date. Indeed, his personal odyssey helped imbue that date with its significance. Abiola was known as one of the wealthiest tycoons of his day, with friends and traditional chieftaincy titles from everywhere across the nation. His generosity was legendary as were his philanthropic exploits. Because his rise was a quintessential rag to riches story, it resonated with Nigerians who believe that no condition is permanent or that the circumstances of one’s birth need not necessarily dictate the opportunities of his life. Ever mindful of his beginnings, Abiola retained an earthy, empathic disposition towards the less endowed that made him accessible to the lower strata of society. His own life’s journey which had taken him from the clutches of poverty to the heights of wealth and fame also made him a complex public figure brimming with contradictions.

    He was a capitalist as well as a populist, as adept at boardroom maneuvers as he was with engaging with market women. He was fluent in the corporate-speak of the rarefied heights of the business world, on good terms with the civilian and military elites and had friends in every corner of the globe. Yet, he had an admirable facility with proverbs that endeared him to the common people and made him an impressive communicator.

    When he sought the highest office in the land in 1993, that pursuit put him on collision course with the forces of martial tyranny. The nullification of his victory and subsequent incarceration until his demise formed the final chapter of a full, eventful and accomplished life. Nevertheless, it would be wrong to see June 12 as being simply about Abiola’s politics. It is more than that. His pursuit of power intersected with the popular Nigerian yearning for democracy. He became the symbolic vessel of a popular discontent with the failed promises of military dictatorship. So for us today, remembering June 12 means more than reflecting on Abiola’s quest and his heroic adherence to principle even when all hope of regaining his mandate seemed to have been extinguished. It means contemplating the eruption of democratic energies that propelled Abiola to victory and sustained a pro-democracy movement for years until the end of military dictatorship.

    Some observers have referred to June 12 in almost mystical terms. For example, my friend, the journalist Dapo Olorunyomi wrote in 1994:

    It is unlikely if politics, ethno-national relations, and social discourse can be the same again after the events of 12 June. Here is an instance of what philosophers are wont to characterize as the sudden leap in history – the turning point of time. In comparative intensity only the anti-colonial struggle and later the Nigerian civil war threw up as much passion and emotion. If there was one idea therefore that could pave the path to a Nigerian nation and by consequence, its literature and culture, 12 June had the full potential.1

    In a similar vein, the renowned essayist Adebayo Williams remarked:

    “For Nigeria, then, 12 June is the equivalent of a midnight child, a monster infant. As we have seen, it is a date imbued with mystical portents. It is a destiny. How we handle it will surely determine Nigeria’s survival.”2

    These turns of phrase towards the metaphysical and the spiritual were simply ways by which the writers sought to convey the transcendental significance of June 12 and the momentous events that followed in its wake.

     

    In the months after the nullifi

    cation of his victory, Abiola

    himself came to realize that June 12 transcended his entirely legitimate and rightful claim to the presidency. The quest to actualize his mandate had morphed into a broader movement embodying larger questions such as where sovereignty resides. Indeed, in one sense the June 12 debacle can be summed up as a struggle over the true location of sovereignty in Nigeria – whether it was in the bowels of a bankrupt military establishment or whether it lay with the people. The coalescence of disparate civil society actors and political players of various shades under the umbrella of a broad pro-democracy movement sought to answer that question in favour of the people.

    The unyielding message of the pro-democracy movement was that sovereignty belonged with the people not with a military cabal. Only the people – the authentic repository of popular will – could legitimize authority through the exercise of electoral choice and their democratic bequest of power to those they had anointed. These were some of the issues that were thrown up by the June 12 debacle. These issues transcended Abiola and account for why the pro-democracy movement did not wither away after his incarceration.

    In this regard, it is fascinating to observe the evolution in the way June 12 is commemorated. At first, any event marking June 12 was inevitably an event celebrating Abiola and placing his persona in entirely understandable focus. Yet as the years have gone by, June 12 commemorations have shifted from Abiola, becoming less about his struggle than about Nigeria’s quest for freedom.

    June 12 Then and Now

    There are those who still persist in asking why June 12 continues to endure in our collective memory. Why has it refused to go away? What is the fuss about this date? To begin with, the polls of June 12, 1993 were a seismic shift in the nation’s political consciousness. It will be recalled that the election was contested by Bashir Tofa of the National Republican Convention and Moshood Abiola of the Social Democratic Party. Tofa picked as a running mate from the south east, an Igbo Christian in compliance with the unspoken rules of religious and ethno-regional balancing that formed the conventional wisdom of Nigerian politics. This wisdom held that for a party’s ticket to be electable it must offer an equilibrium of ethnic, regional and confessional identities that bridges our historic fault lines and offers an all-inclusive sense of belonging to all.

    Hence, in the most simplistic rendering of this ethno-religious equation, Tofa as a Northern Muslim had expectedly picked a southern Christian. Abiola as a southern Muslim was largely expected to pick a northern Christian. Indeed there was no shortage of groups offering counsel on who Abiola should pick as a running mate. In the end, he boldly violated this supposedly sacred rule of Nigerian politics and chose the running mate that he felt would bring the most to his political campaign. He picked Ambassador Babagana Kingibe, a Northern Muslim. Pundits weighed the chances of an all-Muslim ticket in a climate of politicized sectarianism and concluded that Abiola had erred. But he gamely argued that his choice represented the most logical and rational option. Refusing to be swayed by sectarian and provincial sentiments, he had picked the man whose merits for the job were unimpeachable. It was a statement of intent and a demonstration of faith in the sort of Nigeria he believed was possible – a country where the best could lead regardless of their creed or ethnicity. It was a statement of faith in the Nigerian voter that with all of the facts before him, he would be able to scrutinize both tickets and make an intelligent choice. It was a daring, even radical gambit but it paid off.

    On June 12, 1993, Nigerians voted in defiance of ethnic and religious dog-whistling and elected the two men they believed the most capable, disregarding the coincidence of their religious beliefs and other sectarian notions of equilibrium. They made a choice that was informed, intelligent and supremely rational. In this sense, the first remarkable thing about June 12 is how it inspired Nigerians to reach for the highest peak of their political consciousness and invest their aspirations in the ticket they believed represented their best chance of building a better country. Abiola’s campaign slogan was “Hope” and his was a simple message of populist hope that electrified many. It is no over estimation to say that since that time, no candidacy had been able to galvanize Nigerians in a similar fashion.

     

    This is a point worth stress

    ing because it is generally

    believed that electoral choices are so distorted by the politics of identity as to be exercises in tribal selection or in-group solidarity affirmation. It is believed that ethnic and religious sentiments overwhelm all other instincts and calculations at the ballot and render political contest and discourse a bitter competition for primacy along lines of primordial identity rather than ideology. For the avoidance of doubt, no ethnically and religiously diverse nation can escape the dynamics of identity and provincial sympathies at the polls. Heterogeneous countries far older than our republic and far ahead of us in their practice of democracy continue to grapple with themes of diversity, tolerance and pluralism. It is fair to say that Nigeria’s challenges in the political management of diversity and plurality are not uniquely Nigerian.

    In the United States, race is an inevitable factor in politics precisely because of that country’s racial diversity and its chequered history of race relations. In quite the same way, Nigeria’s history means that ethnicity and religion are political and electoral factors. But it is far from accurate to depict Nigerians as being so bound by provincialism that they cannot but vote along ethnic and confessional lines. This is simply false.

