Showing posts sorted by date for query nkem ekeopara. Sort by relevance Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by date for query nkem ekeopara. Sort by relevance Show all posts

Tuesday, July 14, 2020

Remembering Ubani Chima’s Role In Making Of June 12 An Historic Day In Nigeria

Chima Ubani


BY NKEM EKEOPARA

June 12 is now officially Democracy Day in Nigeria. It’s a day Nigerians remember the annulment of an election in which Nigerians buried their differences to elect two Musilims as their president and vice president on June 12,1993. The winner of the election Chief MKO Abiola is a Yoruba from Ogun State; South-western Nigeria. Baba Gana Kingibe, who was his opponent in the primary, was his running mate. Kingibe is a Kanuri from Borno State, Northeast of Nigeria. They ran on the platform of Social Democratic Party (SDP). They contested against the National Republican Party whose presidential candidate was Bashir Tofa, an Hausa-Fulani from Kano, North-western part of Nigeria. Tofa’s running mate Sylvester Ugo is an Igbo from South-eastern Nigeria. Yet, Nigerians did not pander to the primordial factors that had held them down for too long.

Notwithstanding this progressive march, the election was annulled by the then self-styled military president, General Ibrahim B. Babangida under whom Professor Humphrey Nwosu used his creative option A4 to conduct what international observers adjudged the freest election ever in Nigeria.

Presently, Babangida is saying that the fear of being killed by certain persons and groups made him to annul the election. This makes one wonder the kind of soldier he was when we know that a soldier’s duty is to die at his post, especially in pursuit of noble causes. If Babaginda wasn’t afraid to die during the unjust war Nigeria waged against Biafra why should he be afraid to uphold the will of the people? One of the persons that Babangida named as those that threatened to shoot him and the President-elect Chief Abiola is David Mark. David Mark a retired Brigadier-General had since become a two-term Senate President of Nigeria’s Legislative Arm, thus benefitting from the torture and imprisonment that Ubani and others went through in the fight for a democratic Nigeria. Some pro-democracy activists even paid the supreme sacrifice.

If a hierarchy of those, who made June 12 historic, is to be objectively drawn, Ubani Chima will be among the first three. Ubani was born on March 22, 1963, in present day Abia State, South-eastern Nigeria to a Seventh Day Adventist pastor. He lived his life fighting for the downtrodden. Courageous, charismatic, highly intelligent and a matchless mobilizer, Chima started full activism at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) when he was elected the President of the Students Union of the University 1986-1987. As the Students Union President, he provided radical leadership that kept the University authorities on their toes in meeting students’ welfare. When in 1986 some students were killed at Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria, Ubani Chima led UNN students to protest the killings, and to demand the removal of the then Vice-Chancellor of ABU, Prof. Ango Abdullahi.

Also, he was in the forefront of the fight for the restoration of students’ unionism after the dictatorship of Ibrahim Babangida banned students’ unionism. This was done, using a clindestine body called the Association of Patriotic Students (APS). For his role in the restoration of students’ unionism, he was expelled from the university together with nine other activists, and a tribunal was set up by the Federal Military Government of Babaginda to try them.

However, on the day the tribunal was to sit in Enugu, owing largely to Ubani Chima’s popularity, the students mobilized and occupied the venue of the sitting thus, preventing the activists from being tried, and eventually they were recalled to complete their programs. It should be recalled that Aka Bashorun was onground to offer free representation to the accused..

Ubani Chima was a very brilliant and hardworking student. He narrowly missed graduating with a First Class. Nonetheless, his Second Class Upper in his discipline, Crop Science, was good enough to attract the interest of the high-paying and career-fulfilling Ibadan-based International Institute for Tropical Agriculture (IITA).He was offered the position of a researcher by IITA. Ubani Chima turned down the offer. Rather, he moved to Lagos, and joined the flagship human rights organization in Nigeria, the Civil Liberties Organization (CLO) as a researcher. If all Ubani Chima craved for was good life, he would not have turned down the offer by IITA. And today, predictably, he would have become a scientist of global renown if he had joined IITA. But he chose to serve humanity through activism, and he did a good job of it!

His role in making June 12 historic cannot be overemphsised. In 1993, Ubani clobbered together many human rights groups into Campaign for Democracy (CD), and became its Secretary-General. The CD well-organised and sustained protests compelled Babangida to ‘step aside’ after he annulled the June 12 1993 Presidential election presumably won by Chief MKO Abiola as earlier observed.

Also, Ubani Chima joined Ogoni-born writer and environmental activist, Ken Saro-Wiwa and others to campaign against oil companies in the Niger Delta damaging their environment.

In February 1994, Ubani co-documented the prison experience of children and women in Nigerian prisons. However, this report didn’t see the light of the day as his house and office were raided by security agents, and the report was seized.

Luckily, the security goons whose primary order was to capture Ubani failed in their first raid. He went into hiding, but was arrested and imprisoned in 1995. Amnesty International declared him a political prisoner, and took up his case. In 1996, he was released. He travelled to Britain for medical treatment. On return to Nigeria, Ubani was actively involved in the transition program following the death of General Sani Abacha. But he was greatly disappointed when the transition yielded Olusegun Obasanjo as President in 1999. He criticized Obasanjo for running a corrupt government, and one that had no respect for human rights.

In July 2000, Ubani wrote his name into law books as his long campaign against in a decree that allowed state security agents to detain people indefinitely was abrogated. Ubani Chima was campaigner against extra-judicial killings by the Nigerian police, and the use of capital punishment.

Also, he was the Secretary-General of Democratic Alternative and in 2003, he became the Executive Director of Civil Liberties Organization. As Executive Director of CLO, he was part of a national coalition of Labour Movement and Civil Society that organized a nationwide protest against the hike in fuel price by Olusegun Obasanjo’s regime in 2005.

Eventfully, he died in an auto-crash along Maiduguri-Potiskum Road on his way back to Abuja after addressing a rally in Maiduguri with Adams Oshimole the then President of Nigeria Labour Congress.

Aside from the degree in Crop Science from UNN in 1988, Ubani Chima took an MA in Mass Communication at Leicester University in 2002. In spite of being so eminently qualified, he did not deploy his qualifications and competences to acquiring material things.

If Ubani Chima were to be alive, he would have galvanized the civil society to challenge the anomalies going on in Nigeria as governance, today. This docility among the civil society would not have persisted. Sadly when he died on September 21, 2005 at age 42, he left nothing for his wife, Ochuwa, and their four children.

The Lagos State Government in appreciation of his pro-democracy credentials gave the family a 3-bedroom apartment. Ubani Chima’s wife chose to live in dignity and not on hand-outs after he died. So, she decided to use the apartment as collateral to borrow money from a bank for her business.

Unfortunately, she was involved in an accident that kept her in the hospital for seven months. The accident coupled with the depreciation of naira made it difficult for her to repay the loan. Now, the bank wants to take over the apartment. So, Ubani Chima’s family as I write is at the verge of losing their shelter, one of the basic necessities of life.

And the traumatic loss of a father affected the health of the children. This has added to the burden being borne by the widow, Ochuwa. They need help! And they need it fast so that they don’t lose their home.

Monday, July 29, 2013

The Talk of True Federalism By Northern Nigeria Governors in Rivers State is a Classical Case of Wanting to Eat Omelet without Breaking an Egg

nkem360@googlemail.com




First, let me underscore the fact that the military-baked Nigerian Constitution guarantees every Nigerian the right to freedom of movement. Therefore, the four Northern Nigeria governors - Babangida Aliyu (Niger), Murtala Nyako (Adamawa), Sule Lamido (Jigawa), Rabiu Kwankwaso (Kano) -  who visited their colleague, Chibuike Amaechi `of Rivers State on July 16, 2013, in what a section of the Nigerian media termed “Solidarity Visit,” are entitled to the right of freedom of movement as enshrined in that Constitution. That these governors ran into a swarm of protesters at the Port Harcourt International Airport was unfortunate but was quite in character with politics in Nigeria, which is a “do-or-die affair” and, of course, played not to render service to the people, but for personal aggrandizement, mostly.

