Thursday, 4 October 2012

CBN: Lobby for Sanusi’s job begins

HEAVYWEIGHTS on the political and economic fronts have kick-started strong lobbying in a bid to take over the job of the Governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Mallam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, which will be up in June 2014.
Sanusi was appointed CBN governor in June 2009 by the late President Umaru Yar’Adua following the exit of his predecessor, Professor Chukwuma Soludo.
Investigations by the Nigerian Tribune indicated that the presidency has been playing host to a number of lobby teams representing different interested parties.
Sources told Nigerian Tribune that the long list of lobbyists includes a serving governor, who is a banker, some economists, including a former occupant of the office and other politicians.
Sources confirmed that the quest to replace Sanusi became pronounced following indications that the incumbent CBN governor was making his way into the murky waters of politics.
Though Sanusi had denied reports linking him with the 2015 presidential race, it was confirmed that interests have started growing in the bid to replace Sanusi.
Besides those who are said to be convinced that they can do a better job than the incumbent, there are others whose interests are being canvassed by some political heavyweights, who are angered by Sanusi’s actions so far.
A source said that the serving governor from the North had made his intention known to the presidency, adding that the man is doing everything possible to get the job.
It was, however, gathered that the calculation of the serving governor is that Sanusi’s job would be up in 2014 and that he would not be losing too much if he leaves the governorship seat just a year to the end of his tenure in 2015.
Sources said that while the presidency has not made up its mind on whether or not to re-appoint Sanusi, a variety of lobbyists are pushing hard that he should not return.
Aside the serving governor, another member of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) is also said to be eyeing the governorship of the apex bank. It was gathered that lobbying is being intensified at various layers.
“One of the arguments out there is that Sanusi has refused to defend the naira since he assumed office. When he took over, the naira was around N119 to the dollar, now it hovers around N158 and N160 to the dollar. That cannot be said to be a good legacy,” one of the sources promoting a candidate said on Wednesday.
It was also gathered that a number of politicians have sent words to President Jonathan to do away with Sanusi because of the alleged presidential ambition in 2015.
A source said in a normal clime, the alleged presidential ambition was enough to sack Sanusi, as, according to him, “mixing politics with the management of the economy is a dangerous trend.”
It was also gathered that the battle for Sanusi’s job was not only restricted to the North, as some economists from the South-West, as well as South-East, were said to be well positioned.
“No fewer than 12 persons have, so far, been linked with the job. A number of them have made contacts with the presidency through some aides and other influential figures.
“One of those persons is trying to make a return to the apex bank, but it is the duty of the president to separate the men from the boys,” a source stated.
Nigerian Tribune

FG in Bakassi U-turn • Jonathan directs Adoke to ‘appeal’ ICJ ruling • Nigeria to base legal battle on ‘fresh facts’


