If I Were PBAT: Sentencing Nnamdi Kanu to Life Imprisonment not Nigeria’s Problem but National Unity
Bola A. Akinterinwa
The bane of the Nigerian society has been variously identified. In 1987, Professor J.S. Cookey noted in his Report of the Political Bureau that corruption and indiscipline was the bane of the Nigerian society. He dated the commencement of the bane to 1967. And true enough, but most unfortunately, since 1967, corruption and societal indiscipline has been part of national life. The seriousness of corruption in Nigeria prompted British Minister David Cameron in 2016 to describe Nigeria as fantastically corrupt. But who is contesting that Nigeria is fantastically corruption? Nigeria is truly and fantastically corrupt.
The United Nations Convention against Corruption promotes the need for incorruptible judges that are capable of inspiring and compelling a corrupt-free conduct in the society. Most unfortunately, Olu Fasan has shown that ‘judges are the biggest bribe-takers in Nigeria,’ (vide his column, Vanguard, April 25, 2019). But why is it so? Olu Fasan even factored the biblical dimensions to the discussion. Deuteronomy 16:19 told judges ‘not to pervert justice’ not to show partiality, and not to accept bribe because ‘for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise, and perverts the words of the righteous.’ In Nigeria, corruption, bribery, partiality, etc. have become the hallmark of the justice system of Nigeria. In the words of former US Ambassador to Nigeria, John Campbell and Mathew Page, Nigeria has ‘a judiciary notorious for accepting bribes and awarding favourable rulings to the highest bidder.’
Against this background, we observe here that it is because Nigeria, as a nation-state, does not exist, that every Nigerian wants survival first by taking advantage of the non-Nigerianess in the polity to engage in sharp practices. A leader who is notoriously corrupt cannot have the temerity to tell his followers not to engage in corrupt practices.
Nnamdi Kanu not Nigeria’s Problem, National Unity is:
Is money Nigeria’s problem? It was observed following the surrender of Phillipe Effiong on January 12, 1970, by which time Nigeria’s civil war came to an end, that money is not Nigeria’s problem but how to spend the money. The civil war was followed by oil boom. Nigeria showed acts of altruism to many brotherly countries, by even paying the salaries of their civil and public servants. As of today, can it be rightly argued that Nigeria now knows how to spend her hard-earned money? Can Nigeria clearly respond to the challenges of globalisation and technological innovations? How do we explain the fact that, under the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT), the Government has always been insolvent to the extent that PBAT has to always ask for fresh loans? Nigerians are divided on the extent to which fresh loans are desirable. Some argued that new investments are necessary for sustainable growth. Others argue that Government has been unnecessarily wasteful, that efforts at nation-building have been far-fetched. To what extent can the incarceration of Nnamdi Kanu account for national disunity? Nnamdi Kanu is not Nigeria’s problem. Nigeria’s main problem is lack of national unity, lack of commitment to nation-building.
A second bane of the Nigerian society is the abundance of natural resources. Until of recent, exploitation and exportation of crude oil accounted for more than 70% of Nigeria’s foreign exchange earnings. The southeast and south-south are known to be the major reservoir of the crude oil resources. Consequently, all eyes have been on the Niger Delta which has been asking for the right of resource-control. Today, there is a growing decline in interest and emphasis on crude oil. Greater emphasis is increasingly being placed on solid minerals richly found in the northern region of the country. This partly explains why global powers are more interested in protecting the resources of the Northern region. The United States may be truly interested in protecting Christians and stopping Christian genocide in the North, but other U.S. interests cannot be ignored. China has shown support for Nigeria, also warning the United States to be cautious with its threats of ‘guns-a-blazing.’ China is also protecting its own interests.
Even though Nigeria is seriously challenged by problems of critical infrastructure deficits, general insecurity, economic insecurity, as well as governance and corruption problems, national consciousness about being a Nigerian, of considering all national resources as being a national common patrimony that must also be jointly protected is still lacking. This is basically because politics as a professional business is unnecessarily overrated and given a status that is above every other profession in the country. This is why there is no Nigerian nation. Apparently, in an attempt to promote patriotism, Nigeria’s National Anthem was changed and militarised under President Olusegun Obasanjo.