That said, I think it is imperative that one reminds Governors Aliyu, Nyako, Lamido and Kwankwaso that onye ulo ya n’agba oku anaghi achu oke, meaning that someone whose house is on fire should not be chasing rats. It is imperative that one reminds the four Northern governors that what is happening in Rivers State is of less importance compared to the security challenges in their region. While one is not proud of what happened in the Rivers State House of Assembly on July 13, 2013, particularly the savagery displayed by one of the legislators, (dis)Honourable Chidi Lloyd, it is quite laughable for these governors to have described the events in Rivers State as “threats to peace, security and democracy” as reported by the Nigerian media.\

Perhaps, apart from Governor Lamido of Jigawa State, innocent people have been blown sky-high in the respective domains of the other three governors. The worst of this disregard for the sanctity of human life was the bombing of five fully loaded luxury buses at a luxury bus station in Sabon Gari, Kano, on March 18, 2013, in which hundreds of innocent lives, mainly Igbo lives, were lost. I don’t remember any of these governors describing such a horrific act and similar acts of terror apparently perpetrated by the Islamic fundamentalists, Boko Haram, as “threats to peace, security and democracy” in Nigeria. Governor Kwankwaso even went missing when that attack happened and drew the ire of members of the upper arm of the Nigerian legislature. We have only witnessed a lull in the inhuman activities of the Islamic fundamentalist sect after President Goodluck Jonathan belatedly declared a state of emergency in the worst affected states of Borno, Yobe and Adamawa. It was belated possibly due to the opposition of the Northern “rulership”. Is it not strange that Governor Nyako was comfortable in being a party to the declaration of the events in Rivers State as threats to peace, security and democracy in Nigeria?

The governors did not only visit the Rivers State governor, but have also been reported to have visited former Nigerian military dictators, namely Retired Generals Olusegun Obasanjo, Ibrahim Babaginda and Abdulsalami Abubakar. These dictators have had their time in ruling Nigeria. And I do not think that the Nigerian people consider what they achieved during their time as good enough. Therefore, for anyone or group of people to dress these former dictators in oracular robes through such visits, projecting those people as repositories of the magic wand needed to provide enduring solution to the Nigerian problems, amounts to insulting the collective intelligence of the Nigerian people.

Even more ridiculous and quite insulting to the collective intelligence of the Nigerian people is what was contained in the statement the governors were reported to have distributed to journalists before departing Port-Harcourt. In the said statement, they were reported to have said that recent developments in Rivers State had brought to the fore the question of true federalism and the need for institutions to be allowed to perform without undue interference. They were reported to have expatiated that, “As federating units, we must be allowed the space to guarantee our people’s sustainable development as provided by the constitution.”

As I read Nigerian newspapers’ reports of the visit of the governors to Rivers State, I found the mention of “true federalism” by the Northern governors less than soothing. I wondered what manner of true federalism the governors were talking about. And the questions that readily came up were: Does it really make sense for anyone or group to talk about true federalism without throwing the military-baked Constitution now under contentious review into the Atlantic and getting the peoples of Nigeria to come together to discuss if they want to continue to live together and under what terms? Really, should anyone or group of people be talking about “true federalism” without the federating states/zones/regions controlling at least 50% of their resources and contributing the other part of their resources to the running of the centre? Would an arrangement where people control their resources and contribute partly to the running of the center not be a better guarantee for “sustainable development” than the current arrangement where some states/zones/regions are stifling the growth and development of other states/zones/regions?

Regrettably, these governors did not visit the former military dictators to discuss the fundamental issues plaguing Nigeria, notably an unjust structure and a fraudulent federalism. It is obvious to even goat and chicken that Nigeria’s structure is unjustly skewed in favour of the North. There are unjustifiable number of local governments, constituencies and states in the North than in the South. Must we continue to move this historical injustice to every phase of Nigeria’s march to nationhood? Of course, it is as clear as a piece of crystal that the so-called federalism Nigeria practices is as fraudulent as the scam letters that originate largely from jobless Nigerian youths to all parts of the globe. As being reported by the media in Nigeria now as I write (Tuesday July 23, 2013), these governors went to visit these former military dictators to see if the crack in the Peoples Democratic Party, especially in the PDP in Rivers State, could be filled. A section of the media reported they had gone to ask the former military dictators to prevent President Jonathan from truncating democracy in Nigeria. Others believe they had gone on these visits to explore ways of ensuring that power returns to the North and, possibly remains there forever, in accordance with the comments made by the Northern Elders Forum spokesperson, Professor Ango Abdullahi.

Like many other keen watchers of events in Nigeria, one believes that the refusal to address the fundamental issues noted above is not just the greatest threats to peace, security and democracy in Nigeria, which the governors claimed took them to Rivers State, but also the nails that will ultimately fasten the coffin of the Nigerian state before the latter is buried. Therefore, the call for true federalism by the four Northern governors who visited Rivers State on July 16, 2013, should not be taken seriously since that call and their visitation to the former military dictators were not predicated on the aforementioned fundamental issues plaguing Nigeria. If anything, the governors should just be seen as a group trying to eat omelet without breaking an egg. Factually, that call is as worthless as their trip to Rivers State where the pronouncement was made as there are more problems in their states/zones/regions than in Rivers State.

*This article first appeared on Nkem Ekeopara's Website

Saturday, July 20, 2013

Slippery Ceasefire with Boko Haram: Limits of Deceit

By Nkem Ekeopara

 

Glowing like a jobless Nigerian youth, who had just landed a job in an oil company, and exuding the confidence of an army general, who had secured a long sought victory for his country over his country’s arch enemy, Alhaji Taminu Turaki, Nigeria’s Minister of Special Duties and Chairman Presidential Committee on Dialogue and Peaceful Resolution of the Security Challenges in the North,  spoke to Aso Rock Press Corps on Wednesday July 10, 2013, on the ceasefire deal he said  the Nigerian government and the Islamic fundamentalist sect, Boko Haram, had reached. He had announced the deal with the Boko Haram on Radio France International Hausa service on Monday July 8 with someone he claimed was second-in-command to Boko Haram leader, Sheik Abubakar Shekau. But on Saturday July 13, 2013, Shekau not only flatly denied any knowledge of such a deal with Turaki and Turaki’s committee, but also supported the brutal killing of 30 innocent school children and a teacher at the Mamudo Secondary School, Yobe State, on Saturday July 6, 2013, and sanctioned all such acts. 

Shekau was very clear in his message spread by the mainstream and social media across the globe, when he said, “Let me assure you that we will not enter into any truce with these infidels. We will not enter into any truce with the Nigerian government. We believe in the massacre inflicted on the secondary school in Mamudo and Damaturu and other schools. We earlier warned that we were going to burn all schools. They are schools purposely built to fight Islam.” With this strong denial by Shekau that he neither knows Turaki nor the purported second-in-command that Turaki touted had the authority of Shekau to negotiate a truce with Turaki’s committee, the wind has blown, and everyone in Nigeria and around the globe can see the rump of the chicken.   

Even though Minister Turaki and his committee had since gone into damage control by trying to cast doubt on the authenticity of Shekau’s statement, I still insist that Nigerians and the people around the globe have seen the rump of the chicken after the wind blew. This is  because the effusive reaction of the minister when one of the journalists pointedly asked him if Shekau was involved in the ceasefire talks was unambiguous and was carried by the major TV networks in Nigeria with global reach. Everyone who monitored these networks heard Minister Turaki when he said, “When a minister speaks on behalf of the federal government, you wouldn’t say you must see the president or the vice president there. We’ve spoken with somebody who is second-in-command as far as Boko Haram is concerned, and he has informed the media that he has been discussing with us with full knowledge and authority of Imam Abubakar Shekau. So, we’ve no cause to doubt him. We’ve done checks on him just as they (the sect) have done checks on us also, and we’ve realised that yes, we’re dealing with the proper people and with the proper leadership of the organisation.”    

If Turaki were to be Japanese, he would be considering the honourable way out, perform hara-kiri. But this is Nigeria; Turaki, along with the members of his committee, will not even resign. And they probably won’t even apologise to the Nigerian people and the international community for that wholesome deceit. It is worrisome when one realizes that someone like Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, a former Director General of Nigeria Institute of International Affairs and Foreign Minister under Gen. Ibrahim Babangida’s dictatorship, is a member of this committee. The Nigerian people and the international community indeed have cause to worry. 

