Preserve the independence of the legal profession and the judicial system
Patrimonial Prebendalism and the Nigeria’s scourge of Corrupt Billionaire
“But please, don’t tell me that Nigeria as it stands is non-negotiable. For me, this is a fallacy. The nation has got to be negotiated. Negotiation includes ensuring that there is no marginalisation. Negotiation has to do with control of resources; it has to do with restructuring the nation in a way in which its components, its constituents are not feeding a bloated centre to the detriment of their own development.”- Wole Soyinka (2017)
The recent donation of $14 million by Nigerian billionaire, Mohammed Indimi, to a little known American University located in Florida has been a subject of intense debates among Nigerians on social media. The Ijaw Youth Congress (IYC) reacted angrily to the donation and called it an irresponsible and colossal waste of Niger Delta resources. Is it? Others, have argued that this donation is precisely the reason why we need a dialogue on the viability and survivability of the Nigerian federation.
Many Nigerian hardly know Mohammed Indimi. The Borno born billionaire made his billions from a no-bid oil wells gifted to him by his friend, Gen Ibrahim Babangida. Indimi is the father-in-law of Mohammed Babangida, the former military dictator first son, who is currently the Chairman/CEO of Oriental Oil & Gas. Oriental was founded in 1990 under Babangida by Indimi. He owns the rich Ebok Field (OML 67), Okwok Field (OML 67) and OML 115, amongst others. Indimi is reportedly the 10th richest billionaire in Nigeria. He started out as a merchant trader buying and selling clothes, flour etc. But no one in his right sense would believe that he came about his current stupendous wealth through petty trading. He got his wealth from oil, albeit the crude oil that has now completely devastated the Niger Delta and riverine communities in Nigeria.
In 2002, Rotimi Suberu wrote about the three fundamental values or pillars that has kept the endangered foundations of Nigeria together as a nation state despite the apparent ethnic, regional, religious and political turbulence that has assailed the country.
First, is the continued application and adaptation of federalism as a mechanism for securing and advancing self-rule, shared rule and limited rule in a multi-ethnic society such as ours. That pillar was called into question by June 12 annulment and it took a massive course correction by the Abdusalaam administration to get us back to sanity. It is also the reason why Goodluck Ebele Jonathan was asked to abide by its commitments to serve only one term. It is the reason why serious northern politicians are committed to transfer of power to the south after 8 years of Presidential Muhammadu Buhari. The idea of federal character in participatory representation of sub-units at the national level is crucial for the unity and cohesiveness of the nation. One can only hope that politicians of both parties keep this unwritten commitment. For those who says zoning is not in the constitution, let me echo, the wise words of Richard Simeon who argued that issues of constitutional change are typically highly symbolic, conflictual and intractable “harmony in divided federations may be better achieved through ‘constitutional silences’, leaving some matters unresolved, rather than by trying to spell out all issues of identity and power in precise constitutional language”.
The second is the representative democracy, without which federalism becomes deeply vulnerable and questionable. The brazenly sectarian behavior of the ethno-military regime that ruled the country from 1984 to 1999 headed and dominated by Muslims from the North has been variously accused of provoking ethnic insecurity, anxiety, militancy and instability that created the current polarization and instability in the Nigerian federation. Sadly, the chief orchestrator of that military putsch is the current president who again is been accused of nepotism, favoritism and lopsided appointment in favor of his kith and kin.
The third and final value involves the competent, transparent and equitable management of the economy. The labors of our heroes past in the civil service in the 1960s and 1970s is now a footnote of history. No thanks to the pervasive scourge of corruption or prebendalism in the public sector. Prebendalism refers to political systems in which elected officials and government workers feel they have a right to a share of government revenues, and they use them to benefit supporters, co-religionists and members of their ethnic group. An efficient management of the commonwealth of Nigeria would enhance the material welfare of broad sections of the Nigerian population and not just a few sycophants and leeches. As Jeffrey Herbst noted in 1996 “unless the rot of the economy is halted, there will be no prospect for democracy in [Nigeria] and the integrity of the nation-state itself will be threatened.”