President Goodluck Jonathan
THERE were indications on Thursday that the Federal Government was set to ask for a review of the judgment of the International Court of Justice which ceded the oil rich Bakassi Peninsula to neighbouring Cameroon.
The PUNCH learnt in Abuja that President Goodluck Jonathan had directed the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Mohammed Adoke (SAN), to file for a review of the judgement delivered 10 years ago.
Nigeria has barely one week remaining before the window for a review against the judgment closes. The country has till October 9, 2012 to seek for the review of the judgment delivered on October 10, 2002.
Under the ICJ statute, aggrieved parties have no right to appeal judgments but under its Article 61 one could seek for a review of decided cases within 10 years if fresh facts  emerged after the judgment.
Jonathan reportedly passed the directive to Adoke after a late night meeting between the President and the leadership of the National Assembly on Wednesday. The meeting held at the Aso Rock Villa.
At the meeting were Vice-President Namadi Sambo; Speaker of the House of Representatives, Hon. Aminu Tambuwal; and some other principal officers of the National Assembly.
Others included the Akwa Ibom State Governor, Godswill Akpabio; Secretary to the Government of the Federation,  Anyim Pius Anyim, and Adoke.
Cross River State Governor, Liyel Imoke, who also attended the meeting told State House correspondents thereafter that a committee had been set up to explore the review option and that the committee would also consider how to take care of the displaced people of Bakassi.
Imoke who did not disclose the composition of the committee said it would work within a specified time.
The Deputy Majority Leader of the House of Representatives, Mr. Leo Ogor, who was also part of the meeting, hinted on Thursday that the Federal Government had decided to review the judgment.
“I attended a meeting where this issue was discussed and I can confirm that Mr. President instructed the AGF to file for the review.
“Mr. President directed him to comply with the resolution of the House on the Bakassi issue”, Ogor stated in Abuja.
Adoke was also scheduled to attend an investigative hearing at the House on Thursday but he did not turn up.
He had written the House pleading for a shift of the event on the grounds that he had a pressing national assignment of attending to the review of the ICJ judgment on Bakassi.
The House had on Thursday last week passed a resolution advising the government to file for a review of the judgment.
The resolution followed an investigation into the Bakassi dispute by its Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs/Justice.
The committee, which was headed by Ms Nnena Ukeje, had recommended that due to “fresh facts” now at the disposal of Nigeria, it was in the interest of the country to file for a review of the judgment.
The Ukeje committee had said, “There are new grounds to enter a review for the judgment.
“One of the issues that has come to the fore is the fact that the 1913 Treaty, which the court based its decision has been faulted.”
The committee had also observed that Nigeria had yet to ratify the 2006 Green Tree Agreement under which the Federal Government ceded Bakassi to Cameroon.
The committee told the House that by the provisions of Section 12 of the 1999 Constitution (as amended), no treaty could be binding on Nigeria until it is ratified by an Act of the National Assembly.
Part of the committee’s recommendation reads, “The GTA is a clear violation of Section 12 (1) of the 1999 Constitution, which states that ‘no treaty between the Federal Government and any other country shall have the force of law except to the extent to which any such treaty have been enacted into law by the National Assembly.”
The Senate passed a similar resolution, calling on the government to file for the review.
Until the pressure from the National Assembly, the Federal Government had consistently argued that Nigeria had no grounds to enter for a review of the judgment.
In 2006, under the watch of former President Olusegun Obasanjo, the Federal Government signed the GTA with Cameroon and ceded the oil-rich territory, but the Bakassi people have continued to complain of unfair deal by Cameroon.
The Punch

Mahram: Who gets the blame?

By Ishola Haroon Balogun
The concept of mahram in Islam can be viewed in two ways; the aspect of genealogy and that of protection for women. The aspect of genealogy has to do with those who have close consanguinity, like husband, brother, step brother and close family members, a male companion for a woman who cannot marry her.
The other aspect has to do with protection for  a woman on a journey that is said to be more than two to three days. Siblings, parents, uncles, step brothers and cousins  could serve as mahram because of their close relationship.
Thus, mahram for a woman is someone who, due to closeness of relationship, is forbidden to be married. So, a relative who is called mahram would be honored to care for and protect the woman on a journey from possible abuse. It is generally believed that women feel safe and comfortable in a long journey, accompanied by their own kin. In fact, that is one of the bases for mahram.