Now, a world that already holds the view that Nigeria is a home of all manner of scammers would be gloating about their rightness on this perspective of Nigeria. The critical questions that need to be asked in the face of this twist are: How relevant is this committee on the War on Terror, which Nigeria is clearly fighting? Should the Nigerian people and, indeed, the international community continue to trust this Turaki-led committee? What are the motives for this sort of wholesome deceit? Or are the Nigerian people and the international community going to accept the damage control by Turaki and his committee that is in the works already? 

Does this development answer the series of queries, which I posed in my last article, "Ceasefire With Already Degraded Boko Haram: Whose Interest Does It Serve?" and in previous articles on the Boko Haram scourge? Did Turaki and his committee dramatize what the Nigerian people call eye-service, the usual overzealousness of state officials to please at all cost any higher authority that delegates responsibility to them to execute? Could this be done in a matter as serious as the one the committee is handling? Was this done to justify the possible huge resources earmarked and expended for the work of the committee whose duration is 90 days? 

The Nigerian people and the international community have been through this rigmarole before. On January 28, 2013, one Sheikh Mohammed Abdulazeez, a self-proclaimed second-in-command to the Boko Haram known jihadist group leader, Abubakar Shekau, declared in Maiduguri their willingness to lay down their arms after a meeting with Borno State governor Kashim Shetima. Like the current scenario, this fellow said he had the authority of their leader, Shekau. However, a few days after his pronouncement, Shekau strongly denied the idea of laying down their arms just like he did on Saturday. And their attacks escalated until the declaration of the state of emergency. 

From the beginning, the whole thing smelt like what Mr. Ahmad Salkida called a scandal, in his description of the January incident related above. Mr. Salkida is reputed to be the only Nigerian journalist who had made contact with the Boko Haram leadership. Currently, he lives in Dubai, United Arab Emirate, having fled to Dubai after the January incident. Mr. Salkida said he fled Nigeria because, “After my most recent expose on the scandal going [on] in respect of purported ceasefire negotiated between government and Boko Haram, the danger to my life has escalated to new heights. I have had to go severely underground for several weeks leading to my decision to flee Nigeria.”  

On the current “ceasefire”, first, we read that the minister, Alhaji Turaki, said that Boko Haram had signed a ceasefire agreement with the Federal Government of Nigeria. The next day the papers now reported that the government and Boko Haram had reached a “ceasefire understanding” and, of course, the Nigerian military authorities’ dissociation of itself from any ceasefire agreement with the fundamentalist group. The strong denial by the Boko Haram leader, Shekau, puts paid to the ceasefire issue and, indeed, should justify the disbandment of that committee, whose time for the assignment in any case, ends in about 8 days time. Obviously, the issue of amnesty should never be broached again; not with the latest unrepentant tone of Shekau, which encapsulates Shekau’s mindset and, in fact, the mindset of Shekau’s brainwashed members. Really, there should be a limit to deceit by the government or anyone acting on its behalf.

*This article first appeared on Nkem Ekeopara Website

Sunday, July 14, 2013

Ceasefire With Already Degraded Boko Haram Whose Interest Does It Serve

nkem360@googlemail.com



On Monday July 8, 2013, the British interior ministry announced that the Islamic fundamentalist group Boko Haram operating in Northern Nigeria is to be banned in Britain under anti-terror laws with effect from Friday July 12, 2013. To be banned too is Minbar Ansar Deen, also known as Ansar al-Sharia UK. The ban, which many believe will receive the blessing of the British parliament, “will make membership of, and support for, these organisations a criminal offence” according to the ministry. Explaining the rationale behind this move, the ministry stated that “The government is determined to work with the international community to tackle terrorism and take the steps necessary to keep the UK public safe.” The action of the British government may not be unconnected with the brutal murder of a British soldier, Lee Rigby, on a London Street in May this year by two British Nigerians, Michael Adebolaji and Michael Adebowale.

Hours after the British interior ministry made the above announcement; the Federal Government of Nigeria announced that it had signed a ceasefire deal with Boko Haram. According to the Nigerian Vanguard newspapers, the ceasefire agreement announcement was made by Alhaji Tanimu Turaki on Radio France International Hausa service monitored in Kano that Monday afternoon. Alhaji Tanimu Turaki is the Minister of Special Duties and Chairman of the Presidential Committee on Dialogue and Peaceful Resolution of the security challenges in Northern Nigeria, commonly derisively referred to as Amnesty Committee by many Nigerians, who are outraged by the plan of the government of Dr. Goodluck Jonathan to reward these religious ideologues that have murdered thousands of innocent Nigerians with amnesty. Alhaji Turaki was to be reported the next day to have modified his statement that what his committee and the terrorist group had reached was an “understanding for ceasefire” largely for the sake of Ramandan, which was to begin the next day July 10, 2013. As cogent as the reason for the ceasefire is, one still wonders if the statement made in London and that of Alhaji Turaki’s, surprisingly made on Radio France International Hausa service instead of the BBC Hausa service that Nigerians are so accustomed to, were mere coincidences.

In any case, besides the latest British move, the United States had on June 20, 2013, labelled the acclaimed leader of Boko Haram, Imam Abubakar Shekau, and two of his partners in perpetration of horrendous acts against innocent Nigerians - Abubakar Adam Kambar and Khalid al-Barnawi as global terrorists thus giving the US the leverage it needs to hunt down these terrorists. And on June 3, 2013, the US raised the stakes by posting a reward of $7m (N1.1bn) to anyone that would provide information that would lead to the capture of the leader of the Boko Haram terrorist group, Imam Shekau. It is hard to tell though if the US has abandoned its initial resolve of slipping in strange excuses for Boko Haram insurgency while attacks by the group were accompanied by silence from Washington. Both Washington and London have been known in the past and in recent times to robustly advance the cause of the North, the birth place of the Islamic group. There are enough grounds to believe America may have been worried over Boko Haram not being content with appealing to locals for support but engaging in what amounted to sacrilege by openly calling on the Afghanistan Taliban for help. And London may not rule out a passageway between the so-called Underwear Bomber and the latest Nigerian British attackers of the British soldier to the fundamentalists in Nigeria. Be that as it may, it all indicated that the door was closing for Boko Haram.

Of course, everyone in Nigeria and beyond knows that the Nigerian ruler Dr. Jonathan on May 14, 2013, finally found the courage to declare a state of emergency in three states in North East Nigeria; notably Borno, Yobe and Adamawa. Although Dr. Jonathan’s critics, especially the members of opposition parties, do not see the impact of that action, the truth is that Boko Haram has been significantly degraded since then. The fact is that many of these opposition members deliberately refuse to accept a well understood phenomenon that it takes just one successful operation by terrorists to create doubts in the minds of citizens of any nation  fighting terrorism with regards to the effectiveness of the action(s) their government has taken to protect them. It took the successful Boston Marathon bombings allegedly carried out by the Chechen brothers, Tarmerlin and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev on April 15, 2013, to puncture the superb job the United States government had done in preventing terrorist attacks on in the US since the 11th day of September 2001. As it is commonly said, any government fighting terrorism has to be hundred percent successful all the time, while the terrorists just need to be successful once to create an impact.

Undoubtedly, the Nigerian security forces have inflicted a devastating blow on the Boko Haram terrorists. Therefore, it is pertinent that one asks, “Ceasefire with Already Degraded Boko Haram: Whose Interest Does It Serve?” It is important that this question be asked, knowing that Boko Haram is a spent force now. Therefore, the Nigerian people should not allow this government to take the wrong steps. 

One of the reactions which I found quite apt while reviewing the immediate reactions of some Nigerians interviewed by the Vanguard late evening of Monday 8 July, 2013 was a statement credited to Afenifere’s National Publicity Secretary, Mr Yinka Odumakin. Mr. Odumakin while offering his views to a Vanguard reporter on the development asked, “Is it a strategy to rule or what is it all about?” I found this statement quite appropriate in view of the fact that the previous day, Sunday July 7, 2013, the Governor of Niger State and Chairman Northern Governors Forum, Dr. Babangida Aliyu, had declared that the North would negotiate with those angling to become Nigeria’s president in 2015 in order to protect the interests of the North. Governor Aliyu stated this while inaugurating the office complex for federal workers in Enagi headquarters of Edati Local Government of his state. Hitherto, Governor Aliyu had spoken on the North’s quest for Nigeria’s presidency in 2015 in a manner that conveyed the impression that it was a core Northerner’s entitlement to become Nigeria’s president in 2015. He used the occasion to dispel that widely held impression.