On this third prong we can say that the Nigerian chicken has come home to roost. The potential economic advantages of a federated Nigerian union have been largely negated by the mismanagement of the nation’s oil wealth and the attendant immiseration of the country’s population. The wealth gained has largely been frittered away by a rapacious “militricians” –military dictators assisted by civilians. The transition to democracy in 1992 has been a mere window dressing, as retired military rulers, their wives and family members simply threw off their khaki uniform for civilian “agbada”. No wonder then that the military penchant for rent seeking simply continued unabated under civilian rule. Retired military generals have been in charge of the Nigerian central government far more than civilians.
The mismanagement and attendant evaporation of the country’s economic promise should be laid at the feet of these military generals. Their maladministration is the source of despair and disaffection in the Nigerian federal union. There is no doubt, that the hundreds of billions of dollars that Nigeria … has earned from petroleum export since the end of the Biafran war in 1970 would have made our country an economic giants but for the profligacy of our rulers. Instead, as aptly stated by Jacqueline Coolidge and Susan Rose-Ackerman, “owing to the vicissitudes of the global oil market as well as inefficient and corrupt domestic economic management, Nigeria declined from a middle-income country with an annual per capita income of about $1000 in 1980 to an impoverished nation with a per capita income of only $130 in 1999. Indeed by 1984, after ten years of the oil boom, the income of the average Nigerian was no higher than in 1974. During the 1980s the economy declined at the rate of 0.4 percent annually, and in 1990 Nigeria was the seventeenth poorest country in the world. On top of that, according to World Bank, Nigeria has the lowest life expectancy (54.5) in West Africa!
There is no better illustration of the scourge of prebendalism on the Nigerian frail state than a cursory look at Indimi’s 3 big breakthroughs in business. According to Indimi’s biography available at Infoguideafrica.com
“ In 1973, …, there was a great shortage of flour in Maiduguri and the state government were importing and selling bags of flours to the locals at reduced rates. While Maiduguri was in lack of flour, Sokoto had excess flours to sell so Indimi saw a great business opportunity ahead. He contacted the Chief Commercial Officer of the Ministry of Commerce for Sokoto State who was in charge of the sale, bargained and bought 50,000 bags of flour which he sold at Maiduguri, making huge profits from the transactions.”
Here we see Indimi’s rent seeking business writ large, he bought flour imported for Sokoto State presumably at bargain prices from his friend, the chief commercial officer of Sokoto state and then sold the flours to Borno (North-eastern state) government as a government approved importer/contractor, pocketing the profit in dollars. In the end, the people of Borno who bore the brunt of the artificial scarcity created through this government policy suffers. Needless to say, Major Generals Muhammad Buhari and Tunde Idiagbon, at various times were military administrators during this saga.
His next big breakthrough happened during General Olusegun Obasanjo military regime. That administration gave him a no bid contract to supply industrial water pumps for the South Chad Irrigation Project.
His third and final breakthrough comes through the largesse of his in-law, General Ibrahim Babangida as we stated above.
“In 1990, Indimi got an oil prospecting license granted by the Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida regime. He established an oil and gas firm named Oriental Energy Resources (OER). According to the official website, the company has expanded its portfolio and currently has three assets under development in offshore Nigeria. These include the Ebok Field (OML 67), Okwok Field (OML 67) and OML 115.”
This is a no-bid oil field allocation for which nothing in Indimi’s background prepared him for it. It is a rent-seeking enterprise where all Indimi had to do is collect percentage of profit. He had no need to invest in Niger Delta where these oil field are located.
Presumably, it is from this profit that Indimi made the largest donation to Lynn University in Florida. According to USA News & World Report, Lynn University is a private institution that was founded in 1962. Its tuition and fees are $40,900 per semester. Do you know the kids who populate this school? Rich Wall Street sons and daughters. Mostly White Caucasian upper middle class New York rich kids. They don’t need tuition and never beg for one. This is why the school was surprised that a black man from Boko Haram infested country will give such an amount. Meanwhile students from Niger Delta decimated by pollution from where he made his billions can’t afford to pay their tuitions abroad nor can they attend Unimaid.
There is evidence all over the internet about Mohammed Indimi and Yakolo Indimi Foundation for the benefits of Northeastern Nigerian displaced kids and widows but I am yet to find anything pointing to an investment in Niger Delta which partly explains the anger and animosity of IYC.
