Being text of speech by Pastor Tunde Bakare at the 10th Late
Gani Fawehinmi’s Annual Lecture by The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA),
Ikeja Branch on January 15, 2014.
Protocols.
It was Frank Rooney who said, “Immortality is the genius to move
others long after you yourself have stopped moving”. We gather here
today in honour of a man who, though dead, yet still speaks to the
conscience of our nation; though his frame has returned to the earth,
his name stands tall above the perversity of his generation and though
his soul rests on the other side of eternity, his ideals continue to
move humanity in the quest for a just and equitable society. Abdul
Ganiyu Oyesola Fawehinmi, Senior Advocate of the Masses, Senior Advocate
of Nigeria, the dread of dictators, a thorn in the flesh of oppressors,
defender of the poor, the people’s lawyer, known by all simply as
“Gani”, truly lives on. Gani is remembered today not for the houses he
built though he built a few edifices, not for the cars he rode, though
he was wealthy enough to afford them, not for his professional
attainment though he won quite a few awards including the Bruno Kreisky
Price for internationally recognized human rights advocates, the
International Bar Association’s Bennard Simon’s Award and, eventually,
the highest honour in the Nigerian legal profession – Senior Advocate of
Nigeria (SAN) after having been politically denied his due for many
years – no, Gani is remembered today, not for any of these, for indeed,
many others have attained these heights and won these recognitions;
rather, Gani is remembered today for the lives he uniquely touched.
I had the privilege of working directly with him beginning from my
days as a law student. Not only did he give me access to law books and
reports, he availed me the use of his library in preparation for my
examinations. I studied and slept in his library. He sponsored my trip
to the United Kingdom for further editing and proof reading of the
Nigeria Constitutional Law Reports Vol. 1 in 1981. As a lawyer in his
firm, I learnt from his diligence and work ethic, the kind that would
tolerate no laziness and for which less driven souls erroneously labeled
him a slave driver. Gani fought like a bulldog; once he was persuaded
that a case was worth handling, he would deploy the power of
concentration and pursue it to a logical conclusion and he never
abandoned his cases. Gani’s passion for justice was legendary and it
overrode his need for profit, yet God blessed him with a business acumen
that sustained his humanitarian life purpose. He would not refuse cases
simply on the basis of the inability of the prospective client to
afford legal representation; rather, once he was convinced that justice
for the poor was at stake, he would handle such cases pro bono. The rule
of law, fundamental human rights, democracy and social justice summed
up the profit for which he laboured with boundless energy.
As a human rights activist, Gani was in a class of his own, ready to
go solo for what he believed in, many times to the consternation of his
colleagues in the struggle. Gani was in the struggle to spend and be
spent for justice. Detained 32 times in 12 jails and various detention
centres across the country and brutalized many of those times, he
mustered a stoic Boy Scout-like preparedness for the worst case
scenario. With suitcase packed in readiness for the next arrest and
fearing not that he could lose his life, he astounded military and civil
dictators and truly gained his life when he said,
“History is a totality of events, when you fight on principles … fight
to the end. This is my guiding principle. When you fight on the side of
the people put everything into it. I fight on principles and would
continue to fight on the side of the people. I will die for the people
of this country”
As it were, he died for the people of this country when the
cumulative effect of years of brutal treatment in jail cells finally
told on him as he succumbed to lung cancer. Yet, heroically, even on his
death bed, he remained a fighter, not just in his instructing his
chambers to pursue to logical conclusion his pending case against the
Federal Government but also because he took the failure of our country’s
medical system to diagnose his ailment early enough as evidence of the
country’s social decay and, as such, expressed a desire that such
facilities be made available for the Nigerian people. Therefore, in life
and in death, Gani’s mission was the liberation of the people from
social, economic and political bondage. This was what he lived for and
it was to this cause that he deployed the legal profession in his
primary place of assignment – Nigeria, a nation whose frameworks were
laid a century ago in an atmosphere of social, economic and political
subjugation. Today, five years after the departure of Chief Gani
Fawehinmi and a hundred years after the framework of this country was
laid, we are gathered here asking if, despite the labours of Gani
Fawehinmi and his contemporaries as well as those of our heroes past
that came before, especially those who fought for Nigeria’s
independence, this country still remains under bondage – Nigeria at
centenary, a nation under bondage?
In addressing the above question, we will first of all examine the
concept of nationhood and the making of nations; we will then take a
look at the notion of a nation in bondage and dissect the nature of
national bondage; thereafter, we will critically examine the evolution
of nationhood in the Nigerian context traveling back in time to the
events leading to the amalgamation of 1914; applying our analysis to the
Nigerian situation, we will seek to answer the question posed by the
theme of this lecture – Nigeria at centenary, a nation under bondage?
