The Kankara stopover

 “Do not try to fight a lion if you not one yourself”.  African proverb.

The widespread relief at the release of 334 schoolchildren abducted by criminals in Kankara, Katsina State was genuine. There may have been  a few who would have preferred a longer version, or a different, more tragic outcome of this demeaning drama because it would bloody political noses. They would be people who live in the short term, opportunists who live in expectation  of more evidence of the failure of President Buhari to govern well, or at least as the circumstances demand. Furthermore, our sad history of living with large-scale violence will make most Nigerians reluctant to entertain conspiracy theorists. The vast majority of Nigerians only saw hundreds of children who could be theirs retrieved from fates similar to other schoolchildren in Borno and Yobe States, or abducted and inducted as  fighters for terrorists. But it would be wrong not to revisit an event that started with fear and pain and ended with justifiable relief.

Long after the children were reunited with parents, Kankara will continue to be a major reference point in the nation’s journey towards losing its many battles against organized crimes and  armed groups. Tragically, history will record Kankara as an event waiting to happen, an episode that speaks to the character of our lives today, and a reminder of the limitations of an administration seemingly resigned to its challenges. Kankara shed cruel light on a President with little empathy and no sense of occasion or urgency. It exposed the vulnerability of the country’s  defences as well as the widening gulf between the citizen and the state. It brought home the agony of communities that have lived with routine abuse by criminals in many parts of the north. In its scale and sheer audacity, it registered new frontiers in the progress of violence into the lives of simple, hardworking folks who had asked nothing of leaders other than to be left in peace to live with their poverty.

For a long while, the nation will remember the image of a  President who continued with his holiday in the face of an unprecedented outrage just a few dozen kilometers away. It will recall pictures of a harassed Governor Masari traveling  south to console parents and the community, and then  traveling  north to brief the President on efforts to secure the children. It will  recall the  days of panic and anger and dejection as hours became days and Boko Haram claimed to be in possession of the boys. The nation will recall statements by the governor that he was negotiating with the kidnappers who had released a video showing the children begging the President to call off rescue attempts and free them. It will recall the freeing of the boys in terrible images and their clean and neat appearance before the President the next day. It will recall a President urging the children to go back to school and study science, and to persevere the way he persevered through three lost elections before he became president.

Beyond the drama of the abductions and release of the children, the nation will note, with great foreboding, the fiasco around the release of the children which is still playing out. In terms of what it says about the security of the nation under this leadership, it is even more frightening than the kidnap itself. Governor of Zamfara State claimed he brokered the freedom of the boys through familiar intermediaries without paying ransom. Governor of Katsina State said the boys were retrieved following negotiations, and intervention of friendly groups, and no ransom was paid. Both said Boko Haram was not involved in the kidnapping. The military said it was responsible for the flawless operation which resulted in the release of all the boys. Minister of Information hinted that there was a push from external interests. In the midst of all these, whispers rose into loud allegations from some APC quarters  that a governor in the north west zone was sponsoring bandits and kidnappers. There would have been no prize for guessing that the suspect governor would be from the PDP stable. Before long, governor of Zamfara State strongly denounced the attempt to link him with the criminals. He only used his extensive influence and experience in dealing with bandits and kidnappers in and around his state for facilitate their release, he protested.

It is perfectly conceivable that both governors  and the military all contributed in averting a major tragedy, but the fallouts and the escalation of kidnappings in  other areas of Katsina State and elsewhere after the release of the boys suggest that Kankara was an untidy job that covered more than it revealed. It is conceivable, but improbable, that the kidnappers were hemmed in by respect for governors and professionalism of the military to hand over every child they were holding and walk away to forage for victims elsewhere. Payment of ransom by thousands of families and governments is routine, and many in authority have learnt that you have to share a bed with criminals these days if you want some respite or relief when they threaten to make leaders look particularly bad. There are sound reasons why, in many cases, its concealment is well advised, particularly when it could serve as impetus for more crimes, or it stains the integrity of some parties. To ask if the kidnappers were paid ransom could be idle speculation, unless the question is directly related to developments that are linked to the mode of settlement.100 or more kidnappers could have been persuaded to free the children in return for their own freedom from arrest or in place of a fight they will not win. Equally possible, kidnappers could have been ‘settled’ and allowed to go free as the price for freeing the boys. What is more difficult to believe is that kidnappers were persuaded to hand over the boys without inducement and allowed to go forth and sin no more.

There are many disturbing developments from the Kankara episode. One is the deeply-worrying allegation that a governor is sponsoring bandits and kidnappers. Virtually all governors in the north who live with violated communities have engaged in negotiations and inducements to bring an end to rustling, banditry and kidnapping. Far from eliminating it, it would appear that it has fed fat from the desperation of leaders with heavy responsibilities and little power, and the abject vulnerability of populations to armed criminals. It  is possible that the allegation is about  scale here, and one would hope that partisan politics  are not at play. Those who make this allegation must not be allowed to disappear into our mountain of woes the way the boys’ kidnappers did. We want to know how deeply the state is involved in activities of bandits, but we are unlikely to know. The mention of Miyetti Allah as a facilitator in the release is also worrisome. We need to know if there is involvement of this body and its nature, because it will indicate the degree to which banditry and legitimate leadership relate, but we are unlikely to know. We need to know if kidnappings of other school children and others which appeared to have risen in and around Katsina State are related to Kankara, but we may never know. We want to know when it will be safe for children to go back to school, but we may never know. We want know if Kankara was a one-off, or an escalation of the routine, but we will not know. We want to know if Kankara made us safer or more insecure. We will know the answer to this if more villages and highways and schools are attacked.

