Being a paper presented at the “National Conference on the
1999 Constitution” jointly organised by the Network for justice and the Vision
Trust Foundation, at the Arewa House, Kaduna from 11th –12th September, 1999.
I. Introduction : On
Restructuring The Superstructure
“Restructuring the Federation” is a term which has gained
wide currency in the nation’s political discourse, having been popularised
through its indiscriminate and lugubrious use by the most vocal sections of the
Nigerian elite. Like all popular concepts, it has hardly ever been clearly
defined and its nebulousness has been congenial to the slippery nature of its
proponents. “Restructuring” has come to represent, in reality an omnibus word
for all forms of adjustments, alterations and cosmetic manipulations aimed at
changing the formula on the basis of which economic resources and political
power are shared or distributed among the Nigerian elite. Each section
traditionally defends the area of its comparative advantage at any given time,
standing by the status quo when it serves its purposes and asking for
“restructuring” when it does not.
Let me illustrate these introductory remarks by sharing with
the audience a recent experience I had in Lagos. It will be recalled that
before the elections which brought Obasanjo to power, the Alliance for
Democracy and Afenifere had made strident calls for “restructuring” the
Nigerian Armed Forces. They were of course very unclear about what exactly was
meant by “restructuring”. Initially, it sounded like they wanted regional
armies. Subsequently, leaders of Afenifere denied this and insisted they wanted
regional commands. Reminded that the nation had commands in Kaduna, Jos, Enugu,
Ibadan and Lagos, they said the commands should be manned and headed by
“indigenes” while denying that this was the same as a call for a regional army.
Now, a day after Gen. Obasanjo announced his top military
appointments I was at a small get-together in Lagos. As I sat there quietly
listening to groups conversing, my attention came to and settled on a
particularly excited Yoruba friend who was briefing his audience on the
military postings which he said amounted to a “complete restructuring of the
Armed Forces. Kosi Aausa kpata kpata.” In this friend’s view, Obasanjo had
restructured the Armed Forces by not appointing “Aausa” to the top commands. In
actual fact Obasanjo has restructured nothing. He has merely reallocated
offices (and the spoils of those offices like contracts and licences) to his
own preferred sections of the elite. Those complaining now are sections which
have now been eclipsed through what they see as prestidigitation.
I recall this experience because it is instructive and
illuminating. It dramatises the reality that restructuring is primarily about
providing a constitutional frame-work, a formula for sharing the spoils of
power. It is about ensuring that the spoils of office do not go to Mohammed,
Abubakar, Musa and Umar but to Mohammed, Obafemi, Chukwuma, Ishaya and
Ekpeyong.
This notwithstanding, it is a subject that must be
discussed. It is true that conferences cannot on their own ever solve the
fundamental problems of nation-building and national unity. It is also true
that those currently championing for a conference and some paper restructuring
of the superstructure know this. But it is also true that this nation has the
misfortune of having produced an elite whose selfishness and greed know no
bounds. Unless they are able to agree on how to accommodate each other they are
willing to tear this country apart and lead us into a meaningless war.
But there is a second, perhaps more fundamental reason, for
discussing the structure of the federation. It is the reality that the elite
merely exploit or manipulate the secondary contradictions in our polity. They
neither created nor concocted them. The contradictions are in themselves a historical
reality. We are all Nigerians. But we are also Fulbe, Yoruba, Igbo, Kanuri,
Efik, etc. as well as Muslims, Christians, animists, etc. The historical
process which brought together these heterogeneous groups was never destined to
achieve a magical and immediate erosion of their histories and a total
submersion of their individual identities into a common national milieu.
Several facets of counterposing cultures and beliefs were always bound to be
incompatible, if not irreconcilable. Many of the groups forming the new nation
would jealously guard what they considered to be essential aspects of their
primary identity. The task of
nation-building does not lie in ignoring these differences, as the military
have tried to do. Unity is not necessarily synonymous with uniformity. But it
also does not lie in a defeatist attitude of despair, or a return to a nihilist
era of ethnic agendas and tribal warfare. It lies, instead, in an intelligent
appreciation of the complexity of the problem, a capitalisation on areas of
core concurrence, a sober reflection on areas of distinction and a partial
liberalisation of constituent parts all within the context of a sincere and
total commitment to our corporate existence as a unity.
When we blame our elite for ethnic chauvinism and religious
intolerance, therefore, we blame them, not for the caducity, but for the
endurance of these reactionary ideologies.
The tragedy of Nigeria does not lie in its diversity, nor in its
population, nor in its resources. Our tragedy lies in the lack of a truly
nationalist and visionary leadership, an elite that harnesses the diverse
streams that flow into the melting pot called Nigeria. The loudest proponents
of a conference today are those sections of the elite who are incapable of imagining
a nation that is greater than their tribes, who take pride in being leaders of
their own primary nationality, and who have long ago given up all hope of
acquiring the positive attitudes of broad-mindedness and sincerity without
which broad-based acceptance is impossible. I doubt that the present crop of
leaders has what it takes to address these questions fully and honestly.
