Throughout the world and across all ages and climes, there have been a handful of outstanding personalities who have left their marks indelibly in the sands of history of the lands and nations in which they have lived. These were the heroes who sacrificed tremendously to change the course of history among their peoples.
The communities that constitute today’s Nigeria have each its own heroes. At the national arena, most of those we referred to as our heroes have fallen victims of what I called the Zik Syndrome, what Kole Omotosho described as a repeat of Zik of Africa, Zik of Nigeria, Zik of Eastern Region, Zik of Onitsha and finally ordinary Zik. Put on a pedestal was General Murtala Ramat Muhammed, our national, nay African hero.
General Yakubu Gowon fought to keep Nigeria one. Some of us can still recall his war slogan: To Keep Nigeria One is a Task that Must be Done. He would have been our version of Abraham Lincoln, not for the fact that he overstayed his welcome. The civil war hero Yakubu Gowon’s administration of Nigeria was characterized by what Nigerians believed to be inertia, lethargy, corruption and decadence. The last straw that broke the camel’s back was Gowon’s reneged on his 1970 promise to return the nation to democratic rule in 1976, describing the date as unrealistic, that 6 years was too short a period for his Military Government to accomplish its reconstruction programme and preparation for the return to democratic rule.
On Tuesday the 29th of July 1975 the Military struck for the third time in our nation’s history. The inept administration of General Gowon was toppled in a mercifully bloodless coup, the first in our nation’s history of military incursion in politics. The task of cleansing the Augean stable rested on the shoulders of Brigadier Murtala Ramat Muhammed. Thus began, the 199 most dynamic, pragmatic, breathtaking, purpose driven, result oriented period of our country’s political history.
Last Friday, the 13th day of February 2009 was the 1722nd Friday and exactly 33 years from the very day some disgruntled elements within the Nigerian Armed Forces murdered, in cold blood, General Murtala Muhammed in an attempt to take over power. Never in the history of Nigeria was any Nigerian mourned by the totality of Nigerians as was General Murtala. His death was an intensely and intimately felt national loss. Though the coup plotters succeeded in snuffing out the flame, the coup was abortive. The rest is history.
This write-up is an attempt to commemorate the death and immortality of General Murtala Ramat Muhammed, the dynamism of his 199 days leadership of the Nigerian nation, what was referred to as the 200 Days of Ramatism.
Brigadier Murtala Ramat Muhammad had not wanted to be Head of State. But he had been the choice of the coup plotters known then as the Junta, since the day in April when a few of them, distraught over the state of the country, began to conceive the idea of the coup. When after the successful completion of the coup on the 29th of July 1975, the Junta leaders: Colonels Joe Garba, Abdullahi Mohammed and Shehu ‘Yar’adua offered the leadership of the Nigerian nation to Murtala, he burst out “To hell with you! I have said I don’t want to be anybody’s Head of State”. Murtala was the ace of the ruling triumvirate proposed by the Junta, and when he declined their offer, they offered the leadership first to Brigadier Obasanjo and then to Brigadier T. Y. Danjuma, but both declined; supporting Murtala as the obvious choice and imploring the Junta to do all they could to persuade him. When Murtala finally accepted to be Head of State, nobody then knew that he was making a pact with history and destiny to make the supreme sacrifice for the Nigerian nation 199 days later.
Murtala jolted a sleeping nation into life. The vibrancy in his voice was arresting. The fire in his eyes charmed and awed the nation. In contrast to the extravagant style of Gowon, Murtala adopted a low profile policy. The 504 replaced Mercedes Benz as the official government car. Only the Head of State rode a Mercedes Benz: not bullet proof and not the 600 series type.
For the 200 days Murtala was Head of State, he lived in the house he had occupied as Director of Army Signal Corps. He drove to work at the Dodan Barracks every morning from his house accompanied by his driver, his orderly and his ADC. No convoy. No sirens. No outriders. Few days after his assumption of office, Murtala shunned the sirens and convoy and rode alone with his driver, from Lagos to Kano , a journey of more than one thousand kilometers, in his personal car.
Murtala had never detained a single person in the 6 months that he led the Nigerian nation. When former Lagos University Law Lecturer Dr. Obarogie Ohonbamu wrote in his magazine African Spark that Murtala had corruptly enriched himself before becoming Head of State, and accused him of owing fleets of trailers and rows of houses; Murtala did not descend on him with his heavy booth as most military dictators, he quietly went to Igbosere magistrate court and sued Ohonbamu for libel. The then Federal Director of Public Prosecution on behalf of the Attorney General of the federation promised that Ohonbanu would be given “every reasonable opportunity to prove or justify his assertion” including “freedom of the (entire) country of Nigeria to enable him search for and obtain his proof” because “we do not intend to muzzle anyone. The whole nation was interested in the validity of the assertion complained of.” At the last hearing, the case was adjourned till the 17th of March 1976. Murtala was assassinated on the 13th of February.
In an interview with The Punch of May 4th 1982, the late Chief MKO Abiola, a very close friend of Murtala, said that Murtala had only seven naira twenty-two kobo (N7.22) in his bank account when he died.
To repudiate the accommodation of bad conduct by the Gowon’s administration and to strengthen the civil service, Murtala embarked on the purges that were considered as a great show of bravado. About 10,000 civil servants were dismissed or retired on grounds of corruption, indolence, redundancy, declining productivity or health.
To wipe out emotional attachments to the regions of the first republic and foster national unity, Murtala not only took over the then regionally owned Universities of Ife and that of Ahmadu Bello in Zaria , but also declared that “States will no longer be described by reference to geographical points such as North and South, East or West.” Thus the then North Central became the old Kaduna State , Mid West became the old Bendel State and South Eastern State became the old Cross River State .
Panels were set up, and their findings and recommendations put to meaningful use. Murtala created 7 new states bringing the number to 19 following the acceptance of the Justice Ayo Irikefe Panel to examine the agitation for more states. The new Federal Capital Authority Abuja, following the acceptance of the Akinola Aguda Panel.
Murtala in his only Independence Day broadcast enunciated an ambitious five-stage political programme that ushered in democratic rule by October 1979. On the 18th of October 1975, Murtala set-up the Constitution Drafting Committee, to fashion out a constitution for Nigeria . In the view of West Africa: “Never in the history of Africa have so many people been consulted so thoroughly about how they wished to be governed.” Credit must be given to General Olusegun Obasanjo for the faithfulness and courage with which he successfully executed the concrete and meaningful programmes that General Murtala mapped out for Nigeria .
Murtala pursued an aggressive foreign policy with Africa as its centre piece. He made it clear to Colonel Joe Garba, his foreign Minister, that he wanted a very activist foreign policy. Nigeria , he said, must be visible in the world. Murtala demonstrated a radical impulse in foreign policy. His message to the close of the Ghana-Nigeria Games held in Accra in the August of 1975 reads “Any glib talk about African unity does not mean much if the desire is not subjected to test.”
On the 11th of January 1976, an extra-ordinary meeting of the OAU heads of Government was convened to tackle the Angolan question. Initially, Murtala showed little interest in attending the conference; Obasanjo was making preparations to make an appearance in his place. Suddenly an event happened that made him changed his mind and compelled him to make the historic and flamboyant appearance at the conference where he gave the powerful Africa has come of Age speech.
On the 3rd of January 1976, the American Ambassador to Nigeria , Mr. Donald Easum, brought a letter addressed to the Nigerian Head of State from the United States President Gerald Ford. The same letter was sent to many African leaders. Murtala was furious. Not only did the Federal Military Government take the bold and unprecedented step of releasing President Ford’s letter to the press, it also issued a strong response to it later that evening calling it a “gross insult” and in sum, telling the Americans to go to hell. This event triggered Murtala’s decision to attend the conference and deliver his message to the world.
“Mr. Chairman, when I contemplate the evils of apartheid, my heart bleeds and I am sure the heart of every true blooded African bleeds.” Thus, Murtala opened the powerful and deep moving Africa has come of Age speech. “Rather than join hands with the forces fighting for self-determination and against racism and apartheid, the United States policy makers clearly decided that it was in the best interests of their country to maintain white supremacy and minority regimes in Africa … Africa has come of age. It’s no longer under the orbit of any extra continental power. It should no longer take orders from any country no matter how powerful… gone are the days when Africa will ever bow to the threat of any so-called superpower…” There was thunderous ovation from the Africa Hall and Murtala Muhammed went back to his seat, little knowing that he had exactly 34 days more to live.