Here is another interesting tidbits from this Indimi’s story. Before his recent appointment as Chief of Staff to President Buhari, Ibrahim Agboola Gambari was a professor at Lynn. Upon completion of his appointment at Aso Rock, guess where he will retire? Yes, you guess right, LYNN! That much he admitted to in his speech at Lynn. So, if you are wondering why Gambari and Indimi are not overly concerned about bringing back Chibok girls, the answer is simple: It is not their problem. Eight of Indimi’s 20 children (some of whom are the same age as Chibok girls) never went to school in Nigeria. Even his grand kids are all studying abroad. Ameena Indimi made that much known during the dedication of the building in the name of her father:
“It is a great honor to see you invest in the future of Lynn students as well as our own children. My two precious children are coming to school here, and they will be so proud every single day as they walk to class to see your name, my name, on a building. I applaud my father for this momentous, astonishing contribution to my alma mater. We thank you, applaud you and cherish you for all time to come.”
With this donation, Indimi invested in the future of Lynn students and his own kids but not in the future of Nigerian students; be it those in his Borno state or Niger Delta where he made his wealth.
We cannot blame all of Nigeria’s failings on military rule and “militricians” alone, but they contributed a lot to the economic mismanagement of the country. Their penchant for excessive but ultimately ineffectual and counter-productive repression of ethnic conflicts or protests even whilst they engage in massive looting of the treasury is nauseating. If you want to stop Sunday Igboho, banditry, Kanu’s IPOB, Boko Haram, manage the economy for the benefits of all and not just a few close friends.
So, what can we do? We cannot but intensify the pressures for the re-negotiation and re-evaluation of the country’s federal constitutional structure, and/or for the territorial re-configuration or dissolution of the federation along ethno-regional lines. As Soyinka stated, nothing should be sacrosanct. We have sit to understand each other. After all, they say the government closest to the people govern best. The current class of corrupt ruling class cannot get us there. The devolutionist agenda of our republic should be our top priority.
Furious Frank can be reached at tioluwanimi@gmail.com. Comments here http://furiousfrank.blogspot.com/?m=1
“If you are
going to speak truth to power, make sure it’s the truth.”- Margaret Atwood
The
Greek Reporter is a website I love to read when I have some downtime. In one of
its entries, they wrote about the job of the priestess of Apollo at the Oracle
of Delphi, Pythia. Her job stands out as it involved the gathering,
re-packaging, and distribution of information, with the ultimate intent of
providing sound advice on the trivial and not-so-trivial questions of life in
ancient Greece. The oracle was consulted by the movers and shakers of ancient
Greece on a diverse range of problems. For the priestess Pythia, this meant the
opportunity to comment on a variety of issues of public and individual concern:
cult matters, warfare, the relationships between existing city-states, and the
foundation of new ones. The position of the Pythia seemed to have entailed the
extraordinary opportunity to speak unwelcome truth to those in power. Sadly,
Pythia often disappoints his listeners as more often than not, the predictions
are historiographic traditions. Anyone could have possibly glean the
information necessary to answer any particular enquiry from the chatter of
those queuing to consult the oracle. Cue the recent speech by Olisa Agbakoba at
the Senate president birthday celebration.
Our Senate
president had the most magnificent of birthdays in recent memory. He spared no
funds in ensuring that his birthday is celebrated and one of the highlights is
the well-orchestrated birthday speech by gadfly, Olisa Agbakoba, former
president of the Nigerian Bar Association and founder of human rights activism
organization, Civil Liberty Organization (CLO). By a sad coincidence of
history, the likes of Olisa Agbakoba are currently the pseudo-intellectuals the
Nigerian press acclaims as government critic. Even though most of the so called
critics of the Nigerian state on the pages of newspapers are critic by day and
contractor by night. Perhaps, the few exceptions like Sowore still remains in
the mould of Gani Fawehinmi, Claude Ake, Pa Mokwuogu Okoye and Bala Usman.