In the same vein, PBAT revisited the Independence National Anthem and set aside General Obasanjo’s new anthem. Both leaders apparently think that a national anthem can transform an individual into a patriot. Without doubt, listening to a national anthem can influence and make people think to change to become more patriotic. However, in the absence of national consciousness about being a Nigerian, singing or reciting any national anthem cannot but be meaningless.
More often than not, it is always argued that Nigeria’s problem is not about religion and that Muslims and Christians live happily with one another. In the southern part of the country, this may be true but quite arguably in the context of the North. The northern elite generally frowns at Christian-Christian presidential ticket while in the southern part of the country, Muslim-Muslim ticket is not seen as a big deal. There was the time Chief M.K.O. Abiola, a devout Muslim, and Babagana Kingibe, another devout Muslim, had a joint ticket and there was no big deal with it in the south. In the same manner, PBAT and Alhaji Kashim Shettima, both Muslims, had a joint presidential ticket. It is not taken as a big deal in the south. However, this situation raises questions as to why the Northern political elite is afraid or does not want any Christian-Christian ticket. The question can still be raised at the level of the Christians: why is it that they never insist on Christian-Christian ticket? While the Christians think it is insensitive to insist on the same religion ticket, the Northern elite holds a different view.
Consequently, it is difficult to argue that religion is not an issue in Nigeria. Several videos on discrimination against Christians in the North are in circulation. PBAT cannot but do well by seizing every available opportunity to truly unite the country. In order to strengthen national unity at the end of the civil war, the National Youth Service Corps was introduced by General Gowon. Corpers were deployed to states other than theirs to serve. National unity efforts were visible and appreciated. As of today, no one wants to go beyond his or her own area. Patriotism has become a rarity.
Politicians can be members of the People’s Democratic Party in the morning, members of the All Progressives Congress in the afternoon, and members of the All Democratic Alliance in the evening. The story can still be different the following day. This is a case of no unity of purpose, no ideology of purpose, but only self-survivalist interests to the detriment of national unity. In all these, Nnamdi Kanu’s incarceration has a lot of bearing with the need for national unity. His life imprisonment has the great potential to generate anger of his people. His people are not likely to accept government’s allegations of terrorism levied against him. His people support his separate agenda. One good approach is therefore to first of all douse the growing tension of anger, then discuss the many options for peaceful co-existence.
Nigeria’s multidimensional problems are well known. There is the problem of weak institutions in which case rules cannot be objectively enforced because of corruption. Nigeria’s federal system is one in which power is overcentralized and the economy is still largely dependent on oil. Insecurity ranging from boko haramism, kidnapping, and armed banditry to kidnapping, oil theft and IPOB insurrection, is a major problematic in Nigeria. Corruption has gone beyond the individual level. It is now systemic. There is also the problem of power supply. It is important to note here that there has been a significant progress in electricity supply in some areas, the manufacturing industries are still complaining. Nigeria is witnessing a rapid population growth of about 2.4% yearly but unemployment is on the increase, as well as youth frustration and increasing poverty. Nigeria of today is that of many conflicts: North-South divide, Christian-Muslim divide, majority-minority ethnic groups divide, Fulani herdsmen-Farmers divide, etc. With these problems, weak industrial base and poor urban planning and infrastructure, Sharia-Criminal Code divide, etc., PBAT needs to pause and re-strategise and take advantage of the Nnamdi Kanu’s case to correct what is wrong with Nigeria.
Nigeria’s most critical problem is national unity. Nigeria cannot be operating the Sharia code in the North and the criminal code in the south at the same time. Government and PBAT must not think that the incarceration of Nnamdi Kanu in faraway Kano is a solution to Nigeria’s problem of national unity. Nnamdi Kanu has a great followership and can still make political governance difficult. PBAT does not need to wait for that type of situation before seeking to nip it in the bud.