Nevertheless, I will try to the best of my ability to share with you some of my
views on restructuring the federation.
II. Restructuring the Federation: A historical perspective.
The term "restructuring" presupposes the existence
of a "structure", which we can reasonably understand to mean a set
format defining the corporate entity in terms of two principal elements:
1) the delineation of its individual parts and 2) the nature
and limits of their interconnectivity.
Most of the discussion on "restructuring” has focussed
on the second of these elements, and even then in an oblique and reactionary
manner. In the first Republic there clearly were divergent views among leaders
of the various regions on precisely how the different power-centres in the
country were to be positioned or balanced. It seems, in the main, that northern
politicians preferred very strong regional capitals and a relatively weak
centre, a view that is consistent with what is currently bandied around as
"loose Federation". To indicate this, the Northern Premier, Sir
Ahmadu Bello, having won national elections, chose to remain in Kaduna as
Premier while letting his deputy head the Federal Government as Prime Minister.
Ahmadu Bello and his NPC were then labelled "feudalists" and
"reactionaries" whose nationalist and patriotic credentials were
questionable.
Southern politicians, on the other hand, (who were considered"
progressive") were in the main, in support of a strong Federal Centre and
faster national integration. Chief Awolowo and Dr Azikiwe both left the regions
for Lagos, allowing more junior officers in their respective parties'
hierarchies to run regional affairs as premiers in Ibadan and Enugu. They thus
indicated the direction in which they felt power should gravitate: to the
centre.
Contemporary wisdom now tends to suggest that this
difference in position had nothing to do with Ahmadu Bello being "reactionary"
or Chief Awolowo and Dr Azikiwe being "progressive". Otherwise we
should be constrained to label the Alliance for Democracy which is now
canvassing for the same position held by Sardauna as a reactionary and
retrogressive element in Nigerian politics, a label that will most certainly be
met with an attitude of complete repudiation and considered a slanderous
affront to the country's "most progressive nationality". It reflected, it is now said, the perception
of leaders on where the advantages lay for the elite of their respective
regions in the political equation.
The north was the largest region, in terms of size,
population and economic resources. Unfortunately it lagged behind in terms of
infrastructure and, most important, qualified manpower. The interest of the
Northern elite therefore lay in a closed region, which afforded the north the
opportunity of deploying its resources to the rapid development of its own
manpower, and infrastructure - in other words exploit its areas of strength for
purposes of addressing its areas of weakness ( and thus play "
catch-up".)
For the South, on the other hand, the converse was true.
Rich in qualified personnel, the regional set-up was a constraining factor for
the elite. The Igbos in particular ( and to a much greater extent than the
Yoruba) had neither the natural economic resources to exploit nor the history
of political and social organization which tends to blunt the edges of poverty
and create a form of social contract between the individual and the society
that facilitates provision for the welfare of the deprived.
It is, therefore, not surprising that the Igbo were the
prime movers of the first successful military mutiny which eliminated the
political leaders and senior officers of the North and West while letting-off
those of the East. It is also not surprising that the transformation of the
polity from a Federation to a Unitary State was the handiwork of an Igbo
leader, Gen. Ironsi by military decree (Decree No 34 of May, 1966). These
developments were viewed with fear and suspicion by the North as an attempt by
a predatory Southern elite to gain control of all aspects of national life and
thus marginalise the Northern elite. Decree No.34 and a leaked document called
Cabinet Paper No.10, represented the articulation of this attempt at
"restructuring" the Federation in a manner unacceptable to the North.
The consequences of these policies which were seen as part
of the effort to complete what had been started by Operation Damisa on 15th
January, 1966 by implementing, at later stages, Operation Kura, Operation Zaki
and Operation Giwa which would allegedly culminate in the murder of northern
emirs and top civil servants led to the pre-emptive counter-coup of 29th July,
1966 and the civil war. The rest is now history. The point, however, is that
Ironsi's political programme, as far as the structure of the Federation was
concerned, seems to have met with the approval of the political leadership of
the South. For this reason, the South supported the military and saw in the
government an opportunity for progress. The north, on the other hand, led the
protests against military government insisting that the government was illegal
and that a referendum was required before the Unitary system could claim legitimacy. Riots occurred in
Kano, Kaduna, Zaria, Katsina, Jos, and Bukuru. This point becomes clear to the
student of history on going through Peter Pan's column in the Daily Times of 26
April, 1966. The editorial stated that in the South, most people regarded army
rule as the beginning of a brighter future. In the North, however, political
thinking had not faded and there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction.
Many northerners would like to claim that this was evidence
of the democratic credentials of northern politicians. Unfortunately, this is
not so. In 1966, Northern society stood for democracy, organized riots and
fought against a military dictatorship it did not control and which seemed to
encroach on the privileges of its elite. This elite, (including Emirs), was in
the vanguard of protests against the abolition of regions and the
“restructuring” of the Federation in the manner pursued by Ironsi.