Sweep across the roots

 “All monkeys cannot hang on the same branch”.African proverb

 I was part of a team of elderly men and women, shepherded by young and passionate northerners that braved a tour of the South-South and South-East last week. The goal was to commiserate, comfort and consult with northern communities that had suffered losses in lives and assets in those parts of the country following the #EndSARS protests. It was the only visible and direct effort to relate with those communities, since no government or other authority from the North had reached out to them for these purposes. ‘Braved’ is the right word here since the team knew it was never going to be the type of tour that will go unnoticed or without controversy.

The Northern Elders Forum is not strange to controversy, but this one required elaborate fortification to withstand certain assaults from all angles. First, there was the need to establish the basis of the venture with facts. This was not difficult. There was a mountain of records alleging killings, burning and looting against the communities, and none suggesting that it was the aggressor. It needed very careful handling. So the Forum sent a fact-finding team to establish from the communities real evidence that it was specifically and deliberately victimized. There was enough to warrant visits to engage the communities directly and the authorities who had responsibilities to keep them safe and secure. Finally, the most difficult part: make findings public, or as public as is useful and responsible, and advise all parties within the powers available to the Forum.

The visit was the only initiative to reach out to the communities and express sympathy and solidarity and encourage them to stay where they are and continue to earn a living as they had done for decades. If the north had leaders who cared enough, this would have been their responsibility. Sadly, its seemingly powerful traditional rulers have lost the relative autonomy to speak as leaders. The bulk of its clergy has been too compromised by partisan politicians to raise voices unless prompted by the latter. Northern governors turned up in large numbers at the meeting with federal government officials and traditional rulers in Kaduna, and released a long communique which condemned the aftermath of the protests and threats of social media, but said nothing about the experiences of members of northern communities in states in the south of the country or much on insecurity in the North. 

If anything was communicated to the communities or to southern governors by northern governors, somehow it would have found its way out in one form or the other. As the visit established, outside a lone voice raised in the heat of the falsehood that a mosque had been demolished in Port Harcourt, no leader in any position sent a word of sympathy to the community, or appreciation to one or two governors who reached out to assist members of the northern communities, or advised caution against targeting specific communities. In this respect the initiative achieved a lot more than it would have if it had competition for the appreciation of northern communities or the willingness of some governors to open doors and place on record their genuine  commitment to leading states where all Nigerians felt at home.

Like all communities, northern communities carry with them their basic social and cultural characters. They are intensely political, a character which makes them easy to be identified and treated as friends or adversaries in host communities. Some find it  easier to adjust than others. Some fight for more space, while others take whatever is given by hosts. Many have descended from generations of northerners who have known only one home, located in the south of Nigeria. Others move in and out, an army of workers, traders, artisans and seekers of opportunities that exist in lands that are distant and tough to adjust to, but ultimately rewarding.

For the elders’ initiative, the most resounding outcome of the visit was virtually unexpected. It was the realization that Nigerians who live far from original homes represent the very deep and complex roots which hold this nation together. It is clear that while politicians have gambled and toyed with the fate and survival of this nation for decades, simple, hardworking citizens have moved all over the country, made homes or found uses in distant communities and got down to the business of building lives and coping with challenges that are not radically different from those of local host communities. For every Nigerian from Aba, Calabar or Akure who lives and makes a living in the North, there are Nigerians from Oturkpo, Kano and Sokoto who have built lives in the south. There are literally millions of Nigerians who will be lost completely if they are made to relocate to places of origin.

There are Nigerians whose lives are practical repudiations of the concept, practice and consequences of the settler/indigene conundrum. There are northerners who are born in the south, study and graduate in the south but cannot get jobs as citizens in the south or indigenes in the north. They have mirror images all over Nigeria. Members of northern communities contribute a lot to the economies of the south, and they are critical to the economic fortunes of the north. There are Nigerians from the south with massive investments in many parts of the north and the idea that they should be anywhere is inconceivable. These are the nation’s roots.

These elaborate roots usually pay a huge price for being different, or bearing identities that ape local combatants in times of our numerous strifes in the history of the nation. On other occasions, they are victims of the failure of the Nigerian State to protect all citizens. On many occasions, Igbo people have suffered losses in lives and property in the North. Now there are areas in Kano that are settled almost entirely by Igbo people, and only the bravest rioter will attempt to break a head or a shop there. Northerners living in the East are terrified of attacks by IPOB, just like many of their hosts, as far away as Rivers State. Like their host communities, they know IPOB when they see it, and they feel its pain. They live in an environment that is being fiercely contested, and they get hurt for being northerners by those who see the entire North as the enemy.