    This is the dynamic that made June 12 possible. It is the same dynamic that makes it possible to envisage a time when political discourse will be much more framed around ideology than identity, and candidates will be judged much more by how they intend to address the practical challenges of life. Politicians will have to run on the platform of practicalities not the theatrics or sentiments of feigning identification with the electorate at a primordial level. At that point, one’s tribal marks or facility in a local language will prove less important than a proven track record of performance and integrity. That time is not as far off as some people think. June 12 was remarkable because it was a game changer, a political paradigm shift that broke the mould clearly and decisively on such a scale that it became necessary to revise assumptions and stereotypes about the electorate.

    The Legacy of the Annulment

    June 12 did not just showcase the better angels of o ur nature; it exposed the ethical and ideological vulnerabilities of our institutions and politics. The annulment of the freest and fairest election in our history by the military, the cavalier disregard for the toil of Nigerians who had withstood difficulties to cast their votes patiently without any untoward incident and the callous disinterest in the nation’s future represented the high watermark of authoritarian impunity.

    Historically, Nigerian military regimes seized power proclaiming their readiness to fix the ailing economy and bequeath a functional political order to civilians. By the early 1990s, there was a growing sense that the military were no experts on economic management. The economy was reeling from the adverse impact of Babangida’s Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) and social institutions were in decay. But even at this point the military could still have salvaged some credibility by handing over to duly elected politicians. The annulment of the June 12 election represents the complete breakdown of trust between the military and the society, the highest point in alienation between both spheres and the military’s total loss of institutional integrity and legitimacy.

    The infamous midnight court judgment of the late Justice Bassey Ikpeme suspending further release of the election results signified the subversion of the judiciary and the degradation of critical public institutions by the forces of tyranny. The June 12 debacle also revealed the crisis of conviction and principle among Nigeria’s political class with many elites choosing to go along with the military dictatorship effectively aiding and abetting a manifest injustice, instead of joining the pro-democracy movement. These elites saw the impasse as an opportunity for self-aggrandizement. Isn’t it an irony that even Abiola’s running mate later accepted to serve as the Minister of Foreign Affairs under the Abacha military government?

    Twenty years after the annulment, it is permissible to argue that the most grievous damage was done to the psyche of ordinary Nigerians. Those who witnessed the subversion of institutions by their custodians, for instance, the compromise of some traditional rulers, the supposed custodians of our traditional values, in favour of the annulment had our faith shattered.

    In fact, the most destructive legacy of the annulment is a long term distrust of government. The Babangida regime annulled those elections after an already convoluted transition process characterized by broken pledges to hand over. Nigerians still preferred to give the state the benefit of the doubt but the annulment of June 12 proved to be the last straw. From that moment, Nigerians have approached their governments with a mixture of cynicism, pessimism and disbelief. The political class inherited these burdens and, given some of the tragic spectacles of our democracy, it is fair to say, that we have not done too much to dispel these attitudes. Public institutions require the life-blood of public trust to function.

    The biggest challenge facing us as democrats is to rebuild trust between the state and society. The relationship between both spheres is often needlessly adversarial owing to a lack of trust. The fact that even in a climate of openness, the media still hues to the combative guerilla journalism of the 1990s is as a result of the fact the sense of broken trust that still pervades state-media relations. Simply put, Nigerians do not trust their governments and this has made it difficult, indeed in some cases, impossible, to build mass citizen movements for a fuller democratic engagement.

    Residual distrust of power feeds apathy, disinterest and cynical disengagement. The people distrust their governments but not enough to actively check them and avert excesses of power. Rather, they distrust them so much that they desert the state and many simply do not care enough about the public realm. This indifference is dangerous for democracy. Democratic institutions cannot survive or be strengthened in a climate of antipathy nor can politicians long retain their legitimacy under such circumstances. If the price of a free society is eternal vigilance, then apathy will carry a severe penalty for our republic.

    1999: False Dawn or Little

    Beginnings

    While the elections of 1999 were generally welcomed both in Nigeria and abroad as a crucial turning point, the optimism in some quarters was more cautious. Considering our long history of military tyranny, it seemed prudent to emphasize the distinction between holding elections and implementing genuine democratization of structures and systems that had been shaped by totalitarian instincts for almost two decades. At the time, I was personally of the view that real democratization would require more than voting; it would require a complete rethinking of how our society was organized.

     

    Then, there were all kinds of

    hopeful analogies being

    drawn between the democratic transition that had occurred in South Africa and the one emerging in Nigeria. Some observers expected that just as the African National Congress, the hub of the liberation movement had rightly assumed the reins of power in South Africa after the collapse of apartheid; a similar transference would occur following the end of military dictatorship and see the pro-democracy movement morph into a ruling party. This fantasy failed to materialize for a number of reasons. Firstly, the analogy was imprecise. While the ANC was a movement that was several decades old, with an ideological fervour and coherence sharpened on the front lines of suffering and struggle, the pro-democracy movement was younger, far more disparate and far from ideologically coherent.

    The pro-democracy movement’s assortment of activists and politicians mainly wanted the military out of power. The politics of taking over power was a secondary consideration. As such, the pro-democracy movement was in no shape to comply with the organizational demands of a nationwide campaign for power. There were also genuine disagreements over the way forward by key elements of the movement. Some favoured entry into field to contest for power in the post-military era. Others wanted a continued struggle to realize far-reaching constitutional reforms. While some opted out entirely, preferring to boycott the transition process until their demands for deeper constitutional and structural changes were implemented. Thus divided by significant disagreements on tactics and strategy, the movement could not reconstitute itself into an effective political actor. Moreover, at the end of military dictatorship, the movement was too weak, exhausted by the stress of confrontation and the enormous toll that the struggle had taken, to really mount a realistic political challenge.

    For these reasons, when the shape of the 4th Republic emerged, it seemed that those who had worked the most to enthrone democracy were sidelined while those that had been beneficiaries of and collaborators with military regimes took center stage. On hindsight, it may be said that the pro-democracy movement suffered from a lack of strategic definition in terms of articulating the next phase of the struggle. We were so pre-occupied with getting the military out of power that we did not have the time to devise appropriate tactical and strategic responses to that very eventuality.

    In the event, the all-consuming haste to get the military out of power also framed some of the troubling birth defects of the 4th Republic, chief among them being the fact that the constitution – the guiding document of the republic was not generated through a popular democratic process but by a conclave that edited past constitutions. Indeed, the 4th Republic commenced before anyone actually saw the constitution. But at the time, the overriding imperative was to get the military out of power. Concerns about the provenance of the constitution were deemed nitpicky or churlish worries that could prolong military rule. No one wanted to give the military an excuse to stay a day longer especially when the regime at the time was minded to make a swift exit.

    The late Chief Bola Ige once observed that what occurred in 1999 was not a transition from military dictatorship to democracy but from military rule to civilian rule. By this he meant that 1999 had not ushered in democratization in one blow but rather a phase of demilitarization that would ultimately lead to democracy. My own sense of the transition in 1999 was that it had been shaped significantly by the manner of Abacha’s exit and the arrival of General Abdulsalam Abubakar who eventually handed over to the elected civilian government. The dominance of the ruling party’s hierarchy by retired army generals and civilians with close links to military elites set the tone for party formation and resulted in an authoritarian presidential leadership rather than authentic democratic governance.