Incidentally, in the early hours of the previous day, Saturday July 6, 2013, insurgents operating in the ruthless fashion of Boko Haram Islamic militants had stormed the Government Secondary School in the town of Mamudo, Yobe State, North East Nigeria and gruesomely murdered 30 innocent children and a teacher, with scores injured. I found it quite unsettling that Dr. Aliyu didn’t use that occasion to strongly condemn that inhuman act. Instead he found the occasion more auspicious to talk about the 2015 presidential election. It makes one wonder about what is actually important to Nigerian rulers. Is it the sanctity of human life or the quest for power? In bears reminding Nigerian rulers that the great Nelson Mandela once said that, “In countries where innocent people are dying, the leaders are following their blood rather than their brains.”

Not quite a few Nigerians believe that the upsurge of the activities of Boko Haram since Dr. Goodluck Jonathan was elected to rule Nigeria is a stratagem by some powerful core Northerners to make the country ungovernable for Jonathan. Such people point to the threatening statements made by some of these Northerners after the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) picked Dr. Jonathan to fly its flag in the 2011 presidential contest, as evidence of the Northerners’ complicity. Of course, the Northern leadership believes that poverty and not the above reason is responsible for terrorism in their region. However, the unvarnished truth is that Boko Haram members are a group of people who have declared on a number of occasions that they are fighting for the establishment of a Nigerian state based on the Sharia Law. Only a few occasions have they targeted Muslims. Their targets have always been Christians in churches on Easter and Christmas Day and, of course, a critical symbol of the Nigerian state, the security forces. The fact that Boko Haram never declared any truce during Easter and Christmas celebrations is a pointer to the fact that the principal targets are Christians and will always be.

But if one may ask; Which Boko Haram group has the government of Nigeria reached “ceasefire understanding” with? Does the government know how many splinter groups of the Congregation and People of Tradition for Proselytism and Jihad (Jamā'a Ahl al-sunnah li-da'wa wa al-jihād) widely known as Boko Haram that are in existence? At least, we know of one splinter group, Vanguard for the Protection of Muslims in Black Lands (Jamāʿatu Anṣāril Muslimīna fī Bilādis Sūdān), commonly called Ansaru. There could be several other splinter groups.

More importantly, whose interest is a ceasefire with a significantly degraded Boko Haram that unarmed kids who should be in school are now on the streets of Maiduguri trying to fish out going to serve?  Is it a strategy to rule or what is it all about as Mr. Odumakin penetratingly asked? Is it a way the North wants to use to get as much resources as what they think the Niger Delta region is getting? Is the ceasefire with a significantly degraded Boko Haram going to be used to blackmail the Jonathan government into allocation of huge resources to youth programmes or outright pay off to mass killers at the expense of Nigerian youth from other regions of Nigeria?  Is the ceasefire with a degraded Boko Haram going to serve some interests among the ruling class in Nigeria who are waiting in the wings for the dole outs to sustain their opulent lifestyle? Or is it a move to support Dr. Jonathan for a second term in 2015? So far, the Northern Elders Forum (NEF) through its spokesperson, Professor Ango Abdullahi had vociferously insisted that if Jonathan returns to power, Nigeria will breakup. Is this the point of the North’s willingness now to negotiate with any presidential aspirant for the 2015 election? How would a ceasefire with a significantly degraded Boko Haram serve the interest of the victims of Boko Haram’s years of murderous campaigns? 

Some people may point at the Taliban’s new move of trying to have direct talks with the United States by opening a political office in Doha, Qatar. Instructively, since June 18, 2013, when the Taliban opened that office and draped it with the flag of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan, not much progress has been made. Recently, that flag has been removed to address the concerns of Afghan President Hamid Karzai. Reuters of July 9, 2013 quoted diplomatic sources as saying that the move is “expected to be a difficult and unpredictable peace process”. And Taliban is not known to have a splinter group. Taliban were former rulers of Afghanistan. Even though the talk of negotiation is in the air, the Taliban continues to launch frequent and effective attacks on the Afghan army, the international military forces in Afghanistan and other targets of interest.

But this is not our case in Nigeria. Boko Haram has been significantly degraded. And Nigeria is not dealing with former rulers of Nigeria, who were ‘smoked’ out of office. Nigeria is dealing with a group that believes that Nigeria should become “Islamic Emirate of Nigeria” with them in charge. Nigeria is dealing with a group of demented ideologues who in the pursuit of their objective, massacred thousands of innocent Nigerians, maimed many more, displaced and destroyed the business enterprises of the victims.

On Tuesday July 9, 2013, a federal high court sitting in Nigeria’s capital, Abuja, sentenced four members of Boko Haram to life imprisonment for killing 19 people in separate bombing incidents in Suleja, Niger State, near Abuja, in 2011, as well as an explosion that took the lives of 3 policemen in Dakina Village, Bwuari, Abuja. This is the first time any member of the Islamic fundamentalist group was jailed. Many Nigerians are disappointed that these people responsible for abruptly terminating the lives of their fellow citizens would be kept in prison to be sustained by tax payers’ money instead of having them executed. In the United States, one of the surviving alleged Boston Marathon bombers, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, was arraigned in a federal court in Boston on July 10, 2013, for his suspected role in the Boston Marathon bombings on April 15, 2013. Dzhokhar, if convicted, will face the death penalty. If a terrorist who inflicted minimal damage on the American people could face death penalty why should terrorists in Nigeria, who have murdered thousands, have the luxury of life sentence? Is Nigeria more civilised than America? Knowing the way state pardon is granted to all manner of criminals in Nigeria, the possibility of these murderers being released after a few years in imprison is quite high. Is that the path Nigeria should take not to talk of granting them amnesty?

The blood of thousands of innocent Nigerians gruesomely murdered is crying for justice. That justice does not rest upon a ceasefire with Boko Haram, especially now that the Nigerian security forces have significantly cut down Boko Haram’s capacity to freely operate; now, that the United States actions and the UK move have made their invincibility extremely vulnerable. Therefore, what is required at the moment is that the Nigerian security forces be further encouraged to mop up the remnants of this group and for the Nigerian government to bring the captured to face justice like the four just sentenced for life.


*This article first appeared on  Nkem Ekeopara's website 

Sunday, July 07, 2013

Tambuwal Ought to Lead the Revolution He Advocates for Nigeria

nkem360@googlemail.com
Sunday, July 7, 2013




There is nowhere in the world were the English proverb "You can't eat your cake and have it” ought to become a jingle played every second in the public and private electronic media outlets than in Nigeria. This should be so to remind top ranking Nigerian officials of the utter folly inherent in some of their public statements even when they remain a key part of the Nigerian problematic system they duplicitously attack at their convenience.

Also, the quoted English proverb needs to be made into a jingle to be played every second in Nigeria. This should be done to remind the Nigerian populace of the presence of these politicians already bitten by the bug of rapaciousness, but now seemingly seeking for a way to embed themselves within the consciousness of the poverty-stricken Nigerian people to achieve an end. The average Nigerian official wants to have it both ways. And this is quite shameful.

Last week, the Nigerian media was awash with news that the Speaker of Nigeria’s House of Representatives, Hon. Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, described Nigeria as being ripe for a revolution. As it is expected of one living in this age where information is gotten at the touch of a keyboard, upon encountering a statement as weighty as a revolution, the first thing one did was to read the various reports of that news from several sources, and to try and locate the Speaker’s speech. This was necessary to get the kernel of the speech to know the context in which the word was uttered. Regrettably, the extensive efforts made to locate the speech before concluding this article on July 4, 2013 did not yield any result.

However, several of the sources did quote Hon. Tambuwal as having said that, “The most compelling reasons for revolution throughout the ages were injustice, crushing poverty, marginalisation, rampant corruption, lawlessness, joblessness, and general disaffection with the ruling elite. You will agree with me that these describe conditions in our nation now, to a very large degree.” He went on, stressing, “That these conditions exist is well known to all persons in authority but the results of these successive efforts have failed to yield the desired results. This therefore is the justification for the radical change from the present approach to a revolutionary one.”