There were inspiring moments that made the visits even more rewarding. There are governors that genuinely value peaceful co-existence and appreciate the value of promoting the welfare of their own kith and kin in other parts of Nigeria by limiting damage to other Nigerians in their midst. There are northerners that are integral parts of what is the south today, and although they bear scars and carry huge luggage of grievances, they value the warmth and hospitality of host communities. There are numerous issues and challenges the northern communities want redressed, including who will help make restitution for losses, but the visit helped build bridges for their resolutions. There were honest and frank discussions with leaders and the communities, one outcome of which was the statement by the leader of the team that victims knew the identities of their attackers. The attackers also know that the victims know them. Those who said saying this will cause more problems are now having to eat their words.

If this nation is to survive, it has to pay closer attention to the welfare and security of communities that are vulnerable and exposed. These are the nation’s real roots. Without them, it will be that much easier to uproot the tree. No Nigerian  community will survive on its own, even as an independent, sovereign country.

 

All in one week

 “A flea can trouble a lion more than a lion can trouble a flea”. African proverb.

 This time last week, I was in a meeting in Enugu involving hundreds of representatives of northern communities living in the five States of the south east. Our delegation had prepared to  receive a  deluge of complaints and grievances from communities who had been exposed to considerable assault in the aftermath of the protests that had rocked the country. There was the deluge all right, but they were tampered by a strong sense of determination to stay put and explore all avenues to enjoy the rights available to all Nigerians to live and work anywhere they choose under peace and security. The meeting was significant in the sense of being the only initiative to reach out to northern communities after their experiences. Northern elected rulers must have been too busy to notice the plight of millions of northerners in southern States and intervene, if only to bring comfort. They will be strongly advised not to want to hear what northerners in the south think of them, unless, as is very likely, their sensitivities to criticism have been dulled beyond redemption by what northerners in the north think of them and a President from the North. Northern Elders Forum came back with a long shopping list of grievances from fellow northerners in the south, but it was careful enough to caution that its access to doors of power are limited.

A day later, the nation was informed that President Buhari had changed his mind over accepting to appear before Members of the House of Representatives. Apparently, he had been advised that the legislators had no powers to summon him to speak to them about security of Nigerians. Other reports said during his meeting with State governors, some of them also advised against accepting the invitation because it will open the door to State legislators and expose them to similar invitations. There would  have been a few Nigerians who were neither surprised nor disappointed by the about-turn. They would note that the reversal was true to character, and Nigerians who believed that he would honour the invitation on a date subject to his convenience have an exaggerated idea of the President’s  commitment to accountability. The flip-flop was routine for an administration that is distinguished by insularity and chaotic decision-making by a handful of handlers. Still, even these cynics would be saddened  by the setback registered by the institution of the legislature from the President’s repudiation and the untidy scramble  to put a brave face on it.

As the nation prepared to resign further under an administration that becomes more remote by the day, the President announced that he was taking a week’s holiday in his hometown. Apparently, the nation had stressed him with constant complaints over banditry and insurgency and their devastating influence on life all over the country. He landed at home and was accorded all the honour decency demanded of a community ravaged by banditry, whose member is responsible for protecting it. He had not slept one night  in Daura before bandits  absconded with hundreds of school boys in Kankara, in his State where he was holidaying. It could be a coincidence that bandits undertook their most audacious foray into the lives of communities that had lived with their assaults for more than two years. It would certainly be uncharitable to say the bandits went out of their way to embarrass President Buhari, but this incident would have brought a painful reminder of the vulnerability of communities under his watch, as well as previous attacks on, and   abductions of schoolchildren in Borno and  Yobe States, tragic events that engineered  stronger sources of his support before 2015.

Another President will do everything that President Buhari did not do after the abductions. He would move down to Katsina from Daura, a flight time of a few minutes and set up a command and control center. He may even visit Kankara to commiserate with parents and the community. He would summon the service chiefs and demand answers as well as design and execute a rescue strategy within six hours after the abductions. Someone would  be made to answer how bandits in large numbers could enter Kankara town, take over a school with hundreds of students and abscond with a few hundred. He would order the air force  to locate   hundreds of people not far from Kankara before they are scattered or hidden. Army will trace and follow trails. Intelligence will tap local information and knowledge of the terrain to slow down the progress of the abductors. No one will sleep until all the children are rescued.

Our President caused a statement to be released from Abuja strongly condemning the abductions and ordering the rescue of the children. He may have resumed his holiday, or distance from events may have shielded him from the fiasco that has followed the abductions. His appointees fell over themselves issuing promises and deadlines and arguing with local authorities over numbers. A very powerful team left Abuja to comfort the Kankara  and Katsina community over the abductions, presumably on the instructions of the President who was holidaying in Daura. The team even visited Kankara where it met a thoroughly distraught collection of parents demanding their children back. The State Governor visited and said all he could say, but the people knew that was all he could do. His Minister of  Defence said the children will be rescued in a day.The State government said hundreds of children were missing. His spokesman, Garba Shehu said only ten were missing. Locals protested against the abductions. The State Governor said he  is negotiating with the bandits. He had met the President earlier in Daura and briefed him on the situation. He may or may not have mentioned that he was under tremendous stress to retrieve the children, and paying ransom may be one of his options. We are unlikely to know if the President approved of all potions, or he had encouraged Governor Masari to sort it out as he had done many times in the past.