Murtala’s forceful delivery of an already tough speech literally grounded the anti MPLA forces. He engaged himself in visiting and lobbying other heads of state to support the MPLA. According to Joe Garba, Murtala daily chalked up in his office the number of the countries Nigeria converted to the MPLA side. Murtala’s support for the MPLA, which not only USA and Britain were fiercely opposing but even the Saudi government was opposing by funding the FNLA, goes a long way to show Murtala’s bold, decisive and patriotic stand on Southern Africa . “Murtala established very forcefully” wrote Patrick Wilmot “that the fight was between African Nationalism, the right of the Blackman to freedom, and Western Imperialism… There was no question of Apartheid South Africa fighting the political red herring of ‘International Communism.’
Murtala was a military leader who did not seize power himself, but was invited, by the coup makers, to lead the Federal Military Government, because of the confidence they had in him being the most suitable to give Nigeria the dynamic, purposeful and efficient leadership it required. Nigerians identified with Murtala because he did what he said he came to do and much more. His bold, assertive, proactive leadership gave Nigerians a sense of belonging, hope and strength in the Nigeria project. Like the twinkle of a star, General Murtala Ramat Muhammed entered and departed the Nigerian, African nay world’s political arena. The impact of his charismatic and dynamic leadership permeates every facet of the Nigerian nation. The name Murtala will be with us forever.
Aliyu A. Ammani
No11A Rimaye Road ,
U/Shanu Kaduna .
E-mail: http://uk.mc231.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=aaammani@yahoo.co.uk
GSM: +2348039606608 [SMS only]
Sunday, February 15, 2009
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Maryam Hiyana: Someone is missing the Basic Point
Maryam Usman Hiyana will, no doubt, go into History as the first Northern Nigerian (Muslim of Fulani descent) to have her nude images in the sex act viewed by millions across the globe. The point of departure in this write-up is that Maryam Hiyana is more a victim of a failed society than a shameless willing pornstar as most people want to believe. However, there is nothing in this write-up that should imply approval for Maryam Hiyana’s infamous act.
Maryam Hiyana first came to prominence through her role in the Hausa movie Hiyana, thus her nickname Hiyana. Hiyana is an Arabic word meaning betrayal of trust. Ironically, today Maryam is a victim of Hiyana. In her simplicity, stupidity and naivety, she thought she can trust someone with her images in such despicable act. This is a manifestation of poor socio-cultural and religious upbringing.
Arguably, the most powerful, most widespread, and the most accessible technology in the 21st Century is Information Technology, IT, particularly its Internet and Global System of Mobile, GSM, components. Maryam is a victim of a powerful technology in the hands of a gullible public. A society infested with gossip, rumour and scandalmongers provides the fertile ground. Thus, a clip meant for private viewing was made public with impunity
So it came to be that the Hausa society, which can not tolerate a movie in which male and female actors have the barest of body contact, not even a handshake, has been catapulted to a level in which watching nudity and sex scenes have become chic. From young men and women to married men and women, watching Hiyana’s Blue Film is the vogue. With phoney disgust and a fake sense of revulsion, men took delight watching the 8 minutes clip.
The Grapevine has it that the leaking of the obnoxious clip was aided and abetted by a segment of the Hausa Film Industry who has an axe to grind with Hiyana or her mentors. Thus, Hiyana is a victim of an unscrupulous Pull-Her-Down machination orchestrated by some disgruntled elements within the Industry.
Rather than exploiting the outcome of Maryam Hiyana’s faux pas, and trying to take the responsibility off our back, we should have a rethink. Where have we, as a people and as a nation, gone wrong? We should strive towards getting our values right. As a Hausa saying goes: when a stick is crooked, it is foolish to expect it to cast a straight shadow. This is the basic point.
Maryam Hiyana first came to prominence through her role in the Hausa movie Hiyana, thus her nickname Hiyana. Hiyana is an Arabic word meaning betrayal of trust. Ironically, today Maryam is a victim of Hiyana. In her simplicity, stupidity and naivety, she thought she can trust someone with her images in such despicable act. This is a manifestation of poor socio-cultural and religious upbringing.
Arguably, the most powerful, most widespread, and the most accessible technology in the 21st Century is Information Technology, IT, particularly its Internet and Global System of Mobile, GSM, components. Maryam is a victim of a powerful technology in the hands of a gullible public. A society infested with gossip, rumour and scandalmongers provides the fertile ground. Thus, a clip meant for private viewing was made public with impunity
So it came to be that the Hausa society, which can not tolerate a movie in which male and female actors have the barest of body contact, not even a handshake, has been catapulted to a level in which watching nudity and sex scenes have become chic. From young men and women to married men and women, watching Hiyana’s Blue Film is the vogue. With phoney disgust and a fake sense of revulsion, men took delight watching the 8 minutes clip.
The Grapevine has it that the leaking of the obnoxious clip was aided and abetted by a segment of the Hausa Film Industry who has an axe to grind with Hiyana or her mentors. Thus, Hiyana is a victim of an unscrupulous Pull-Her-Down machination orchestrated by some disgruntled elements within the Industry.
Rather than exploiting the outcome of Maryam Hiyana’s faux pas, and trying to take the responsibility off our back, we should have a rethink. Where have we, as a people and as a nation, gone wrong? We should strive towards getting our values right. As a Hausa saying goes: when a stick is crooked, it is foolish to expect it to cast a straight shadow. This is the basic point.
Nigeria: Our Royal Fathers and Our Constitution
His Excellency President Umaru ‘Yar’adua, the Matawallen Katsina, has spoken, time and again, of his desire to have constitutional role for our Royal Fathers. The leadership of the National Assembly has followed suit. The Royal Fathers themselves, from across the length and breadth of the country, are calling on the Federal Government to implement the report of the National Political Conference, a conference that is synonymous to the foiled third term project, which recommend constitutional roles for them, whatever that means. There are indications that the constitution will be reviewed within the life span of this administration. And, our royal fathers want a place in it.
The concept of traditional rulers refers not to a single system but a collection of several hundreds of systems, mostly created arbitrarily by the powers that be. Each system has its own rules of succession, legitimacy and powers. Majority of them, particularly in the north, are dynastic, with the throne usually passed onto the eldest son or nearest male descendent or, in most cases, the preferred of the state government.
Three distinctive phases could be identified in the historic evolution of traditional rulership system in Nigeria: the pre-colonial period when traditional rulers were a necessity; the colonial era when they were a necessary evil, and the post-colonial period where they are, still, an unnecessary nuisance. We will take a look at each of these periods in turn.
During the pre-colonial period, traditional rulers provided leadership to the various communities that today constitute what we know as Nigeria. The traditional ruler then is the supreme head of the kingdom/ emirate/chiefdom/empire or even the caliphate as the case may be. He was the owner of the land and the father and protector of his subjects. The office of the Royal father then carried, in the words of Ronald Cohen, “with it the aura of untouchability, remoteness and sacredness.” In that era the traditional institution was a necessity.
The colonial era was the period of increase in the number of traditional rulers. This increase was catalysed by the policy of Indirect Rule. Justification for the policy of indirect rule has been debated. Many writers, most notably Margery Perham in her book Lugard: The Years of Authourity, have emphasised that there was no practical alternative to the adoption of a policy of Indirect Rule. That a system of ruling through native chiefs, was a matter of expediency rather than of high moral, political or philosophical principles. Lugard was, as Perham puts it “shackled by the poverty of his revenue” and was obliged to open up and to attempt to control (if not administer) a vast territory “much of which had never been viewed by himself or any other European” with the aid of a small and reluctant Imperial grant-in-aid, sufficient only for the employment of a tiny cadre of “political” (i.e. administrative) officers. A policy of “direct rule” whatever that could conceivably have meant at the time was impossible to contemplate. Accordingly, as Lugard put it in one of his Political Memoranda of 1906,”we must utilize the existing machinery and endeavour to improve it”. From the foregoing, it is clear that the policy of Indirect Rule actually employed traditional rulers as public servants, as administrative officers for the colonial government. Any traditional ruler, in the words of Lugard “will hold his place only on condition that he obeys the laws of the protectorate and the conditions of his appointment.” Thus, traditional chieftaincy institutions flourished even in areas such as Tivland, Iboland and Urhoboland where they were absent in the pre-colonial era. Gradually the British transferred the responsibilities of government to the colonial officers, while still retaining traditional rulers as fronts.