Hon. Tambuwal spoke on Tuesday July 2, 2013 at the 2013 Distinguished Management Lecture of the Nigerian Institute of Management in Lagos, and was represented by Hon. Opeyemi Bamidele, Chairman, House Committee on Legislative Budget and Research. The lecture whose theme was “The role of the legislature on the economic, infrastructural and ethical revolution in Nigeria,” was reported to have been kick-started with a welcome speech by the President and Chairman of NIM, Chief Michael Olawale-Cole, in which Chief Olawale-Cole stated that more than ever before, Nigeria needed an urgent intellectual revolution to tackle the many leadership challenges besetting her.

As someone who closely monitored the political process in Nigeria from the time the so-called cabal held Nigeria hostage - because of the late Nigerian ruler Alhaji Musa Yar’Adua’s health condition - right through the general elections in 2011 and, as someone who did in fact write commentaries for www.usafricaonline.com at the critical junctures of that era, I do know that Tambuwal is one of the beneficiaries of a much better electoral process when compared to the electoral heist that was superintended by Olusegun Obasanjo’s regime in 2003 and 2007. But for the current Nigerian ruler Dr. Goodluck Jonathan’s mantra of “one man, one vote”, with Dr. Jonathan’s appointment of Professor Attahiru Jega as the Chairman of Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), and with Jonathan’s refusal to deploy security forces to stand guard while already written results were being declared, as was the case in 2003 and 2007 and, of course, the resolve of the voters to protect their votes, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Tambuwal’s present party, would have won more than the 260 seats it won in 2007 instead of 205 seats it won in 2011.

In other words, if conditions that attended the 2003 and 2007 had prevailed in 2011, the PDP would have won an overwhelming majority. Were that to have been the case, Tambuwal would never have become the Speaker of House of Representatives, knowing PDP’s antecedent of the party’s hierarchy being the ultimate decider of who occupies such seats. This is not to say that the PDP is the only party in Nigeria where the hierarchy undemocratically makes the choice of who occupies which office as we continue to see daily that in parties like Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), one man, Senator Ahmed Bola Tinubu, does that freely in his party.

The point one is trying to make is that Tambuwal became the Speaker of the House of Representatives due to the support of the opposition members of the House, largely members of the ACN, the South West-rooted party, who did not want the choice of the PDP hierarchy to prevail. Already, the PDP hierarchy had zoned that office to the South West and had actually chosen Mrs. Mulikat Adeola-Akande, who is currently the leader of the House of Representatives, as the person to occupy the position of the Speaker.

Now, one would have expected Tambuwal, on assumption of office, to have persuaded his colleagues to forgo the insane emolument they consume annually from the national budget. If he is the change agent he now implicitly wants us to believe, that’s what he ought to have done. If the House over which he presides had taken the lead, the Senate members would have had no option than to slash their own emolument. If Tambuwal and his colleagues had taken that initiative then, they would have escaped the scandalous revelation in 2012 by the Governor of Central Bank, Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, that the National Assembly of Nigeria consumes 25% of overhead cost of running the country. On September 20, 2012, The PUNCH even reported that each member of the House as at that time was being paid N27m per quarter as allowances, and the members wanted that sum to be increased to N35m per quarter.

Today, what the jobless Nigerian youths see is legislators returning to their constituencies and handing out motorcycles to the youths to enable the latter operate as cyclists on rural roads, since commercial motorcyclists are banned from operating in most cities. House members share just a little of the large chunk of the national wealth to these youths as though they’re doing the youths a favour, when such resources could be freed to set up cottage industries to absorb these army of unemployed people. Does one need to mention how this sort of action would stem the tide of rural urban migration, provide a less dangerous and more dignifying work to the youths as well as enhance the Nigerian manufacturing capacity? Does one need to say such actions would reduce the rising wave of crimes in Nigeria now, even though the flagrant demonstration of opulence in the Nigerian society lures some of the youths to crime?

If Tambuwal wanted to ‘radically’ change the way things are done in Nigeria, he would have capitalized on the pre-election utterances of many of the opposition members of the House, particularly those from the South West, and put the issue of the so-called fiscal federalism on the front burner. One is disappointed that these ACN members, 69 of them, have never mentioned something supposedly close to the heart of the “progressive” forces in the course of their legislative duties. It shows that the bag of the so-called progressives is filled with nothing but electoral gimmicks. Without doubt, it would have been more credible if Tambuwal was the person who initiated such a move. For anyone to be at one of the high positions and failed to do any of the above, which majority of the Nigerian people desire, makes one wonder what such a person considers to be more “revolutionary” than those? In my opinion, these are the sort of revolutionary legislative acts Tambuwal ought to have been executing or even making attempts to execute to profoundly impact the Nigerian state. My advice to Hon. Tambuwal and his likes is that the revolution they advocate should start with them. 
  

The article first appeared on www.nkemekeopara.com

Thursday, June 27, 2013

Again, Campbell and His Fallacies

nkem360@googlemail.com
Thursday, June 27, 2013



As usual, in each of his fallacies, John Campbell, former US Ambassador to Nigeria and currently the Ralph Bunche Senior Fellow for Africa Policy Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) in New York laid claim of being a friend of Nigeria as he strained himself to propound a one-sided, jaundiced and seemingly uninformed solution to the problem(s) of Nigeria, while foreclosing any alternative. First, Campbell should get it; he is not a friend of Nigeria, but a friend of his interests or the interests of those he represents.

In a telephone conversation with the Nigerian Guardian in Washington DC, which the newspaper reported in its June 24, 2013 edition, Campbell talked about the dangers facing Nigeria in 2015 on account of the socio-political situation in the North and advised that the “leaders at all levels in Nigeria should pre-occupy themselves with serious discussion on how to address the exclusion of the North from economic activities in the country”. Campbell talked about the alienation of the North. Anyone who reads the report critically will not fail to understand Campbell’s interest in the far North. He merely tagged along the Middle Belt and the Niger Delta problems to blur this interest.

Really, Campbell is not saying anything new. This is a rehash of his pre 2011 election comments, in which he claimed that Nigerians’ favoured candidate Ret. Maj. Gen. Mohammadu Buhari, a Northerner, was going to be rigged out by Goodluck Jonathan; in an election later acknowledged by even the US as the best ever held in Nigeria, and in which Buhari lost by about 10 million votes. The fact that certain expectations of the electorates have not been met by the winner does not obliterate Campbell’s bad call at the time. And it does not make the former tyrant, Buhari, a better alternative, not then, not now and not in future.

Where did Ambassador Campbell get this fiction that the far North has been alienated in Nigeria? Who alienated the core North from the scheme of things in Nigeria? Does Ambassador Campbell not know who dominated power in Nigeria for nearly four decades and used it to create more states, local government areas and carried out delineation exercises that gave them more electoral federal constituencies for their region? Just who? It’s the North! Does Campbell not know that Nigeria’s revenue accrual mainly from oil is shared between the federal, states and the local governments, and those regions that have more states and local governments receive more revenues than a region like the South East, which has the least number of states and local governments even when it has three oil producing states?  

Does Campbell not know that the number of the people joining the military, the police, the customs, immigration, national security and defence corps, ministries, departments and agencies (MDAs) etc. is determined on the basis of regions/zones with more states having more of their people getting into these institutions? Does Campbell not know that Northerners are major players in the oil industry in Nigeria? In Nigeria, oil business is the ultimate economic activity that guarantees one unearned enormous cash and influence. Why have Northerners who were literally invited by their brothers in power to come and help themselves with prime oil blocks failed to use their enormous wealth to create economic opportunities for those around them? Does Campbell think that Southerners who are involved in “economic activities” were empowered by the government?

When Campbell talks about “the huge number of illiterates in the North who know only a few verses in the Quran,” who is he blaming for that sort of situation? Does he not know that there are all kinds of policy decisions, most of them made by Nigerian rulers of Northern extraction, which give the Northern youth advantages over their Southern counterparts, in gaining admission into federal educational institutions at post primary and tertiary institutions? What the Americans call affirmative action that just received a big knock from the US Supreme Court on June 24, 2013, is practiced here for core Northerners. And this is done in a very ridiculous manner.