Today, anywhere between ten and three hundred and thirteen (333) or more schoolchildren would have spent four days in the hands of bandits. The entire might of the Nigerian State is on trial, but it does not really seem to matter if it loses this case. It had lost many before, and from all appearances, will lose more. President Buhari appears to have resigned to live with terror stalking the land and squeezing the State out of lives of citizens. It would appear that he expects the population to adopt the same attitude. The problem is, the population will not walk away from slaughtered farmers or abducted schoolchildren or family members that are routinely kidnapped all over the country these days. When hoodlums broke up a meeting on the security situation in the country at Arewa House, Kaduna on Monday, young people rolled out a more elaborate plan to demand action against armed criminals in the north.Between the stress of living with, and dying under the guns of bandits and the overpowering feeling of dejection over an ineffective and seemingly uncaring government, it is difficult to see where the spirit of resistance of people of the North lies. But it is there. It will be a terrible mistake to take for granted.

 

.....And Sam Nda-Isaiha died. Stubborn and brilliant , Sam always chose the road less travelled. He mostly got to his destination. Rest, Sam.

 

And an apology: I learnt that management of Arewa House, Kaduna invited Governor Kayode Fayemi to deliver the lecture at the 50th Anniversary of Establishment of the Center for Research and Documentation, ABU, Zaria.

Living history

“Around a flowering tree there are many insects”. African proverb.

 

A few weeks ago, an event with great symbolism took place in Kaduna.It was the 50^th Anniversary of the founding of Arewa House, the name for Center for Historical Research and Documentation  of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.The Center itself is located in Kaduna.Its size and  elaborate structures will defy understanding without the explanation that its nucleus used the official residence of the murdered Premier of Northern Nigeria,Sir Ahmadu Bello, Sardaunan Sokoto.The actual building where he was shot along with his wife has been preserved to serve as a piece of physical history and a tourist attraction.In reality, it serves as a poignant reminder of  a period and a personality that has always been larger-than-life to northerners.The Sardauna has become a myth invoked to serve so many purposes by generations that had only heard of him.Arewa House keeps that myth alive, a contrivance of a regional  elite that had clung to a past to remind itself of a strong symbol of northern unity, a model of good governance and an event of great injustice to the North around which so much of the history that followed his murder is hung by popular and scholarly historians.

 

To celebrate 50 years since the Sardauna’s spartan official residence became a unit under Ahmadu Bello University, the drums were rolled out.Management of the Center,  leadership of the University and the State Governors who now run the 19 States from the  one region he led until the night of January 15,1966 were small children when he died.Many were starting school when the decision was taken in 1970 to donate his official residence to the University he founded in 1963.Yet, they all knew enough of the power of the mystique around the hallowed establishment to engineer an impressive series of activities to remind northerners and the country of a past and a person whose half- myth, half- reality character represents a key part of North’s version of its journey into modern Nigeria.It was also turned into an occasion to celebrate the achievement of a Center which started as a political statement and became a strong evidence that  good scholarship can have strong roots in politics.

 

A key element in the celebrations was the decision to yield its highest point to Governor Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti State to deliver a lecture with the theme,”Unfinished Greatness:Towards a More Perfect Union”.The lecture itself was masterclass, and it will stand as a reference point to excellence in scholarly research feeding a political project.The selection of Governor Fayemi raised a few eyebrows owing to its audacity in flying  in the face of history of the Sardauna’s fabled cat-and-mouse with Yoruba politicians, especially Chief Obafemi Awolowo. Peddlers of political maneuvers and dispositions saw the hands of host Governor Nasir el-Rufai in the decision to give Fayemi such prominence at an event with significant emotional attachment to a past carefully protected by northerners.A few indignant voices murmured disapproval, but these were smothered by the huge turn out of northern governors who sat through an unusual event that delivered a powerful message in velvet gloves.The message was the imperative of restructuring the nation, an idea  that the bulk of the northern elite agrees with, but is uncomfortable  with the manner it is being owned as a lethal weapon by the south.

 

It is quite possible that the event at the Sardauna’s residence served to invite more attention to a kite and a rumoured alliance that will  make  bold statements about the nature of the competition for the country’s presidency in 2023. One among many of these statements will strengthen the hand of the real  ‘progressive’ elements in the APC who el-Rufai and Fayemi think they are.For Fayemi, it will highlight his incipient challenge of  received wisdom that Tinubu is and will continue to be the only game in the south west until he flies the party’s flag or hands it over to a favoured loyalist, which Fayemi is not.For el-Rufai, it will strengthen his  impatience and exasperation at the drift in his party and his characteristic contempt for waiting in line for tradition to open doors.A Fayemi-el-Rufai  ticket would tap into the stronghold of the APC, but it will have to step on some big toes.It will have to hope it has enough clout and traction to withstand powerful assaults with a formidable national army of progressives, or at least their versions of progressives.It will also count on the mass loss of memory by people of Kaduna State who lived through el-Rufai’s rule, and the abdication of the considerable opposition from the south west to the emergence of a block that is bent on re-inventing Yoruba politics.

