THE HORIZON BY KAYODE KOMOLAFE
Omo eni ki buru ki a f’ekun je. (No wise parent offers his naughty child as a prey to a tiger.)
– A Yoruba Epigram
Outside the courtroom in Abuja two days ago, Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife, declared unequivocally before a television camera that “Nnamdi Kanu is my son.” He added for effect: “Yes, the man who was kidnapped in Kenya is my son.” Mazi Kanu, the leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), is being charged with treason and there are strong indications that terrorism, illegal possession of arms and other crimes might be added as charges whenever the prosecutor is prepared enough to produce him in court.
Yet Ezeife, who wears his signature beard shorter these days, was in court to openly express solidarity with Kanu. Ezeife led the team put together by the Ohaneze Ndigbo to watch the legal proceedings. Ezeife is a former federal permanent secretary and former governor of Anambra state among many things in life. So he is a notable member of the political establishment. He should know what he was talking about by saying that Kanu “is my son.” And Ezeife is not a political personality you could accuse of making flippant statements. He is an elder stateman. There is a historical basis for his action. Apart from the Ohaneze official observers, there was a huge crowd at the court premises on that day because of the man on trial. The tension in the air was palpable. At the end of the day the state could not produce Kanu in court for some “technical reasons.”
The Ohaneze Ndigbo has not endorsed the separatist agenda of Kanu’s IPOB and its many supporters. Like similar organisations in the country, Ohaneze has consistently pushed its position for restructuring Nigeria to achieve “true federalism.”
Last week, Afenifere leader Chief Ayo Adebanjo defended on ARISE TV the campaign for self-determination championed by the Yoruba separatist, Chief Sunday Adeyemo (better known as Sunday Igboho). He drew a parallel between Igboho’s mission in Nigeria and the demand of Scottish nationalists in the United Kingdom who seek the independence of Scotland. Adebanjo trenchantly condemned the raid on Igboho’s home by security agencies. Two persons were killed during the raid.
Meanwhile, Igboho who is undergoing a trial in the Benin Republic, has been accused by the State Security Service (SSS) of crimes including stockpiling arms, inciting violence and disturbing public peace. He was arrested on his way to Germany at the Cotonou airport. The Nigerian state wants Igboho back home just like Kanu was “intercepted” in Kenya and flown to Nigeria.
Like Ezeife, Adebanjo, a nonagenarian and a lawyer, should also know what he is talking about in the matter of Igboho. Adebanjo is a veteran of the political establishment of the Awolowo tradition. For over 70 years he has consistently and courageously fought for the principles of a workable federalism in Nigeria. You don’t have to agree with Adebanjo to respect his unwavering commitment to his political beliefs. Like Ohaneze Ndigbo, Afenifere has not called for secession. Its position is that the country be restructured for “true federalism” for the interest of the Yoruba to be adequately protected.
Beside the loud voice of Afenifere, the Ooni of Ife, Oba Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwunsi, and the Olubadan of Ibadan, Oba Saliu Adetunji, have also sent delegations to Cotonou in solidarity with Igboho, who has been charged with some crimes by that country.
Perhaps, as an aside, it is worth remarking that the matters of Kanu and Igboho demonstrate the sharp contrast between the justice process in Nigeria and that of the Republic of Benin. The SSS is yet to produce Kanu in court in continuation of his truncated trial even after holding Kanu for over a month. Now the case has been adjourned till October. Since Igboho was arrested a week ago in Cotonou, he has been appearing in court almost every day and his case has proceeded steadily. This is the difference between a system that works for the rights of the individual and the one that cavalierly discounts the essence of human freedom in the course of dispensing justice. It doesn’t matter to the Nigerian justice system that human beings are deprived of their freedom while their cases are adjourned endlessly.
To be sure, the legalism of the Kanu and Igboho matters is not the purpose of this column today. It’s left for the prosecutors and defence lawyers to argue the cases in court.
The point at issue, however, is that the solution to the problem of nation-building can hardly be found in the technicalities of the courtroom. The emergence of Kanu, Igboho and similar elements in parts of the country only constitutes a symptom of this problem.
So, in prosecuting Kanu and Igboho (if and when he is brought back to Nigeria), the state and its agents should be conscious of the irrefutable fact that they are not dealing with straightforward criminal cases. It is noteworthy that the media does not portray Kanu and Igboho as mere criminal suspects. Their image is that of liberation fighters and champions of their respective ethnic groups.
Their matters are laden with political overtones. Come to think of it, there are some suspects of Igbo and Yoruba origins undergoing criminal trials in various courts in the land. Ezeife and Adebanjo do not defend these other kinsmen of theirs politically as they are doing for Kanu and Igboho respectively at present. This is because there is no politics in those matters.