Where such a critical evaluation presents Nigeria at her centenary as an
independent nation under bondage, however oxymoronic that may sound, we
will seek a practical path to freedom.
The Making of Nations
Without recourse to complex theories of political science, we can deduce
the purpose of nations from simple social interactions. Man’s quest for
provision, protection, power, promotion, peace and progress is an
acknowledgement of his need for something transcendental, something
beyond his current grasp, a higher ideal that he cannot pursue alone.
“It is not good for man to be alone” is how the Book puts it. As one,
there is only so much he can attain and so the institution of family is
created. The exponential law in his pursuit of progress is that one can
chase a thousand but two can chase ten thousand. As ideals become higher
and goals become greater, social interactions naturally become more
complex from the family to the community and eventually to the nation,
which is a group of complex communities bound together by the common
pursuit of progress. The shared ideal to which this group aspires
becomes embodied in the culture of the group. That ideal may find
expression in such concepts as “liberté, egalité, fraternité” as in the
French case or “Democracy and Separation of Powers” as in the American
case. The need for an orderly pursuit of progress necessitates the
organization of the group into units such that a structure evolves. The
common ideal for which the group strives is manifest in the provision of
public goods that are served through institutions; but the working of
these institutions must be guided by predictable norms in order to
guarantee stability, hence the existence of laws that reflect that ideal
to which they strive at which point that ideal takes the form of a
constitution, whether written or unwritten. For the culture to be
preserved, for the structure to be accurately delineated, for
institutions to function properly and for the constitution to be
enforced against possible deviant behaviour, government is necessary,
hence the group finds able persons from among themselves upon whom they
confer authority and power to act on their behalf as provided for by the
constitution. This framework is known as the State.
The State is defined as a legal entity possessing sovereignty and
comprised of a well-defined territory, a population, a government that
has effective control over the given territory, and the capacity to
enter into relations with other States. It is the vehicle in which the
nation embarks on the pursuit of a higher ideal. Hence, like the human
trinity, a nation is a corporate spiritual entity which has a soul
defined by the ideal to which the nation aspires while the State is the
bodily framework in which the nation exists.
Hence, nations are formed and their geographical boundaries determined
within States to the end that men may seek higher aspirations until they
find the utmost aspiration of humanity and by so doing, maximize their
individual and corporate potential in fulfillment of purpose.
Between Homogeneity and Heterogeneity in the Making of Nations
By the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary, the word “nation”
originates from the Middle English word nacioun, which was derived from
the Anglo-French word naciun, which, itself, originated from the Latin
word natio, meaning “birth” and whose root word is nasci which means “to
be born” or “that which has been born”. This suggests that descent is
critical in the traditional understanding of the concept of nationhood.
Hence, a nation is traditionally defined as a group of people who share a
common descent, history, language and culture. This definition, which
centres on ethnic commonality, raises a critical question, is
homogeneity a precondition for nationhood?
A nation, in the traditional sense, is a tightly knit group which
shares a common culture without necessarily existing as a sovereign
entity. Consequently, one may refer to the Yoruba nation, the Igbo
nation, the Hausa nation, the Tiv nation, the Urhobo nation, the Ijaw
nation and so on – these are peoples predominant in certain geographical
areas sharing a common descent, history language and culture, but
sometimes lacking the structural, institutional, constitutional and
governmental frameworks of a State.
However, when a nation in the traditional sense, exists as a
self-governing polity within a defined territory, that is, when a
homogenous group of people with common descent, history, language and
culture exists as a sovereign State, it is referred to as a
nation-state. Examples include Japan, Germany, France, Egypt, Albania,
Armenia, Bangladesh, and South Korea, among others. These are homogenous
countries where the majority of the population (over 99%) is derived
from a common ethnicity and in some cases has a common creed or
religion.
The idea that homogeneity is the criteria for nationhood would seem
logical. Two cannot work together except they agree, how much more when a
nation comprising much more than two is in question. In essence, unity
is a factor for nationhood; like the story of the old man who made his
bellicose sons attempt to break a bundle of broom unsuccessfully, the
creed is “united we stand, divided we fall” and like the Book puts it, a
house divided against itself cannot stand. In this line of reasoning,
events in history would suggest that homogeneity could foster the needed
unity and, consequently, facilitate the forging of a common spirit
whether for revolutionary or for developmental purposes. Revolutionary
cases in point are the Israeli exodus from Egypt, the French Revolution,
Germany in the two World Wars and the creation of the modern Jewish
State in 1948 despite severe Arabian opposition. In the Nigerian civil
war, the Biafran insurrection was sustained for three years despite
their comparative military disadvantage perhaps owing to the power of
unity fuelled by ethnic nationalism. While some of these actual or
attempted revolutions were fuelled or sustained by a sense of ethnic
nationalism, the mere absence of strong ethnic or religious divisions
may have forestalled a precipitated truncation of the movement in
others. In the Israeli exodus from Egypt, it is noteworthy that the
presence of mixed multitudes at some point constituted an obstacle to
the movement.