 

There will be people who will remember that el-Rufai chose the residence of the Sardauna to signal a northern capitulation in the battle over rotation.He was one of the first northern politicians to make the case for  his party to concede its presidential ticket to the south.Whether he wants to be number two, or pave the way to another northerner as deputy, he has gone on record for making the case for a southern presidency in 2023.Other politicians from the south would  kiss and hug el-Rufai, but will hold back because he takes it to a person of his choice from the wrong part of the South.The cacophony of voices in support of an Igbo presidency without preconditions may have noted the arrival of a new threat.These are voices that trace the foundational case for  justice in a national consensus for an  Igbo presidency in 2023 all the way back to  1966.Places like Arewa House tend to create difficult obstacles to a smooth narrative on a deliberate, sustained and unimpeachable offensive at  Igbo peoples’ fortunes in Nigeria starting with the pogroms, the civil war and everything else that followed to date.Some Northerners insist that the  story must start from the night of January 15,1966 with the murder of the Sardauna.They tend to tally up numbers of federal soldiers who fell in an avoidable war; the post-war reintegration processes,the reinvention of Igbo politicians and businessmen in the Nigerian political economy and the pride of place which Igbo enterprise occupies in every inch of the country.

 

The invocation of experiences of the Igbo in Nigeria as justification for rotating the presidency to the East suffers from weak foundations in many quarters.When it is reinforced by ‘shortchanging’ the Igbo with only five States  and the failure of other Nigerians to accord the Igbo their right to have one of them become president like other groups, it waxes stronger in circles that have become increasingly hardened by repetition and fringe politics which offers alternatives to live in an unjust nation.It is only weakened by the poor quality of Igbo political leadership which seeks concessions and benefits from the rest of Nigeria only by drawing attention to its wounds and tolerating  crippling tendencies that weaken the Igbo claim that its is overwhelming in favour of remaining in and with Nigeria.

There are many issues that represent major challenges to political and elite cohesion, and these will get worse as we move nearer to 2023.The past will always be an asset and a liability for all groups as politicians compete against each other.There will be great benefits in addressing today’s challenges with today’s solutions.

I am Biafran

 “The best way to eat an elephant in your path is to cut it into small pieces”. African proverb

I wrote this a contribution to a discussion  on the anniversary of the end of the civil war and issues about the clamour for Biafra. I decided to publish an edited version of it today as a contribution to the important issue around identity politics and the place of history in the manner our elite and politicians compete with each other.

The key elements of the post-war reconciliation programme derived from an enlightened leadership perspective which acknowledged the value of re-integration of former territories and populations under Biafra into a nation that had fought a reluctant civil war. They included a specific renunciation of victory in the “no –victor-no-vanquished” policy, the deliberate promotion of policies that discouraged punitive action against active rebels and populations; absorption of public servants from former rebel territories into Nigerian institutions, and the aggressive campaigns to encourage communities to re-absorb people from former rebel territories. The most effective reconciliation instrument, however, required neither legislation nor clout of the Nigerian state. It was the spontaneous and genuine responses of millions of Nigerians to move beyond a 3-year disaster by opening doors and hearts to people trapped behind hostility, as well as the courage and faith to venture into territories and locations where thousands had been murdered only for their ethnic origins. Why are we where we are today?

What happened to that nation that made it possible for Easterners to return to reclaim properties in most parts of Nigeria; to resume jobs and interrupted education; to establish social relations and live secure and productive lives within a year after the war? What happened to the nation that made room for Igbo traders and businessmen to resume places of pride in Lagos, Kano and Maiduguri; the Hausa communities to re-locate back to Onitsha and Aba; and for young people to learn of the history of a potentially great nation that had derailed but found its feet in the early 1970s? 

My answers to the these questions are likely to feed the dispute over every element of our history, but they are no worse than strands that feed the lower rungs of the muck that is our history by social media and miniature champions with pretensions for fighting great causes. First, the coup of January 15 1966 was never planned with secession of the East in mind. By all accounts, it was intended to address serious national challenges, not to pull parts out of the nation. It was a misadventure motivated by flawed idealism, almost juvenile approach and fatal miscalculations. It was an event that created other events and developments which compounded its disastrous consequences. Second, the Biafra option had no strong organic roots. It was the product and reaction to tragic events, and was by no means the only option available to the Igbo and other communities in the Eastern States. It is difficult to read those parts of our history which record the plans by young Northern officers to pull the North out of the federation after the successful July 1967 counter coup. Biafra represented a knee-jerk reaction from Igbo elite as it competed with other elements of the Nigerian elite following the disasters triggered by the January 1966 coup. The pace of reconciliation and reintegration was evidence of the limitations of these elite competitions, and the end of the war was treated by all Nigerians largely as an end to a tragic chapter.

The Nigerian civil war was, in many senses, also a referendum on the continued existence of the Nigerian state. The outcome was not a win or loss: it was the manner Nigerians reconciled with each other, licked wounds and moved on. But the idea of Biafra was a cause for redress and resistance and it neither began with events between 1966 and 1970, nor has it ended with them. The military that triggered the collapse of the democratic process, fought a war against itself, and led the nation through a remarkable recovery then embarked on major political re-engineering, managing an emerging rentier economy and  a developing middle class. 