It is not an evil assumption about the woman and her manners, as some  non-muslims insinuate, but it is to take care of her reputation, dignity and safety. It is to protect her from the desires of those who have diseased hearts, and of course to make her comfortable.
A hadith says: “It is unlawful for a woman who believes in Allah and the last day that she travels the distance of one day and one night without a Mahram accompanying her”. (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 1038). There are several hadiths that elucidate on the need for protection of women on a journey.
The government of Saudi Arabia long time ago determined Mahram as one of the rules for Hajj, where Muslim women who wish to perform Hajj or Umrah shall be accompanied by a mahram. The issue of mahram therefore is not new to Muslims neither is it new to those in charge of Hajj preparation. But the sudden episodes where over 1000 pilgrims were deported last week was very disturbing.
Even as at press time, reports reaching us indicated that some pilgrims were instructed to return to the country for same reason. How did these pilgrims procured their visas in the first place?  What is the involvement of the Hajj Commission in all of these and in a bid to ensure a hitch free exercise, how did they treat the issue? Even after the Saudi government issued a statement a few days ago, some pilgrims were still being detained in Jeddah as at Wednesday.
The statement which reads in part says: “In spite of all of this, a Nigerian flight with female pilgrims unaccompanied by their male guardians also arrived Jeddah Monday…” It furthers states that “Hajj visas could only be issued to female pilgrims after the names of their guardians (mahram) should arrive with them on the same flight, otherwise, the inclusion of the names of their guardians (mahram) will be of no use.”
We have never had it so bad in the history of hajj exercise. Those who have gone however noted how emergency arrangements of adoptive mahram take place in order to gain entry.  But is that right?
Basically, there is no argument against the policy of mahram but what is mind-bugling is the way it was carried out as well as the manner with which our officials handled the matter.
One is that the Saudi authority who hitherto relaxed the policy should have given adequate information on its preparedness not to leave any stone unturned in implementing the policy this year even at the point of visas procurement. Our women as well as those from other countries were in the holy land last year and there was no report of any kind of deportation as a result of mahram; at least, not this alarming number.
Is it that the Saudi government decided to be tough this year or that pilgrims suddenly became heedless of mahram policy? If the Saudi decided to be tough this year, at least there should have been adequate information and ways of guiding intending pilgrims since it is an act of worship.  It will benefit nobody that fellow Muslims who are anxious and spiritually ready to perform the once-in-a-life-time rites are turned back for mahram which many of them did not prepare for.
Secondly, the Hajj commission which should have tidied up every aspect of the requirment decided not to give the policy the treatment it deserves, hence we were wrapped in this mess. It also shows that the Hajj Commission and Boards have not been living up to their expectation as regards the preparation, lectures and seminars for intending pilgrims.
What else is the job of a commission if not to guide intending pilgrims on the rules. Even at the point of boarding, it shows that we are not in tune with the policy of the Saudi authority on the issue of mahram until after about 1000 pilgrims were deported and we are pretending to be working.
The deportees are also not absolved of blame. Many of them, unfortunately, viewed and looked at mahram as solely state’s obligation or the commission’s duty to provide protection for those undergoing the hajj from their states. That is why many of them treated the issue of mahram with kid gloves while some resorted to arrangee matching at the point of entry.
The existence of this regulation or its enforcement should not be allowed to create undue apprehension and anxieties for intending pilgrims; something drastic and urgent needs to be done to stop this embarrassment. Nigerian pilgrims should be seen as being law abiding right from the point of boarding, through out the exercise and landing.
This is undoubtedly the function of the commission and the various state pilgrims boards. Since the Saudi authority is bent on implementing the policy to the latter, then the Commission and the various boards should appropriately guide intending pilgrims on the various policies of the Saudi government relating to hajj.
Every act towards assisting an intending pilgrim to achieving a hitch free hajj is also an act of ibadah. May Allah forgive us all.
Vanguard