Thirty years later, by 1996, the Southern elite became the
vanguard for a democratic society, rioting and demanding for a restructured
federation, for a return to the first Republic and that mythical epoch where
the regions developed in what is now called "healthy rivalry". All of
this against a Military Dictatorship seemingly dominated by the North. Meanwhile, the northern political class was
the main accomplice of these latter day dictators.
In 1966, the security services ransacked and searched the
houses of prominent northern politicians-among them Inuwa Wada and Ibrahim Musa
Gashash (NPC) and Aminu Kano and Abubakar Zukogi (NEPU). These were political
opponents who had found a common denominator in their "northernness"
when faced with a strong Federal Government dominated by non-northerners. We
may consider these leaders of NADECO of 1966. In much the same way, the radical
and reactionary wings of the Yoruba political class have recently managed to
find common ground under the tribal umbrella of Afenifere when faced by a
northern-dominated military government.
The point, therefore, made by conventional wisdom is that
neither northerners nor southerners have a monopoly of love for democracy or
progress and the call for "restructuring" is usually a clarion call
raised by the section of the elite which feels disadvantaged in the status quo.
The elite in different parts of the country, like chameleons, change their
colour and their ideology when it suits them.
It is my considered view, however, that conventional wisdom
misses the point. We may conclude from the above analysis that the Nigerian
political elite in the main, lacks consistency and that no section can claim to
have monopoly of principles. The recent political acrobatics of the AD, and
their seeming mollification once Bola Ige and the two First Daughters (Miss
Awolowo and Miss Adesanya) landed plum jobs is sufficient evidence of this. But
this inconsistency must not be confused
with the particular views held at various times in themselves.
The truth is that irrespective of the motives which drove
Chief Awolowo and Dr. Azikiwe to hold strong nationalist views, their position
was indeed progressive. Similarly, irrespective of the motives that drove
Ahmadu Bello and the NPC to emphasize the differences between our peoples and
resist the progress towards integration, those views in as far as
nation-building is concerned, were reactionary. The fact that Afenifere and AD
are today championing the views of the Sardauna should not lead us down the
path of historical revisionism. Ethnic and Religious chauvinism, in all epochs,
are reactionary doctrines. Nationalism and the quest for an egalitarian society
are progressive doctrines. Zik and Awo were in this case, progressives. This is
not to say that they were not leaders of their tribes. But they had a vision of
a Nigeria that was greater than their regions. Unlike the Sardauna, neither Awo
nor Zik could have even contemplated being a Premier rather than Prime
Minister. Those championing for restructuring the Federation, restructuring the
Armed Forces, tribalization of the political process, zoning of the presidency,
etc, even if they claim to be Awo’s successors, have not kept faith with his
nationalist ideology, and are therefore, ideological successors of the northern
feudal establishment whom they so much detest. It is against this background
that my recommendations in this paper are to be viewed. I do not believe that
either Chief Awolowo or Dr Azikiwe ever wanted a Unitary State of the type
started by Ironsi and which we seem to have had up to Obasanjo I and still have
under Obasanjo II (with the President still talking about UPE and environmental
sanitation).
What they wanted was a federation, but not quite the “loose”
federation being canvassed today by Afenifere and AD. They both wanted
retention of exclusive jurisdiction for states/regions in their areas of
primary competence: Health, Agriculture and Social Welfare, for example.
However, they knew that a strong Federal Government was indispensable to national
unity and integration. True, it would
also serve as a vehicle for the emergence of the South as the dominant
political power. What we need, as a nation, is to develop this Federation of
their dreams, but stripped of the desire by a section of the elite to dominate
others.
But to develop this argument step by step, we should start
at the beginning, with the “structure” of Nigeria in the First Republic, and
which we all seem to be looking back to with misguided nostalgia, in spite of
the tragic end of that structure.
III The “ Loose” Federation: Between Myth and Reality
In the last section, I defined the structure, for our
purposes, in terms of two principal elements:
1. The delineation of individual parts and
2. The nature and limits of their interconnectivity.
We can therefore say, that the “structure” of Nigeria, in
1966 was as follows:
a) A country made up of four regions. One of them, the
North, was a virtual monolith, bigger, geographically, than the other three
combined and larger in terms of population, resources and income than any other
region.
b) A legal system which conferred all residual legislative
powers on the regions, subject only to the paramountcy to the Federal Law in
case of any conflict of interest with regional law. Federal government had
exclusive competence in a very restricted list of subjects of a fiscal or
semi-technical nature. The only politically sensitive areas among these were Defence, Emergency Powers
over regions and Foreign Relations. All other areas were either exclusively
regional, or on the Concurrent list.
What we propose to do is to critically review the strengths
and weaknesses of this “structure”, to guide us in our discussion of
restructuring the Federation. To facilitate analysis, it is broken into one of
“objective” and “subjective” variables. The first deals with material issues,
removed from secondary contradictions. The second deals with the complex
interplay of ethnic and religious identities.
Objective Variables
First, the Federating
units.
