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.