It was Noam
Chomsky that is quoted to have debunked the myth of intellectuals speaking
truth to power as “pious tag”. Chomsky states that those in power knows the
truth already and they are just busy concealing it. More importantly, he said
those who need the truth is not those in power but those oppressed by it. Olisa
Agbakoba speech at this iconic birthday celebration should be viewed from this
prism. There are parts of the speech that are laudable and others that are
populist loud sounding nothing. As usual, Nigerians frequently swoons when we
hear ideas that makes our collective ears tingles. The excitement increases
when those ideas are said with gusto by those in authority and by people with
titles, lawyers, chiefs, priest etc. For now, let’s set aside his argument on
blue economy which he trots out as consultant at the beginning of every
administration to project himself as maritime economy savior. I said this
because those of us familiar with his shtick knows this is pablum. He wants
coast guard. He wants fishing and deep sea exploration. He promised we
will catch so many fishes on our oil polluted coast that we will be rich and pay
off our debts to World Bank etc. There is only one catch, the new minister of
Blue Economy, his friend and former governor of Osun State, Adegboyega Oyetola,
needs to invite him to a meeting and signed his consultancy firm to a contract
and pronto all this ideas will become reality.
But,
the main gist of Olisa Agbakoba speech is not the pablum but another Trojan horse.
The claim that he owns property in England and Nigeria and gets equity on his
property in London and got zero on the one in Nigeria. He also said he could
get loans easily on his property in England and Zero from the property in
Nigeria. He went on to cite Hernande deSoto’s “Mystery of Capital” in support of this main plank of his argument.
The book was written in year 2000. I had a signed copy by deSoto’s book as I
bought a copy when he came to the campus where I currently teach as adjunct. We
have had 23 years to try out de Soto ideas and the results are at best mixed.
As Chris
Woodruff wrote in his article published on JSTOR and University of Oxford
website here https://chriswoodruff.qeh.ox.ac.uk/wp-c
... to-JEL.pdf
“ De Soto’s own experience in
Peru suggests that land titling by itself is not likely to have much effect.
Titling must be followed by a series of politically challenging steps.
Improving the efficiency of judicial systems, re-writing bankruptcy codes,
restructuring financial market regulations and similar reforms will involve
much more difficult choices for policy makers.”
These
important truths are swept under the rug by both deSoto and Agbakoba. Olisa
Agbakoba as members of the National Judicial Council knows the inherent
corruption and challenges faced by the poor in accessing justice in Nigeria. As
Senior Advocate of Nigeria he’s a beneficiary of that corrupt system that
appoints and tepidly discipline errant judicial officers. The truth of the
matter is land titling is made to sound like a free lunch. But without a broad
set of complementary reforms, property titling and registration systems are
likely to have a more limited effect than de Soto’s and Agbakoba (very
refreshing) enthusiasm would lead one to believe.
For now, it is refreshing to see Agbakoba, command the attention of
policy makers at high levels in Nigeria as De Soto once did in developing
countries in the early 2000. His ideas contrast in non-trivial ways with the
central focus of the development literature. Either the policy makers need to
be alerted to the limitations of Agbakoba’s and de Soto’s proposals, or
researchers need to give more attention to the connection between titling,
credit markets, and entrepreneurship.
For
now, I commend Nigerians who care to read to focus their attention on DeSoto
first book, titled “The Other Path”,
which described the labyrinth of regulations and permits required to do
business or build a house in Lima, Peru. As he stated in that book, the
informal is as regulated if not more regulated than the formal. If you doubt me
ask road transport workers in Lagos or any motor parks in Nigeria. The informal
regulations of our transport industry has made many motor parks tout
millionaires and billionaires. Some of them are well connected to the seat of
power in Aso rock. The likes of MC Oluomo are enforcers for those in power. As
I write this piece, the government has just announced t50 per cent discount on
road transport fares on 22 major routes across the country, starting from
December 21, 2023. We have no recognized Highway Transport commission or any
interstate transport governing agency. How did the government identified the
transport companies that will benefit from this scheme? Does the government
knows the average cost of travels on these routes before this announcement? One
things is clear, if you are traveling from Lagos to Onitsha this year, don’t be
surprised if your fare increased by the same amount the federal government
promised to subsidize for transportation. You might even be paying more.
The reason The Other Path
had a significant impact on the academic literature on the informal sector in
the decade after its publication is not because of its academic rigor but
because of its ideas. The idea that that informals are entrepreneurs, not
marginals and banks and financial institutions should recognize it as such. The Mystery of Capital has much in
common with The Other Path. It is
colorfully written and entertaining. It focuses on an important issue. Its lack
of empirical rigor is compensated for by a wealth of ideas. But while The Other Path focused on actions the
state takes that hinder entrepreneurship and growth, The Mystery of Capital
looks from the other side. Our focus should be on actions states fail to take:
creating and enforcing private property rights. That is our Achilles
heel’s in Nigeria. Until then, the rich and the powerful can continue to trot
out stale ideas that tingle our ears.