1. We note that one of the major strengths of the structure
of Nigeria in 1966 was that it was made up of economically viable and
self-sufficient Federating units. It is indeed true, as later developments
showed, that each unit could even be broken into sub-units and with each
remaining viable. However, this process which, in my opinion, should have
stopped with the creation of 12 states by Gowon, continued in a ridiculous fashion until we find ourselves
today with 36 glorified latifundia called states and a Federal Capital
Territory. Each state has a bloated civil service, a governor and his deputy,
commissioners, state assembly, Judiciary, etc, such that its total revenue is
insufficient for prompt payment of salaries and the states have to run to the
Federal Government or to banks for
assistance or loans.
As my own bank’s Credit Risk Manager, the moment a borrowing
company is not doing the business it was set up to do, and needs an overdraft
to pay salaries, I know that that company is bankrupt and it is time to appoint
a receiver for its liquidation. I do not
know how long it will take for our politicians to face this reality and
abolish many of these small-holdings and fiefs by reconsolidating them into
viable entities. This is what I meant at the beginning of the last section when
I said no one seems to be paying attention to the first component of structure,
i.e. the Federating Units themselves. The sine qua non for any viable
“restructuring” is a viable “structure” which is , by definition, impossible if
its constituent parts are not themselves viable.
2. A second objective factor in the structure of the First
Republic which is, this time, a draw-back, was the lack of equity in the
delineation of its constituent parts. The North was too large compared to the
other regions and it was, in reality as well as perception, preponderant and
overbearing. By his refusal to go down to Lagos and his decision to send Tafawa
Balewa to be Prime Minister, the Federal Government itself seemed subject to
dictation from Ahmadu Bello in Kaduna. Northern politicians staunchly deny that
the Sardauna controlled Federal Policy from his Northern base. It is however,
difficult to believe this fully, especially in view of certain instances of
bias.
As an example, Mid-Western Region was carved out of both the
Western and Eastern regions in 1965 ostensibly to fulfill the desire of the
minorities for self government and free them from marginalisation from the
dominant Yoruba and Igbo. However, despite the very large area covered by the
North and in spite of tensions and perennial crises led by the United
Middle-Belt Congress and the Borno Youth Movement, neither the middle-belt nor
old Bornu was able to obtain autonomy from subjugation to the old Sokoto
Caliphate. The Tiv riots were brutally suppressed and Sardauna, officially a
leader of
the whole North, carried on for all intents and purposes as
the inheritor of the mantle of Uthman Danfodio with little regard for the
sensitivities of citizens of those areas like Bornu and to a larger extent, the
Middle Belt which were never conquered by his ancestors and their Fulani
protegees. The West and East can therefore be forgiven for taking all arguments
proffered for creation of the Mid-West with a pinch of salt given that the same
objective conditions obtained in the North, and no similar action was taken.
A second example is the crisis in the Western region which
created a fertile environment for the Nzeogwu-led intervention. Irrespective of
what the facts of the case were, the position, as far as the Action Group was
concerned, is that elections were being consistently rigged in favour of allies
of the dominant North. There was also the wide perception, perhaps unfounded,
that the Federal Government was unable to take decisive actions and remedial
steps because the Premier in Kaduna had not yet firmed up on a decision to dump
his ally, Akintola, as a sacrificial lamb for bringing peace to the region.
The lesson in all of this is that the Federating Units must
be such as not to give any one unit or group of units, dominance over others.
It is my opinion that this condition can only be fulfilled with a strong
Federal Government. In a “loose” Federation, with a weak centre, the various
units forming a historical block will just as soon conglomerate into something
similar to what obtained in 1966 and negate the very purpose of their
delineation.
We therefore take with us from the discussion so far the
following points:
1. That the first point of departure in restructuring
Nigeria is the reconsolidation of its balkanized constituent parts into
individual entities that are economically viable and amenable to smooth
administration. Only such units would be able to carry out functions assigned
to them.
2. That these entities must be balanced and none of them
should be able to dominate or destabilize others, or make possible the unjust
oppression of ethnic and religious minorities. This condition is best fulfilled
where the monopoly of instruments of repression is in the hands of a
broad-based and representative federal government.
This, in turn, immediately leads to a number of other
issues. First, the creation of states based primarily (or solely)on the desire
to achieve ethnic or religious homogeneity only serves to provide a platform
for effective domination of ethnic and religious minorities by more populous
groups. There is no doubt that, especially with large groups, some states will
turn out to be ethnically or religiously homogeneous e.g. Yoruba in the
south-west, Muslim in the far north, Igbo in the south-east, Christian in the
south-south, e.t.c. However, this should not be the primary objective and the
tendency of “like” states to come together as a group perpetuates the sense
that we are not one nation but a collection of tribes. I would strongly advise
outlawing tribal and sectional groups with overt political agendas such as
Northern Elders' Forum, Afenifere and Ohaneze. These are dubious organizations
that have only served to breed tension and disharmony in the country.