The military put Nigeria behind – Osunbor

The military put Nigeria behind – Osunbor

Former Edo State Governor, Prof. Oserheimen Osunbor, in this interview with Daily Sun, says the leadership in Nigeria has to raise the bar of governance to help the citizens make meaning of the nation’s  independence. He spoke on several other issues. IHEANACHO NWOSU met with him and presents the excerpts.
Many people feel that the 52nd anniversary of Nigeria is not worth celebrating. What is your take on this, considering the deteriorating standard of living of Nigerians?
Well, there are many people, who believe that it is not worth celebrating while others feel that it is good to always reflect. I personally believe that October 1 deserves to be marked. The next question from there is how elaborate should an event be marked? You can either celebrate an event on a large scale or in a low keyed manner.
Sometimes, you mark 40th, 50th, 60th or 70th but if you are celebrating birthdays like 43rd, 26th or 66th, there is nothing to really celebrate.
At this point in time, are we celebrating it on a big scale? We did that when we attained golden jubilee some two years ago on a big scale and this could be celebrated on a small scale of course. That is my personal view.
But a situation where there is unemployment, insecurity, terrorism, corruption in high places is there any point celebrating it?
Again, people surprise me when they say government is not doing anything. For example, when government started an intervention scheme to save the lives of pregnant women to reduce maternal deaths, people started saying government should have looked at other areas like malaria. The question is should government shut its eyes on other sectors when there are a variety of things that should be done? You have to consider how much resources that should be deployed into different sectors because governance is all embracing.  What is important is if you consider the number of pregnant women dying which is alarming  when compared to  other places, and  people still argue that it is a displaced programme. On the issue of national security, I agree with you that government should do something. But let me go back to your fist question where you mentioned that the situation of  Nigerians was worst than the previous years.  Nigerians now have more access to communications via the telephone. There is greater access to education than the previous years particularly in the last 12 years of democratic governance in the country. I equally understand that electricity generation is on the increase. I understand that government is building more plants nationwide. Some of these infrastructure were left to die in the 30 years of military rule and the infrastructure became dilapidated. There is government interventions in all spheres so when I hear people say we are worse off, I think we are better off. I know we earned so much from oil which is the mainstay of our economy, and would have invested more. But more of the resources went into private pockets. This is because we have not gotten the kind of leadership some countries are blessed with.
Such countries have gone far ahead of Nigeria. We suffered a lot of retardation due to military incursion into civil administration. We cannot keep the pace, especially with the Asian  countries but we are making progress.
Now people are talking about corruption. During the military rule, can you dare talk about corruption?
People are talking about the implementation of the 2012 budget can you talk about budget implementation during the military era? You just cast your mind back to the military era. So when people are talking about corruption now, it is because you can now scrutinize things unlike the military era. You remember that during the military era, adulterated fuel was imported into the country  nobody voiced out anything but now under democracy  people can ask questions .
But it is being argued in some quarters that state Governors do not obey court orders thereby making the jobs of judges more difficult. What was your experience like when you were Governor?
As a lawyer I respect the rule of law a great deal and as a Governor I never disobeyed any court order.  I told you my contributions in the Senate and during  my time I obeyed all court orders. Again, we should not generalize, some Governors do obey court orders. Again there are Governors who benefited from the judiciary who do not respect court orders. So it is true that there are many Governors who do not respect court orders.
What is your take on the current insecurity in the country where Boko Haram and other criminal activities have led to killings and destruction of property   in the last 18 months?
I quite agree with the heightened level of insecurity in the country in the past two years precisely 2010. It is a matter of serious concern because no country can develop where there is no peace and there is constant fear.  Now, people are even scared to go to the market and even churches, the mosques are not exempted too. You can’t be sure that you will go to the market, and come back with your limbs or life complete. We must not ignore it. At the Federal level we must not ignore it and at the states and Local Government levels, the same thing applies.
We are at the path of winning the war and as you are aware, you cannot attain 100 per cent security and the policy of liberty is eternal vigilance. I am an optimist and very optimistic about the future of Nigeria. On whether Nigeria will be able to survive, we have always survived right from the time of wetie in the Western Region. Even at the peak of the civil strife people had thought Nigeria will disintegrate but we survived it. During the reign of Abacha, people had thought we may not survive but we survived it, and even at times in the Senate we thought along that line but somehow Nigeria has managed to survive its tribulations. We have always pulled through. We had always survived as we had done in the past and find lasting solutions to these destabilising factors and remained one indivisible entity. Education will go a long way to help us solve these problems, education is central to what we are doing once we have sufficient education nationwide we will surmount the insurmountable.
What is your take on the creation of state police?
In my personal opinion, there is need for devolution of power, the Federal should devolve some powers to the states, that is the principle I will support  not state police we are not ripe for that now. If you look at Federal institutions and compare them with state institutions there is no doubt that the Federal institutions far better. The Nigeria Police is a Federal institution, I do not think any state can set up police that will be comparable to Federal police both in standard and quality.
The National Assembly at the Federal level fare better than the state legislature . At the state level, the legislators dare not ask the kind of questions the Federal legislators ask the President. Here at the Federal level, the members elect their principal officers internally but at the state level it is the Governors who decide not the members. Look at the educational sectors, unity schools are better than state owned schools, look at the Federal Polytechnic they are better than state owned polytechnics and the Federal universities are better than state owned universities. Also I do not think anybody can compare state electoral commissions to INEC. Take a look at elections conducted by INEC in terms of credibility, fairness and transparency when compared to elections conducted by state electoral commissions. The relationship between the Federal Government and the states is far better than the relationship between the states and Local Governments. The Federal Government releases funds directly to the states but monies that comes to the local governments are pocketed and expended as the Governor pleases and many other areas.
Another disturbing area is that if you decide to float a state police in the 36 states of the federation, and all are importing arms and ammunition  into the country for their police force is that the kind of thing we want to encourage.
Look t this scenario, supposing a group of states within a part of the country have police force and they had procured ammunition  and the Governors are in opposition and there is a clash between those police controlled by those states can you imagine what it will snowball into and what is the jurisdiction of the state will it be co-terminus to others.
So these are constitutional issues that needed to be addressed. People are looking at Governors intervention but I am looking at how to overcome it. If a local police makes an arrest can the offender be tried in a Federal High Court.
The problems are not insurmountable but they will require a lot of efforts at amending our constitution and expending our time and resources on such details at this point in time. I believe that if the constitution and the rule if law is allowed to work properly there will be no need for it.