“The story of the death camps should be understood by everyone as a sinister alarm-signal”
I love judging High School debates. This Saturday morning, I found myself at my kid’s High school library (where they quartered us judges) waiting to be summon to go judge my next round, when I look up and saw this small book titled above. I picked it up and thought to myself, given what is going on in the world today, we all need the reminders this book offers.
The author’s preface went to the heart of the matter:
As an account of atrocities, therefore, this book of mine adds nothing to what is already known…it should be able, rather, to furnish documentation for a quiet study of certain human aspects of the human mind. Many people- many nations- can find themselves holding, more or less wittingly, that ‘every stranger is an enemy.’ For the most part this conviction lies deep down like some latent infection; it betrays itself only in random, disconnected acts, and does not lie at the base of a system of reason.”
The author then dove straight into the story of his capture. He had fled into the mountains to set up Resistance movement but was caught by Fascist Militia and upon brutal interrogations that followed, he admits his status as “Italian citizen of Jewish race”. He was then sent to Fossoli, near Modena, a vast detention camp, where people not approved by the Fascist Republic are kept.
In January 1944, the camp had 150 Italian Jews but within a week the number rose to 600. Jugoslavian military internees were also camped there but within weeks, the German SS men announced deportation of all Jews without exception to Auschwitz, including the children, the old and the sick.
“In Hut 6A old Gattegno lived with his wife and numerous children and grandchildren and his sons-and daughters-in-law. All the men were carpenters; they had come from Tripoli after many long journeys, and had always carried with them the tools of their trade.”
I found this part of the story interesting as my great grandpa was also a carpenter. Twelve goods wagon was then used to transport 650 men for a journey towards nothingness. The train travelled slowly, with long, unnerving halts towards Auschwitz. Among the 45 people in the author’s wagon, only 4 saw their homes again “it was by far the most unfortunate wagon.”
Within two days of arrival, more than 500 were killed! It’s only those fit to work hard labor that were spared. The children, the old and the feeble sick were gassed to death at the gas chamber. “Thus in an instant, our women, our parents, our children disappeared. We saw them for a short while as an obscure mass at the other end of the platform; then we saw nothing more.”
To be continued
Few friends forces me to think deeply about Nigeria as my classmate, erudite lawyer and poet, Ayantade Ipadeola. The problem with Tade as we fondly calls him is that he’s a deep thinker and a diligent observer of the Nigerian experiment. Of recent, Tade musings has become more and more alarmist. He strongly believes Nigerian leaders are driving the country into a precipice with eyes wide shut. He sees things many of us frequently choose to ignore. He’s candid that our literal manure may soon hit the fans. And yet, he believes we can right the course if we elect leaders with a certain modicum of respectability. He does not think our so called established top two political party candidates with gargantuan structures can save our land from the impending fracas. When I tried to assuage his fears, his tepid response is with that distinctively Akinmorin’s quip, “Toh”. As an incurable optimist, I tends to look at the sunny side of life but these days everywhere I turn, Tade’s dia syllabic response rings in my ears.
Of recent though, my problems seems compounded by news of the world and I see myself frequently mimicking Tade’s refrain in every conversation here in the US. Before you blame me, look anywhere in the world today, Ukraine, Brazil, Nigeria, Iran etc the masses and the poor all over the world are yearning not just for freedom but to throw off the yoke of oppression from the top richest one percent, who owns more than 50% of world’s wealth. It is hard to believe. And yet, do we in Nigeria, really think we are that different from others in the world? The statistics in Nigeria is even more staggering. Look at all the corruption world-wide, including many modern democracies. The other day, I informed a friend during a WhatsApp conversation that I am not entirely sure that humans are ultimately capable of long term governing - maybe humans are born to be corrupt and immoral.
In her book How Civil Wars Start, Barbara F. Walter mentions that it isn't income equality or lack of healthcare that cause a democratic people to enter civil war, it's when factions such as ethnic hatred, and regular citizens perceive that the government is powerless to govern. In fact, even rich countries that have a weak government (Weak rule of law, weak free press, no meaningful right of redress) are at significant risk of descending into civil war. The hating factions decide to solve by violence and the non-hating populace decides that the government is powerless to protect them - so each chooses a side and civil war begins.