    I have once argued that, in essence, the nature of the transition did not ensure a transformation of the political culture that would have led to a complete overhaul of our systems and structures; it merely effected a re-arrangement of the political space. The politico-cultural fundamentals that inform the conduct of elites remained the same. The widespread euphoria that accompanied the exit of the military and the entry of a civilian government prevented a sober appreciation of how entrenched the military had become in all aspects of Nigerian life. Apart from their obvious prominence in politics, it was the case that almost every financial institution was headed by, or had a board director with a military background. Serving and retired military officers owned factories, breweries and farms. Under these circumstances, what emerged in 1999 was not civilian rule but a new militarism. It was, in effect, a transition without transformation.

     

    True enough, the Obasanjo

    era bore the imprint of

    military era impunity and manifested the discredited authoritarian habits of the past. Executive lawlessness was very much in fashion with the administration selectively obeying court judgments against it. Elections were characterized by chicanery and fraud often officially sanctioned at the highest levels. These symptoms were crowned by the ultimately abortive effort to amend the constitution to enable President Obasanjo run for a third term in office. The defeat of that proposal on the floor of the legislature was a necessary victory for democratic forces.

    Regardless, it is important not to understate or devalue what occurred in 1999. A transition did happen. However lofty the expectations of the citizenry may have been regarding the advent of democracy, no realistic student of power dynamics could have imagined that democracy would flower so quickly in Nigeria given the long decades of military rule which had warped public consciousness and institutional instincts. It is, therefore, far more useful to see the 1999 transition as a case of humble beginnings and baby steps on the way to democratic maturity rather than a false dawn.

    The Struggle Must Continue

    It would be grossly inaccurate to say that Nigeria has not made progress since 1999. We live in a far greater conducive climate of freedom than those of us who came of age during military rule can recall. There is generally more respect for civil liberties and human rights. The demilitarization of politics has widened the space within which democratic reforms are occurring. Those who are profoundly pessimistic about the Nigerian enterprise continually cite the absence of economic dividends which might serve to “validate” democracy in the eyes of ordinary Nigerians as a major risk to the sustainability of democracy. In times past, the mismanagement of the economy by democratic regimes was cited by military adventurers who seized power from civilian governments. Arguably, the period between 1983 and 1999 served to dispel the myth that military dictatorships were better economic managers than democratic governments.

    More importantly, the cure for a retarded democracy is yet more democracy. Proper economic policy which embodies the hopes and aspirations of the people can only be forged in the furnace of a widening democratic space and a revival of the lost democratic art of public conversation. Perhaps the major problem with 1999 and the disenchantment with the pace of change since then is perceptual. From the onset, the exaggerated expectations of the citizenry, which was encouraged by cheap populism on the part of politicians, was primed to disappointment. The scale of decadence was enormous; the range of structural deficiency and institutional dysfunction, too vast to be remedied by the magical appearance of elected officials. Indeed, many of those elected at the time gravely underestimated the scale of the problem and overestimated their own curative powers. Democracy is a journey and not a destination. We need a shift in consciousness from the inflated and fantastic expectations of a democratic destination to a wayfaring mindset that interprets our condition at any point in time in evolutionary terms as a continuing struggle.

    We have to reject the agonizing generalizations of Nigerian life that casts a blanket of stagnation over every sector. The notion that nothing has changed since 1999 and that things have in fact grown worse is cynical, misleading and self-defeating. They are also discouraging to many conscientious and patriotic Nigerians in the public service who have committed themselves to rebuilding this nation. From the tone of negative reportage about Nigeria, one would think that such Nigerians do not exist, but they do! The fact is that there are pockets of progress all over this country where change-minded Nigerians have opted to light candles instead of merely cursing the darkness. Over the past decade, the quality of those at the forefront of politics has improved. There are more progressive-minded actors in the field. That quality and quantity can be expected to rise in the coming years. There are places where transformations in the way we live and govern ourselves are proceeding quietly, slowly and steadily despite the odds. It does no justice to the patriotic men and women who have chosen this path, for the rest of the country to continue the popular and simplistic vilification of everyone in government as corrupt.

     

    What these negative com

    mentaries do is rein

    force the notion that we have reached the democratic destination and discovered it as a mirage. They stem from the idea that May 29, 1999 marked the end of the struggle when in fact it marked the end of one phase of the struggle and the beginning of another. If there is a slogan that summarizes the imperatives of our time it is the popular rallying call of student and trade union activism – “Aluta Continua” i.e. “the Struggle continues.”

    My own personal odyssey that led me from the place of activism to the place of public service informs my sense of our democracy as a journey and a struggle. I had returned from exile in 1999 discerning that a new phase of activism required a more direct engagement at home with the new dispensation. My work focused on building bridges between the government and civil society that would enable the national leadership benefit from the talents and ideas of citizens within and outside the country.

    In time, however, I became convinced that the efforts required to reform the system are not necessarily the same as the efforts necessary to transform it. I faced two choices. I could remain on the sidelines as it were with my engagement restricted to a theoretical and low-risk involvement in the unfolding dynamics of power and politics in my country. Or I could become an actor in the political system, attaining a more practical understanding of what it would take to effect transformation, and thereby function as an agent of change from within the system. I opted for the latter as I had no intention of remaining on the sidelines as an eternal critic of the system.

    In 2005, I decided to run for public office and announced my candidacy for the governorship of Ekiti State, Nigeria. My journey to that office, beginning with my being at the receiving end of chicanery unprecedented even by Nigerian standards in the 2007 elections, through a protracted legal battle to reclaim my mandate and an election rerun which I won, were an invaluable education in the byzantine ways and means of Nigerian politics. It took three and a half years of legal proceedings before my electoral mandate was restored by the courts. It however did not end there; the electoral robbers and their collaborators had the effrontery to institute a most ridiculous case at the Supreme Court challenging my governorship. This case was only just decided in my favour on Friday May 31, 2013, over 6 years after the substantive election was held! Such impunity as I have argued is due to the gaps in our judicial system that makes no provisions for the punishment of those that subvert the people’s sacred mandate.

    Despite the onerous difficulties involved in my epic struggle for justice, I am resolute in my conviction that Nigeria belongs to those who are prepared to stand up, stand firm and take control of their destinies. Our young democracy can only be enhanced by testing our institutions to their limits. In my case, my successful recourse to the judiciary, protracted though it was, suggested that there are embers of hope for our democracy that have to be stoked by the discipline of committed and focused engagement.

    It needs to be added that there have been several other instances in which activist judges reversed ill-gotten electoral gains and undid injustices wrought on Election Day by political gangsters. Mine is not an isolated case. The presence of such spirits on the bench is another harbinger of hope for our country and is one of the reasons why it is simply not right or fair to say that public service remains the province of brigands. If part of the tragedy of the annulment of June 12 was the subornment of the judiciary as an instrument to negate the will of the people, then it is fair to say that conscientious judges have gone some way towards redeeming the honour and integrity of the judiciary. Such spirits are fellow wayfarers in the quest for a just and prosperous nation; their presence in various sectors of our national life recommends a more positive appraisal of our country’s prospects.

    Conclusion

    What we established in 1999 is the right to choose our leaders via the ballot. The current phase of the struggle is about maintaining the sanctity of the ballot, holding those elected accountable and stimulating civic engagement in the public realm, in a way that democratizes ownership of this democracy. We must banish the idea that governance is something performed by a team of gifted performers or strong men, while the rest of the citizens are spectators or complainers. During the days of military rule, some soldiers declared with more than a touch of hubris that politics is much too important to be left to politicians. By this they meant that the military had the right to be political players since politicians had generally proven inept. Ultimately, the military proved to be no better at politics and governance themselves.