The memoir: There was a country


The memoir: There was a country
The persecution of the Igbo didn’t end with the Biafran conflict. Until the nation faces up to this, its mediocrity will continue
Almost 30 years before Rwanda, before Darfur, more than 2 million people-mothers, children, babies, civilians-lost their lives as a result of the blatantly callous and unnecessary policies enacted by the leaders of the federal government of Nigeria.
As a writer, I believe that it is fundamentally important, indeed essential to our humanity, to ask the hard questions, in order to better understand ourselves and our neighbours. Where there is justification for further investigation, justice should be served.
In the case of the Nigeria-Biafra war there is precious little relevant literature that helps answer these questions. Did the federal government of Nigeria engage in the genocide of its Igbo citizens who set up the Republic of Biafra in 1967 through punitive policies, the most notorious being starvation as a legitimate weapon of war? Is the information blockade around the war a case of calculated historical suppression? Why has the war not been discussed, or taught to the young, more than 40 years after its end? Are we perpetually doomed to repeat the errors of the past because we are too stubborn to learn from them?
The Oxford English Dictionary defines genocide as the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group … The UN general assembly defined it in 1946 as …a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups. Throughout the conflict the Biafrans consistently charged that the Nigerians had a design to exterminate the Igbo people from the face of the earth. This calculation, the Biafrans insisted, was predicated on a holy jihad proclaimed by mainly Islamic extremists in the Nigerian army and supported by the policies of economic blockade that prevented shipments of humanitarian aid, food and supplies to the needy in Biafra.
Supporters of the federal government position maintain that a war was being waged and the premise of all wars is for one side to emerge as the victor. Overly ambitious actors may have taken actions unbecoming of international conventions of human rights, but these things happen everywhere. This same group often cites findings, from organisations (sanctioned by the federal government) that sent observers during the crisis, that there was no clear intent on behalf of the Nigerian troops to wipe out the Igbo people … pointing out that over 30,000 Igbo still lived in Lagos, and half a million in the mid-west.But if the diabolical disregard for human life seen during the war was not due to the northern military elite’s jihadist or genocidal obsession, then why were there more small arms used on Biafran soil than during the entire second world war? Why were there 100,000 casualties on the much larger Nigerian side compared with more than 2 million “mainly children” Biafrans killed?
It is important to point out that most Nigerians were against the war and abhorred the senseless violence that ensued. The wartime cabinet of General Gowon, the military ruler, it should also be remembered, was full of intellectuals like Chief Obafemi Awolowo among others who came up with a boatload of infamous and regrettable policies. A statement credited to Awolowo and echoed by his cohorts is the most callous and unfortunate: all is fair in war, and starvation is one of the weapons of war. I don’t see why we should feed our enemies fat in order for them to fight harder.
It is my impression that Awolowo was driven by an overriding ambition for power, for himself and for his Yoruba people. There is, on the surface at least, nothing wrong with those aspirations. However, Awolowo saw the dominant Igbo at the time as the obstacles to that goal, and when the opportunity arose with the Nigeria-Biafra war, his ambition drove him into a frenzy to go to every length to achieve his dreams. In the Biafran case it meant hatching up a diabolical policy to reduce the numbers of his enemies significantly through starvation eliminating over two million people, mainly members of future generations.
The federal government’s actions soon after the war could be seen not as conciliatory but as outright hostile. After the conflict ended, the same hardliners in the Nigerian government cast Igbo in the role of treasonable felons and wreckers of the nation and got the regime to adopt a banking policy that nullified any bank account operated during the war by the Biafrans. A flat sum of 20 Nigerian pounds was approved for each Igbo depositor, regardless of the amount of deposit. If there was ever a measure put in place to stunt, or even obliterate, the economy of a people, this was it.
After that outrageous charade, Nigeria ’s leaders sought to devastate the resilient and emerging eastern commercial sector even further by banning the import of secondhand clothing and stockfish, two trade items that they knew the burgeoning market towns of Onitsha , Aba and Nnewi needed to re-emerge. Their fear was that these communities, fully reconstituted, would then serve as the economic engines for the reconstruction of the entire Eastern Region.
There are many international observers who believe that Gowon’s actions after the war were magnanimous and laudable. There are tons of treatises that talk about how the Igbo were wonderfully integrated into Nigeria . Well, I have news for them: The Igbos were not and continue not to be reintegrated into Nigeria , one of the main reasons for the country’s continued backwardness.
Borrowing from the Marshall plan for Europe after the second world war, the federal government launched an elaborate scheme highlighted by three Rs “for reconstruction, rehabilitation, and reconciliation. The only difference is that, while the Americans actually carried out all three prongs of the strategy, Nigeria ’s federal government did not.
What has consistently escaped most Nigerians in this entire travesty is the fact that mediocrity destroys the very fabric of a country as surely as a war ushering in all sorts of banality, ineptitude, corruption and debauchery. Nations enshrine mediocrity as their modus operandi, and create the fertile ground for the rise of tyrants and other base elements of the society, by silently assenting to the dismantling of systems of excellence because they do not immediately benefit one specific ethnic, racial, political, or special-interest group. That, in my humble opinion, is precisely where Nigeria finds itself today.
The Nation