Independent Nigeria witnessed an explosion in the number of traditional rulers in the country as more traditional institutions were created for reasons mostly political. However, due to the historic roles played in the north, by the duo of Malam Aminu Kano (NEPU) and Malam Ibrahim Imam (BYM), the Native Authority systems, as the traditional systems were then called, underwent series of reforms which culminated in the Local Government reforms of 1976. Consequently, traditional rulers were stripped of most, if not all, of their powers both spiritual and temporal and are reduced to no more than ceremonial monarchs. Little wonder then, the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and its successors of 1989 and 1999, left the future of the Royal Fathers hanging in the balance.
Proponents of the idea of giving constitutional roles to the royal fathers argued that they, traditional rulers, are the custodians of culture. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, our culture is worst hit by the continuous existence of the traditional institutions. It has been said that culture is an aspect of its society. In fact, culture is the important link between the individual and society. However, in Nigeria our traditional institutions have turned our national civic culture upside down. In Nigeria, as observed by Achebe, the Government is “they”. It has nothing to do with you or me. It is simply an alien institution.
Those who should know have expounded the core of the cultural dilemma in Nigeria. According to Professor P. P. Ekeh, with the multiplicity of primordial (traditional) cultures co-existing alongside a single nation-wide civic culture, the individual citizen enjoys the freedom to participate in only one or both of Nigeria’s primordial cultures and its civic culture. The citizen thereby exploits the opportunity open to him by avoiding difficult cultural demands from one domain and switching to easier and more beneficial ones in another domain. It also enables the individual to gain from both cultural domains at the same time. In fact, it appears fully permissible and legitimate for an individual to enrich himself, possibly by stealing, from the civic cultural domain, provided his primordial cultural domain benefits from such wealth. Need I give examples? Consequently, some Nigerian citizens, when they find themselves in position of responsibility accept it happily and expose the unworthiness of the nation with reproaches and denunciations, so that they may neglect their duty towards their country without incurring the blame or reproaches of others.
Over the years, the traditional institutions have perfected the art of self preservation and perpetuation. Through an intricate combination of covert and overt tactics, so-called elites are identified and conferred various titles to win and secure their loyalty and services. Such elite are ultimately deployed in defending and championing the cause of the traditional set up. Stop! Think about this. Examples abound. Again, need I give any?
In their desperation for constitutional roles, the traditional rulers are even promising to bring peace to the turbulent Niger Delta sub region. How, I wonder, can institutions at the very centre of all known cases of inter and intra communal crises in Nigeria, from Ife-Modakeke to Zangon Kataf, suddenly become peacemakers?
It is indeed anachronism par excellence that the Nigeria of the 21st Century, a federalism of 36 states; a presidential democracy and a republic with more than ten thousand elected representatives: 774 LGA chairmen, 774 LGA vice chairmen, more than 7740 councillors; 109 senators, 360 members of the House of Representatives, more than 1080 members of States Houses of assembly; 36 state governors, 36 states deputy governors, a sitting President and a vice president, is thinking of giving traditional rulers constitutional responsibility. What responsibility? It’s open to conjecture. We did not even mention the civil servants across the entire 37 Civil Services in the Nigerian federation.
To now give traditional rulers constitutional responsibilities is tantamount to reversing our gains on all fronts. It is a negation of the very spirit of our constitution. It would ridicule our nationalism. It will enthrone mediocrity and, ultimately, compromise our Nationhood. How can unity and good governance be achieved in a situation where Nigerian citizens are also, constitutionally, subjects of a thousand-and-one different traditional rulers? Talk of conflict of loyalty and identity. How can there be freedom, equality and justice when a segment of the society constitute a hereditary privileged_ a class of people whose bread is guaranteed buttered by mere accident of birth? Talk of a level playing ground or a just and egalitarian society. How can Nigeria achieve lasting peace with such a conflict-ridden system entrenched in our Constitution? The traditional institutions have overstayed their welcome. In fact, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria should be reviewed towards abolishing the traditional institutions.
The concept of traditional rulers refers not to a single system but a collection of several hundreds of systems, mostly created arbitrarily by the powers that be. Each system has its own rules of succession, legitimacy and powers. Majority of them, particularly in the north, are dynastic, with the throne usually passed onto the eldest son or nearest male descendent or, in most cases, the preferred of the state government.
Three distinctive phases could be identified in the historic evolution of traditional rulership system in Nigeria: the pre-colonial period when traditional rulers were a necessity; the colonial era when they were a necessary evil, and the post-colonial period where they are, still, an unnecessary nuisance. We will take a look at each of these periods in turn.
During the pre-colonial period, traditional rulers provided leadership to the various communities that today constitute what we know as Nigeria. The traditional ruler then is the supreme head of the kingdom/ emirate/chiefdom/empire or even the caliphate as the case may be. He was the owner of the land and the father and protector of his subjects. The office of the Royal father then carried, in the words of Ronald Cohen, “with it the aura of untouchability, remoteness and sacredness.” In that era the traditional institution was a necessity.
The colonial era was the period of increase in the number of traditional rulers. This increase was catalysed by the policy of Indirect Rule. Justification for the policy of indirect rule has been debated. Many writers, most notably Margery Perham in her book Lugard: The Years of Authourity, have emphasised that there was no practical alternative to the adoption of a policy of Indirect Rule. That a system of ruling through native chiefs, was a matter of expediency rather than of high moral, political or philosophical principles. Lugard was, as Perham puts it “shackled by the poverty of his revenue” and was obliged to open up and to attempt to control (if not administer) a vast territory “much of which had never been viewed by himself or any other European” with the aid of a small and reluctant Imperial grant-in-aid, sufficient only for the employment of a tiny cadre of “political” (i.e. administrative) officers. A policy of “direct rule” whatever that could conceivably have meant at the time was impossible to contemplate. Accordingly, as Lugard put it in one of his Political Memoranda of 1906,”we must utilize the existing machinery and endeavour to improve it”. From the foregoing, it is clear that the policy of Indirect Rule actually employed traditional rulers as public servants, as administrative officers for the colonial government. Any traditional ruler, in the words of Lugard “will hold his place only on condition that he obeys the laws of the protectorate and the conditions of his appointment.” Thus, traditional chieftaincy institutions flourished even in areas such as Tivland, Iboland and Urhoboland where they were absent in the pre-colonial era. Gradually the British transferred the responsibilities of government to the colonial officers, while still retaining traditional rulers as fronts.
Independent Nigeria witnessed an explosion in the number of traditional rulers in the country as more traditional institutions were created for reasons mostly political. However, due to the historic roles played in the north, by the duo of Malam Aminu Kano (NEPU) and Malam Ibrahim Imam (BYM), the Native Authority systems, as the traditional systems were then called, underwent series of reforms which culminated in the Local Government reforms of 1976. Consequently, traditional rulers were stripped of most, if not all, of their powers both spiritual and temporal and are reduced to no more than ceremonial monarchs. Little wonder then, the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and its successors of 1989 and 1999, left the future of the Royal Fathers hanging in the balance.
Proponents of the idea of giving constitutional roles to the royal fathers argued that they, traditional rulers, are the custodians of culture. Nothing could be further from the truth. On the contrary, our culture is worst hit by the continuous existence of the traditional institutions. It has been said that culture is an aspect of its society. In fact, culture is the important link between the individual and society. However, in Nigeria our traditional institutions have turned our national civic culture upside down. In Nigeria, as observed by Achebe, the Government is “they”. It has nothing to do with you or me. It is simply an alien institution.