In terms of development, the economies of Israel, Japan, China,
Germany, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore may well have been propped by
the fact that in each of these countries, developmental strategies were
fuelled by a certain pervading and unifying philosophy which had much
to do with the homogeneous culture of the respective people.
Nevertheless, the reality is, whereas homogeneity could create a sense
of nationalism, it does not necessarily translate into enduring unity,
else, how can one account for civil conflicts among homogenous States?
Egypt, though an example of an ethnically homogenous State, has been in
turbulence since the Arab spring.
Therefore, beyond ethnic, cultural, religious and other primordial
manifestations of homogeneity, unity can be found in a people’s pursuit
of a higher ideal. Many modern States are heterogeneous, comprising
ethnically and sometimes religiously diverse populations. Some countries
have been able to build stable polities despite their heterogeneity.
These States are often unified by a common ideal that transcends ethnic
nationalism. Switzerland, which is one of the most politically stable
and economically developed countries in the world, though heterogeneous
in language, has a unifying national identity.
This is particularly true of the United States of America. In more
than two hundred years, the United States has made significant progress
at harnessing the strength of its heterogeneous population towards the
making of a great nation. The United States is described as a
“nation-state”, an appellation traditionally reserved for States with
single ethnic nationalities. This is due to the pervading ideal
described as the American culture or the American Dream. This Dream is
expressed in the potency of the American federal system of government.
It is reflected in the preeminence of the principle of “state of
residence” over “state of origin” in identity determination as seen, for
instance, in the simultaneous election of the Rockefeller brothers as
the respective governors of New York and Arkansas in 1967 and that of
the Bush brothers in Texas and Florida in 1998. Perhaps, its greatest
expression so far has been the election of President Barrack Obama, an
American of Kenyan descent as President of the United States of America.
That the United States is arguably the most powerful country in the
word today indicates that nations that are bound together by common
ideals are stronger than nations that are knit together by mere ethnic
nationalism or religion. It becomes more potent if this ideal is based
on the God-ordained destiny of the given nation.
Therefore, a nation in the context in which we aspire to use it may
be described as a group or groups of people knit together by a common
ideal and propelled by a common sense of destiny, inhabiting a well
defined territory organized as a legal entity known as the State, and
possessing sovereignty which they confer in trust on the government of
their choice.
The Nature of National Bondage
Literally, the word bondage is the state of being a slave. It is the
state of subjection to a force, power or influence. Figuratively, it is a
state of being constrained by circumstances or obligations. Having
established that a nation is a group of people in a common progressive
journey towards a common destiny, it becomes clear that when a nation as
a collective entity is constrained by forces of whatever kind, internal
or external, from the attainment of the ideal to which it aspires, that
nation is in some form of bondage. In such a state of existence, unable
to attain its ideal, it loses its identity; in relation to other
nations it loses its power and, in relation to its constituent groups it
loses cohesion until things fall apart and the centre cannot hold.
Therefore, national bondage may be external, when a nation is
subjugated by another, as in colonization when the nation lacks the
framework of State in the legal sense, or occupation when a nation or
territory is invaded, conquered and controlled by another. In
colonization, the colony lacks sovereignty or self-government as well as
the ability to enter into relations with other territories. Such a
nation is denied external self-determination. Its resources are
appropriated by the colonialist and revenue suffers capital flight.
Investment in the colony is only to the extent that such investments
serve the interests of the colonialist.
National bondage could be internal, when the cultural, structural,
institutional, constitutional and governmental frameworks of State begin
to hinder, rather than serve the fulfillment of the national,
subnational or individual potential. At that point, the frameworks of
State become oppressive and counter-productive much like an auto-immune
disease. For a heterogeneous nation, the presence of a national ideal
suggests that the various groups have found their respective interests
in the conglomeration of their individual aspirations and that these
aspirations are better served by a union. This coming together of
sub-nationalities should enhance, facilitate and catalyze, not limit or
hinder the realization of the constituent destinies. Therefore, there is
element of bondage when individuals or sub-national groups within the
State are constrained from their potential by the national entity.
The concept of nationhood suggests that the citizens have surrendered
their individual sovereignty to the State through a social contract
that guarantees the provision of public goods. The individual citizen
finds in the State an avenue to meet his/her need for provision,
protection, peace, power, promotion and progress within acceptable norms
that will ensure that the rights of other individuals are not trampled
upon. These are manifest in the social, economic and political functions
of the State, the basic of these being the provision of social
amenities. When the institution of State lacks the capacity or the
political will to provide these public goods then the nation housed in
that framework of State is in bondage.