A second issue that comes up is the recent decision by the
Federal government to support amendments to the constitution aimed at allowing
states set up their own police force. No doubt this reflects general
dissatisfaction with a corrupt and incompetent Federal Force. The decision is
however precipitate. Historical ex perience with the N.A. police in the north
for instance, was that the police was a mere extension of the palace, often the instrument for harassing radical
elements. A police force funded by a
state, manned and controlled by indigenes, can never protect the interest of
ethnic, religious and ideological minorities. What do we expect a Yoruba police force to do if Oodua Peoples’
Congress area boys decide to attack the Hausa or Ijaw community? What will a
Hausa, Muslim police force do if Kano urchins
decide to attack Christians?
It is clear to me that the relations between various ethnic
and religious groups contributed, as much as ( if not more than) objective
defects to the collapse of the First
Republic. In 1999, the country is faced with the same generic problems although
they clearly vary in concrete and specific
historical form. These problems, which the nation has to address as an
integral part of any restructuring are the subject of the next sub-section.
Subjective Variables
The former civilian governor of Kaduna State, Alhaji
Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa, in a recent Newspaper interview, declared that the
Northern Bourgeoisie and the Yoruba Bourgeoisie were Nigeria’s principal
problem. Of the two, he said the Yoruba Bourgeoisie are an even greater problem
because of their tribalism and selfishness.
I will take this as my basis for my analysis of subjective
factors. Let us begin by stating that
the bane of the Nigerian elite can be condensed into three elements:-
1. Ethnic chauvinism and Religious Intolerance;
2. Selfishness and the inordinate desire for dominating
others, and
3. Short-sightedness.
As we prepare for the possibility of a national conference,
I believe four issues will remain central to the success or otherwise of
whatever Federal Structure comes up. I also agree with Balarabe Musa that the
Northern bourgeoisie and the Yoruba bourgeoisie
hold the key to these issues and the manner in which they are handled
will to a large extent determine progress made towards our ideal structure.
These issues are:-
i. The Sharia and religious intolerance in the North;
ii. The Yoruba elite and area-boy politics;
iii. Igbo marginalisation and the responsible limits of
retribution; and
iv. The Niger-Delta and the need for justice.
i. The Sharia and religious intolerance in the North
The Islamic faith has never accepted the dichotomy between
Religion and Politics. Political life for a Muslim is guided by Sharia and in
all those aspects of law where an explicit religious injunction exists, a
Muslim expects this to be held as valid above any other law. Fortunately, most
of the areas of conflict between Islamic Law and Secular Law have to do with
the law of personal states (including inheritance), some aspects of contract,
and criminal law, especially as it pertains to capital punishment. If muslims
wish to have these laws applied on them, and promulgated by their elected representatives,
there is no reason why this should pose a problem. There is likely to be a
problem however, with punishment for certain civil and criminal offences such
as libel, theft and adultery if a non-Muslim is involved. My own feeling is
that anyone living in a state should acquaint himself with the operative law in
that State before committing a crime. We are all subject to that when we go to
other countries. Indeed, the law we have in Nigeria is made for us and we are
subject to it. This is one major area that needs to be talked about at any
conference and this explains why the Sharia issue always comes up in
constitutional conferences. To ask Muslims to abandon Sharia in the name of a
Secular Nigeria is to give them an unjust choice. The matter is not one of
being either Muslim or Nigerian when they can be both Muslim and Nigerian. The
attempt to turn Nigeria into a Secular State seeks the erosion of Muslim
identity and history. This will continue to be a source of conflict as Muslims
will always resist it, with justification. Nigeria is a multi-religious state
which should, however, ensure that no religion is given preference over others.
While the insistence of Muslim North on Sharia is thus
understandable, it however, seems that all too often, the northern bourgeoisie
ignores a number of key points. First, the Sharia as far as the government is
concerned, is not just about the courts and sanctions. It is primarily about
providing the people with the best material and spiritual conditions the resources
of state can provide. It is about honestly managing their resources, about
giving them services in education, health, agriculture, etc. It is all well to
ban the sale of alcohol, but this does not take the place of, or have priority
over, meeting the material needs of the people. Our elite use the Sharia debate
to divert attention from their own corruption, nepotism, abuse of office and
un-Islamic conduct.
The second point, which the Muslim elite ignores, is the
dividing line between commitment to Sharia and encroachment on the religious
rights and dignity of others.
I will give a few examples:-
Very recently, the Katsina State Government tried to pass
Bills banning the sale of alcohol and the operation of whore-houses in the
metropolis. As a consequence of this move (and, it is said, failure of the
House to approve the Bill), irate Muslim youth, shouting Allahu Akbar decided
to burn not just beer parlours, hotels and whorehouses, but also Christian
churches.
Now, the Qur’an (Hajj. (ch. 22): 40) specifically forbids
tearing down monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques. Yet the leaders of
Muslims have not come out strongly enough to condemn this violation of the
rights of Christians, nor considered the implications of Christians in turn
burning mosques in retaliation. It is also worthy of note, that christian
morality does not approve of alcoholism and prostitution.