Those who should know have expounded the core of the cultural dilemma in Nigeria. According to Professor P. P. Ekeh, with the multiplicity of primordial (traditional) cultures co-existing alongside a single nation-wide civic culture, the individual citizen enjoys the freedom to participate in only one or both of Nigeria’s primordial cultures and its civic culture. The citizen thereby exploits the opportunity open to him by avoiding difficult cultural demands from one domain and switching to easier and more beneficial ones in another domain. It also enables the individual to gain from both cultural domains at the same time. In fact, it appears fully permissible and legitimate for an individual to enrich himself, possibly by stealing, from the civic cultural domain, provided his primordial cultural domain benefits from such wealth. Need I give examples? Consequently, some Nigerian citizens, when they find themselves in position of responsibility accept it happily and expose the unworthiness of the nation with reproaches and denunciations, so that they may neglect their duty towards their country without incurring the blame or reproaches of others.
Over the years, the traditional institutions have perfected the art of self preservation and perpetuation. Through an intricate combination of covert and overt tactics, so-called elites are identified and conferred various titles to win and secure their loyalty and services. Such elite are ultimately deployed in defending and championing the cause of the traditional set up. Stop! Think about this. Examples abound. Again, need I give any?
In their desperation for constitutional roles, the traditional rulers are even promising to bring peace to the turbulent Niger Delta sub region. How, I wonder, can institutions at the very centre of all known cases of inter and intra communal crises in Nigeria, from Ife-Modakeke to Zangon Kataf, suddenly become peacemakers?
It is indeed anachronism par excellence that the Nigeria of the 21st Century, a federalism of 36 states; a presidential democracy and a republic with more than ten thousand elected representatives: 774 LGA chairmen, 774 LGA vice chairmen, more than 7740 councillors; 109 senators, 360 members of the House of Representatives, more than 1080 members of States Houses of assembly; 36 state governors, 36 states deputy governors, a sitting President and a vice president, is thinking of giving traditional rulers constitutional responsibility. What responsibility? It’s open to conjecture. We did not even mention the civil servants across the entire 37 Civil Services in the Nigerian federation.
To now give traditional rulers constitutional responsibilities is tantamount to reversing our gains on all fronts. It is a negation of the very spirit of our constitution. It would ridicule our nationalism. It will enthrone mediocrity and, ultimately, compromise our Nationhood. How can unity and good governance be achieved in a situation where Nigerian citizens are also, constitutionally, subjects of a thousand-and-one different traditional rulers? Talk of conflict of loyalty and identity. How can there be freedom, equality and justice when a segment of the society constitute a hereditary privileged_ a class of people whose bread is guaranteed buttered by mere accident of birth? Talk of a level playing ground or a just and egalitarian society. How can Nigeria achieve lasting peace with such a conflict-ridden system entrenched in our Constitution? The traditional institutions have overstayed their welcome. In fact, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria should be reviewed towards abolishing the traditional institutions.
Nigeria: Washing Our Dirty Linen in Public
The 2007 General Elections which ultimately rounded up our first ever uninterrupted eight straight years of democratic rule, and ushered in, our very first civilian to civilian transition on the 29th of May 2007 is behind us. It will be worthwhile if we take a moment to examine one factor which, in my opinion, makes economic advance impossible and political progress fraught with difficulty in the North, and by implication, the entire Nation. This we will do, in the spirit of truth and reconciliation; with a view, not only to sustain our nascent democracy, but also to achieve lasting peace and security with genuine justice and freedom. We can no longer delude ourselves that the deliberate manipulation of religion to score political goals, particularly in the North, is not a real threat to our survival as a nation. I humbly and sincerely believe that this phenomenon only prevail because we, the people, give it permission. Religion is, no doubt, a very delicate and sensitive issue in Nigeria; however, for how long shall we continue to compromise our humanity, nationality and even our religiosity at the altar of religious difference?
Religions, from the sublime to the ridiculous, share one thing in common. Adherents of a religion always differ among themselves regarding what constitutes the essence of the religion, what is more important or less important, what is right and what is heresy etc. Consequently, in all religions we have bigots, zealots and extremist on the one hand; with moderates and even nominal adherents on the other; depending on where they stand on the continuum.
Let us commence this piece from the Muslim North, where I belong. A certain fixation on the past took hold alongside a deep uneasiness with the present. The glory of the pre-colonial Sokoto Caliphate is oft celebrated. Nostalgia for it is growing by the day. The Muslim North cannot be seemed to get over the trauma of colonialism. We could not overcome our suspicions of modern day political and ideological realities, the consequence of which leaves the most essential themes of our social and political destiny hanging.
At the centre of this problem factor stand the mallams: Islamic teachers and, in the context of this write-up, preachers and opinion leaders. Mallams, who ought to encourage change, have largely failed in that role. For the most part, they did not detach themselves from the rigid tradition of defending our cause in the face of the enemy. Their priority has not been to constructively criticize the incredible shortcomings that we live with; as a result, partially and not exclusively, there now exist in the North, a profound disconnect, a deep mutual suspicion and lack of trust among the diverse constituents of what is today known as the 19 Northern States of Nigeria.
In Nigeria, Islamic religious authority or power has been diffused at a local level among countless scholars or Mallams, who lack a clearly defined hierarchy, organisation, minimum standards for entry, or even a curriculum for doctrine training. While every serious member of the Ulama has a right to use all the knowledge and experience he posses in the service of Islam and the community he belongs; he must not, however, be allowed to mix-up his own prejudice, conjecture and conclusion with the interpretation of Islamic texts, particularly the Quran, which is perfectly perspicacious. Yet, the absence of a body which has the authority and legal muscle to screen and licensed all Islamic preachers in such a way that only those found worthy, both in character and learning, will be licensed to preach; make Islamic preaching in particular, and all other forms of religious preaching in general, an all comers affair along with its attendant consequences.
In a typical northern setting, particularly within the Hausaland, any person vocal enough to stand in the mosque or in a public place to voice his views on issues, no matter how misinformed, quoting Quranic verses, no matter how out of place, is instantly regarded as a mallam or even a sheikh. And if he happens to be antagonistic towards the powers that be, he quickly win large following as a fearless and God fearing Mallam. Thus, the vocal mallams held their followers spellbound and dogmatised. Majority of the followers accept whatever comes out of the mouth of the Mallam as the Quranic truth. To argue with Mallam is to blaspheme. Giving the impression of a form of totalitarian arrangement, that demand and get complete obedience, from people with no independent mind.
This brand of mallams is fatwa happy. Fatwa is open for all. Yet, one will make bold to say, without the fear of contradiction that the bulk of these mallams are ignorant of the logic, philosophy and workings of the socio-economic and political systems they were falling over themselves to give fatwa on. The fatwa are supported by distortions of facts and by appeals to passion and prejudice, often deliberately false and misleading, all in an attempt to persuade through emotional appeal. Central to most of the fatwa is Conspiracy Theory, the idea that an event was by a conspiracy; that the other side is always conspiring against us. It goes without saying that the quality of the fatwa, particularly as it borders on the subject matter of politics and economics, leaves much to be desired.
Examples abound of fatwa dispensed at the whim and caprices of the mallams. During the 2003 General Elections some mallams have gone to the extreme of designating any PDP stalwart an infidel. When the Kaduna No-Shariah brouhaha broke out in 2000, many a respected northern Muslim politician, statesman, and even intellectuals of repute have been ferociously branded hypocrites. Just last year, the Islamness of several northern politicians that dared to be associated with the foiled third term bid of President Obasanjo has been put to question—fatwa clearly verge on the absurd..
In Islamic jurisprudence, circumstances and the environment are key factors upon which fatwa is dependent. This is why fatwa differs from one place to another and from one circumstance to the other. Any fatwa given in Nigeria that does not take into consideration the peculiar circumstances and the environment of Nigeria as a federation, a republic as well as a democracy is liable to ridicule. Fatwa like a Muslim can only vote for a Muslim, and a Muslim who dare vote for a non-Muslim shall share, in the here-after, the same abode with non-Muslims; is clearly ridiculous as it does not take cognisance of circumstances and environment. Come to think of it, what will become of the corporate entity Nigeria, if Muslims must vote for only Muslims, Christians for only Christians, and to the animist only the animist? Can the Nation or any of its constituent parts ever survive and prosper under this form of rigidity? Must it always be black or white, no chance or tolerance for the grey? Is the concept of choice between greater and lesser evil now extinct?