The Cycle of Bondage
In 1943, an American industrialist, H.W. Prentis identified a sequence
comprised of ten stages that nations pass through in what he referred to
as the historical cycle of nations. These are bondage, spiritual faith,
great courage, liberty, abundance, selfishness, complacency, apathy,
dependence and bondage. In this cycle, nations are said to move:
From bondage to spiritual faith
From spiritual faith to great courage
From courage to liberty
From liberty to abundance
From abundance to selfishness
From selfishness to complacency
From complacency to apathy
From apathy to dependence
From dependence back into bondage
To understand this cycle of national bondage, the biblical story of
Israel is the locus classicus. Israel, a nation covenanted to a higher
ideal, was held captive in Egypt for four hundred years. They suffered
cruel bondage manifest in their social, economic and political
existence. Family life was attacked as their oppressors sought to
decimate the population; economically, labour conditions were made
unbearable even though they could not access the fruit of their
excruciating labour; politically, they had no self-government. After 400
years, a deliverer arose in the person of Moses who initially sought to
attain the freedom of his people through violence. The wrath of the
Egyptian king made him a fugitive until he had an encounter that
awakened him to the destiny of his nation. That encounter stirred in him
spiritual faith and, consequently, great courage which he transferred
to his people as he spearheaded the liberation of his nation. In that
condition of liberty, he laid the cultural, structural, institutional,
constitutional and governmental blueprint for the prosperity and
abundance of the nation in line with the national ideal into which
Israel had been covenanted. However, with passage of time, the nation
slipped into selfishness as every man did what he liked. Selfishness
gave rise to complacency as the nation ceased to pursue its full
potential, and from complacency to apathy as the people became
indifferent to the national ideal. At that point, the nation would lose
its identity and turn to other nations for meaning. Then a deliverer
would arise to liberate the people and lead them to prosperity until the
nation went full cycle back to bondage.
Having laid this conceptual background, we will seek to answer the
question, Nigeria at centenary, a nation under bondage? However, let us
take a look at the making of nationhood in the Nigerian context as we
search for a Nigerian nation.
The Amalgamation of 1914
Prior to the coming of the British, the territories that inhabited the
geographical area around the River Niger existed as separate,
self-governing geopolitical entities with unique cultures,
administrative structures, institutions, laws and government. At the
point of colonization, there was the Sokoto Caliphate with its
federation of Emirates including Hausa city-states and the Middle-Belt
territories down to Ilorin all subjugated by jihad and conquest; the
Bornu Empire with its vassal states also subjugated by conquest; the
warring Yoruba kingdoms of Ife, Owu, Ibadan, Ijaye, Egba, Ijebu, and
Remo; the Benin Kingdom; the delta settlements such as Itshekiri, Opobo,
Bonny and Brass; numerous Igbo towns and villages and many other small
territories. At the Berlin conference in 1885, the Europeans sat down to
apportion among themselves territories in which they had demonstrated
interests and presence. The Nigerian territories were apportioned to the
British. Through intrigues, the threat of force and the actual use of
force, the British annexed these territories and set out to amalgamate
them for organizational efficiency.
The amalgamation was a progressive political unification of these
colonial territories to form the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. It
began in 1883 when the Oil Rivers Protectorate was united with
surrounding territories to form the Niger Coast Protectorate. Then, in
1897, after the Benin massacre, the Benin Kingdom was merged with the
Niger Coast Protectorate to form the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria.
In 1906, the Colony of Lagos was combined with the Southern Protectorate
to form the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria.
While the southern territories were being merged, the United African
Company (UAC) – which became the National African Company (NAC) and
later, the Royal Niger Company through the granting of a royal charter –
had already established northern Nigeria as a sphere of British
influence. After the Berlin Conference, the British Crown took over
these territories from the Royal Niger Company reportedly at the cost of
865,000 pounds. When Lord Frederick Lugard hoisted the Union Jack in
Lokoja in 1900, the people of northern Nigeria did not understand that
Britain had, by that act, claimed sovereignty over the area. The
British, through Lugard, then set out to enforce this claim by military
offensive until 1905 when the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria was
firmly under British control. Eventually, on the first of January 1914, a
hundred years ago, the Northern and Southern Protectorates were
amalgamated to form the framework of a united Nigeria.
It is very important to note that what the British amalgamated back
then was the administration of the North and the South and that it was
solely for the economic benefits of the British government because it
was not the policy of the colonialists to use their own tax payers’
money to run the protectorates.
Besides this point, Major Lugard as he then was, who arrived Nigeria
about 1894, was not originally employed by the British government. He
was employed by companies, first by East Indian Company, thereafter by
the Royal East African Company and finally by the Royal Niger Company.