A second example is the recent furore over Obasanjo’s
appointment of northern Christians into his cabinet. I have elsewhere made my
views on this known although several people have branded me, and others like
Col. Umar, anti-Islamic or anti-north for not joining this hypocritical farce
In failing to rise above bigotry and chauvinism, northern
Muslims act against injunctions of their faith. The Qur’an expressly preaches
freedom of religion [see, for example: Al-Baqarah (ch.2): 256; Yunus (ch.10):
108; Hud (ch.11): 121-122; Kahf(ch18):29;
andAl-Ghashiyah (ch.88) :21-24]
It is also pertinent for those who criticize us to recall
that Allah specifically instructed that trust and leadership should be given
only to those worthy of them and to judge between men with justice (Al-Nisa
(ch.4): 58). Also, if anyone believes that false witness should be given for or
against a man simply because he is a Muslim or Non-Muslim, he should read
[Al-Nisa (ch4): 135; also 105and Al-Ma’idah ((ch.5): 6]. Finally for those who
object to our inviting good muslims and good christians to come together and
give the poor people of this country the good government preached by both
faiths, please read [Al-Imran (ch3): 64] which provides a basis for coming
together on common ground.
I do not mean by this that only Muslims show intolerance in
the North. Muslims in certain areas have been the subject of Christian attacks,
such as what happened in Zangon-Kataf and Kafanchan. In the main, those attacks
seem to have taken two major forms. The first, and this is common, reflects
attacks instigated by Christian leaders who are looking for political and
economic space in the North. Retired Christian generals, from Takum to
Zangon-Kataf, who find themselves overshadowed by more junior, but Muslim,
generals in the North, take out their frustration by financing and
co-ordinating religious conflicts. One of them has already been convicted once.
The second form they have taken is one of a genuine protest,
an expression of frustration with their consignment to the role of second-class
northerners in their homeland, in spite of everything they have given for the
North. They have sacrificed their sons in the war against Biafra. They have
organized and toppled coups to bring and sustain Northern Muslim generals to
and in power. Yet, they are treated with disdain and derision, as we saw in the
recent ministerial lists. The violence of northern Christians, therefore, while
we condemn it, may be seen as sometimes, being a reaction to the violence
inflicted on them, like the violence of the native in Frantz Fanon’s “ The
Wretched of the Earth”.
In the history of the world, it has long been established
that intolerance and religious bigotry stultify the development of society. One
of the secrets of the greatness of Rome in antiquity lies in the religious
tolerance of the Barbarians and their ability to look for common grounds among
their faiths.
In the ‘History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman
Empire’, Edward Gibbon tells us:
“ Such was the mild spirit
of antiquity, that the nations were less attentive to the difference, than to
the resemblance, of their religious worship. The Greek, the Roman, and the Barbarian, as they met
before their respective altars, easily
persuaded themselves that under various names, and with various ceremonies, they adored the same deities. The
elegant mythology of Homer gave a
beautiful, and almost regular form, to the polytheism of the ancient world” (Vol. 1:p.57)
Similarly, those who fail to recognise virtue and merit, and
adopt it wherever it is found in the
interest of the ambitions of their nation, will
never find progress.
Again, Gibbon tells us in the DF:
“ The narrow policy of preserving, without any foreign
mixture, the pure blood of the ancient
citizens, had checked the fortune, and hastened the ruin, of Athens and Sparta. The aspiring
genius of Rome sacrificed vanity to
ambition, and deemed it more prudent, as well as honourable, to adopt
virtue and merit for her own wheresoever
they were found, among slaves or strangers, enemies or barbarians” (Vol.1: p.61)
How much lower can a people sink, when they need lessons in
culture and civilization from the history of barbarians? Muslims will recall
that the freedom and tolerance of the Islamic State was what led to the glory
and flourishing of the Caliphate in both the early Abbasid and Ottoman phases,
while Rome declined with the intolerance and bigotry of the Catholic Church.
Indeed, one of the acclaimed attributes of the late Sardauna
is that in spite of his very open commitment to and zeal for Islam, he did not
show intolerance for other faiths or disdain for others simply because they did
not share his faith. This has been acknowledged widely by northern Christians
like Jolly Tanko Yusuf, Ishaya Audu, and Sunday Awoniyi. Present-day northern
leaders, however, seem characterized by a fake commitment to their religions
which only finds expression in antagonising other faiths. They sing the
Sardauna’s praises but cannot live up to his standards, like the Greeks of
Constantinople described by Gibbon in the following words:
“ They held in their lifeless hands the riches of their
fathers, without inheriting the spirit
which had created and improved that sacred patrimony: they read, they praised, they compiled, but
their languid souls seemed alike
incapable of thought and action”.
(Vol III: P.420)
So much for our new-breed northern leaders, now to their
opposite numbers in the South-West.
ii. The Yoruba Factor and “Area-boy” Politics.
My views on the Yoruba political leadership have been
thoroughly articulated in some of my writings, prime among which was “
Afenifere: Syllabus of Errors” published by This Day (The Sunday Newspaper) on
Sept 27, 1998. There was also an earlier publication in the weekly Trust
entitled “ The Igbo, the Yoruba and History”
(Aug. 21, 1998).