The Nigerian state failed to develop institutions and values that will mitigate the type of circumstances which produced Biafra and the civil war. During its long tenures in power, the military fought against itself, and discouraged the emergence of a political system which could have mediated conflicts around power and resources by the elite. At every turn, the state was challenged by problems it created. Between 1966 and 1999,the  military was unable to stay outside power for longer than 4 years, a brief period which significantly highlighted the total re-integration of Igbo elite into the Nigerian political process.

The military factor in Nigerian political history has been prominent and damaging, and hopefully, will come to an end with the expiration of President Buhari’s presidency. Every major political development since January 1966 has had a major military imprint, and no leadership has emerged at the national and largely sub-national levels without the direct or discreet influence of military actors. This legacy has stunted the growth and development of democratic values and institutions, and has created multiple sources of grievances and conflicts that give the impression of Nigeria as a nation of multiple causes and few solutions. 

The emergence of a political leadership without roots or linkages with a military tradition will signify a major reconciliation in the rapture which begun on January 15, 1966. The nation has survived many Biafras in the past, and it needs to come to terms with these challenges in their proper contexts. The resistance against the abortion of the elections that may have produced an Abiola presidency; the resistance of the communities in many parts of the South South against abuse and neglect; the resistance of many communities across the entire nation against neglect, attacks, abuse and marginalization; the unacceptable levels of collapse of basic infrastructure in the East; the scandalous de-industrialization and pauperization of the entire north; the disaster arising from incompetence and official collusion in the growth and development of Boko Haram insurgency; the unfolding, global-scale humanitarian disaster in the North East are all Biafran causes. In a real sense, every Nigerian is a Biafran.

There is enough depth and breadth in the Nigerian nation to survive these challenges, but it will be dangerous to be complacent. We will never live entire periods without a major cause demanding to be addressed, but we can improve our capacities to live with, and resolve them. We need to confront challenges with understanding and sensitivity, from positions that are strengthened by cohesion, concensus and willingness to compromise. The new Biafran phenomenon, for instance, needs to be looked in the eye to understand what it means or needs. Neither running away from it,locking it up or shooting at it will resolve the dispute over whether those who wish to pull all Igbo out of Nigeria have the support and mandate of all Igbo. Nor should the nation lower its voice over its stand that no group or section can muscle or shoot its way out of the nation, or re-structure Nigeria after its own image alone. Recent successes over the Boko Haram insurgency point to the value of national concensus and political will in dealing with internal challenges. The democratic process needs to be strengthened as the foundation of national unity and cohesion, and the guarantee that only a leadership which enjoys a legitimate and popular support can take difficult decisions to deal with challenges. There is not a single sensible reason why Nigerians should not discuss every element of our existence, the structures and institutions which affect us in profound ways, and even the utility of our union. It is, however important to acknowledge that every community has a right to be respected, and its participation in the search for solutions around the fundamentals of our co-existence cannot be forced or hijacked. 

    There are many lessons to draw from the half century after Biafra. One is that the Nigerian nation is a lot more resilient than it gets credit for in many circles, and this resilience lies in the millions of linkages in livelihoods, economy and relationships which Nigerians have built with their feet, resources, trust and lives in every inch of our nation. The second is that Nigeria will always be tested and tried by challenges arising from the manner groups feel their rights and privileges are handled either by the state itself, or by other groups. It is important therefore to strive towards creating a nation founded on democratic principles and practice, and in particular, on the rule of law. Thirdly we need to re-integrate younger Nigerians into a vision of a nation whose history has been both inspiring and challenging, but a nation which can be made to work for all. We need to liberate our history from petty hate mongers; not to put a false gloss on it, but to challenge this generation to improve where older generations have failed, and take pride in their legacies. Without this history, there is little hope of  securing the firm foundations that will survive contemporary and  future challenges in Nigeria.

The distance of Abuja

 “When a small toe is hurting, the whole body swoops down to attend to it”. African proverb.

Abuja houses the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria and all appointees who are supposed to help him run the country, except the fighting elements of the military which is scattered all over the country but monitored in Abuja. It also houses the federal legislature which exercises, among many other responsibilities, oversight over  activities of the executive arm. It is where heads of the military, security agencies, police and para-military agencies live and supervise vital work of keeping citizens safe and secure. Hundreds of thousands of government employees who keep the engine of state running live and work in Abuja. Millions of citizens from all parts of the country, from scavengers to billionaires have made Abuja home. Many of the wealthy are virtual refugees from insecurity in towns and villages.

Abuja runs Nigeria. To put it another way, it is responsible for keeping Nigerians safe and secure. That is the idea, but this idea suffers from such chronic anemia that you will have to read loud  from the constitution in certain circles. There are huge numbers of these circles, and they get wider by the day. Some are found in state capitals, and are expressed in lamentations (some with genuine roots, others contrived) that Abuja’s influence in terms of support with resources and empathy is weak or non-existent. There are others carved out by guns, knives and fear where Abuja’s influence is at best sporadic, and at worst endemically non-existent. To be sure, some of these circles that grow from being starved of presence or influence of Abuja are actually part of a city has developed at a phenomenal rate, mostly driven  the persistent drive of the poor and the marginal to serve affluence. The city is surrounded by towns and settlements which now habour the kidnapper and the bandit, making living  virtually similar with those who live in Nassarawa, Niger and Kaduna States.