    But there is a fundamental truth to the saying that politics is too important to be left to politicians. It is about redefining politics itself, transforming it from a rarefied craft reserved for a select few professional politicians, to the protocols and relationships that undergird personal, communal and social wellbeing. In other words, politics is the management of human relationships, interactions and aspirations in the service of the common good. It is not something mysterious that only “politicians” do; it is how citizens operate. Politics is a civic responsibility. It is how we engage with each other. The pursuit of good governance means that politicians can no longer be left to their own devices.

    Seen in this light, the mutual estrangement of government and civil society will end. The civil society will continue to express the communal instinct to regulate power but the chronic antagonism that poisons relations between the state and civil society will be replaced by mutual respect and positive tension. Civic engagement means that the state can access a much larger pool of wisdom and knowledge made available by a new rapport with civil society. In return, participatory governance will become much more practicable across all levels of governance.

    Looking back on this occasion of the 20th anniversary of June 12, it is instructive to note that only civic movements mobilized in the context of larger patriotic interests can overwhelm the forces of impunity. It is the discipline of civic engagement that will keep at bay those who wish to turn back the hands of the clock and return us to the dark days of totalitarian rule. The struggle we are engaged in is dedicated to making this democracy truly a government of the people, for the people and by the people, and by so doing honour the memory of Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola and all those who paid the supreme sacrifice pursuant of our common aspirations for the good society.

     

  • Remembering Steve Rhodes

    Remembering Steve Rhodes

    The Steve Rhodes Foundation is organising a three-day event to mark the Sixth Anniversary of the late music icon, Steve Rhodes.

    Steve Rhodes died on May 29, 2008. The event, which will begin from May 27 to 29, 2014, will feature a colloquium, an interactive music presentation, an exhibition of photos, records and memorabilia of the SR Voices, and a variety concert that would be headlined by the famous Steve Rhodes Voices and featuring past members of the Voices.

    Members of the foundation are Prof. Johnson Ekpere, Mr. Funmi Onabolu, Monsieur Pascal Ott, Mr Femi Odugbemi, Mrs. Elsie Payne-Hamman, Ms. Jeannette Rhodes and Gloria Rhodes-Nash.

    Recently, the foundation inaugurated a committee to co-ordinate series of programme towards the s anniversary of the exit of the late music impresario.

    The committee is chaired by Mrs Francesca Emanuel and has as members Mr Yomi Badejo-Okusanya, Ayo Bankole Jnr. Benneth Ogbeiwie, Funke Agbor, Jahman Anikulapo, Jeanette Rhodes and Ada Rhodes. The Executive Director of the Steve Rhodes Foundation, Gloria Rhodes-Nash is Secretary of the Committee.

    A statement by the family said this year’s anniversary would be marked today quietly remembering him and drawing strength from the legacy he has left behind.

    “It has been a journey in ‘self’ discovery for me and I’m honestly sure I have done a good job of it so far. It is a work in progress. Our father was a larger than-life-figure in our lives, strong, purposeful, sure, generous, and above all wise. He had a way with young people and lived his life believing that it is important to share what knowledge you have. He often mediated amongst people and groups when there were issues that seem ‘unresolvable’ and I was always in awe as to how he sorted things out,” Gloria Rhodes said.

  • Remembering the late Tunde Salawu

    Eleven years ago, the Lagos State University (LASU) witnessed stormed the rained on Tunde was the president of presidents whose exceptional valour outlived his small figure. He was strikingly outstanding and everything in Tunde demonstrated a genuine leader with no trace of egoism and unwarranted affiliation to clandestine settings.

    At a time when the trait of cultism was at its peak such that its consequences were far beyond being controlled by security agencies, Tunde courageously mastermind and led an onslaught against cultists and cultism on campus. He was a major threat to all criminals on campus and he succeeded in changing LASU, which was known as butcher ground, to a secure environment.

    Tunde was a symbolic image that brought peace to LASU and the major sacrifice Tunde made was to give up his life for a course he was committed and dedicated to.

    Tunde discovered greatness in death and little wonder he left consoling words for his fellow comrades before he gave up the ghost. Tunde informed them that they should fight cultism to a standstill notwithstanding the consequences. Tunde is fondly remembered as a comrade and in other areas we share common aspirations. May Almighty God grant you Al-Jannah Firdaus.

    This moment is equally used to remember the late Comrade Anjorin Lukmon (Barrywhyte), a student of the Political Science, LASU, and chairman, Action and Mobilization, National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) Joint Campus Committee (JCC), Lagos axis. He died as a victim of cultist attack on innocent students. May their souls continue to rest in peace.

  • Remembering the politics and times of Kolawole Balogun 1922 – 2002 (2)

    Continued from yesterday

    In the fifties, WASU was a veritable nightmare for officialdom. The contribution of this body formed by a Nigerian from Abeokuta, Chief Oladipo Solanke, MA, BCL, to the socio-cultural and political awareness of African Nationalism-cum Pan Africanism is unquantifiably enormous. Kwame Nkrumah, Udo Udoma, Rotimi Williams, Bankole Akpata, Ayotunde Rosiji, Adenekan Ademola, Joe Appiah, Sobo Sowemimo, Willie Bosma Ademola Thomas, Femi Okunnu, Alao Bashorun, Jomo Kenyatta, Kojo Bostio, the writer, to mention a few randomly, once held courts in the organization at different times. Kola Balogun was also a valued member of the Nigerian Union of Great Britain and Ireland, an organization which embraced all Nigerian nationals in the UK particularly students. It was non partisan but unabashedly partial and partisan to the territorial oneness and the unity of Nigeria. On account of the broad and nationalistic outlook imbibed in both the Nigerian Union and WASU, of which the writer is a past president and vice-president respectively, Balogun was at first diffident and reluctant when he was prodded by Luke Emejulu to form the London branch of the NCNC. In the end he succumbed to the middling. It would be recalled that Luke Emejulu was sponsored by the Nigerian Railway Workers Union to study law in the U.K., but he later abandoned trade unionism on his return to Nigeria for legal practice.

    Not long after the formation of the London Branch of the NCNC, the Police fatally shot twenty-one miners and injured some fifty others at Udi colliery, Enugu, as a result of a labour dispute. Hardly any event, even the Ivor Cummings Bristol Hotel incident was comparable in the bitter and widespread reaction of Nigerians to the cold-blooded murder of their fellow nationals. According to Nduka Eze, a broad spectrum of Nigerians “The radicals and the moderates, the revolutionaries and the stooges, the bourgeoisie and the workers closed ranks to form the National Emergency Committee, NEC which rallied financial and legal support for the workers. The bitterness amongst the nationalists disappeared as they jointly adopted self-government now, SGN, as their battle cry. Historians may conclude that the slaying of the coal miners by police at Enugu was the first subjective reality of a Nigerian nation.

    Whilst these ferments of emotive nationalist sentiments and activities prevailed Zik was away in London and had also visited Caux, Switzerland. Akinola Maja, Mbonu Ojike, Rotimi Williams, Ozumba Mbadiwe, Akanni Doherty, Bode Thomas, Hezekiah Oladipo Davies, (H.O.D.) Mokwugo Okoye, were in the thick of events. In the U.K, Kola Balogun as Secretary of the NCNC was busy in collaboration with WASU and Nigeria Union of Great Britain and Ireland, members of the British Parliament, galvanizing public opinion in support of nationalist efforts at home, for the miners. A protest manifestation was planned to the Colonial office. It took a stiff letter from Kola Balogun to Zik to bestir the latter from the seeming coolness to the Enugu protests at home and in the U.K. Zik had first distanced himself from the planned protest to the Colonial office.