In sum, the Yoruba political leadership, as mentioned by
Balarabe Musa, has shown itself over the years to be incapable of rising above
narrow tribal interests and reciprocating goodwill from other sections of the
country by treating other groups with respect. Practically every crisis in
Nigeria since independence has its roots in this attitude.
The Yoruba elite were the first, in 1962, to attempt a
violent overthrow of an elected government in this country. In 1966, it was the
violence in the West which provided an avenue for the putsch of 15th January.
After Chief Awolowo lost to Shagari in 1983 elections, it was the discontent
and bad publicity in the South-West which led to the Buhari intervention. When
Buhari jailed UPN governors like Ige and Onabanjo, the South-Western press
castigated that good government and provided the right mood for IBB to take
over power. As soon as IBB cleared UPN governors of charges against them in a
politically motivated retrial, he became the darling of the South-West. When
IBB annulled the primaries in which Adamu Ciroma and Shehu Yar Adua emerged as
presidential candidates in the NRC and SDP, he was hailed by the South-West.
When the same man annulled the June 12, 1993 elections in which Abiola was the
front-runner, the South-West now became defenders of democracy. When it seemed
Sani Abacha was sympathetic to Abiola, the South-West supported his take-over.
He was in fact invited by a prominent NADECO member to take over in a published
letter shortly before the event. Even though Abiola had won the elections in
the North, the North was blamed for its annulment. When Abdulsalam Abubakar
started his transition, the Yoruba political leadership through NADECO
presented a memorandum on a Government of National Unity that showed complete
disrespect for the intelligence and liberties of other Nigerians. Subsequently,
they formed a tribal party which failed to meet minimum requirements for
registration, but was registered all the same to avoid the violence that was bound
to follow non-registration, given the area-boy mentality of South-West
politicians. Having rejected an Obasanjo candidacy and challenged the election
as a fraud in court, we now find a leading member of the AD in the government,
a daughter of an Afenifere leader as Minister of State, and Awolowo’s daughter
as Ambassador, all appointed by a man who won the election through fraud.
Meanwhile, nothing has been negotiated for the children of Abiola, the focus of
Yoruba political activity. In return for these favours, the AD solidly voted
for Evan Enwerem as Senate President. This is a man who participated in the
two-million-man March for Abacha’s self-succession. He also is reputed to have
hosted a meeting of governors during IBB’s transition, demanding that June 12
elections should never be de-annulled and threatening that the East would go to
war if this was done. When Ibrahim Salisu Buhari was accused of swearing to a
false affidavit, the Yoruba political elite correctly took up the gauntlet for
his resignation. When an AD governor, Bola Tinubu, swears to a false affidavit
that he attended an Ivy League University which he did not attend, we hear
excuses.
For so many years, the Yoruba have inundated this country
with stories of being marginalised and of a civil service dominated by
northerners through quota system. The Federal Character Commission has recently
released a report which shows that the
South-West accounts for 27.8% of civil servants in the range GL08 to GL14
and a full 29.5% of GL 15 and above. One zone out of six zones controls a full
30% of the civil service leaving the other five zones to share the remaining
70%. We find the same story in the economy, in academia, in parastatals.
Yet in spite of being so dominant, the Yoruba complained and
complained of marginalization. Of recent, in recognition of the trauma which
hit the South-West after June 12, the rest of the country forced everyone out
of the race to ensure that a South-Westerner emerged, often against the best
advice of political activists. Instead of leading a path of reconciliation and
strong appreciation, the Yoruba have embarked on short-sighted triumphalism,
threatening other “nationalities” that they ( who after all lost the election)
will protect Obasanjo ( who was forced on them). No less a person than Bola Ige
has made such utterances. To further show that they were in charge, they led a
cult into the Hausa area of Sagamu, murdered a Hausa woman and nothing
happened. In the violence that followed, they killed several Hausa residents,
with Yoruba leaders like Segun Osoba, reminding Nigerians of the need to
respect the culture of their host communities.
This would have continued were it not for the people of Kano who showed
that they could also create their own Oro who would only be appeased through
the shedding of innocent Yoruba blood.
I say all this, to support Balarabe Musa’s statement, that
the greatest problem to nation-building in Nigeria are the Yoruba Bourgeoisie.
I say this also to underscore my point that until they change this attitude, no
conference can solve the problems of Nigeria. We cannot move forward if the
leadership of one of the largest ethnic groups continues to operate, not like
statesmen, but like common area boys.
iii.The Igbo Factor and the Reasonable Limits of
Retribution.
The Igbo people of Nigeria have made a mark in the history
of this nation. They led the first successful military coup which eliminated
the Military and Political leaders of other regions while letting off Igbo
leaders. Nwafor Orizu, then Senate President, in consultation with President
Azikiwe, subverted the constitution and handed over power to
Aguiyi-Ironsi. Subsequent developments,
including attempts at humiliating other peoples, led to the counter-coup and
later the civil war. The Igbos themselves must acknowledge that they have a
large part of the blame for shattering the unity of this country.