One of the major causes of this phenomenon is, perhaps, the antithetical persona of the average mallam. He desired to live a life of material splendour and grandeur, to have everything that money can buy; yet he has neither an occupation or vocation, nor any recognisable means of livelihood. In plain English, he has no job, no work and no trade; but he wanted to live like a king. This compromises any principle he may have and, consequently make him a sycophant. Was it not said that he who pays the piper calls the tune?
Northern Christians and church leaders are not immune to this conflict-ridden tendency. The Northern Nigeria brand of Christianity is, probably, the most politicised version of Christianity on the surface of today’s earth. Christianity in the North has a distinct meaning and flavour from anywhere else. In the North, Christianity is, more or less, a political banner, movement or platform upon which all non-Muslim Northerners flock in opposition to what they perceived as Hausa and Fulani led oppression, both real and imagine. I used the phrase ‘Hausa and Fulani’ deliberately instead of the popular misnomer ‘Hausa-Fulani’. This, northern Christian mindset is clear if one look at what the average northern Christian consider the political (read: Christian) Middle belt as distinct from the geographical Middle belt. The average southern Christian, until very recently, views issues with the Hausa and Fulani led north essentially in regional and tribal terms. The Northern Christian reduces all issues, social, political and even economic, within the North simply to Islam v. Christianity. Islam is viewed as the symbol of Hausa and Fulani corrupt power and materialism. Some church leaders indicate to their followers that the secret of their wretchedness can be explained in the prosperity of the other side. This image of the Hausa and Fulani created by the Northern Christian church leaders enabled the average northern Christian to feel that, when they fought against the Hausa and Fulani, they were fighting for light against darkness.
From the foregoing, it is clear how the intractable problem of conspiracy theory and the manipulation of religion to score political goals set the background for the fear of the other side. It was said that fear easily leads to distrust, to hatred, to dehumanisation and, ultimately, to death.
The challenge before us now, our problem, is how best to liberate our country from the shackles of religious chauvinism? A problem identified and defined is said to be half solved. Others are of the opinion that a problem shared is half solved. Here I have attempted identifying and sharing the understanding of the problem; let us all, Nigerians, come together to find a solution to this problem that has the potential of threatening our very fabric as a nation. Let us wash our dirty linen in public. Let us tell ourselves the bitter truth, for the Truth shall set us free.
This is a clarion call.
Religions, from the sublime to the ridiculous, share one thing in common. Adherents of a religion always differ among themselves regarding what constitutes the essence of the religion, what is more important or less important, what is right and what is heresy etc. Consequently, in all religions we have bigots, zealots and extremist on the one hand; with moderates and even nominal adherents on the other; depending on where they stand on the continuum.
Let us commence this piece from the Muslim North, where I belong. A certain fixation on the past took hold alongside a deep uneasiness with the present. The glory of the pre-colonial Sokoto Caliphate is oft celebrated. Nostalgia for it is growing by the day. The Muslim North cannot be seemed to get over the trauma of colonialism. We could not overcome our suspicions of modern day political and ideological realities, the consequence of which leaves the most essential themes of our social and political destiny hanging.
At the centre of this problem factor stand the mallams: Islamic teachers and, in the context of this write-up, preachers and opinion leaders. Mallams, who ought to encourage change, have largely failed in that role. For the most part, they did not detach themselves from the rigid tradition of defending our cause in the face of the enemy. Their priority has not been to constructively criticize the incredible shortcomings that we live with; as a result, partially and not exclusively, there now exist in the North, a profound disconnect, a deep mutual suspicion and lack of trust among the diverse constituents of what is today known as the 19 Northern States of Nigeria.
In Nigeria, Islamic religious authority or power has been diffused at a local level among countless scholars or Mallams, who lack a clearly defined hierarchy, organisation, minimum standards for entry, or even a curriculum for doctrine training. While every serious member of the Ulama has a right to use all the knowledge and experience he posses in the service of Islam and the community he belongs; he must not, however, be allowed to mix-up his own prejudice, conjecture and conclusion with the interpretation of Islamic texts, particularly the Quran, which is perfectly perspicacious. Yet, the absence of a body which has the authority and legal muscle to screen and licensed all Islamic preachers in such a way that only those found worthy, both in character and learning, will be licensed to preach; make Islamic preaching in particular, and all other forms of religious preaching in general, an all comers affair along with its attendant consequences.
In a typical northern setting, particularly within the Hausaland, any person vocal enough to stand in the mosque or in a public place to voice his views on issues, no matter how misinformed, quoting Quranic verses, no matter how out of place, is instantly regarded as a mallam or even a sheikh. And if he happens to be antagonistic towards the powers that be, he quickly win large following as a fearless and God fearing Mallam. Thus, the vocal mallams held their followers spellbound and dogmatised. Majority of the followers accept whatever comes out of the mouth of the Mallam as the Quranic truth. To argue with Mallam is to blaspheme. Giving the impression of a form of totalitarian arrangement, that demand and get complete obedience, from people with no independent mind.
This brand of mallams is fatwa happy. Fatwa is open for all. Yet, one will make bold to say, without the fear of contradiction that the bulk of these mallams are ignorant of the logic, philosophy and workings of the socio-economic and political systems they were falling over themselves to give fatwa on. The fatwa are supported by distortions of facts and by appeals to passion and prejudice, often deliberately false and misleading, all in an attempt to persuade through emotional appeal. Central to most of the fatwa is Conspiracy Theory, the idea that an event was by a conspiracy; that the other side is always conspiring against us. It goes without saying that the quality of the fatwa, particularly as it borders on the subject matter of politics and economics, leaves much to be desired.
Examples abound of fatwa dispensed at the whim and caprices of the mallams. During the 2003 General Elections some mallams have gone to the extreme of designating any PDP stalwart an infidel. When the Kaduna No-Shariah brouhaha broke out in 2000, many a respected northern Muslim politician, statesman, and even intellectuals of repute have been ferociously branded hypocrites. Just last year, the Islamness of several northern politicians that dared to be associated with the foiled third term bid of President Obasanjo has been put to question—fatwa clearly verge on the absurd..
In Islamic jurisprudence, circumstances and the environment are key factors upon which fatwa is dependent. This is why fatwa differs from one place to another and from one circumstance to the other. Any fatwa given in Nigeria that does not take into consideration the peculiar circumstances and the environment of Nigeria as a federation, a republic as well as a democracy is liable to ridicule. Fatwa like a Muslim can only vote for a Muslim, and a Muslim who dare vote for a non-Muslim shall share, in the here-after, the same abode with non-Muslims; is clearly ridiculous as it does not take cognisance of circumstances and environment. Come to think of it, what will become of the corporate entity Nigeria, if Muslims must vote for only Muslims, Christians for only Christians, and to the animist only the animist? Can the Nation or any of its constituent parts ever survive and prosper under this form of rigidity? Must it always be black or white, no chance or tolerance for the grey? Is the concept of choice between greater and lesser evil now extinct?
One of the major causes of this phenomenon is, perhaps, the antithetical persona of the average mallam. He desired to live a life of material splendour and grandeur, to have everything that money can buy; yet he has neither an occupation or vocation, nor any recognisable means of livelihood. In plain English, he has no job, no work and no trade; but he wanted to live like a king. This compromises any principle he may have and, consequently make him a sycophant. Was it not said that he who pays the piper calls the tune?
Northern Christians and church leaders are not immune to this conflict-ridden tendency. The Northern Nigeria brand of Christianity is, probably, the most politicised version of Christianity on the surface of today’s earth. Christianity in the North has a distinct meaning and flavour from anywhere else. In the North, Christianity is, more or less, a political banner, movement or platform upon which all non-Muslim Northerners flock in opposition to what they perceived as Hausa and Fulani led oppression, both real and imagine. I used the phrase ‘Hausa and Fulani’ deliberately instead of the popular misnomer ‘Hausa-Fulani’. This, northern Christian mindset is clear if one look at what the average northern Christian consider the political (read: Christian) Middle belt as distinct from the geographical Middle belt. The average southern Christian, until very recently, views issues with the Hausa and Fulani led north essentially in regional and tribal terms. The Northern Christian reduces all issues, social, political and even economic, within the North simply to Islam v. Christianity. Islam is viewed as the symbol of Hausa and Fulani corrupt power and materialism. Some church leaders indicate to their followers that the secret of their wretchedness can be explained in the prosperity of the other side. This image of the Hausa and Fulani created by the Northern Christian church leaders enabled the average northern Christian to feel that, when they fought against the Hausa and Fulani, they were fighting for light against darkness.