    Indeed in spite of the dynamic turn of political alignment and activities in Nigeria, while reaction to the Enugu shooting incident was still on the boil Zik, President of the NCNC and Zaad Zungur, NCNC Federal Secretary, were planning a wil-o-wisp visit to Prague. Thanks to the pressure of Kola Balogun and his colleagues in the U.K. the visit was abandoned. In parenthesis this was the period when Zik was more or less abandoning the speedboat of radical nationalism. However, Kola Balogun’s formation of the London branch of the NCNC, his role in the Iva Valley shooting agitation in London and the letter of complaint to Zik in London was vintage, Kola Balogun, a committed and thorough bred nationalist through and through, an activist, principled and outspoken, (although with reverence) no matter whose ox was gored.

    On Kola Balogun’s return to Nigeria as a full-fledged barrister in 1951, Kola threw his body and soul into active politics again. The NCNC as he remarked, was “in the doldrums”. Ill health and disillusionment had more or less forced Zaad Zungur, a highly political mallam and “effulgent poet” to relinquish the Secretaryship of the NCNC. Zik appointed Kola into the NCNC cabinet and at the Kano Convention of the party, in 1952, he was elected Secretary. At this time the National Emergency Committee had receded yielding place to the National rebirth Committee of which H.U. Kaine, the educationist and Lawyer turned politician and Kola Balogun became the Chairman and Secretary respectively of the organizing Committee. The Trade Union Movement that had collaborated closely with the nationalists after the lightening and highly successful United African Company Workers strike led by Nduka Eze, founder of the left wing Nigeria Labour Congress went their own way.

    The NYC wing of the NEC particularly the provincial members became unenthusiastic about the formation of the National Rebirth Committee. Not long after in 1950, the Area Councils as a distinct political interest group opposed to the Nigeria National Democratic Party,( NNDP) and the Labour Market Women, Alliance came into being as another cluster of interest groups, emerged to contest the Lagos Town Council elections which the latter group won hands down. This was the first election in Nigeria to be conducted on the basis of universal adult suffrage. With the introduction of the MacPherson Constitution and the ensuing elections into Regional and Central Houses, the national front was again factionalized. Thus, confirming the hypothesis that constitutional developments in colonial countries tend to weaken nationalism.

    Kola Balogun remained undaunted in his nationalist zeal. After the debacle of the National Rebirth committee that had advocated self Government for Nigeria in 1956 with the objective of a “socialist commonwealth’, Kola Balogun almost became a task deliverer of the NCNC. The writer was a frequent visitor to Kola Balogun at the NCNC Secretariat, Yaba at that time. Kola Balogun was genial, charming, unassuming, absolutely loyal and committed to the cause of Nigerian emancipation, Pan Africanism and of course the NCNC. He seemed to have enjoyed the confidence of the great Zik, whom he referred to as his political father, on whose laps he learnt journalism and politics, and the rank and file of the NCNC. One can still recall the resonance of his shrill voice at campaigns proclaiming, “The NCNC is the party of the common man”. He had an abiding faith in the pivotal role of the youth in the emancipation project.

    As Secretary of the NCNC, he spearheaded an attempt to reincarnate the Zikist Movement as an NCNC Youth Association, in Lagos in 1952. The Trade Unionist cum politician, Mbazulike Amaechi and Nduka Eze were very much in evidence. Although the organization was formed amid dissention it was but a ghost of the Zikist Movement of old.

    Kola Balogun’s commitment to Pan Africanism was evident when on the break out of the Mau Mau nationalist struggle in Kenya leading to the trial of Jomo Kenyatta in Nairobi in 1952, Kola Balogun donned on his wig and gown and made for Kenya to join in the defence of Jomo Kenyatta. The British turned back the ‘obstreperous’ young African Lawyer barely 30 years of age at the time. However, H.O.D. was personally invited by Jomo Kenyatta as his defence attorney at the show trial and H.O.D. gladly obliged Jomo. H.O.D. and Jomo were contemporaries in the U.K. in the late thirties of the last century.

    Under the newly promulgated Macpherson Constitution, Kola Balogun contested election through the Electoral College to the Western House of Assembly. According to Kola Balogun, the procedure was fraught with corruption. The ‘god of money’ was already looming dangerously in Nigerian politics. If ever there was corruption at elections at that time, by contemporary standards, it must have been by angels! Needless to say that Kola Balogun was dis-favoured at the election in Osun. His unhappy electoral experience was soon to be over. In 1953, he successfully won elections to the Lagos Town Council, Western House of Assembly (as a Lagos member) and finally to the House of Representatives, resulting in his appointment initially as Minister without portfolio and subsequently as Federal Minister of Information and Research in 1955 at the tender age of 33 years thus also making him the first person to hold a substantive portfolio from Osun. Even more, perhaps, the youngest Minister ever elected at that time under a democratic dispensation. Thus it would appear that Kolawole Balogun was the first Minister of Information in this country, a position, the inimitable Late Chief T.O.S. Benson (alias Seditious Benson of the forties) was to adorn some five years later).

    Before Kola Balogun’s ministerial stint, in 1953, the Macpherson Constitution had irretrievably broken down following the 1956 self-government motion moved by Anthony Enahoro on behalf of the banned Action Group, A.G. This epochal event threw the NCNC and the (A.G)into each other’s arms. An alliance and re-alignment of political programmes resulted in their joint front at the London constitutional conference to review, the ill-fated Macpherson Constitution. Even though Zik was to exclaim after the conference that “Federalism was imperative” as opposed to his long held centrist views hitherto, the NCNC and A.G. only fell out on the question of the separation of Lagos from the Western Region. Under the Macpherson Constitution Lagos was merged with the West against the majority recommendation of the Ibadan constitutional conference of 1950. At this remarkable London Conference, which enthroned the Lyttleton Constitution, Kola Balogun was present as the General Secretary of the NCNC. He was one of the articulate and insistently fanatical inquiry was published.

    (c) High handedness and undemocratic methods in the running of the NCNC making for incessant dissention, sectarianism and possible Relapse into the ‘doldrums’ once more, als 1950-51 era in the party

    (d) Attempt by Zik to renege on NCNC policy decision to provide for the posts of prime minister and deputy prime minister in the pre independence Constitution.

    There were other miscellaneous matters like the inadvisability of Zik to travel abroad in late 1958 when the 1958 election was round the corner, the inadvisability of starting the University of Nigeria UNN, at a time of alleged tottering of the Universal Primary Education in the East. Uncompromisingly and determinedly, bitter letters of discontents/complaints and somewhat arrogant in tone were written to Zik by the “rebels” without positive response.