It’s important for the administration to watch the trend with due sensitivity and without the binoculars of arrogance of powers.
In recent time, some critical voices are being raised from quarters that have not always been opposed to Buhari. This point is often lost in the often impulsive reactions from Abuja to some of the legitimate criticisms. The bad politics of the administration is provoking these voices.
President Muhammadu Buhari already has economic advisers. Given the grave situation of the polity, the President may also need a team of honest political advisers. To paraphrase American President Joe Biden, the team of advisers being suggested here should look like Nigeria. Maybe, one explanation for Buhari’s gross mismanagement of the nation’s diversity is that those who influence his political steps do not reflect the nation’s diversity and political complexity. Buhari should be advised that his political responsibility goes beyond the periodic briefings given to him by some governors who have virtually abandoned their states while going round the country receiving unprincipled politicians defecting to their troubled party.
It is important that those who advise Buhari should watch the political barometer carefully. Large sections of the elite are increasingly getting alienated by what is happening in the polity. The members of the elite themselves are increasingly influenced by what is happening on the streets. As emerging populists, the Kanus and the Igbohos in the land are fast garnering mass appeals. For instance, the streets of some cities in the southeast remained empty on Monday in solidarity with Kanu even when the state failed to bring Kanu to court in Abuja. Doubtless, the populists control the streets. Is not intriguing that apart from the masses even the elite, who are otherwise critical of the populists, are subtly expressing sympathies for the populist causes especially in the light of what is perceived as persecution?
In the light of the threats to national unity, the strategists of the Buhari administration should reflect on the coded meaning of the Yoruba epigram summoned above to explain the response of the sections of the elite to the open agenda of separation in the country. There is indeed a lot wisdom in a parent not making his obstinate child a prey to a beast. If a father throws his badly behaved boy to a tiger today, the father himself may fall prey to the animal when next it is hungry. If the Nigerian state could vanquish those pushing for self-determination today, the state could one day descend on militant advocates of restructuring tomorrow, so the argument appears to go in some respectable quarters. The state is utterly failing to isolating the separatists as marginal elements. The populist causes are beginning to occupy a big space mainstream space. It is battle for the minds of the people. Significantly, while the members of the elite are not defending violent activities, they have studiously focussed on the human rights of citizens to canvass political views and to be entitled to justice when accused of crimes by the state. The greater interest has been on the politics of the situation.
In the circumstance, the President has an important duty of nation-building using the time-honoured instruments of geo-political equity, social justice and economic inclusion.
That could be the antidote to the separatist ferment. The separatists take advantage of the lacuna created when the leadership fails to cement the forces of integration. It’s the duty of the leadership to convince by words and action those losing faith in the unity of Nigeria to think otherwise.
It should be acknowledged that the Buhari administration is building railways, bridges, roads and health facilities. Even the harshest critic of Buhari can hardly deny the fact that the evidence of this abounds in parts of the county. However, at a time during which the fault lines have become more conspicuous than ever, the President should make conscious efforts to unite the nation by taking structural and policy steps. You need the political space of a just, united and peaceful country to fully appreciate the mortal and bricks achievements of the administration.
Out of extreme disenchantment with the state of things, some pundits may wonder why anyone should expect Buhari to play the role of a unity president given his record of nepotism and insensitivity to issues of diversity. Yet, the important question of the role of the individual in history comes into the fore in the circumstance. A leader could be a force for unity or division. It is a conscious choice to make in the Nigerian situation. Buhari may not be what Giuseppe Garibaldi was to Italy or Mustafa Kemal Ataturk represented in Turkey. He could, however, still make a difference by self-correcting some of the errors of the administration impairing national unity and obstructing the path of progress and modernity.
The strategists of the administration should be suggestible enough to reflect on the nation’s history. Presidents and Heads of state have been largely defined by what they did politically or failed to do in the intangible realm more than anything else. To start with, Buhari’s 20-month tenure as a military head of state is remembered more for the political acts of repression than other policy steps. Take another example. In the General Yakubu Gowon’s nine-year tenure as Head of State, his role during the civil war is more conspicuous in historically than other things that happened.
Not a few disappointed citizens would doubt if Buhari could still make a difference given the limited time he has in the face of the deepening political problems. For the incurable optimists, on the contrary, a lot could still be done by Buhari to bolster national unity. All the President needs to do is to give leadership by words and action and be a unity President decidedly for the next 22 months.
It is not enough for Buhari to build infrastructure; it is time Buhari took nation-building more seriously as a primary duty.