Part of the liabilities which the capital of Abuja bears is the myth that it is a tiny island of peace and security whose  powerful inhabitants know little (or care) about the rest of the country. The island of peace and security bit is untrue. What is true is that a tiny minority travels only by air because the bandit and the kidnapper is yet to acquire surface- to-air weapons. A few move in and out with huge, armed convoys that look like they are on their way to rout out an active gang of bandits. The rest are left to struggle for the limited privilege of using trains that remind everyone how unsafe they are, or praying hard first and then driving to or out of Abuja on dangerous and damaged roads. Because the bandit and the kidnapper and the armed robber have developed sensitive noses for weaknesses of the state, they make fortunes from attacking vehicles traveling to and from Abuja. Relations who make it safe to destinations now go through mandatory routines of calling relations to announce the good news. 

There is a part of Abuja that should answer to the accusation that it is too far removed from the population and does not care enough to reduce the distance between the state, which it runs, and the citizen who, with abundant justification, feels abandoned. This is the part occupied by a presidency with huge powers which it does not, or cannot use. It is propped up by a legislature which touts its paper responsibility of being representatives of the people in Abuja, makes all the right noises during budget defence and then adjusts to a life of being Abuja in all it represents in the minds of the people. There is another Abuja element that accounts to these two and  is removed from having to account to the citizen, except by the ineffectiveness with which it exercises it mandate. These are people employed to keep Nigerians safe and secure wherever they are, or pay the price for their failure. In times of great stress and worry over security of lives and livelihood, these people come under intense scrutiny, or should. This is the reason the constitution vests so much power in the office and person of the President, Commander-In-Chief of the Armed Forces. It is his duty to win the war to secure the citizen; to keep an effective fighting force and efficient police; to account for their failures or claim credit for their successes. There is a yet another element in Abuja. This is represented by those who speak for the leader of the country. In our current circumstances when the president is not particularly inclined to speaking to the citizen or being seen where it is important for the purposes of demonstrating the vital ingredient of empathy, they are particularly important.

The  unspeakable horror of the slaughter of anywhere between 43 and 110 farmers in Borno State a few days ago took additional casualties. The huge chasm which exists between the expectations of the citizen and the reality regarding President Buhari’s standard response to the setbacks in the theater of war in the north east widened with his trademark defence that he had done all there is to do for the military, and his instructions that it should take the war to the enemy. Those who do not expect much to change from the style and disposition of the president will be spared great disappointment. Those who do will join the ranks of millions of Nigerians who are resigned to the fact that nothing will happen that will shift the president from his traditional posture and distance from national challenges.

To be fair, he did send a delegation to condole with the people and government of Borno State. His delegation got an earful, the loudest coming from a textbook loyalist to President Buhari, the Governor, Babagana Zulum. It would be unfair to attribute base motives to the requests of a hardworking and committed governor, but what he put forward as recommendations to improve the fight against the insurgency have always been available as potentials which President Buhari could have activated a long while back. Except for the recommendation to re-engage South African merceneries which he must know represents a resounding negative verdict on our military, issues such as recruitment of locals into the military and paramilitary organizations, re-engineering collaboration with neighbouring countries which Nigeria was substantially responsible for mismanaging into extinction, improvements in  technical capacities of the military and police and relocating Nigerian refugees from camps in neighbouring countries are matters which are perfectly within the powers of the president to deal with. The President’s  delegation did not hear the most vital demand, but it was there all around them. It was in the controlled voice of the Shehu; in the disciplined voice of an exasperated loyalist, Zulum, and in the silence and the moods of the thousands of  people the delegation drove through. That voice said to Abuja: we are tired, we are angry and we feel abandoned. The question is whether the heavyweights in the delegation will deliver that message. More to the point is whether the president will read between the lines and understand how far his administration is from the people he leads.

One of the farmers who commented after spokesman Garba Shehu’s gaffe that farmers needed to seek clearance from the military before going to harvest what they had planted was reported to have said, “It is the responsibility of the government to provide security for us, but we are left helpless. We are surprised that someone living in Abuja will come out and discredit us...” This tragic incident has worsened President Buhari’s Abuja. It is now more removed and more uncaring.

 

Missing parts

“When you fetch your own water, you will  know the value of every drop”. African proverb

My column last week was mistakenly published in print  without its concluding paragraph. The column itself was a sweeping comment on recent developments in mainstream politics, particularly the tendency of politicians   to think in terms of traditional methods of achieving personal goals  from manipulating  their political environments. The trigger was the defection of the Governor of Ebonyi State, David Umahi. The focus was on maneuvers towards the presidency in 2023, with geo-ethnic factors in prominent places of consideration. The deluge of reactions to the provocations implied in the column encouraged this extension of the theme on speculations and mistakes that could cost some politicians and the nation very dearly.