    At last in June 1958 an NCNC Executive meeting took place at the Lagos City College, Lagos to discuss the “discontents of our time”. Openly the meeting could not agree. It broke into two factions. The ‘rebels’ formed the

    Reform Committee led by K. O. Mbadiwe as Chairman, H.O.D. who Zik once described as “one of the brightest jewels on the brow of Mother Africa” as Vice Chairman with the ubiquitous and indomitable Kola Balogun as Secretary. It is noteworthy that every attempt to ethnicize the disagreement was rebuffed. Both Kola Balogun and K. O. Mbadiwe, the latter an Aro Igbo, poohed poohed the idea of Mbadiwe and other Ibo “rebels” swearing on ngbandu to ensure their loyalty to Zik and thereby earn a reprieve subsequently. However promptly, the NCNC recommended to the Prime Minister, the resignations of K. O. Mbadiwe, Kola Balogun and their Parliamentary Secretaries from the Federal Cabinet. Having been cut down to size, they were to learn the bitter lesson of how not to take Zik on! Zik’s supporters called them names and emotively denounced them. It was a God-sent opportunity for Zik’s loyalists and sycophants alike to advertise their wares.

    Eventually like the prodigal son, Kola Balogun, although unbowed found his way back into Zik’s fold. Mohammadu Ribadu the NPC, Minister of Defence at the time was very crucial in Kola Balogun’s reproachment with Zik. Zik was gallant and quick to forgive whatever were Kola Balogun’s faults. This was celebrated by Zik as usual, a man without vendetta, ill feelings or life-long enemies. Zik thought that given Kola Balogun’s closeness to him, Kola Balogun’s reservations ought to have been conveyed to him, Zik , for his own “eyes only” Kola was himself very humbled and impressed by Zik’s re-acceptance of him and re-absorption into the NCNC’s fold.

    Soon Kola Balogun was riding high again in his political career. By 1957the Gold Coast had assumed the name Ghana, a once thriving historic West African Negroid country bestriding the former Gold Coast and other pre-colonial polities: Kwame Nkrumah, an unrepentant Marxian socialist and veteran Pan Africanist who had become the President of the new Republic was making waves both in Africa and internationally. Ghana became the ‘Mecca’ of freedom fighters, socialist radicals and all hues of progressives. Ghana was non-aligned in international power politics. Comrade Kwame had proclaimed that he considered the independence of Ghana incomplete until colonialism was totally humiliated and expelled from Africa. It was in this historical context in 1958, that Kola Balogun was appointed Commissioner and later at our independence High Commissioner to Ghana.

    It was thought by the Prime Minister, Sir Tafawa, that given Kola Balogun’s impeccable radical Pan African credentials, he more than fitted the bill to represent Nigeria in Ghana. At that time except for the NCNC, the three ethno-geographically based establishment parties, in their foreign policy advocated “indissoluble alliance with the west” and displayed rile cynicism on radical Pan African ideals. With Kola Balogun’s background, he was therefore very much at home in progressive Ghana. He did much to project the less objectionable face of Nigerian conservative politics and acted in a way as the conscience of the subdued progressivism back home in Nigeria. In his personal letters to Zik, he was upbeat about breath-taking and unfolding Ghana socio-political scene. Still he had his reservations about what he called Comrade Kwame’s ‘faulty methods’ and the divergence in his theory and practice. This Kola Balogun illustrated with the failure of Kwame to attend Nigeria’s Independence celebration in 1960, whereas the Nigerian Prime Minister in 1957, was in Accra at the birth of Ghana. Although Zik was receptive to Kola Balogun’s favourable accounts of his “Mission to Ghana” he Zik, foresaw the emerging dictatorial tendencies amongst African leaders and advised that civil liberties and due processes should be allowed to thrive in African Countries if the fruits of independent nationhood were to be garnered.

    Kola Balogun being essentially a political activist, after some years in Accra, became uneasy in his ambassadorial “Coventry”. At home, the NCNC was loosing support in the Western Region. They were mauled by the A.G. under S.L.A.’s leadership in the Regional election of 1960. Their supporters and leaders alleged victimization through excessive taxation, the activities of sanitary inspectors etc. By 1962, Kola Balogun politely threw in the towel. He resigned his appointment to Ghana and jumped into the rough and tumble of Western Nigerian politics. The NCNC seemed to have regretted its choice of leadership of the party in Remi Fani-Kayode before then. Hence almost immediately after Kola Balogun’s return he became the Chairman of the NCNC Western Working Committee and leader of the party. He lost no time in rallying other NCNC leaders in the West in the fight for NCNC’s body and soul. Kola Balogun was his own political self again. Under his leadership, the NCNC in spite of its numerical inferiority in the Western Legislature began giving a good account of itself region wide. Schism within the A.G. in 1962 resulted in an A.G. breakaway group the S.L.A. group led the United Peoples Party allying with the Western NCNC parliamentary party led by Fani-Kayode, a.k.a. Fani-Power a confessed blackist. The two groups allied to form the government of Western Nigeria. Thus confirming the trite political quip that in polities, there are neither permanent friends nor enemies but permanent interests. Albeit, the alliance soon broke down and recrimination ensued. NCNC formed the United Progressive Grand Alliance, (UPGA) with the A.G. wing loyal to Awo while UPP transformed into Nigeria National Democratic Party (NNDP) that allied with the NPC. Thus the ideological profile of Nigerian Politics was now somewhat defined, nevertheless a delicate pot-puree. UPGA, that is the faction of A.G. and NCNC were in opposition in the West whilst at the Federal level, NPC, NCNC and NNDP formed a coalition Government with A.G. in opposition. Still, both sides of the political divide contained radicals, socialists, centrists, conservatives and non-ideological fire breathing patriots!

    Whilst the excitement and anxieties of the disturbing events in Western Nigeria evolved with an unstoppable momentum stretching to the time of the military take-over of the Nigerian Government in January 1966, a new feather was added to Kola Balogun’s cap. He was appointed successively as Director, Deputy Chairman and finally Chairman of the defunct Nigerian Shipping Line, in July 1962 in succession to Sir Louis Ojukwu. Kola Balogun believed that he owed this appointment to Zana Bukar Dipcharima, the NPC Minister of Transport at the time. Dipcharima was on the NCNC delegation to London in 1947. It is perhaps inferable that the build bridging between the ministers fielded by the NPC and NCNC into the Federal Cabinet in 1955 to 1964 before the Federal election boycott fiasco yielded some dividends of mutual confidence and trust amongst those ministers who served together in the period at one time or the other.

    With the military’s forcible intervention in government in 1966, Kola Balogun, a consummate politician who had seen days in and out of public office was again a political orphan. He returned to his picturesque and calm native home of Otan Aiyegbaju in Osun wondering what next to expect from the “men in khaki” Will they or will they not put their predecessors in office “the men in Agbada” in permanent coolers!

    Not long after, by July 1966, Nigeria was on the boil again. There was another military putsch. The euphoria amongst Nigerians of the first coup was over. The pattern of killings in the January coup was put into question. A bout of further killings amongst the military ensued which appeared revengist. The whole future and stability of corporate Nigeria hanged on a thread. The former Eastern Nigeria that is, the present day Rivers, Bayelsa, Cross-River, Akwa-Ibom, Anambra, Ebonyi, Abia, Enugu, and Imo States, led by its Military Governor Lt. Colonel Emeka Ojukwu declared the secession of its territory from Nigeria. This provoked a thirty months civil war, which was heroically and successfully led by General Gowon. As one of the several measures to ‘keep Nigeria one’ the twelve States structure emerged in 1967 and were headed by military Governors with predominantly civilian cabinet, an arrangement that characterized each military administration till 1999.