It was from the Royal Niger Company that he got transferred to the
British government. Up till this moment, the interest of the Europeans
in Africa and that of the British especially in Nigeria had remained
mainly economic.
It may also interest every learned colleague here present that
inspite of all the “centenary celebration” touting by the government,
the January 1, 1914 date relates only to the Amalgamation of the
Administrations of the North and the South. The amalgamation of the
judiciary did not take place until 1916 when the Supreme, Provincial and
Native Courts Ordinances of Northern Nigeria were amended and made
applicable to the whole country, while the legislative amalgamation of
Nigeria came only in 1947.
The Nature of Colonial Rule
To the British, the area around the Niger was a business enterprise and
the people a labour force to be deployed in this enterprise. This is why
some historians have argued that the abolition of slave trade was
merely for economic reasons as it was considered more efficient to
exploit Africans in their own territories. This commercial premise for
the concept of an amalgamated Nigerian geopolitical entity determined
the priorities of the colonial government. Consequently, although the
British government established local government administration, overseas
trade and some level of industrialization, its concept of Nigeria as an
instrument of British imperial interests determined its priorities such
that its policies were aimed at serving the British economy as against
developing the budding nation. From its political system of indirect
rule to its economic projects including the establishment of
communication infrastructure, shipping and railway, the credit
facilities and the agricultural policy, which emphasized the production
of cash crops as against food crops, most of its policies were targeted
at strengthening the British economy. More devastating was the
educational policy which focused on raising administrators and clerical
officers for the colonial government rather than on training technical
experts for national development. Even more devastating was the
deliberate de-emphasis on Western education in the North by the
Frederick Lugard-led colonial administration in order to maintain
British control and maximize economic gains for Britain. These were
clear manifestations of bondage.
Nevertheless, it is needful to debunk arguments that the pre-colonial
entities would have been better off without the amalgamation. The
shortsightedness of that argument lies in its failure to realize that
many of Nigeria’s pre-colonial peoples were in some form of bondage as
at the time they were colonized. In many cases, the people lived in
feudal systems that subjected them to aristocratic domination. Many
territories were vassal states subject to and paying tribute to larger
territories. For instance, the Sokoto Caliphate was the result of the
subjugation of the Hausa city-states and the northern and middle-belt
minorities. Territories that were not under the Caliphate dominion were
subject to the Borno Empire. The Benin kingdom held sway over vassal
territories in the mid-west and delta area. With the fall of the Old Oyo
Empire, Ibadan came close to dominating the entire Yoruba land which
was enmeshed in civil wars. Only in Igbo land did many of the
territories exist as small republican entities. In the absence of the
amalgamation, annexation and occupation was inevitable. In such a
political and economic environment, many pre-colonial territories were
actually in bondage and could not have fulfilled their group
aspirations.
Furthermore, with the trend of globalization which began to peak in
the 20th century, the social, economic and political states of the
pre-colonial Nigerian territories could not match up with the demands of
civilization. For these territories to transit into an inevitable
globalizing world, they needed to team up around a common ideal in line
with their God-ordained destiny. Colonization served to facilitate that
coming together even though the instruments of facilitation – the
British – misconceived the divine purpose.
From Bondage to Liberty
Like the case of Moses in messianic mission, early opposition to
colonial rule came in the form of armed resistance. These were however
quashed by the British. Violent resistance continued especially in
Igboland even after the last town, Nsukka was conquered in 1910. These
spontaneous reactions to oppression could not produce freedom. However,
the seed of liberty was sown 1920 with the rise of the nationalist
fervour as some educated Africans encountered the Nigerian ideal and
began to find an identity for themselves not along their ethnic origins
but as Nigerians. It is important that we take note of this because it
marked the beginning of the conception of a true Nigerian nation. In a
sense, their encounter with this concept of “Nigerian-ness” produced in
the hearts of founding fathers some level of spiritual faith as they
progressively began to see Nigeria no longer as a mere geographical
expression but as a potentially great nation destined to spearhead the
total liberation of Africa, which was itself destined to become the
greatest civilization in the world. These emerging patriots, in
remarkable demonstration of faith, called those things that were not as
though they already were.
Spiritual faith produced in them great courage as they organized
movements on which platforms they audaciously challenged the oppressive
policies of the British. They challenged the oppressors in print and
through sit-ins; they challenged them in strikes and in boycotts; they
challenged them on the streets and in the legislative councils. It was
with great courage that the patriots moved the motion for independence;
it was with great courage that they meandered through ethnic and
sectional potholes as they sat on the negotiation table; it was with
great courage that they kept on the fight until an acceptable
constitutional framework for democratic governance was produced.
Eventually, great courage produced liberty when independence was
attained on October 1 1960 to the admiration of the world. “Though
tribes and tongues may differ, in brotherhood we stand… to build a
nation where no one is oppressed” was the ideal to which the new nation
aspired.