Achebe under fire over attack on Awo, Gowon

by:

Achebe under fire over attack on Awo, Gowon
Literary giant Prof. Chinua Achebe has stirred the hornets’ nest, with his claim that war-time Head of State General Yakubu Gowon and the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo formulated policies that promoted genocide against the Igbo.
In his newly released civil war memoirs, There was a country, Achebe said: “Almost 30 years before Rwanda, before Darfur, more than 2 million people-mothers, children, babies, civilians-lost their lives as a result of the blatantly callous and unnecessary policies enacted by the leaders of the federal government of Nigeria.”
Quoting the Oxford Dictionary, the celebrated writer said genocide is “the deliberate and systematic extermination of an ethnic or national group …The UN General Assembly defined it in 1946 as …a denial of the right of existence of entire human groups.”
He said: “Throughout the conflict, the Biafrans consistently charged that the Nigerians had a design to exterminate the Igbo people from the face of the earth. This calculation, the Biafrans insisted, was predicated on a holy jihad proclaimed by mainly Islamic extremists in the Nigerian Army and supported by the policies of economic blockade that prevented shipments of humanitarian aid, food and supplies to the needy in Biafra .”
On Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who was the Vice Chairman of the Federal Executive Council and Minister of Defence, Achebe said: “The wartime cabinet of General Gowon, the military ruler, it should also be remembered, was full of intellectuals, like Chief Obafemi Awolowo, among others, who came up with a boatload of infamous and regrettable policies. A statement credited to Awolowo and echoed by his cohorts is the most callous and unfortunate: all is fair in war, and starvation is one of the weapons of war. I don’t see why we should feed our enemies fat in order for them to fight harder’.
“It is my impression that Awolowo was driven by an overriding ambition for power, for himself and for his Yoruba people. There is, on the surface at least, nothing wrong with those aspirations. However, Awolowo saw the dominant Igbo at the time as the obstacles to that goal, and when the opportunity arose with the Nigeria-Biafra war, his ambition drove him into a frenzy to go to every length to achieve his dreams. In the Biafran case, it meant hatching up a diabolical policy to reduce the numbers of his enemies significantly through starvation eliminating over two million people, mainly members of future generations.”
Achebe’s views provoked anger yesterday.
Reacting yesterday, Mr. Ayo Opadokun who was Assistant Director of Organisation of the late Chief Awolowo’s Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) and later Secretary of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), described the Achebe assertion as “typical”.
“It is a reharsh of the perverted intellectual laziness which he had exhibited in the past in matters related to Chief Obafemi Awolowo. When Achebe described Awo as a Yoruba irredentist, what he expected was that Awo should fold his arms to allow the Igbo race led by Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, to preside over the affairs of the Yoruba nation,” Opadokun said.
Opadokun pointed out that some of his colleagues who played prominent roles in liberating Nigeria from the clutches of military rule, such as Rear Admiral Ndubuisi Kanu (rtd), Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe (rtd), Dr. Arthur Nwankwo, Alhaji Abulaziz Ude and others who he described as “men of honour and integrity”, are Igbo. But he found it difficult to believe that a scholar of Achebe’s stature could be so unforgiving.
He said, “Let our Igbo brothers be reminded that about three-quarters of their assets not in the eastern Region are in Lagos and we have been very liberal and accommodating. We have allowed them to live undisturbed.”
Senator Biyi Durojaiye shares Opadokun’s view. He said: “My view is that you don’t expect somebody on the receiving end of a war to say something pleasant about the winners.
“I don’t share Achebe’s view that Awolowo did all he did for personal political aggarandisement. It was all in the process of keeping Nigeria one. What he and General Gowon did was in the process of preserving the integrity of Nigeria .”
He urged the Igbo to be more charitable, seeing that both sides of the war are now benefiting from its outcome. He enjoined all to join hands in facing the challenges of the moment, insisting that the way to go is for all Nigerians to support a Sovereign National Conference and restructuring of the polity.
Mr. Jacob Omosanya who participated actively in Action Group politics as a member of the Action Group Youth Association AGYA), said Achebe and many of his kinsmen in public life are tribalistic and “that is what he has exhibited in this new book.”
“It is not new. He canvassed similar views in The trouble with Nigeria. Dr. Azikiwe and his people should be grateful to the Yoruba who have always been liberal. When Zik was on his way back home from the United States, he ran into trouble in the Gold Coast. It was a team of lawyers led by the late H. O. Davies that saved him. This is a fact of history that should not be lost on the Igbo.”
Mr. Omosanya said he had expected that people intellectuals such as Achebe, would be bridge builders and avoid inflaming passions.
The Nation