From the foregoing, it is clear how the intractable problem of conspiracy theory and the manipulation of religion to score political goals set the background for the fear of the other side. It was said that fear easily leads to distrust, to hatred, to dehumanisation and, ultimately, to death.
The challenge before us now, our problem, is how best to liberate our country from the shackles of religious chauvinism? A problem identified and defined is said to be half solved. Others are of the opinion that a problem shared is half solved. Here I have attempted identifying and sharing the understanding of the problem; let us all, Nigerians, come together to find a solution to this problem that has the potential of threatening our very fabric as a nation. Let us wash our dirty linen in public. Let us tell ourselves the bitter truth, for the Truth shall set us free.
This is a clarion call.
Yar'adua: The Face of Hope
I ask you, fellow citizens, to join me in rebuilding our Nigerian family, one that defines the success of one by the happiness of many…Let us set aside cynicism, and strive for the good society that we know is within our reach. __President Umaru ‘Yar’adua (Inaugural speech)
A basic characteristic of our world today, which due to giant strides in technological advancement is referred to as the Global Village, is rapid change. Our system is changing rapidly that before we become adjusted to new ideas in one phase, major changes occurs in another, and there seem to be no break in sight for this rapid pace. In fact, futurist predicts that our current pace is relatively slow compared to what the future will bring in new social, economic, political and technological innovations.
Sadly, this faster than light train of rapid socio-economic change has left behind, perhaps at the station, the bulk of Nigeria’s families who actually live from hand to mouth. Ritchie Calder would have said that most Nigerians are in a merry-go-round of poverty, because they are poor they are undernourished; because they are undernourished they under produce; because they under produce they are poor; and because they are sick, poor and hungry, they are ignorant… and because of poverty, these Nigerians are condemned to live like animals and they breed like animals.
The Philadelphia Declaration of 1944 states “Poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere”. And according to some experts about 70% of Nigerians are living below poverty line. What is done to check this seemingly rampant decadence in the living standard of the Nigerian masses?
Most policies of nearly all the past Governments, either by omission or commission favours the urban elite, as we will see later, at the expense of the majority of the population living in the rural areas. One of Nigeria’s vicious cycles is at work here: government policies degrade the rural resource base; degraded rural base produces little of economic value. It is an indisputable fact that a nation in which the majority of the population plays a little role in its cash economy will have difficulties developing economically.
The industrialized nations which aid and advice Nigeria; also lack sincere motivation for a purposeful change. The existence of barriers to a successful transfer of technology posed by the self interest of the advanced countries cannot be denied. When western aid agencies lend for the sort of steel and concrete projects which former European development Commissioner Edgard Pisani dubbed Cathedrals in the Desert they do so in the knowledge that western goods, equipment and expertise will be used. Consequently, western economies receive a direct economic boost. Were aid agencies to invest in the sort of grassroots community participation rural development so badly needed, there would be little economic kickback because such form of development programmes requires little or nothing from western construction and manufacturing firms. Conceivably the following example will drive this point home.
In what may be viewed as an open policy dispute between Alhaji AbdulKadir Balarabe Musa during his tenure as the Governor of old Kaduna State (1979-81) and the then Federal Minister of Agriculture over World Bank participation in the Integrated Rural Development Programme in the State, the Governor listed, in the New Nigerian of Thursday 20th November 1980; the demands of the World Bank which he had opposition to. Among these, according to Oculi, were a list of conditions or remuneration for consultant and managers:
(i) The salary of each World Bank official will be about N40,000.00 ( $53,333.33) per annum tax free and paid in foreign currency, in foreign banks
(ii) They shall each receive, in addition, 78% of the gross salary as cost of living allowance
(iii) N733.00( $977.33) per annum per dependent as dependent allowance
(iv) 25% of the gross salary as “Post Allowance”
(v) 75% of their children school fees to be paid abroad in foreign currency
(vi) Free air conditioned and chauffer driven vehicle
(vii) Free air conditioned and “furnished to taste” housing
(viii) Free electricity and water supply
(ix) Free trip return air ticket to anywhere in the world for annual vacation
(x) Forty working days leave per annum
As the statement added, the value of this technical experts being sold by the World Bank to Kaduna State “would cost about N12 million ($16 million) per annum”. The project was to cost N100 million ($133.33 million). Dollar equivalent added to give a much better estimate of the cost.
Different policies have been put in place by various governments in Nigeria to fight the war against poverty. We now know more than ever before that neither the past Governments nor the industrialized first world nations and their agencies, under whatever guise, had contributed effectively towards breaking “the misery goes round of poverty” to which the bulk of the population are subjected.
“If you want to understand the causes that existed in the past” says Shinjikan Buddhist Sutra “look at the results as they are manifested in the present. And if you want to understand what results will manifest in the future, look at the causes that exist in the present”. Perhaps, the human factor of favouritism and nepotism is the bane of all previous Governments attempts at poverty alleviation. Even at village level, usually community development workers aligned themselves with traditional village elite. There was little attention given to assuring that benefit from community development programmes accrued to the rural poor. Here in Nigeria, passed experiences showed that in the allocation of anything government’s (credit, fertilizer and recently more importantly poverty alleviation packages) the rich had the foremost privilege and, of course, the basis of one’s support to the ruling party. Through the years, these elite at every level of the society has used the state machinery as instrument of bolstering their selfish aims in all spheres: agriculture, commerce and industry. This means that the privileged does and can still turn the whole village or local community into a political and economic block serving their own interest at the expense of the poor elements who are, needless to say, in the majority.
From this sea of despondency, emerge hope. The hope is in the President’s antecedents, words and dreams. The hope of setting free the poor and less privilege Nigerians from economic, social and political constraints so that they can be able to “express themselves, plan their future and take their destiny into their own hands.” One can see no future for any war on poverty that is to be fought with the elite as its field commanders. From the 7-point agenda of the ‘Yar’adua’s administration, one can see the tripod upon which the war on poverty will be effectively decided: Electric power, Education and Security. These, coupled with a zero tolerance on corruption forms the panacea to poverty in Nigeria, as Mr. President noted in his inaugural speech “corruption is itself central to the spread of poverty”
This write-up is a clarion call to all Nigerians, to rally round President ‘Yar’adua, and give him the necessary support, for indeed the Servant-Leader will take us to the Promised Land. The just concluded nationwide strike is a testimony of ‘Yar’adua’s Marxist labour friendly disposition. I can picture a younger ‘Yar’adua telling his students at the KCAST that the prerequisite to the attainment of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that workers everywhere must unite! For without a doubt, the Nigerian organised labour has never had it better.
A basic characteristic of our world today, which due to giant strides in technological advancement is referred to as the Global Village, is rapid change. Our system is changing rapidly that before we become adjusted to new ideas in one phase, major changes occurs in another, and there seem to be no break in sight for this rapid pace. In fact, futurist predicts that our current pace is relatively slow compared to what the future will bring in new social, economic, political and technological innovations.
Sadly, this faster than light train of rapid socio-economic change has left behind, perhaps at the station, the bulk of Nigeria’s families who actually live from hand to mouth. Ritchie Calder would have said that most Nigerians are in a merry-go-round of poverty, because they are poor they are undernourished; because they are undernourished they under produce; because they under produce they are poor; and because they are sick, poor and hungry, they are ignorant… and because of poverty, these Nigerians are condemned to live like animals and they breed like animals.
The Philadelphia Declaration of 1944 states “Poverty anywhere constitutes a danger to prosperity everywhere”. And according to some experts about 70% of Nigerians are living below poverty line. What is done to check this seemingly rampant decadence in the living standard of the Nigerian masses?
Most policies of nearly all the past Governments, either by omission or commission favours the urban elite, as we will see later, at the expense of the majority of the population living in the rural areas. One of Nigeria’s vicious cycles is at work here: government policies degrade the rural resource base; degraded rural base produces little of economic value. It is an indisputable fact that a nation in which the majority of the population plays a little role in its cash economy will have difficulties developing economically.