She says civil wars today aren't like the war between the states that happened in the US in 1860. Rather, they start small, and are guerilla actions - like the Capital being stormed on January 6th. Like unknown gunmen in Southeastern Nigeria or Kaduna kidnappers, or those butchers in Zamfara who sacked whole village and took an entire village populace ransomed for money because of disagreement over gold mining.
So when people see government cheating and favoritism, it convinces people that they need to use violence because their own government is the problem. It is the number one risk of a civil war starting in a democracy. Ms. Walter uses South Africa as an example of a country that was on the brink of civil war because of apartheid, and how de Klerk's action defused things by freeing political prisoners, including Nelson Mandela, and eliminating laws designed to prevent black land ownership and commercial participation prevented civil war. Tade believes we need Peter Obi to do the same thing for Nigeria. Ethnic, racist factions have to believe there is more to lose by violence than not. And ordinary citizens have to believe the government will prevent violence and the implementation of an ethnic faction run state.
If state and local governments, regardless of which party has control, cannot decide that the constitution and rule of law are more important than their own career, then I think that the Nigeria will experience another violent civil war in our lifetime. We've already seen the beginning of this with unknown gun men in the East, throw in, IPOB, Yoruba nation activist and of course the relentless upsurge of violence and kidnapping in the Northcentral and northwest. Not to talk of Boko Haram complete wipe out of Northern Christian population in North east. In the US where I live, we see this in the activities of white supremacists, Oathkeepers, and antifa.
When a government like Trump's turns the rule of law into a joke, when it turns the media into an enemy of the state, ordinary people will come to see violence as the only solution to perceived wrongs, dictatorship and autocracy. When the Buhari administration looks the other way whilst herdsmen devastate southern Nigerian states, you will get similar results. In a lot of her examples, the violent ethnic hating factions (Syria, Bosnia, Serbia, Croatia, Nigeria, the US southern states - and many others) began small such that regular citizens were lulled into complacency and convinced there was no other viable course of action.
I am heartened that the January 6 invaders in the US are being held accountable, and that Donald Trump is at least being investigated, but I think the US is, at this moment, at a crossroads where we will either continue the democratic work in progress, or we will literally become Syria. At least, the system holds up and stems the tide, unlike Nigeria where the attorney general of the federation openly defends corrupt politicians and protect herdsmen. As in the US war between the states, enough Nigerian citizens must insist on a government of laws, such that law abiding citizens won't feel the need to join kidnappers, IPOB, Yoruba nation activist, Boko haram, iswap etc.
In the US, antifa, and the racists, misogynists and ethnic hating factions are finding it more costly to use violence than to get along, because the Biden administration dedicates resources to the prosecution of purveyors of violence.
I strongly encourage reading the book I mentioned above. Short read - maybe 225 pages. She provides the data and citations to support her assertions.
A
PS. The Census predicts that the US will become a minority white nation by 2045. As a group of Nigerian in diaspora, we need to get our government back on track to do the things we need it to do before then. Otherwise, how do we think white supremacists are going to react?
“There goes the mob, and I must follow, for I am their leader.”- Anon. Possibly apocryphal words of Comte de Mirabeau, the French revolutionary leader.
“One thing is certain: the present edifice called Nigeria as we know it today has come nearly to the end of its life . . . The cracks on its walls are too great for the edifice to continue to stand.”- Hon. (Dr.) Akinola Aguda (The Future of Nigeria: Cracks in the Wall. The Comet Lagos October 1, 2000).
Nigerians home and abroad are waiting for the resolution of
2 pending cases with bated breath. The case of Sunday Igboho at a Beninese court
and Nnamdi Kanu at Federal High Court, Abuja. The primary case against these
two ethnic agitators is their struggle for secession and freedom from oppression
from Nigeria. The cases have been subjected to several adjournments primarily
at the instance of the Federal Government of Nigeria whose attorney often seems
lost for words, and looking askance at every hearing. This article will seek to
answer an important question that will come up during these hearing: Can we say
there exists in contemporary international law and practice an inalienable
right of self-determination applicable to all peoples subject to oppression,
exploitation and subjugation by others?
Article 1 of the International Human Rights Covenants of
1966 makes the right of self-determination available to “all peoples” without
any restriction as to their status. The Covenants further places an obligation
on all states “including those having responsibilities for the administration
of colonial territories to promote the realization of the right to self-determination.