    It was in this scenario that Kola Balogun bounced back into public reckoning again. He was appointed into the Western Nigerian Cabinet under the governorship of Colonel Adeyinka Adebayo, as he then was. Oyo, Osun, Ogun, Ondo and Ekiti constituted Western Nigeria at that time. Kola Balogun was first, appointed Commissioner for Economic Planning. He moved on successively to adorn Health and Education portfolios. The cabinets at the federal and state levels at that time, were mixed bags of old and tested politicians, accomplished professionals and first time comers to public life. They were individuals of contrasting political persuasions and backgrounds. In this ambiance, it would appear that irreconcilable differences between Kola Balogun and the equally hard lining and charismatic politician, Bola Ige, led to both of them quitting the Western States cabinet at the same time. What an irony of fate! Both distinguished and well-regarded gentlemen were to share the same date 23rd December in receiving their immortal home calls! Even more, both their sons, Stephen Kola- Balogun and Muyiwa Ige were appointed as Commissioners in the Aregbesola led administration of the State of Osun on the same day.

    However, after Kola Balogun’s stint in the Western State Government, he turned his attention to his other compelling ‘loves’. As federal Minister, he promoted the formation of the Nigerian Council of Arts and Culture and ultimately became its president. He had developed a passion for cultural matters since his days at the Government College, Ibadan. In the years out of office Kola Balogun’s cultural activities particularly in present day Southwestern Nigeria were well known. Here was a young and impatient Kola Balogun who abandoned the prestige, aura and material advantages attached to Government Colleges of the days past, to study and pass successfully from a Lagos dingy the London matriculation and intermediate Bachelor of Laws, examinations. Instead of his scheming and groveling after leaving office, as some lesser mortals would do he proceeded full blast in the pursuit of academic laurels by obtaining a Ph.D. degree in Political Science from the University of Ibadan 1971-1974. Earlier on he had obtained a Masters of Public Administration (MPA) degree at the University of Ife now Obafemi Awolowo University while serving as a Commissioner between 1968-1970. Not done, he became a part time lecturer at the University of Ife.

    On the return to Civilian rule in 1979 Kola Balogun despite the huge political respect he enjoyed from his former colleagues and the admiration and debt of gratitude he owed to Zik, he did not join the Nigerian People’s Party (NPP) of which Zik was the leader. This was because the party split and Kola Balogun found himself in the faction of the party that later became known as the Great Nigeria Peoples Party (GNPP). Kola Balogun was of the view that Zik was father of the nation and could no longer be seen to participate in politics. He became the National Vice Chairman of the GNPP. By the early 1980s he became disillusioned with the GNPP and went on to quietly throw his lot with the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) which was coalition of various political interest groups aimed at the unity and stability of the country.

    Quite appropriately the vibrant patriotic slogan of “One Nation” of the NPN seemed an abbreviated form of the old NCNC slogan “One Country”, One Constitution, One God”! In the NPN, Kola Balogun did not occupy a high profile office, although a member of the National Executive Committee. The writer was very chastened by his modesty or unpretentiousness when he served on an NPN committee of which the writer was the chairman. Here was a man with such obvious intimidating revolutionary, political and academic credentials gladly and candidly serving on the committee as a member. Even the plea that the meeting be held in his Lagos residence met with a stonewall resistance. I was to remind Kola Balogun just in case he had forgotten that the writer was one of the teenagers who used to mill around him at the NCNC Secretariat in 1952. The Honourable (Chief) Dr. Kolawole Balogun remained adamant. Was it because he had seen it all?

    At different times he was a Journalist, law student, founder of a revolutionary nationalist movement, lawyer, minister, all at a very young age What therefore was new? Needless to say that one learnt an unforgettable lesson from that particular incident and added phenomenally to the political esteem, I held for Kola Balogun over a period of close to six decades that I knew him and followed his career. Here was a Nationalist fighter of the deepest dye. Where are such men and women in contemporary public life of this country? If there are, what are their ideals, credos, ethos, goals, beliefs etc? What do they stand for?

    It should be noted that in Kola Balogun’s life-long preoccupation with nationalist pursuits, he never forgot his beloved Osun nay Otan-Aiyegbaju. This was not in the fashion of the present day divisive ethno-nationalist irredentists, but as a patriot and a good citizen who cared for his neighborhood. He was without jingoistic or hegemonic complexes. Thus he was in the forefront of the creation of Osun State and his immediate Local Government Area, Boluwaduro Local Government excised from then domain of the Yoruba ancestrally revered Orangun of Ila. It must be emphasized that the Osun State movement was established and launched in 1975. The first meeting of pioneers was held at his residence Maye Lodge, Osogbo and he was appointed Chairman. He piloted the organization for 16 years and Osun State was eventually created in 1991. Kola Balogun was immensely proud of this achievement and grateful for God’s guidance and support in making it possible. He regarded the creation of Osun State as his greatest political contribution to his people. Over the years, a cluster of chieftaincy, professional and church titles were deservedly bestowed on him particularly in present day Oyo and Osun States.

    What made this nationalist, statesman and academic to tick? What lessons does the life and times of this prodigy hold for the rest of the country? Kola Balogun’s political life was one of dedication to practical goals for the public good rather than their goods. No immediate returns, if any, were expected. In the pursuit of the goals he was diligent, selfless, hardworking and achievement oriented. He trained for his vocation. He was not catapulted from ‘no where’ to high offices. He served apprenticeship all the way. He was loyal to leadership without being a stooge or a sycophant. Thus, he was outspoken and firm in his views without being dogmatic. After the ghost of the agitation of the “Zik must go” episode of 1958 was laid to rest, the warmth between him and Zik was infectious. The reproachment was a roaring tribute to Zik whose forgiving and democratic spirit was legendary. Kola Balogun never forgot to acknowledge the political personalities who were critically helpful to him in his political career. In spite of his marvelous achievements in all his endeavours, he remained humble and valiantly committed to Pan Nigerian ideals. At no time did he expediently play the ethno-political card at the merest provocation, as is common with most Nigerian elites. Sadly, the Nigerian terrain today is replete with professional, political, academic, business elites and other turn coats who now worship on various sectional shrines to the detriment of viable and stable corporate Nigerian being.

    The life and times of Kola Balogun contrast with the neo-military politics of our time whose landscape is clustered by recidivists, fixers, jackboots and all sorts of power and influence peddlers committed to no sterling ideals of integrative nation building. Parties expected to be the powerhouses of participatory democracy are cesspools of intrigues and homicidal rivalries. Never in the history of this country have parties and public figures been atrophied of so much viable, structurally functional and populace oriented ideas aimed at the rapid socio-economic integration of the motherland. We continue to present dross and jaded metals as gold, all in the unhallowed name of our brand of “ceremonial democracy”.

    It is in these abnormal times that serving public office holders award themselves high national honours. Some of the beneficiaries are even decorated or promoted annually. Civil servants with less than five years stint are not left out as recipients of these surprising awards. These neo military public servants now compete with corporate parasites in advertising their ‘well earned’ laurels in the media. What has become of the self-effacement or anonymity code of conduct of civil servants? Is there no pecking order in the award of national honours to serving and retired public servants? Yet a towering veteran nationalist, statesman, journalist, diplomat, academic, cultural guru, author and teacher like Kola Balogun was derisively awarded the National Honour of OON in 2001. There was no greater insult to the person of Kola Balogun, and vicariously to others who like Kola Balogun heroically contributed to the struggle for independent Nigerian Nationhood. Perhaps, all this partly indicate a defect in our study of political history in Nigeria. How many of those strutting the corridors of power today know about Herbert Macaulay, Dr. J. C. Vaughan, Earnest Okoli, Mbonu Ojike, Mallam Aminu Kano, R. B. Diko, Zaad Zungur, Osita Agwuna, Mokwugo Okoye, Smart Kirby, F. O. Coker, alias Secret Document Coker, Rajih Abdulah, Gogo Chu Nzeribe Nduka Eze etc. and their significance in our history? These were some of the patriots who rendered selfless and dedicated service to Nigeria. Some of them who are now dead like Aminu Kano have been honoured. Yet some of those alive remain unsung. Let us hope that memorials would be devised in different parts of the country in their honour. Furthermore, since we are a nation of public holiday addicts, a Hero’s day should be set aside in honour of all the gallant fighters for independent and united Nigeria.