The industrialized nations which aid and advice Nigeria; also lack sincere motivation for a purposeful change. The existence of barriers to a successful transfer of technology posed by the self interest of the advanced countries cannot be denied. When western aid agencies lend for the sort of steel and concrete projects which former European development Commissioner Edgard Pisani dubbed Cathedrals in the Desert they do so in the knowledge that western goods, equipment and expertise will be used. Consequently, western economies receive a direct economic boost. Were aid agencies to invest in the sort of grassroots community participation rural development so badly needed, there would be little economic kickback because such form of development programmes requires little or nothing from western construction and manufacturing firms. Conceivably the following example will drive this point home.
In what may be viewed as an open policy dispute between Alhaji AbdulKadir Balarabe Musa during his tenure as the Governor of old Kaduna State (1979-81) and the then Federal Minister of Agriculture over World Bank participation in the Integrated Rural Development Programme in the State, the Governor listed, in the New Nigerian of Thursday 20th November 1980; the demands of the World Bank which he had opposition to. Among these, according to Oculi, were a list of conditions or remuneration for consultant and managers:
(i) The salary of each World Bank official will be about N40,000.00 ( $53,333.33) per annum tax free and paid in foreign currency, in foreign banks
(ii) They shall each receive, in addition, 78% of the gross salary as cost of living allowance
(iii) N733.00( $977.33) per annum per dependent as dependent allowance
(iv) 25% of the gross salary as “Post Allowance”
(v) 75% of their children school fees to be paid abroad in foreign currency
(vi) Free air conditioned and chauffer driven vehicle
(vii) Free air conditioned and “furnished to taste” housing
(viii) Free electricity and water supply
(ix) Free trip return air ticket to anywhere in the world for annual vacation
(x) Forty working days leave per annum
As the statement added, the value of this technical experts being sold by the World Bank to Kaduna State “would cost about N12 million ($16 million) per annum”. The project was to cost N100 million ($133.33 million). Dollar equivalent added to give a much better estimate of the cost.
Different policies have been put in place by various governments in Nigeria to fight the war against poverty. We now know more than ever before that neither the past Governments nor the industrialized first world nations and their agencies, under whatever guise, had contributed effectively towards breaking “the misery goes round of poverty” to which the bulk of the population are subjected.
“If you want to understand the causes that existed in the past” says Shinjikan Buddhist Sutra “look at the results as they are manifested in the present. And if you want to understand what results will manifest in the future, look at the causes that exist in the present”. Perhaps, the human factor of favouritism and nepotism is the bane of all previous Governments attempts at poverty alleviation. Even at village level, usually community development workers aligned themselves with traditional village elite. There was little attention given to assuring that benefit from community development programmes accrued to the rural poor. Here in Nigeria, passed experiences showed that in the allocation of anything government’s (credit, fertilizer and recently more importantly poverty alleviation packages) the rich had the foremost privilege and, of course, the basis of one’s support to the ruling party. Through the years, these elite at every level of the society has used the state machinery as instrument of bolstering their selfish aims in all spheres: agriculture, commerce and industry. This means that the privileged does and can still turn the whole village or local community into a political and economic block serving their own interest at the expense of the poor elements who are, needless to say, in the majority.
From this sea of despondency, emerge hope. The hope is in the President’s antecedents, words and dreams. The hope of setting free the poor and less privilege Nigerians from economic, social and political constraints so that they can be able to “express themselves, plan their future and take their destiny into their own hands.” One can see no future for any war on poverty that is to be fought with the elite as its field commanders. From the 7-point agenda of the ‘Yar’adua’s administration, one can see the tripod upon which the war on poverty will be effectively decided: Electric power, Education and Security. These, coupled with a zero tolerance on corruption forms the panacea to poverty in Nigeria, as Mr. President noted in his inaugural speech “corruption is itself central to the spread of poverty”
This write-up is a clarion call to all Nigerians, to rally round President ‘Yar’adua, and give him the necessary support, for indeed the Servant-Leader will take us to the Promised Land. The just concluded nationwide strike is a testimony of ‘Yar’adua’s Marxist labour friendly disposition. I can picture a younger ‘Yar’adua telling his students at the KCAST that the prerequisite to the attainment of the dictatorship of the proletariat is that workers everywhere must unite! For without a doubt, the Nigerian organised labour has never had it better.
The Political Aftermath of the 2007 General Elections
The April polls, in my candid opinion, are a contest in election rigging. And, with apology to General Buhari, those parties complaining of rigging are those actually out rigged in the process. Who is the victor and who are the vanquished? Again, in my humble opinion, all those that took part in the contest, the winners and the losers, constitute the vanquished. The victor is actually the Doctrine of akasa-atsare-araka. That powerful doctrine, which challenged and defeated Incumbency to the letter, in Bauchi State, during the last elections.
The doctrine of akasa-atsare-araka is a laudable albeit sad development. It is laudable because, for now, it is the only viable panacea to the menace of election rigging. It is sad because it is a clear manifestation of the electorates’ lack of trust in the electoral process particularly the electoral body, INEC. With the doctrine of akasa-atsare-araka the days of the obnoxious culture of massive rigging and blatant abuse of the electoral process are numbered.
Complaint of rigging by those who lost out in elections was as old as the electoral process in Nigeria. The losers of the 1959 elections could not accept that the process was free and fair. To the opposition parties of the first republic, the then ruling NPC massively rigged the 1964 General elections particularly in the defunct Western Region. The 1983 General election was, in the opinion of the losers in that election, massively rigged by the then ruling NPN. At the receiving ends of these entire stands the electoral body. Today, in the aftermath of the Mother of all Elections in Nigeria, an election set to usher in our first ever, Civilian-to-Civilian transition; INEC bashing is the rule rather than the exception.
A lot has been said and written about the independence of INEC. While it is not the intent of this write-up to partake in this worthwhile debate, I find it expedient, considering the exigencies of the present situation to proffer the following suggestions towards improving the electoral process in Nigeria.
First, the Chief Executive Officer of INEC should be designated Executive Chairman, in all intent and purpose. And, the Executive Chairmanship of INEC should be limited to only retired Chief Justices of Nigeria. Why retired Chief Justices of Nigeria? The reason is simple, retired Chief Justices of Nigeria belong to the most exclusive class; one can hardly count 5 living retired CJNs in Nigeria today. Second, a retired CJN having reached the peak of his career heading the judicial arm of Government, the only non partisan arm, is least likely to be influenced or manipulated by the Executive or any political party.
Second, the political parties should be overhauled with particular emphasis on party funding. The Government has little or no business funding political parties. Political parties should be driven by ideologies and funded by the kobos of those masses of the population that believe in, and are committed to, advancing the cause of such political parties. The present arrangement where the Government, to a lesser extent, and candidates to a greater extent fund political parties not only make the parties prone to hijack by moneybags and fat cats, but also predisposes the parties to ridicule, as we see in the last general elections where some political parties fielded presidential candidates just for the fun of it. To this end the natural law of the survival of the fittest will ensure that only viable political parties survive.
In conclusion, to my fellow citizens, the electorates, I have this to say. We should not allow ourselves to be used by those who lost out in the rigging contest. Those who know, clearly, that their allegations of been out rigged can neither hold water nor stand the rigour of the Judicial process. Those who resolved not to go to the court with their grievances; and are beginning to consider more desperate alternatives, appealing to sentiments, calling on the Nigerian masses to come out on the streets and protest. Protest what and against whom? I make it bold to say, that the life of the average Nigerian and the peaceful coexistent of Nigeria are better than the entire bunch of egocentric self-styled democrats, who have lost out in the last electoral contest, put together.
The doctrine of akasa-atsare-araka is a laudable albeit sad development. It is laudable because, for now, it is the only viable panacea to the menace of election rigging. It is sad because it is a clear manifestation of the electorates’ lack of trust in the electoral process particularly the electoral body, INEC. With the doctrine of akasa-atsare-araka the days of the obnoxious culture of massive rigging and blatant abuse of the electoral process are numbered.