If I were PBAT, I will Pardon Nnamdi Kanu
Nigeria truly qualifies to be called a state in international law and relations, at least, for meeting the criteria of government, population, and territory, as well as having been recognised as a state and having a recognised government. Nigeria is not a nation-state in its true sense of developing a nation in its socio-cultural sense. As a result, in order to give meaning to new nation-building, a political solution appears to be the only way to achieve a new Nigeria.
First, it is myopic to think that taking Nnamdi Kanu to a Kano prison would prevent people from protesting in Kano. One truth that PBAT must not forget is that he is on record to have championed the advocacy for true federalism in Nigeria (Vide Bola A. Akinterinwa, editor, Bola Ahmed Tinubu and the Struggle for True Federalism (Ibadan: Vantage publishers, © 2000), 320 pp, ISBN 978-000-30-4). Most unfortunately in this case, the establishment of a true federal system still remains a dream as of today. One major reason for agitations for self-determination or separateness is because of lack of a true federal system. The current federal system is most unfair in the dispensation of justice. We believe that if ethnic group is complaining about unfairness, injustice, marginalization, etc. the use of force cannot be the best appropriate way forward. It is political dialogue that ought to be given priority attention.
One truth about the incarceration of the IPOB leader is that he has a large crowd of supporters. His major opponents are basically the political leaders from his region whose positions may be threatened if he is given freedom. More truly, there is no disputing the fact that the life sentence judgment given to Nnamdi Kanu does not mean an end to the agitation for a separate existence of the Igbo people. The Catalans in Spain have been fighting for separate existence for more than three hundred years. The Spanish authorities have been permanently put on red alerts of no war and no peace. Nigeria should not be put in the same situation of no war and no peace.
Convicting Nnamdi Kanu for engaging in terrorist acts is more political than legal. In many court rulings and judgments, Government refused to comply with the courts orders but the same government wants citizens to comply with the law. When the United States accused the liberation movements of engaging in the use of force to end apartheid in Southern Africa, and even describing them as terrorists, it was Nigeria that led Africa to counter the arguments and to reject the U.S. argument of constructive engagement. Nigeria made it clear that the liberation movements were fighting for justice and should not be considered as terrorists but as liberators.
It is also useful here to note that, as far back as 1963 when President Sylvanus Olympio of Togo was brutally killed by foreign mercenaries, Nigeria’s Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa not only declared a ‘no compromise with apartheid,’ but also formulated an exception to the non-intervention principle contained under Article 2(7) of the UN Charter. Nigeria argued that apartheid could not be considered as a domestic affair of South Africa, and therefore Nigeria condoned the use of force and whatever means that could bring an end to racial segregation in South Africa
Unbelievable but true, the Government of Nigeria explicitly told the holders of the old British-type Nigerian hard passport to use whatever means available to them to fight apartheid. The directive was contained in the inner back cover of the passport. Put differently, apartheid was to be fought by all Nigerians holding the Nigerian passport with all means available to them. Terrorism was allowed to attain freedom and to end apartheid was the order.
Terrorism in the mania of Boko Haram should not be compared with the use of force to achieve freedom and separateness. Boko Haram, by its name, does not want western education and Nigeria, with its present structure. Boko Haram simply wants to replace the current Nigerian order with Sharia. Even with that objective and the well-known atrocities they regularly committed, the Government of Nigeria has been forgiving them, sending them abroad to re-educate them. The Boko Haram group is still holding several kidnapped school girls in its custody. When the case of Nnamdi Kanu is compared to that of the Boko Haramists, it cannot but be seen that Nnamdi Kanu is more of a minor offender. Additionally, even if Justice James Omotosho had not shown the biblical mercy, capital punishment would not stop agitations for self-determination.