Recently, Nigeria’s Federal Ministry of Education released the cut-off marks for national common entrance examination for admission into the so-called unity secondary schools. Whereas students in the South East zone were required to score as high as 139 points in order to be admitted, students from the core Northern zones of North East and North West are to be admitted with scores as low as 12. Now, is it possible that a child who gets admitted into a school with a score of 12 will be able to compete with a child who gets admitted with a score of 139? How will the child with a score of 12 cope? Well, this is Nigeria! So, one way or the order, he/she will go through that level of education. And Nigerians still wonder about what went wrong with their educational system. That sort of advantage is also available to Northerners under various guises in admission to universities and other higher institutions and other federal establishments like the police force.

Dr. Campbell is a diplomat and scholar. He has immense access to resources, both human and financial. Therefore, he has the wherewithal to carry out a scientific study on any issue he so desires. I believe that the Nigerian Government will be willing to give him access to the data that he needs for such a study. So, I challenge Ambassador Campbell to conduct an unbiased scientific study on how much had been spent on developmental projects by the Federal Government of Nigeria in each region/zone and the budgetary allocation to each region/zone derived from an aggregation of what the states and local governments within each region/zone had received from the national purse over a given period. It is only when one has done this kind of study and drawn conclusions from it that one can talk intelligently and justifiably about exclusion of one section of Nigeria in economic activities. It is only when one has done this sort of study, generated the relevant data and analysed it that one can become a confident mouth piece of a section of Nigeria and claim the right to apportion blame on anyone for the differential development indices between Northern and Southern Nigeria. But why was this cry of exclusion not heard during the time the Northerners were in power?

Instructively, it is also reported that the Nigerian Ambassador to the US, Professor Ade Adefuye, offered a counterpoise to Campbell’s alienation charge by revealing the extra mile the Federal Government is going to address the problem of the North. Professor Adefuye  was reported to have spoken about a collaborative effort between Nigeria’s Embassy in the US and Corporate Council on Africa, that would translate into a summit on agriculture being held in the North, as well as  another summit on Information and Communication Technology (ICT) that would be held in the US in which Northerners and other Nigerians would be involved. The summit on agriculture is exclusively for the benefit of the North. Makes one wonder if the government of Nigeria and its agencies are now solely devoting all their efforts to the problems of the North? When will there be collaborative efforts to address graduate unemployment in Southern Nigeria, especially South East Nigeria that account for the highest number of unemployed graduates in Nigeria?

In my opinion, I believe that anyone who is serious about a workable solution to the Nigerian precarious situation should be looking at the country’s unjust structure that Nigerian rulers pass off as federalism and exploit to their advantage and those of their cronies. The truth is that Nigeria should not have been one country in the first place and indeed, should not be one country. Nigeria is one country today because it continues to serve the interest of its past and current rulers and their cronies and, of course, some external interests. In his book, Nigeria: Dancing on the Brink published in 2011, just before Nigeria’s general elections, Ambassador Campbell himself acknowledged that “Nigeria has stayed together for almost fifty years, despite a bloody civil war, because that is what the ogas wanted.” We all know that these “ogas on top” don’t care about the volume of blood of innocent Nigerians that has been used to sustain and continues to sustain this disparate amalgam. But must Nigeria continue to survive on the blood of its citizens?


For far too long, people have suggested the treatment of the symptoms instead of the disease. I think it’s about time those who claim that they are friends of Nigeria and claim to speak the truth about the Nigerian situation faced the truth and advised Nigerian rulers that the core issue of treating the disease can no longer be deferred. That deferment is dangerous. 

Friday, June 21, 2013

"Ojukwu Was Right On Confederacy In 1966 [1967]"

nkem360@googlemail.com



Of all the headlines competing for space and attention on the popular Vanguard online edition of June 12, 2013, the above caption attributed to Professor Francis Oluyemi Fagbohun, literally jumped at me. Really, it did! It had to, considering that Nigeria remains a place where truth is a scarce commodity, even among the intellectual class.

At the second edition of the National Public Discourse organised by CMC Connect in association with O’Ken ventures held at Muson Centre, Lagos, Professor Fagbohun who chaired the event was reported by Vanguard to have courageously said that “Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu was right when he called and fought for confederacy in 1966[1967] but people misunderstood him and branded him a rebel.” That’s forthrightness at its best!

Also, Professor Fagbohun unmistakably noted that the way things are going in the country presently shows that “we are returning to confederation” as he, along with other attendees dissected the theme of the discourse, “Local Government Authority: How Autonomous?”

The Vanguard headline in question took my mind back to the banner of Daily Times of Saturday, January 7, 1967, which loudly proclaimed that, THE BEST THING FOR NIGERIA IS A CONFIDERATION – says Ojukwu at a press conference; this was a banner that captured the kernel of the Aburi Accord.

It is a fact of Nigeria’s chequered history that 46 years ago, between 4th and 5th January, 1967, a very important meeting was held at Aburi, Ghana.  It is a fact of history that the meeting, which held under the auspices of the then Ghanaian Head State Lt. Gen. Joseph Arthur Ankrah, had in attendance delegates representing all regions of a country already awash with the blood of Easterners, especially the Igbo, and needing urgent and decisive steps to avert a descent into war and a predictable genocide. It is a fact of history that after two days of talks on various issues, which began with the adoption of a resolution denouncing the use of force in settling the crisis as suggested by the Military Governor of Eastern Nigeria Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, who represented Eastern Nigeria at the conference. On the Nigerian side were Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, titular Head of State, Col. Robert Adeyinka Adebayo, Military Governor of Western Nigeria, Lt. Col. David Akpode Ejoor, Military Governor of Mid-west Region, Lt. Col. Hassan Usman Katsina, Military Governor Northern Nigeria, Maj. Mobolagi Johnson, Military Administrator of Lagos State, Commodore Joseph Akinwale Wey, Commander of Nigerian Navy, Alhaji Kam Salem, Inspector General of Police, and Timothy Omo-Bare, Deputy Inspector General of Police. The military governors attended with their top aides.

Even though the Eastern Nigeria was under-represented, all the attendees signed the Accord.  It is a fact of history that Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, after signing the document, changed his mind afterwards and repudiated an Accord, seen by many keen watchers of the Nigerian situation at the time as the last opportunity to peacefully restore normalcy in the country. And, it is a fact of history that Gowon’s repudiation of the Accord and his unilateral creation of states, etc., led to the declaration of Biafra and the Nigeria-Biafra War, a genocidal war that cost more than 3.1 million Igbo lives.

Understandably, the Oxford-trained late Biafran leader Dim Ojukwu before the Aburi meeting, being at the receiving end, considering the atrocities committed the previous year against his people across Nigeria, especially in Northern Nigeria, must have spent a lot time reflecting deeply on the way out of the Nigerian crisis. The Eastern Nigeria government under Ojukwu’s leadership knew that it was only confederacy that would give them the leverage they needed to secure their people and embark on rapid developmental projects so as to absorb millions of Easterners who had been displaced from other parts of Nigeria. Although Ojukwu’s military colleagues wholeheartedly accepted the Aburi Accord as a panacea for arresting the prevailing situation, Gowon as stated earlier, on returning from Aburi, repudiated the Accord and resorted to the use of force. And he was supposed to be an officer and a gentleman.   

Today, Nigeria is still paying a high cost in loss of human lives, which unfortunately, include a preponderance of Igbo lives, for that foreign-guided decision of Yakubu Gowon’s. Nigeria is still paying a high cost in the form of underdevelopment that condemns Nigerians to bathing with the spittle of poverty even when their land is surrounded by an ocean of resources. Any wonder then fair-minded intellectuals like Professor Fagbohun would look back and bluntly utter those words that are definitely not good music to certain ears?
If truth be told, societies progress when among competing ideas, they choose the most progressive of the lot. This is even more so when such societies have the benefit of hindsight. If there is one individual whose ideas would have saved Nigeria from the cycles of bloodbath, that individual remains the late Biafran leader Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu. Those who went about or still go about with the impression that what happened in those bloody days was a duel “between one ambitious man and the rest of the country” or a duel “between one charismatic, visionary individual and a most uninspiring, short-sighted character” should take a critical look at Nigeria today and reflect on what has been Nigeria’s journey since the Aburi Accord was signed and repudiated. If such people are truthful, then, they will come to the same conclusion reached by Professor Fagbohun.  