From Liberty Back to Bondage
The framework of the democratic Nigerian State at independence was
hinged on true federalism in acknowledgement of the fact that ours is a
nation comprised of many national sub-entities. The new Nigerian state
was structured along regional federating units that allowed each region
to pursue its ideals and developmental aspirations at its own pace
within a Nigerian national ideal. Each region had its own constitution;
each region had its own coat of arms; each region possessed residual
constitutional powers such that matters that were not within the
national jurisdiction fell within regional legislative powers. Unlike
the 1999 constitution which has 68 items on the exclusive list, the
independence constitution had 44 items exclusive to the federal
government meaning that compared to the federal government, the
federating units had sufficient space within the framework of the
Nigerian State to pursue their individual destinies. They had internal
self-determination which produced regional competitive development. From
the groundnut pyramids in the north to the cocoa and rubber plantations
in the west and the oil palm plantations in the east, liberty had
produced abundance.
However, within a short while, abundance translated to selfishness as
politicians became consumed with occupying the neocolonial space in
class distinction; but to sustain the class differences they resorted to
corrupt and ostentatious living while living conditions became
increasingly difficult for the people. Politicians fanned the embers of
ethnic and regional divisions to consolidate their power bases and by so
doing gave up the pursuit of a Nigerian ideal thereby halting the
evolution of a true Nigerian nation. Development was no longer the
motivation for public service. Complacency had set in. Election rigging
and politically motivated violence held sway in the west as the best and
brightest were crowded out of the system. In the east, elections were
boycotted as apathy set in. In the pretext of maintaining law and order,
the federal government trampled on the liberty of the Western Region by
making a precipitate declaration of state of emergency and bringing the
military into the system. To quell election violence in parts of the
country, soldiers were deployed to monitor elections. By these actions,
the politicians had shown themselves unable to govern and had
demonstrated dependence on the military. Apathy had produced dependence.
Eventually, convinced that the politicians had failed the nation, on
January 15 1966, exactly 48 years ago, the military struck and the
nation was back in bondage.
Subsequently, on May 24 1966, the framework of the Nigerian State was
destroyed when General Aguiyi Ironsi through Decree No. 34 abolished
the regions. That day saw the death of the budding Nigerian nation. It
was not long after that that the different nations which had been held
together by the evolving Nigerian nation began to demand secession,
beginning with the north when the Murtala Mohammed led counter-coup
plotters advocated a northern break-away which would have been but for
the persuasion of the likes of Yakubu Gowon. Eventually, with the east
insisting on secession, the Nigerian Civil War was the inevitable
result. Whereas, historians say that it takes 200 years for nations to
go full cycle in the sequence of national bondage, it took Nigeria just
six years.
That cycle of bondage continued in rapid frequency from regime to
regime. As Nigerians suffered excruciating bondage, a supposed messianic
set of coup plotters, with faith in their capacity to change the system
would demonstrate great courage by overthrowing the existing government
and promising liberty. In most cases, the citizens would rejoice at the
so called dawn of liberty. The administration would make few changes,
execute few projects which would produce some semblance of abundance and
thereafter slip into selfishness looting the polity in most cases. With
officials engrossed in corrupt enrichment, government’s focus would
shift from developmental or transitional programmes and complacency
would set in. The Nigerian people would then become apathetic resigning
themselves to the situation waiting for the next set of messiahs –
demonstrating their inability to take their destinies in their hands – a
despicable state of dependence. This state of internal oppression also
returned Nigeria to extreme dependence on her erstwhile colonial masters
and their allies in the form of the structural adjustment programme of
the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that came with excruciating
conditions which eroded Nigeria’s social infrastructure. At the same
time, Nigeria’s debt to the Paris club of international creditors
mounted exponentially while her wealth was brazenly looted and kept in
foreign accounts in some of these countries by their internal
collaborators in an oppressive international order. In essence, Nigeria
was back in bondage, not only to internal forces but also to external
forces.
It is noteworthy, however, that as this cycle of bondage unfolded,
liberators like the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi rose up to challenge the
military and press for return to democratic governance. These
liberators, having encountered the Nigerian ideal could not stand
injustice no matter what part of the country the victim was from.
Therefore, where politicians and the military had failed, Nigeria’s
civil rights activists became her new set of nationalists reviving the
Nigerian ideal of liberty and brotherhood. They had faith that a new
nation was possible. This faith produced great courage. With great
courage, they fought against military oppression; with great courage
they defended democracy when free and fair elections were annulled and
heroes of democracy were thrown into jail; with great courage, they
demanded a return to democratic governance. Eventually, the liberation
struggle succeeded and returned the nation to civil rule. Although MKO
Abiola, the hero of democracy had died in custody, it seemed that
liberty had been achieved when Olusegun Obasanjo was brought out of
prison to become president. The land rejoiced despite the foreboding
signs; despite the awkward framework of State bequeathed to the fourth
republic by the military including a fake federal structure, moribund
state institutions, a militarily engineered constitution laying false
claims to the appellation, “We the People” and a government that was
poised to serve self and to take corruption to new heights, the people
embraced the mere semblance of liberty.