The truth again is that national unity has not been maintained on the basis of consent or voluntariness, but, more often than not, by coercion. It has been enforced by manu militari. Nigeria’s national unity cannot be forcefully. Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution as amended specifically provides in its Chapter 1, Part 1, Section 2(1) on the Federal Republic of Nigeria, that ‘Nigeria is one indivisible and indissoluble Sovereign State to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.’ The operational words are ‘indissoluble’ and ‘indivisible.’
These are the two words that the various governments of Nigeria have largely capitalised on to keep Nigeria united by force, without making strenuous efforts to build a Nigerian nation. Opponents of Government have argued that the 1999 Constitution is manu militari in origin; that the people of Nigeria were not involved in the making of the Constitution; and more importantly, that self-determination is a matter of right in international law and relations.
Without doubt, it is true that where people struggle peacefully to ask for self-determination and the Government uses force to prevent the agitations, the people often end up in the use of force to break away. Several examples abound and this is what we want PBAT to always remember that no people can be permanently silenced when it comes to the question of self-determination. Nigeria’s national unity has, at best, been very fragile. There is a lot of goodness in being united: diversified cultures, biggest population in Africa, biggest arable land in Africa, giant of Africa with the most vibrant press, etc.
However, the current environmental conditionings in Nigeria are not conducive to such goodness. Imagine the Nigeria before 2015 or under Dr Goodluck Jonathan when General Muhammadu Buhari made it clear that if he did not win the 2014 presidential election, he would make Nigeria ungovernable. Probably for fear of this, President Jonathan did not waste time in conceding defeat. President Buhari appeared to have enjoyed the support of his people. That same support cannot be said to have been given to PBAT. The intensified and increasing manifestations of insecurity are being rightly or wrongly interpreted as an attempt to make political governance under PBAT very difficult, and particularly to frustrate his 2027 re-election.
This is one major reason for PBAT to work tooth and nail to unite all Nigerians. The peoples of Nigeria have little or no problem. It is their leaders, who import mercenaries and terrorists to Nigeria, to come and vote, but are not able to send them back after voting, that are responsible for the political lull in the Nigeria of today and particularly in the North. It is not the unity of politicians that we are talking about, but the unity of peoples. Imagine a government being told about or given the names of, funders of terror and no action is taken by Government. Yet the same government is still claiming to be fighting terrorism. Christians are being killed daily and Government is arguing that Muslims are also victims of the killings. Does the inclusion of Muslims in the killing imply that there is no Christian genocide? Whatever is the case, national unity in Nigeria is very fragile as of today. If the imprisonment of Nnamdi Kalu is not more carefully handled, an unwanted second civil war may be precipitated. War is generally planned for, but, at times, it is imposed unprepared for. It is this aspect of national unity that should be given priority attention. It requires a great caution.
As noted earlier, no one can be rightly coerced into national unity in which the constituent parts suspect one another. National unity must be natural in evolvement, attractive in outlook, beneficial in implementation, patriotic in pursuit, and collective in defence. When the Nigerian team is playing against any foreign country, the manifestation of national unity is always natural. The instinct of togetherness is always visible. When an Igbo person is victim of oppression abroad, one naturally sees the Hausa or the Yoruba coming into his defence without being invited. It is this type of national spirit that PBAT should try to promote in building a new Nigeria. This cannot but be consistent with his struggle for true federalism which he pursued committedly when he was Governor of Lagos State. Pardoning Nnamdi Kanu has the potential to lessen tensions, particularly in the southeast, and therefore reduction in defence spending. PBAT’s image, especially from the perspective of Donald Trump, will be stronger as a unifier. His diplomatic image will also be greatly enhanced. National unity cannot but be better sustained. Currently, the Government of Nigeria, before and during PBAT’s tenure, is believed to be complicit in the Christian genocide. PBAT needs to disabuse the minds of such believers by pardoning Nnamdi Kanu in the mania of pardon of Odumegwu Ojukwu, Niger Delta militants under Yar’Adua, Biafra war general amnesties under General Yakubu Gowon, and MKO Abiola family recognition under Buhari. Pardoning is not weakness but statecraft that can enable PBAT to lay a new foundation for peace and togetherness.