Having said that, this nation must realise that Igbos have
more than paid for their foolishness. They have been defeated in war, rendered
paupers by monetary policy fiat, their properties declared abandoned and
confiscated, kept out of strategic public sector appointments and deprived of
public services. The rest of the country forced them to remain in Nigeria and
has
continued to deny them equity.
The Northern Bourgeoisie and the Yoruba Bourgeoisie have
conspired to keep the Igbo out of the scheme of things. In the recent
transition when the Igbo solidly supported the PDP in the hope of an Ekwueme
presidency, the North and South-West treated this as a Biafra agenda. Every
rule set for the primaries, every gentleman’s agreement was set aside to ensure
that Obasanjo, not Ekwueme emerged as the candidate. Things went as far as
getting the Federal Government to hurriedly gazette a pardon. Now, with this
government, the marginalistion of the Igbo is more complete than ever before.
The Igbos have taken all these quietly because, they reason, they brought it
upon themselves. But the nation is sitting on a time-bomb.
After the First World War, the victors treated Germany with
the same contempt Nigeria is treating Igbos. Two decades later, there was a
Second World War, far costlier than the first. Germany was again defeated, but
this time, they won a more honourable peace. Our present political leaders have
no sense of History. There is a new Igbo man, who was not born in 1966 and
neither knows nor cares about Nzeogwu and Ojukwu. There are Igbo men on the
street who were never Biafrans. They were born Nigerians, are Nigerians, but
suffer because of actions of earlier generations. They will soon decide that
it is better to fight their own war, and may be find an
honourable peace, than to remain in this contemptible state in perpetuity.
The Northern Bourgeoisie and the Yoruba Bourgeoisie have
exacted their pound of flesh from the Igbos. For one Sardauna, one Tafawa
Balewa, one Akintola and one Okotie-Eboh, hundreds of thousands have died and
suffered.
If this issue is not addressed immediately, no conference
will solve Nigeria’s problems.
iv. The Niger-Delta and The Need For Justice.
This is the final subjective variable I wish to mention. I
will not say anything on this because it seems, finally, it has caught the
attention of the nation and something is being done about it.
Conclusion
I started this paper by saying that restructuring the
Federation was not a simple task, and should be considered only as part of the
process of nation-building. The message I have carried all my life is that all
Nigerians have a right to maintain their diversity but this should only be on
the basis of respect of the same rights for other Nigerians. No nation can be
built on the platform of inequity, intolerance and selfishness.
I am Fulani. I am Muslim. But I am able to relate to every
Nigerian as a fellow Nigerian and respect his ethnicity and his faith. I am also convinced that we tend to
exaggerate our differences for selfish ends and this applies even to matters of
faith.
I have no doubt in my mind that the leadership of Nigerian
politics in all parts of the country today, is in the main, reactionary,
greedy, corrupt and bankrupt. Brought up in the era of tribal warlords, most
political leaders are unable to think first and foremost like Nigerians. To
this extent, any conference held today may be a waste of time.
But the audience may ask “Is there any hope for this
Country”? My answer is yes! I rest my hope partly on personal experience.
In every part of the country, I come across young Nigerians who do not agree
with their elders. In the North, there is a new northerner, throwing off the
yoke of irredentism, the toga of nepotism and the image of being a beneficiary
of quota system. In the South-West, I find many young Yoruba citizens who frown
at the rabid tribalism and provincialism of their leaders. In Igboland, we see
young Igbos who regret the past and look forward to a brighter future. I have
indeed received several letters from Nigerians, northerners and southerners,
christians and muslims, encouraging me in the fight against the twin vices of
religious intolerance and ethnic chauvinism.
But I rest my hope on a much deeper and profound base than
these fleeting impressions. The hope for this Country is founded on the
existence of the very problems we have just examined. The people of this
Country have a long history of being together. Yet each group jealously guards
its own identity, be it ethnic or religious. This is so only because our
cultures, our religions, teach us core values within which we find full
expression of our humanity. If only we would look, we would find that the
values that make a good Fulani, Yoruba, Kanuri or Bini man; the values that
make a good Christian and a good Muslim; are the same. If only we had in each
part of this country, a leadership with the vision to recognize this, to
harness this, to bring together good Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Ogoni and Angas men
and women; good Christians and Muslims; to run the affairs of this country, we
would find peace.
I rest my hope, finally on my generation. A generation of
young, educated Nigerians, brought up in luxury, weaned by the traumatic
experiences of the last two decades, and ready to take up the gauntlet, and
ignite the hopes, for a renewed Nigeria. This is the generation much maligned
by the present administration of septuagenarians. The generation discarded and
treated like a pack of potential thieves. The only truly marginalized
generation. This is the generation that will pick up the pieces and by the
grace of Allah, leave those coming behind with a legacy far more progressive
than the one we
inherited.
Thank you.
No comments:
Post a Comment