As usual in the cycle, the dawn of a new era as it were came with the
promise of abundance. And, truly, aided by the improved international
image as well as the inclusion of internationally reputed technocrats in
the administration in addition to soaring international oil prices,
Nigeria’s return to civil rule brought some macro-economic gains such as
the increase in foreign reserves and the buy-back of Nigeria’s debt to
the Paris club. Liberty, manifest in civil rule, had produced some sort
of abundance. This atmosphere of abundance provided the breeding ground
for personal aggrandizement as politicians, from the presidency to the
state and local governments, helped themselves to the nation’s resources
and became the targets of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission
(EFCC). Then, complacency set in as General Obasanjo, satisfied with his
supposed achievements, which however did not reflect significantly in
the living condition of the average Nigerian, sought to perpetuate
himself in power and so unleashed the machinery of state against
perceived enemies among the political class. Media was censured,
outspoken critics were targeted and juridical decisions were subjected
to executive interpretations. Meanwhile, Obasanjo himself raised the
mountain of corruption to an unimaginable peak. As apathy set in among
the electorate, General Obasanjo, indignant that he could not foist a
third-term agenda on Nigeria, imposed a sick president on the nation
through a fraudulent election, I beg your pardon, selection, overseen by
Professor Maurice Iwu.
Apathy gave rise once again to bondage as power hijackers took
advantage of President Yaradua’s ailment to seize the institution of
state. For a space of two months the nation was without a president and
Nigerians were taken for a ride by a bunch of opportunists in and around
the presidency. Budgets were signed, monies were disbursed in flagrant
violation of the constitution and the law was used to shield criminals;
cries by the Nigerian people for sanity were rebuffed by the hijackers.
This phase of bondage overlapped with complacency as civil rights
activist had for too long sheathed their swords and beat their spears
into pruning hooks since the return to civil rule. It was at this time
that Save Nigeria Group was born out of spiritual faith as a convergence
of civil rights groups and leaders. It took faith to make the decision
to march on Abuja. Faith turned to great courage as civil rights leaders
and Nigerians from the six geopolitical zones placed a demand on the
National Assembly to act in accordance with the constitution.
Eventually, the voice of the people prevailed in the so-called doctrine
of necessity.
That was four years ago. The question on your minds at this time
would be, “what stage of the cycle are we now at?” The fact, however, is
that, looking back at 2010 to examine what stage we are in at this
point would be a shortsighted retrospection. Though the people prevailed
in 2010, full liberty was not attained. Genuine liberty was not
attained in 1999 either, not with a culture of corruption, impunity and
sectional interest that pervades every sector and every level of the
social cadre; not with a pseudo-federal structure that constrains the
birth and development of true nationhood and the capacity of the
constituents to develop at their respective paces; not with institutions
that serve the interest of a privileged few who have cornered the
resources of our country; not with a constitution that was forced on the
people by the military and which gives fundamental human rights with
one hand and takes them away with the other; not with a judiciary that
will set free perpetrators of multibillion naira theft and send pepper
and onion thieves to jail; not with legislatures that consume the
greater percentage of the country’s recurrent expenditure, making laws
that have no bearing on the welfare of the people and defending
positions like child marriage that perpetuate socio-economic bondage;
not with executive governments that have continued the culture of
plunder, looting the treasury through various schemes from the security
votes of state governors to fuel subsidy by the federal government and
perpetuating themselves in power through fraudulent electoral procedures
by which they have perfected the act of undetectable rigging. No! It is
not yet uhuru!
Time will fail me to tell of the decay to which citizens are
subjected across sectors; how that Nigeria has constantly fallen in
educational standards in the Mo Ibrahim Index of Governance since 2006
or that Nigeria ranks 183rd out of 215 countries by literacy rate, or
that 10.5 million Nigerian children are not enrolled in school; or that
no Nigerian university is ranked among the top 50 in Africa or that
Nigerian students spend 5-8 years studying for four year courses because
strikes and school closures are factored in.
There is not enough time to talk about the economy, how that, despite
the GDP growth rate of over 7% and a reported influx of foreign
investments, 62% of Nigerians still live in poverty, 100 million
Nigerians are destitute as the gap between the rich and the poor widens
with 1% of the country’s population controlling 80% of the country’s oil
wealth.