    Uncontestably, given Kola Balogun’s contributions, he would merit being included in the National Pantheon of Heros, if one is established. Outside the contemporary vulgarism of our time such heroes, if painfully and carefully selected on merit, would provide historical role models for the present generation and those ‘yet unborn’. Skilful use of symbols as argued by Nwabueze and Carl Fredrick are potent “psychological instruments of fostering identity and allegiance to the Nation-State”; hence a Heroes Day and dedicated memorials are appropriately called for in the forward looking and virile Nigeria of our solicitude.

    We shall forever remember you Comrade Kola Balogun

     

    Chief Tayo Akpata

    (The Ogiesoba of Benin)

  • Remembering the poor

    Remembering the poor

    I have always wondered why wealth faints easily in this country. The custodians, who we call wealthy, come alive, flaunt, swagger and plume themselves in the sunlight of the day. But, like a plant that runs out of its supply of the riches of photosynthesis, they faint and expire.

    In this country, prosperity lives and dies just like the poor. They both have a short lifespan. The rich may endure to their hoary years, but not their riches. We have had many who grew rich, soared to fame and glamour. But where are they now? Those who reigned in the 1960’s bowed out with a sigh in the 1970’s. Those who purred with leonine pride in the 1970’s lost their manes of honour the decade after. So it has been, a story of rises and falls, glamour and dolour, plum and prune, acclaim and silence.

    The reason is that they make money for themselves because they work only for themselves and their families. They do not work for the society where they blossomed, that gave them both chance and fulfillment. This thought overwhelmed me recently as I contemplated the fundraiser held November 8 in Abuja, where man of means Aliko Dangote spearheaded the drive to help all the lowly and helpless who were tossed out of their homes and heaths by the recent flood.

    Many of the rich were there, but not enough of them. What struck me was that Dangote had to go out of his way to persuade the very rich, including the bank chiefs, to consider the poor. The bank heads came off with the excuse that they had to consult their boards first in order to give to the poor. At least, the bank leaders were there, some of them.

    But where were the telecoms leaders, who fleece us by the seconds with services? Where were the oil servicing companies? Shell was reported to have donated hefty millions. But where are the others?

    Dangote had announced his hefty donations early. But the other companies have swathed themselves in the excuse of officialdom. What boards did they need to consult? The flood did not consult anybody before it swamped on the vulnerable, lapping up their homes and flushing away their memories in tides of tyranny. They huddled up in camps, falling ill, birthing and bearing babies, weeping, lost in the dry ecstasy of sorrow and bemoaning the former simple life they never cherished enough until the cruel epiphany of nature’s visit.

    So if the floods had swept many of their branches, would the banks not have held an extraordinary board meeting? Of course, it is because it is a conflict or tragedy of low intensity for the banks that they decided to wait till whenever the next scheduled board meeting to table the matter of hundreds of thousands of Nigerians dislocated by nature’s insensate moment.

    This is because the banks were not formed to serve except for the profit of the owners. Their vaults are full of money but empty of love. They contradict what writer Steve Maraboli asserted, that “The bank of love is never bankrupt.”

    A fundamental problem is that we do not know the value of money. In the secondary school, one of the cardinal lessons of economics classes was that money was a standard OF VALUE. We were never taught what value was in relation to money, except as a nexus in the exchange of goods and services. That was what the banks have exhibited over the flood victims. Not the banks alone but corporate Nigeria. They have placed a mercantile soul over the somber throbbing of neighbourly love, patriotic giving or even the much-ballyhooed virtue of corporate responsibility.

    Let us go over the seas to the United States where a fiercer storm surged. Hurricane Sandy might have taken the country by storm, but not the tender spirit of giving by its companies. I tracked the donations of American companies in the wake of the disaster. Tons of companies had already pledged and donated over $100 million barely a week after it happened. They did not need to consult boards because giving was an integral part of their fount of being.

    Nigerian companies do not consider giving of the charitable sort as a defining quality of their existence. They have enough to sponsor sports, Nollywood vanities and other cultural dissipations. Nothing evil in those. But what of the ones you do without the fare of self-aggrandisement where the companies’ billboards will not loom in the background? Francis of Assisi noted that “it is in giving that we receive.” The companies abuse this credo because they see the giving as a cynical indoor, as investment for profit but not for the improvement of lives.

    They rather should take in the spirit of Queen Elizabeth’s words that “blessed are those who can give without remembering and take without forgetting.” Sometimes we forget that the ordinary folks are the great givers. A good percentage of the victims come from oil-producing areas that nest the golden egg of Nigeria. It is the paradox of the giver desiring giving.

    The tragedy though is not that we don’t give, but that we don’t know the value of giving. At long last, some of the banks and oil firms and telecom giants may buckle and surrender some funds from their corpulent savings. What we lack is a sense of philanthropy.

    There is some charity in this society, but what we need is philanthropy. “Much corporate giving is charitable in nature rather than philanthropic,” noted David Rockefeller. Philanthropy is the habit of giving. Charity is a fleeting show of love. In spite of the billionaire’s quote, America is a great example revealed in all the recent tragedies from Katrina to Sandy.

    We have abandoned the African culture. We come from a communal stock. An age ago, we cared for our neighbour’s son when he was not even in danger. Today we look the other way when he is in the throes of death. How did we fall from that grace? Some have cited ethnic differences, but that accounts for little because in the big firms we have persons whose kinsmen were swept off by the floods. It is the fissures of capitalism, with its emphasis on self over others. Individualism emboldens coldhearted indifference to the fortunes of others. Also, the birth of cities breaks down a sense of community. Three, the colonialism created a false centre called government with its bureaucracies and laws and commerce. But the ordinary person does not yet relate to it as part of his own. So when tragedies happen like the flood, it is an “other,” not us. As Jean Paul Sartre wrote, “hell is other people.”

    It is the job of leadership to knit this system so that we own it. Even President Jonathan, who should inspire, was ensconced in America without a sense of urgency while water bred tragedy at home. Delta State Governor Dr. Emmanuel Uduaghan promptly cut short his trip and returned. Jonathan had more “important” things to do.

    Part of the problem with lack of philanthropy is that this is a poor society and those who grow rich still think poor and do not remember the real poor. It means the rich are “poor” in spirit, to parody Christ. “One must be poor to know the luxury of living,” wrote novelist George Elliot. The striking point is that the rich are too busy enjoying the luxury to remember the poverty of others. Dangote is bucking that patrician trend. It is not for nothing that we have the Rockefeller, Carnegie and Ford foundations. These were created by men who transferred wealth from generation to generation favouring the poor.

    It is the job of the elite to snap out of their self-absorption and create by example and self-nurturing the tradition of giving. Winston Churchill struck the right note when he said, “we make a living by what we get. We make a life by what we give.”

    To make giving a part of Nigerian life, the rich must remember the poor as a habit