Achebe’s war memoir stirs controversy

by:

Achebe’s war memoir stirs controversy
HE is a professor of English, a writer of repute and runs regular commentary on socio-political development of the country. Twice, he has been nominated to receive national honours, and twice, he turned down the offer. His books have always generated furore. When he published A man of the people just before the military coup of January 1966, it received critical review by a section of the public.
His latest work, due to be released in Nigeria soon, is a chronicle of the activities of the civil war. The publishers, Penguins, described it thus: “Now, years, in the making, comes the towering reckoning with one of the modern Africa’s most fateful experience, both as he lived it and he has now come to understand it.
Like or dislike him, Achebe cannot be ignored Things Fall Apart, his first book, has been variously rated as one of the 50 most influential books. He has also been described as one of the most influential Africans in the 21st Century.
Achebe, who was cultural ambassador for Biafra during the war, displayed deep-seated dislike for the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo and his people, the Yoruba.
Dismissing the argument that the Federal Government, involved in a war, had to do what it did to facilitate its victory, the writer said: “Supporters of the Federal Government position maintain that a war was being waged and the premise of all wars is for one side to emerge as the victor. Overly ambitious actors may have taken actions unbecoming of international conventions of human rights, but these things happen everywhere. This same group often cites findings, from organisations (sanctioned by the Federal Government) that sent observers during the crisis, that there was no clear intent on behalf of the Nigerian troops to wipe out the Igbo people … pointing out that over 30,000 Igbo still lived in Lagos, and half a million in the Mid-West.”But if the diabolical disregard for human life seen during the war was not due to the Northern military elite’s jihadist or genocidal obsession, then why were there more small arms used on Biafran soil than during the entire second world war? Why were there 100,000 casualties on the much larger Nigerian side compared with more than two million ‘mainly children’ Biafrans killed?”
He maintained that the pre-and post-war policies of the government were calculated to wipe out Ndigbo, Achebe said the same policy has kept his people out of the mainstream of the political configuration of the country 42 years after the war. This did not take into consideration that an Igbo, Dr. Alex Ekwueme, was Vice-President in the Second Republic. When there was a consensus that power had to shift to the South in 1999, Ekwueme slugged it out with Chief Olusegun Obasanjo for the ticket of the dominant political party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). However, given the prevailing mood in the country, the Yoruba had to be compensated for the annulment of the presidential election of 1993 won by the late Chief Moshood Abiola. The sentiments swayed victory for Obasanjo at the Jos National Convention. While Obasanjo, a Yoruba, won, Ekwueme, an Igbo, had a good run and could not be said to have been disgraced. Since then, he has been handed crucial assignments by the party since he was the pioneer Chairman of the PDP’s Board of Trustees.
A political activist and convener of the Coalition of Democrats for Electoral Reforms (CODER), Mr. Ayo Opadokun, took umbrage at the position of Achebe in the new book. He said: “The new write-up is another rehash of the perverted intellectual laziness which he had exhibited in the past in matters relating to Awo when Achebe described Awo as a Yoruba irredentist. What he expected was that Awo should fold his arms to allow the Igbo race led by Zik to preside over the affairs of the Yoruba nation. The fact that the Yoruba people in their wisdom, having found out that the NCNC through Zik and Okpara had established a government of their choice and then wanted to follow up with the appropriation of the Yorubaland as their catchment area. It is a demonstration of the contempt of Achebe and his ilk for the Yoruba nation.
He said: “The story of the emergence of Nigeria as a country as christened by the concubine of Lugard can’t be written sensibly without admitting one or two areas of flaws where founding leaders were not disposed to making a nation out of Nigeria.
The NCNC led by Zik and his people, in a terrific conspicuous collaboration, after having put Awo in jail, forced the creation of Midwest and the NCNC refused to allow the creation of another in their region. Perhaps the West had the smallest landmass of the three regions.
“Secondly, in the run-up and activities towards Nigerian nationalism, it was clear that the East and West were in contest for socio-economic and political power. The fact is that with what the NCNC, driven by Igbo nationalism to which Achebe subscribes, the Yoruba nation was being derided by the likes of Achebe who wanted to forcefully appropriate Yoruba territory. And because the Yoruba nation led by Awo would not accept that, they became enemies.