Similarly, Article 20(2) of the African Charter refers to both “colonized and
oppressed people” as having the right.
The African Commission ruling on application of the
foregoing provision of the African Charter in Katangese People’s Congress v.
Zaire held that while the request for self-determination lacks merits, the
rights of the people of Katanga to their language and culture were inviolable.
Elsewhere in other continents outside Africa, however, the
principle of self-determination by components of a nation state has been
upheld. For example, the Treaty of the Final Settlement with Respect to
Germany, 1990 signed by four of the five Permanent members of the Security Council
expressly stated that the “German people, freely exercising their right of
self-determination, have expressed their will to bring about the Unity of
Germany as a state.” Ditto, the Report on the secession of Bangladesh from
Pakistan where the International Commission of Jurists stated that “if one of
the constituent peoples of a state is denied equal rights and is discriminated
against, it is submitted that their right of self-determination will revive.”
This principle is borne out of the need to eradicate
oppression of peoples and to protect human rights in all circumstances. How can
this principle of customary international law be applicable in Europe and Asia
but not in Africa-the cradle of all human race? One can therefore conclude that
there exist in contemporary international law and practice an inalienable right
of self-determination applicable to all peoples subject to oppression, exploitation
and subjugation by others.
The purpose of the right of self-determination is to protect
communities or groups from oppression and to empower them. The exercise of this
right however requires a delicate balancing of interests. Just as there can be
no absolute human rights that is not subject to reasonable limitations, the
rights of self-determination is subject to the needs of the state to protect
the general interests of the society.
The general interests of the international society in
maintaining international peace and security place a limitation on the right of
self-determination. This interest finds expression in the Latin maxim, “uti
possidetis juris” (UPJ-as you possess). This
principle of protection of the territorial integrity of states has its roots in
colonialism and the colonial desire to maintain peace necessary for trade and
exploitation. The principle subsist in contemporary times as it serves to
preserve the boundaries of colonies emerging as States.
The principles got enshrined in Article 6 of the General
Assembly’s Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Territories
and Peoples 1960 which states that “any attempt at the partial or total
disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a county is
incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United
Nations.” This principle forced Africa countries within the borders stipulated
for it at the Berlin Conference of 1885. A conference where no single African
was present. A conference called by German Chancellor Bismarck to settle how
European countries would claim colonial land in Africa and a conference called to avoid a war among
European nations over African territory.
The fact that this principle continued application have been
restricted to Africa is not lost on scholars of neo-colonialism. It was first
applied in Congo in 1960 (UN) and then to Biafra/Nigeria in 1967 (OAU), purportedly
to maintain the colonial boundaries such that when a colony became independent,
it succeeded to the boundaries that had been previously established by the
former colonial power. The neo-colonial hue of the principle is illustrated by
the adoption of the principle by OAU hegemon in 1964.
It is instructive to note that the Chamber of the
International Court of Justice in the Land, Island and Maritime Dispute case
(El Salvador v. Honduras) (Merits 1992) cautioned that “uti possidetis juris” is essentially a retrospective principle
investing as international boundaries administrative units intended originally
for quite other purposes.” In the Frontier Dispute Case (Burkina Faso v. Mali :
1992), the court justified the application of the principle solely to African
countries thus:
“In fact, however, the maintenance
of the territorial status quo in Africa is often seen as the wisest course to
preserve what has been achieved by people who have struggled for their
independence and to avoid a disruption which could deprive the continent of the
gains achieved by much sacrifice. The essential requirement of stability in
order to survive, to develop and gradually to consolidate their independence in
all fields, has induced African states judiciously to consent to the respecting
of colonial frontiers and to take account of it in the interpretation of the principle
of self-determination of peoples.”
This argument is totally disingenuous as it seeks to use the
struggle for independence by the peoples of Africa from colonial yokes to
maintain a neo-colonial status quo. The question is why is self-determination
good for Germans, Croats and Bangladeshi but not for Africans? To date, the
only case in which the world acquiesce to self-determination on the continent
is South Sudan and it took a fratricidal Africa’s longest civil war between the
government in Khartoum and SPLA/M before the United Nation mandated referendum
took place in 2011. The agreement for referendum was signed in Naivasha in 2005
but the war continues to the chagrin of many Africans.