Complaint of rigging by those who lost out in elections was as old as the electoral process in Nigeria. The losers of the 1959 elections could not accept that the process was free and fair. To the opposition parties of the first republic, the then ruling NPC massively rigged the 1964 General elections particularly in the defunct Western Region. The 1983 General election was, in the opinion of the losers in that election, massively rigged by the then ruling NPN. At the receiving ends of these entire stands the electoral body. Today, in the aftermath of the Mother of all Elections in Nigeria, an election set to usher in our first ever, Civilian-to-Civilian transition; INEC bashing is the rule rather than the exception.
A lot has been said and written about the independence of INEC. While it is not the intent of this write-up to partake in this worthwhile debate, I find it expedient, considering the exigencies of the present situation to proffer the following suggestions towards improving the electoral process in Nigeria.
First, the Chief Executive Officer of INEC should be designated Executive Chairman, in all intent and purpose. And, the Executive Chairmanship of INEC should be limited to only retired Chief Justices of Nigeria. Why retired Chief Justices of Nigeria? The reason is simple, retired Chief Justices of Nigeria belong to the most exclusive class; one can hardly count 5 living retired CJNs in Nigeria today. Second, a retired CJN having reached the peak of his career heading the judicial arm of Government, the only non partisan arm, is least likely to be influenced or manipulated by the Executive or any political party.
Second, the political parties should be overhauled with particular emphasis on party funding. The Government has little or no business funding political parties. Political parties should be driven by ideologies and funded by the kobos of those masses of the population that believe in, and are committed to, advancing the cause of such political parties. The present arrangement where the Government, to a lesser extent, and candidates to a greater extent fund political parties not only make the parties prone to hijack by moneybags and fat cats, but also predisposes the parties to ridicule, as we see in the last general elections where some political parties fielded presidential candidates just for the fun of it. To this end the natural law of the survival of the fittest will ensure that only viable political parties survive.
In conclusion, to my fellow citizens, the electorates, I have this to say. We should not allow ourselves to be used by those who lost out in the rigging contest. Those who know, clearly, that their allegations of been out rigged can neither hold water nor stand the rigour of the Judicial process. Those who resolved not to go to the court with their grievances; and are beginning to consider more desperate alternatives, appealing to sentiments, calling on the Nigerian masses to come out on the streets and protest. Protest what and against whom? I make it bold to say, that the life of the average Nigerian and the peaceful coexistent of Nigeria are better than the entire bunch of egocentric self-styled democrats, who have lost out in the last electoral contest, put together.
Repackaging Muhammadu Buhari for the 2007 General Elections
The packaging of candidates for election into political offices has become extremely important essentially because of the role it is accepted to play in attracting and winning over the electorates. Packaging can be regarded as the vehicle from which a candidate is to be sold and it must therefore protect and attract.
It is my humble opinion that the Buhari Campaign Organization has failed to address some fundamental flaws in its packaging of Muhammadu Buhari as the ANPP’s candidate for the 2003 General Elections and is apparently about repeating same this time around. There is no intention on my part to mock or ridicule those who tried, however ineffectually, to sell Muhammadu Buhari in 2003. In this write-up I intend to make some suggestioins.
First, the Campaign Organization has continued to refer to their candidate as General Buhari. Apparently, they fail to see the wisdom of those who sold Obasanjo to Nigerians as far back as 1999, when they (the Obasanjo Campaign Body) present the incumbent as Chief Olusegun Obasanjo to the Nigerian electorates. Mindful of the fact that what Nigerians then, and even now want, is not another General in Aso-Rock but rather a democrat. From 1999 to date, the PDP as a party, as well as the Obasanjo Campaign machinery always referred to the President as Chief O. Obasanjo, deemphasising but by no means ignoring his military background. It is noteworthy that Obasanjo retired as a full General in 1979. This time around, I humbly suggest that the Buhari Campaign Organization should work towards presenting to the Nigerian electorates a Mallam, Alhaji or even a Mr. Muhammadu Buhari for the 2007 General Elections and not the General.
Second, the Buhari Organization should not only present Buhari as a democrat, but should also work to prepare him to act and speak like one. Utterances made by Muhammadu Buhari, for instance, shortly after the results of the last General Elections were announced in 2003; and even his reaction to the outcome of the last ANPP Convention for the election of the Party’s National Officers, does not sound democratic. Utterances should be well thought out and guided, politically and diplomatically.
Third, the importance of the mass media in electioneering campaigns cannot be overemphasised. While one is not expecting the Buhari Campaign Organization to transformed Buhari into a media-savvy like the Iranian President, Mahmoud AhmadiNejad, it will be better if they should work towards that end. No doubt, Muhammadu Buhari is one of the most photogenic politicians in today’s Nigeria.
Finally, I will like to call on both the Buhari and the ‘Yar’adua Campaign Organizations to avoid mudslinging, cheap blackmail and bitter political wrangles as they try to sell their candidates to us, the Electorates. They should be conscious of the fact that all that transpired between them is keenly watched and documented by our compatriots on the other side of the geopolitical divide, and that they will not hesitate to use it against us whenever doing so is to their advantage. Again, it is my very humble opinion that Mallam Muhammadu Buhari is today the best candidate the Opposition in Nigeria can offer the electorates for the Presidency come 2007. In the same token, Alhaji Umaru ‘Yar’adua is the best candidate the Ruling PDP can present to the Nigerian electorates for the Presidency. Head or tail, Buhari or ‘Yar’adua _either way we win, as this is indeed, the Season of Migration of political power to the North.
It is my humble opinion that the Buhari Campaign Organization has failed to address some fundamental flaws in its packaging of Muhammadu Buhari as the ANPP’s candidate for the 2003 General Elections and is apparently about repeating same this time around. There is no intention on my part to mock or ridicule those who tried, however ineffectually, to sell Muhammadu Buhari in 2003. In this write-up I intend to make some suggestioins.
First, the Campaign Organization has continued to refer to their candidate as General Buhari. Apparently, they fail to see the wisdom of those who sold Obasanjo to Nigerians as far back as 1999, when they (the Obasanjo Campaign Body) present the incumbent as Chief Olusegun Obasanjo to the Nigerian electorates. Mindful of the fact that what Nigerians then, and even now want, is not another General in Aso-Rock but rather a democrat. From 1999 to date, the PDP as a party, as well as the Obasanjo Campaign machinery always referred to the President as Chief O. Obasanjo, deemphasising but by no means ignoring his military background. It is noteworthy that Obasanjo retired as a full General in 1979. This time around, I humbly suggest that the Buhari Campaign Organization should work towards presenting to the Nigerian electorates a Mallam, Alhaji or even a Mr. Muhammadu Buhari for the 2007 General Elections and not the General.
Second, the Buhari Organization should not only present Buhari as a democrat, but should also work to prepare him to act and speak like one. Utterances made by Muhammadu Buhari, for instance, shortly after the results of the last General Elections were announced in 2003; and even his reaction to the outcome of the last ANPP Convention for the election of the Party’s National Officers, does not sound democratic. Utterances should be well thought out and guided, politically and diplomatically.
Third, the importance of the mass media in electioneering campaigns cannot be overemphasised. While one is not expecting the Buhari Campaign Organization to transformed Buhari into a media-savvy like the Iranian President, Mahmoud AhmadiNejad, it will be better if they should work towards that end. No doubt, Muhammadu Buhari is one of the most photogenic politicians in today’s Nigeria.
Finally, I will like to call on both the Buhari and the ‘Yar’adua Campaign Organizations to avoid mudslinging, cheap blackmail and bitter political wrangles as they try to sell their candidates to us, the Electorates. They should be conscious of the fact that all that transpired between them is keenly watched and documented by our compatriots on the other side of the geopolitical divide, and that they will not hesitate to use it against us whenever doing so is to their advantage. Again, it is my very humble opinion that Mallam Muhammadu Buhari is today the best candidate the Opposition in Nigeria can offer the electorates for the Presidency come 2007. In the same token, Alhaji Umaru ‘Yar’adua is the best candidate the Ruling PDP can present to the Nigerian electorates for the Presidency. Head or tail, Buhari or ‘Yar’adua _either way we win, as this is indeed, the Season of Migration of political power to the North.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