Sure, Ojukwu was a charismatic and visionary leader and all these found expression in the leadership he provided for the young republic, Biafra, delivered into war; yet, under him, that republic achieved technological breakthroughs that a clay-footed giant, Nigeria, is unable to equal with enormous resources and in peace time.

Presently, hardly a week passes without one hearing calls for “True Federalism” or “Sovereign National Conference”. The calls for “True Federalism” are even quite unrealistic in a country where twelve states have already adopted state religion, Sharia, which denies non adherents of that religion certain freedoms guaranteed by the military-baked Nigerian Constitution. Come to think of it, was it not a federal arrangement Nigeria had at independence that could not survive more than five years?

As it stands today, and as forthrightly asserted by Professor Fogbohun, Ojukwu was right on confederacy in 1967. Forty six years ago, one man, Ojukwu, together with his people, saw a future for Nigeria. But a combination of Gowon’s short-sightedness and the selfish economic interests of Britain stifled the future. That future is still available for Nigeria. All that is needed is a gathering of Nigerian nationalities and the revisiting of the Aburi Accord. There is not much work required to be done on the document other than updating it by explicitly including a secession clause, the right of every confederating part to withdraw from the confederation when it feels that its interests can no longer be served by her remaining in the union.

Truly, Nigeria’s unity, if the divisive statements being made by various political interest groups in the country are anything to go by, remains “a British intention” as pointed out by the Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa. The earlier Nigerians stopped deceiving themselves, the better for every nationality in this British contraption.  


Friday, June 14, 2013

War, Biafra Genocide and the Missing Facts in that Soyinka Interview

nkem360@googlemail.com


1968 NAF Napalm air raid on Aba General Hospital


On May 18, 2013, the US-based online media outfit Sahara Reporters granted an interview to the Nobel laureate Professor Wole Soyinka. The interview was done a few days to the burial date of the late legendary writer, Professor Chinua Achebe, who passed on on March 21, 2013 in the US. Apparently, it was scheduled to provide Professor Soyinka an opportunity to offer his thoughts on the stature of Professor Achebe, recently reckoned by the US President Barack Obama as somebody who “shattered the conventions of literature”. Aside from Soyinka speaking on Achebe’s place in his calling, Soyinka also made statements on the late Biafran leader Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu and the Nigeria-Biafra War and, of course, the genocide visited on the Igbo people before and during that war under Yakubu Gowon’s watch.

Reaching a decision on the appropriate time to write this piece delayed the article from being written until now. One did not want one’s thoughts to divert attention from the literary duels which Professor Soyinka’s controversial interview provoked between some of the ‘successor writers’ on the social media. Having read views on the interview such as one adduced by Mr. Ikhide R. Ikheola, someone I have come to regard as a master of witticism, I did not feel any pressure in getting it out there, which would have necessitated at least a passing comment on Soyinka’s perception of who Achebe is. Besides, my hands were full at that time. So, why waste time on such words likened to what Igbo elders would say is water poured on a spherical grindstone when it comes to Professor Soyinka’s perception and the global perception of the departed Achebe and Achebe’s art?

Therefore, statements like, “Yes, there was only one word for it- genocide” and “The Igbo must remember, however, that they were not militarily prepared for that war. I told Ojukwu this...” came with words that deserve one’s attention. These statements deserve one’s attention because there are so many young people in the contraption called Nigeria who were not born before the Nigeria-Biafra War. Some of these young people have not taken time in the past to read books written by unbiased Nigerians and foreign authors about the war. However, with the internet and its social media component, these young people are now interested in reading about the war. Many of them are still not reading books about the war but rely on snippets they get on it through the social media to form their impression about the war. Therefore, it is incumbent on opinion moulders with the stature of Professor Wole Soyinka to inject the critical facts into their thoughts when they talk about the war.

To begin with, the decision to declare the former Eastern Region a sovereign state to be known and called the Republic of Biafra was not single-handedly made by Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu. The weighty decision to pick up arms to defend the declared republic, the only secure space Easterners had at the time, after being hounded out of other parts of Nigeria and still being hunted down across Nigeria, was not single-handedly made by Dim Ojukwu. Dim Odumegwu-Ojukwu did not make the decision for the uncritical-minded Yakubu Gowon to repudiate the landmark Aburi Accord and engage in other untoward acts that led to the war, including the unilateral creation of states and declaration of war against the young republic. Our young people need to know about the Aburi Accord. They need to know that at Aburi an all-embracing agreement was reached and signed by representatives of all the components of the crisis-ridden Nigeria to restore normalcy in the country, after Gowon failed to keep his word as Ojukwu bowed to persuasion and asked Easterners to go back to their former stations only to be cut down in a second wave of killings, all in a bid to stave off war. Yakubu Gowon quite dishonourably abandoned the all important Aburi agreement on the advice of his foreign masters and some ‘super’ permanent secretaries in Nigeria. The greatest burden Dim Ojukwu bore till his death was caving in to that persuasion and allowing his people who miraculously escaped the first wave of massacre to return to their stations only to be so gruesomely killed.
There are five possible reasons why this sort of reductionist mindset of blaming Dim Ojukwu for the war persists, in spite of the facts that abound. These are ignorance; deliberate attempts to malign the leaders of Eastern Nigeria made up of some of the best brains of their time; convenient amnesia; living in denial, and deliberate attempt to hide the real issues from our young people.

On ignorance, anyone with the basic knowledge of who the Easterners are, especially the Igbo people, knows that they are neither feudal nor monarchical and therefore not servile to the extent of one individual enjoying a central authority. Perhaps, nothing captures the essence of who they are than what the Igbo elders say: Otu onye adighi a bu nna mu oha/An individual can never be everyone. According to Professor Aluko, whom Soyinka also cites, Ojukwu had been asked by his Igbo people to choose between leading them or bowing out. It is well recorded how a student of University of Nigeria, Nsukka set himself ablaze over Ojukwu’s reluctance to secede. Ojukwu admitted that one of his greatest mistakes was delay in declaring Biafra. Everything paints a picture of what played out in the case of the declaration of Biafra and implicitly the decision to defend Biafran territorial integrity after Yakubu Gowon ordered his military to proceed to the next phase of the genocide through the attack at Gakem on July 6, 1967.

The fact remains that there were bodies, the Eastern Region Consultative Assembly and the Advisory Committee of Chiefs and Elders, representing all the peoples of Eastern Nigeria that mandated the then young military governor of Eastern Nigeria, Lt. Col. Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, to declare Eastern Nigeria a sovereign state, the Republic of Biafra. Our young people need to know this. They should be informed that the Ijaws, according to Chief Melford Okilo, would have sided with Biafra, if Ojukwu had requested for a referendum. But would Gowon let that kind of process take place when he had already repudiated the Aburi Accord and unilaterally restructured Nigeria into 12 states? The youth need to know that a 67-year-old Dr. Alvan Ikoku whose wisdom and erudition was widely known, was the chairman of the Eastern Nigeria Consultative Assembly.

If it is not ignorance that is responsible for the sort of mindset that fuels this ‘blame Ojukwu for the war,’ then, it is a clear case of deliberate attempt to malign the leaders of Eastern Nigeria, consisting of dogged nationalists who were in the forefront of the struggle to free Nigeria from British colonialism. There were world-class academics cum astute university administrators, prudent and meticulous civil servants, brilliant unionists and notable chiefs. People must understand that when they engage in ‘blame Ojukwu for the war’ reductionist approach to the genocidal war, they are maligning outstanding individuals like Dr. Alvan Ikoku, Dr. M. I. Okpara, Dr. Akanu Ibian, Chief M. T. Mbu, Chief Eyo Bassey Ndem, Chief Jereton Mariere, Dr. K. O. Dike, Professor Eni Njoku, Mr. N. U. Akpan, I. S. Kogbara etc. for a thoughtful decision they reached, having weighed the options - extermination or slavery.