The political problem with the Igbo
stemmed from the ban on import
of stockfish and second hand clothing after the war. He felt that it was fundamental error for a group of Nigerians to live on stockfish that lacks nutritional value and that it was degrading for Nigeria to be importing second-hand clothing. Being an economist, a honest and forthright Nigerian who would not mortgage his conscience to win votes, he had to carry that cross all his life. Even after his death, Prof Achebe has written a new book, repeating the gaffe. It is another demonstration of how far inveterate enemies can go.
“I cannot believe that a scholar of Achebe’s stature could be so unforgiving. Mathew 6: 14 and 15 enjoins every Christian to forgive fellow human beings.
“Some have been trying to build a bridge between Igbo and Yoruba. I remember my colleagues like Rear Admiral Ndubuisi Kanu (Retd), a former governor of Lagos and Imo; Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe, a former Chief of General Staff who headed the Council for Understanding and Unity; Dr. Arthur Nwankwo; Alhaji Abdulaziz Ude and so many of them who are men of honour. Their efforts have not been devalued by the attitudes of people like Prof Achebe. Their efforts and ours led to the formation of CUU. It became so powerful that Dodan Barracks had to proscribe the organisation.
“Let our Igbo brothers be reminded that about three quarters of their assets not in the Eastern region are in Lagos. We have been very liberal and accommodating and have allowed them to live undisturbed. When there was civil war, it was only in Yoruba land that the estate of the Igbo was returned with the rent. Let no one think that the Yoruba were fools by being so accommodating.”
Chairman of the Afenifere Renewal Group (ARG), Wale Oshun wondered why some Igbo, especially Chinua Achebe “find it convenient to pick Awolowo as a scapegoat of all that happened to them during the war.”
He asked, “did awo start the war? He was just the Federal Commissioner for Finance with responsibility for coming up with appropriate fiscal and monetary policies. He was not at the battle field and could not therefore be fairly charged with genocide..”
The former Chief Whip of the House of Representatives also challenged anyone to come up with any publication where Awo said starvation should be regarded as a legitimate weapon of war. “Neither in any of the books written by him nor on him was any such thing said. It is the work of those who hated his guts. It is not factual. It must be remembered that even when he was not in the cabinet, he tried to prevent the war, but as soon as it broke out, it was between Nigeria and Biafra. He had to come up with policies that would end the war quickly. Those who are peddling this line have forgotten that Awo was in prison when the crisis started.”
Reacting to the suggestion that Awo was one of those who supplied the intellectual power that drove the policies that eventually and effectively ended the war, Oshun said, “if he was in Nigeria and Nigeria was fighting a war, was he supposed to supply intellectual power to Ojukwu? I regard it as a mere emotional statement.”
Oshun also found no merit in the contention that the late Leader of the Yoruba wanted power at all cost and saw the war as an opportunity to further that ambition.. He said: “If Awo wanted power, he would have stayed on in the cabinet after the war. But, rather, he left, saying it had become indefensible to be part of a military government in peace time. If he was scheming for power, he would have held on and used the same military to further his ambition. So, where is the evidence he did anything to project himself and the Yoruba?”
Awo’s official biographer, Prof Moses Makinde, who heads Awolowo Centre for Philosophy, Ideology and Good Governance, Osogbo, is the author of ‘Awo: The Last Conversation’. The other two are: ‘Awo as a Philosopher’ and ‘A Memoir of the Jewel’. He disagreed with Achebe, maintaining that the Ikenne-born statesman was a full-blooded nationalist.
His words: “I do not agree with Prof Achebe on the statement. It is not true that Awo’s civil war role smacked of even an iota of selfish political aggrandisement. I was his biographer and I can state authoritatively that, though he did not penetrate the North, he had a firm belief in the unity of Nigeria and that was why he wanted to govern the country as an indivisible entity. All the governors and other close associates of his would attest to the fact that he was a believer in the oneness of Nigeria which was why he wanted to govern the entire country for the overall benefit of her entire citizenry.
“He was a rare politician and a disciplinarian who believed in selfless service to his people in one whole entity called Nigeria. And that he always preached to all his lieutenants at any point in time. That, of course, accounts for why all his landmark achievements in the Western Region still speak for his patriotic and selfless inclination till today.”
The debate continues to rage. What is not in doubt is that the fight for a better Nigeria remains the preoccupation of true nationalists and patriots
The Nation