Although hardened politicians may be less guilty here than mere mortals like us, there appears to be some flawed assumptions around the northern politician and voter. First, the voter. It is amusing when you hear pedestrian comments about the sheep-like character of a northern voter who, without fail, does as asked by religious and ethnic champions. Politicians who have been stumped by the fabled popularity of President Buhari forget that the northern voter could not make him president against a southerner in 2003 and 2011. They forget that the northern voter preferred ‘Yar Adua to him in 2007.They ignore the fact that northern votes substantially helped Abiola beat a fellow northerner.

Politicians from the south who ignore the sophistication and deeply complex nature of the northern voter tend to assume that he is already sold to his religious and ethnic manipulators, and is therefore to be taken whole or not at all. This leaves them at the mercy of an illusion and northern politicians who, though not without considerable influence on the northern voter, know how difficult he is to manipulate using religion and ethnicity as principal  tools. The northern politician has shrank to the level of state governor. This category of politician, except for one or two, enjoys  incredible  levels distrust and hostility from the population. The influence of these politicians is spatially limited and crippled by its association with the two dominant parties. The type of northern politician that dusted up President Obasanjo and led the way to making him president in 1999  is now extinct. There is a huge vacuum in leadership in the North. Those who look for handles to the northern voter will have to search patiently and be prepared to build many bridges to get to him. He can be reached, but not by being insulted or blackmailed by threats. When you live with the experiences and the circumstances of the northerner today, you will appreciate the wisdom in the proverb, “he who is lying on the ground fears no fall”.

Politicians from the south who have ambitions to lead the country need to accord the northern voter the respect he deserves. He is, like all Nigerians, a major stakeholder in what happens next, and he has learnt many lessons from his disposition and influence  in 2015 and 2019. In particular, it will be very useful to recognize the nature of the influence of a Buhari presidency on his perception of regional and ethno-religious politics. The safest assumption to make at this stage is that the northern voter will be difficult to influence in arguments over the utility or other benefits of forfeiting his right to freely choose the next president  because politicians have an understanding between them to yield positions to each other.

The North is paying a huge price for the Buhari presidency. To convince the northern voter  to escort the presidency to other zones who already have advantages such as economic power and good infrastructure because they demand, threaten or insult him into submission will only make him dig in deeper to retain some relevance in a nation that is becoming increasingly divided by economy and security. Discussions over competence and merit as primary criteria for leadership in the country will assume greater significance in many circles, but the two biggest parties who have become captives to the rotation spirit will bleed badly in their efforts to protect it. President Buhari’s sorry  legacy to the North will be to remind its voters to be more circumspect in future, and vote for competent and compassionate leaders who will not see power as an end in itself. If the northern voter can see a northern politician with these qualities, he will most likely prefer him to a candidate from another part of the country. It annoys many Nigerians from parts of the south to hear this, but politicians whose job it is to harvest support know that it is the exact equivalent of saying that particular parts of the country are exclusively entitled to the presidency.

These are, of course, challengeable postulations. Their value is to invite attention to a fundamental element of the democratic process: the right of the voter to elect his leaders freely. They also point to a vital missing link. This is the failure of the political process to utilize the art of bridge-building, negotiation and political cohesion among leaders. The quality of the politician has crashed along with virtually all aspects of national life. Our politicians these days wait for power to be brought to them in accordance with some agreements most  of them will breach without a second thought. Or they  mobilize frightening fortunes to acquire power and then use it purely as a private  asset. Either way, they alienate large chunks of citizens who resign to wait for four years to see if they can affect a stronger influence through the electoral process. The rotation of elective offices and distribution of power is necessary in a country with pronounced pluralism such as ours, but its elevation to the level of the sacrosanct has made our politicians lazier and, in many instances, has entrenched mediocrity in the quality of our leaders.

The near-certainty that the two major parties will fight themselves to near-death over rotation before the 2023 elections makes you wonder why another political  party which is relatively free of their encumbrances does not enter the ring. In the period since 1999, Nigerians have seen the worse and the worst of the Nigerian politician. A nation of 200 million people has been reduced to its knees, unable to create a citizen out of its hundreds of ethnic groups and many faiths; to build a nation led by the best and the brightest, inspired by the fire to build a country of opportunities for all; to free leadership from corruption and limit tendencies that weaken the bonds between communities, and to assure citizens that our country can survive unavoidable challenges. The  PDP and APC  will threaten the fragile state of the nation even more dangerously as their politicians  fight for power at all cost and pitch regions and ethnic groups against each. None of them have the  caliber of leadership that can stand above the fray, and their brand of politics makes all of them part of the problem.

There is a theoretical probability that Nigerians from all parts of the country  could move from profound but impotent lamentation to real political activities that will provide real and potent challenge to the two dominant parties and their circulating threats which they sell as justice. If this will happen, it ought to have started. Our history has an impressive record of politicians who broke barriers and thought big. Nigerians will vote for a Nupe, Igbo, Yoruba , Fulani or Idoma   candidate if he is the best from the best, and is not an ethnic candidate. He must be transparently committed to being a president for all Nigerians. He must commit to supporting improving  our limiting structural foundations,  addressing our shrinking  opportunities to be a great nation, and creating a safe and secure nation.