If I had sufficient time, I would tell you how the failing health sector
has worsened the standard of living of the average Nigerian with
majority of our hospitals in deplorable conditions and our health
workers on strike every now and then while our leaders contribute to our
country’s reported loss of 80 billion naira annually to foreign medical
trips.
If time were sufficient to talk about security, I would talk about how
that since 2010 over 400 bombs have exploded in Nigeria with lives and
limbs lost, property destroyed and families devastated. Yes, little
gains have been made but this framework of State cannot keep pace with
the aspirations of the Nigerian in us. The jacket just does not fit.
This is not the nation our founding fathers envisioned; this is not the
nation that liberators like Gani suffered and died for; this is not the
nation of our dreams; this is not the embodiment of our aspirations, the
ideal for which we strive as a people.
The Way Forward
To move forward from this national quagmire, we must go back in order to go forward and we must approach the task on all fronts.
First, we must return to the cesspool in which the young Nigerian
nation was dumped with the bath water on the 24th of May 1966. We must
reach out for her, retrieve what is left of her, wash her clean and
nurture her back to life. This we must do by returning to the dialogue
table to restructure. Like I have said on previous occasions, we must
get set to rebuild and restore; we must retrieve what is remaining of
the pillars of our founding fathers and we must restructure and
reconstruct; we must rebuild from wall to wall, from gate to gate; from
community to community; from city to city; and from region to region
until the whole nation is restored to its former and even greater glory.
That is why we welcome the idea of a constitutional conference and
insist that the modalities be genuinely people-driven.
Like our founding fathers when they embarked on constitutional
dialogues on the road to independence, on the dialogue table, we must
have the courage to confront our fears, doubts and concerns about the
Nigeria question, sweeping nothing under the carpet, yet we must be
ready to make intelligent compromises. As we do so, we must not forget
that sovereignty lies with the people, not with politicians many of whom
did not even win elections. Therefore, we must find creative mechanisms
to bring all the sub-nationalities together to negotiate the destiny of
our nation in such a manner that smoothly and peacefully transports us
from the current system to a true people’s constitution that has genuine
claims to the phrase, “We The People”. Such a constitution must
guarantee social and economic rights as well as civil and political
rights without derogating these rights through backdoor provisions. We
must embark on people-driven restructuring, cautiously guided by the
realization that a system that makes peaceful change impossible makes
violent change inevitable and that a constitution that will not bend
will break.
Secondly, while stakeholders and genuine representatives of the
people gear up for the dialogue table, there must be a movement of
fellow Nigerians, young and old, male and female, at home and abroad,
with patriotic zeal burning in their hearts, committed to finding a true
Nigerian ideal and ensuring that the dialogue is conducted as
prescribed by the people and that its outcome represents the genuine
aspirations of the people. These Nigerians must take advantage of every
medium, from social media to community gatherings and from conventional
media to town hall meetings, to discuss the issues intelligently and to
mount pressure on the government to respect the aspirations of the
people. As Dr. Martin Luther King (Jr.) said when he stood before the
American nation at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, one hundred years after
the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by Abraham Lincoln, “this is
no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the
tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the
promises of democracy”. Therefore, we must not put the cart before the
horse by placing emphasis on 2015. If we do not do the needful in 2014,
there may be no 2015, but if we dedicate ourselves to restructuring our
nation at this opportune time, the outcome will be the emergence of
credible leadership that will ensure a Nigeria that works. Therefore as
we mark the centenary, genuine patriots must take up this challenge of
national rebirth and become statesmen whose shoulders the younger
generation of Nigerians can mount to catch a glimpse of the Nigerian
dream.
It is instructive that the term, “nation” is derived from the Latin
word natio, meaning, “birth”. True nationhood is conceived with divine
input and delivered through human instruments. Such human stakeholders
must begin to accept the promptings of destiny and not ignore the
paradoxical birth pangs that come with it, for those birth pangs
indicate that the gestation period has climaxed and that now is the time
to take our destiny in our hands.
People often ask, “now that Gani is no longer here, who will step
into his shoes?” My response to that has always been that eagles do not
flock. You only see one at a time. Therefore Gani’s shoes will forever
remain his; nobody can step into them because they are uniquely his.
Yet, every Nigerian, at home and abroad must become a stakeholder,
throwing off the cloak of complacency and apathy, and contributing in
his or her unique way to the making of a nation where, though tribes and
tongues differ, the people will rise in brotherhood to build a great
nation where no one is oppressed and whose banner is without stain.
It is possible!
It is doable!
We can do it!
We should do it!
We must do it!
Thank you, God bless you and God bless our nation Nigeria. And may Gani’s legacy live forever.
Pastor Tunde Bakare,
Serving Overseer,
The Latter Rain Assembly,
Lagos, Nigeria
&
The Convener,
Save Nigeria Group.
Share the post "Nigeria At Centenary, A Nation Under Bondage?"
Share post via;