We are dealing with those struck with convenient amnesia, remembering only what they choose to remember, a choice, which is quite prevalent in Nigeria. Of course, there are those living in denial, and others making deliberate attempts to hide the real issues from our young people. Anyone who is willing to talk about advising Dim Ojukwu against the war, and willing to talk about the genocide should have known the importance of bringing the Aburi Accord into that mix as well as mentioning the indifference of Yakubu Gowon’s government to the first and second phases of the genocide, especially in Northern Nigeria that left 50,000 Easterners mainly Igbo people dead. Bringing the Aburi Accord into that mix has become quite important particularly now there seems to be intensification of the calls for a Sovereign National Conference, for obvious reasons.

Perhaps, it is this reductionist approach that made Professor Soyinka to believe that the elimination of Dim Chukwuemeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu and Yakubu Gowon by the so-called Third Force scheme was the best way of solving the Nigerian crisis at the time rather than mobilizing for the implementation of the Aburi Accord. In a 4-part article written by Dr. M. O. Ene titled, ‘Who is the brain behind January 15?’ that was published on www.kwenu.com on January 15, 2007, Dr. Ene tried to probe and locate the proverbial route through which water entered the pipe of the pumpkin-leaf. Dr. Ene states thus, “From his own words and writings, on [one] can deduce that Soyinka was in the midst of pro-Awolowo and anti-Akintola forces in the ‘wild, wild West’ era and he was in Banjo-Ifeajuna Third Force scheme that tried to eliminate both Odumegwu-Ojukwu and Gowon.”
We should not forget that Pepper Clark, Wole Soyinka, Christopher Okigbo, Segun Awolowo, Victor Banjo and Emmanuel Ifeajuana were part of an Ibadan circle of young hot heads who were aggrieved by what was happening in Ibadan. This led Soyinka to occupy the Western Broadcasting Corporation in 1965, to prevent the airing of a speech by Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa. In effect, Soyinka’s action and the January 15, 1966 coup plot and the killing of Balewa weren’t unconnected.

In the same vein, Pepper Clark’s name comes up in discussions on the coup, as Clark it was who smuggled a helpless Ifeajuna out of Nigeria when the Lagos operation of the January 15, 1966 coup failed. To blame Ojukwu on whose laps this misconduct was thrown, and who was more cautious than the Soyinkas, who were playing ideological games, is quite puzzling.

Reading through Dr. Ene’s interrogatory piece one is left with the impression that there might have been a force or forces outside the military that consciously or unconsciously provided the poetic and militant spark that lit up the night of January 15, 1966. Young people need to explore this side of the war narration too to understand fully the events that led to the Biafra genocide.
Professor Soyinka in the past did acknowledge the inevitability of the war and did underscore the fact that what was going on was the implementation of, as he puts it on pages 21 to 22 of his book The Man Died “the doctrine of justifiable genocide”. In the same book, he expresses the fear that the situation may degenerate into “downright genocidal epidemic”. 

Now, if someone, due to his human instinct could be moved to write the above haunting expressions, pray, why should the leaders of the former Eastern Region and later Biafra, fold their arms and wait for their people to be murdered en mass without making any attempt to defend themselves in their own homeland?
In relating the story of one Ibo [Igbo] photographer, Emmanuel Ogbona [Ogbonna], who was brutally murdered and thrown into the bush around September 1966, after being abducted from his studio at Odo Ona, Ibadan, with his known killers not being brought to book, and contrasting this with the sentencing to death of one man and giving various terms of imprisonment to eight others in Sokoto for mistakenly murdering Ojibo Uche asleep, a little brother of Mr. Joseph Uche, an Igala, thinking he was Igbo, after raiding his home and not finding him, Professor Soyinka had no problem in reaching the right conclusion and stating that:

The juxtaposition of these two sample events, even without the reminder of its large-scale horror context, the most comprehensive, undiscriminating savaging of a people within memory on the black continent, destroys the hypocritical disclaimers of the regime. It states one simple truth: that at the very least the machinery of justice existed all through and after the Northern massacres and that lack of the prevention of their exercise was a deliberate, selective decision of Yakubu Gowon’s government (The Man Died , 24).
The questions that should agitate the mind of anyone reading this at this point is, why do people always find it convenient not to blame Yakubu Gowon for the war, seeing this kind of fact and Gowon’s disavowal of the Aburi Accord? Why are people in the habit of exonerating the thief by blaming the victim for not securing his door properly when it comes to the Nigeria-Biafra War, as Olayinka Sule would ask? As our Igbo elders say, it is only a tree that will be told that it is going to be cut down and it will remain where it is.
It is worth quoting Professor Soyinka’s The Man Died elaborately here to present the deepness of the scar Easterners, especially the Igbo people, bore and still bear, which made them to feel secure only in the East and believe in Aburi, the only instrument that could keep them in their region at least for a period of time. I am quoting Soyinka elaborately so that people, especially young people, can appreciate why our parents needn’t have to have loads of arsenal before deciding to defend their right and those of their offspring to exist. Professor Soyinka writes:

The following fact is therefore stated merely as a matter of record: in September/October 1966, another ATROCITIES did take place all over Nigeria including Lagos, the seat of Yakubu’s government. But where it really manifested in grand style was in the North. The ATROCITIES were so public even in the South (Lagos) that delegates to a Constitutional Conference which had been launched by Yakubu Gowon were physically man-handled by Gowon’s Army right in view of the House of Assembly buildings where these constitutional talks did take place. Man-hunts publicized by machine-gun stutters, took place around Ikoyi where Gowon lived, and the executions and torture games that went on in his official residence, Dodan Barracks, on civilians who were simply arrested on the public road- Ikorodu checkpoint was the favourite kidnap point- were common daylight occurrences known to Yakubu Gowon. As for the events in the North- let us simply sum it up and say that ATROCITIES did take place on a scale so vast and so thorough, and so well-organized that it was variously referred to as the Major Massacres (as distinct from the May rehearsals), genocide and sometimes only as disturbances and this gem is by Ukpabi Asika- a state of anomy! Yakubu Gowon himself went far enough to put it under the broad sphere of ATROCITIES in his appeal. The word itself, appeal, is significant. It tells much about Mr. Gowon (119-120).
The appeal Professor Soyinka is referring to here was a short unserious speech Gowon made to fellow Northerners in which Gowon never failed to mention that ‘God in his power has entrusted the responsibility of this great country of ours, Nigeria, to the hands of another Northerner...’             
In the interview referred to earlier, Professor Soyinka agreed that genocide was committed against the Igbo before the war. He said that genocide was committed on both sides during the war; he also said that the scale was more on the Nigerian side. I know that during the war, the Nigerian Air Force strafed markets in full session, sometimes killing up to 500 people in just one raid. I know that the Nigerian Air Force and their Egyptian collaborators strafed churches and schools that became refugee centres in Biafra. I know they flew so low and targeted homes; they bombed hungry refugees clogging main roads and moving wearily to the next town, which was yet to fall into the hands of the Nigerian forces. I know that the Nigerian Army summoned all males in Asaba and adjoining towns, and massacred them in cold blood.
I know that the Nigerian government used starvation as a weapon of war to send millions of children, women and the aged to a slow and pitiable death. I know that the Nigerian military shot down Red Cross and other relief airplanes bringing food and medicines to Biafran babies. And all these were directed at an ethnic group, the Igbo people.

Also, I know that the Biafran Air Force did successfully bomb power stations, petroleum product storage tanks and several Nigerian Air Force bases and took out some evil birds supplied by the then USSR, thus degrading their air capability for a while. I never knew the Biafran Air Force targeted any concentration of civilian populations. I never knew that the Biafran Army summoned all males in any town or group of towns and massacred them in cold blood.

According to the Encarta Dictionary, “genocide is the systematic killing of all the people from a national, ethnic, or religious group, or an attempt to do this.” Professor Soyinka records several incidents of genocide in his book, The Man Died, which took place under Yakubu Gowon’s watch. On page 23 of the book, Soyinka is of the opinion that those responsible for the genocide “must be named, denounced and forced to stand trial some day”.  

More than four decades after these acts of genocide were committed no one has been brought to book. I think it is about time Professor Wole Soyinka capped his life of activism by calling on the international community to try Yakubu Gowon and his cohorts for genocide. Certainly, bringing the long awaited justice to the victims of Biafra genocide would be more like it for a Nobel laureate than defending and celebrating a mass murderer. 

KNOCK, KNOCK

By issuing subpoenas to five Times journalists, the Trump administration reveals its first response to unwanted national security coverage: ...