The Organization of African Unity myopic embrace of the idea
of the sanctity of colonial territories of member states was used against
Biafra in Africa, even though Biafra had satisfied the essential elements of
statehood in international law namely, population, government, permanence and a
reasonable measure of effectiveness at least for the time it lasted. What it
lacked is the recognition of such number states that would have strengthened
its claim to statehood at international law. Biafra was only recognized by
Tanzania, Gabon, Cote’d Ivoire, Zambia and Haiti.
Over 50 years after the Nigerian Civil War, the idea of an
independent and sovereign Biafra would not go away. All through the period of
military rule, the idea was swept under the carpet and jackboots of military
dictatorship. The fourth republic revived it under MASSOB and now IPOB. As the
saying goes, “nothing can stop and idea whose idea has come”. To which I add, it
may be delayed but we need to confront it front and center. The idea by some
current political fat cats in Abuja that we cannot discuss the terms of our
union as a nation is ludicrous.
International law does not equate self-determination to
secession. Secession is not the only, even a necessary or an appropriate means
of realizing the right of self-determination in many situations and there is a
strong presumption against secession in non-colonial situations. It is also
true that secession is often sought by ambitious leaders who could not get
their way through the will of the people exercised freely via the ballot box.
The fact remains that neither Covenants nor any other provisions of
international law prohibit minorities from seeking secession where the
government no longer represents their interests. As Malone argued, it is only if
self-determination cannot be realized within the established state, that
secession may be necessary as a last resort.
The recognition by the international community of the disintegration
of the Soviet Union, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia shows that any government
which is oppressive to its constituents within its territory may no longer hide
under the cloak of territorial integrity as a limitation on the right of
self-determination. The recognition of Bangladesh from Pakistan, Singapore from
Malaysia and Belize, despite the justifiable claim of Guatemala indicate that
uti possidetis juris principle is dead in International law. It is no longer
jus cogens!
In order for democracy to thrive, be consolidated and firmly
entrenched anywhere, the constituent elements of any given country must evolve
through dialogue equitable arrangements and rules of their association. Our
current constitutions has a lacunae on the critical issues of
self-determination of the peoples of Nigeria. The Federal Government of Nigeria
must through meaningful dialogue with its constituent elements guarantee
effective and equitable participation of all groups in the political process
for it to be a responsive and functional federation of nationalities. Rights of
ethnic majorities and minorities must be acknowledged and respected. An
atmosphere of healthy competition and responsible sharing of resources that
acknowledged derivative rights of indigenous peoples must be honored. This is
the path to reducing the tendency towards extremist agitation for
self-determination.
Blogging Wale Adebanwi paper titled "The War before the
War: The Press and the Nigerian Crisis
Yet, the press organizations in Nigeria are representatives
of dominant ethno-regional and/or ethno-religious interests contending for
ascendancy in the nation's politics. The wars that these newspapers fight are
almost always, fought on behalf of dominant ethno-regional or ethno-religious
blocs, which was why the Morning Post the defunct federal military
government owned newspaper pandering to the interests of the northern-military
officers-led government, and the New Nigerian representing the North
constituted the greatest impediments to national cohesion for Lt. Col. Odemgwu
Ojukwu, the then military governor of the East; for the then head of state, Lt.
Col. Yakubu Gowon, the Eastern Nigerian Outlook, owned by the aggrieved
Eastern Region was the most guilty of this offence. For Lt. Col. Hassan
Katsina, the military governor of the North, teh Outlook was the unbearable
proverbial pain in the neck.
The press in Nigeria has always fought war, many of them
ennobling, some purely enabling. From its inception in 1859 when Iwe Irohin was founded by Rev. Henry Townsend “to wage war against ignorance, illiteracy
and paganism.” The press has often functioned as the “war machine” of disparate
interests. Given this backdrop, it has also often been polarized along
different lines, the most paramount of which is the
establishment/anti-establishment polarity. From the period of Akitoye Ajasa’s Nigerian Pioneer which a rival paper described as “a lick spittle” ,
because of its support for the colonial government, these polar-relations have
defined the character of the press in Nigerian. However the polar-relations
have been defined by and in turn have defined the power relations in the
country.
Wale Adebanwi in this paper analyses media discourses in the
period preceding the actual outbreak of hostilities –civil war-with a view of
highlighting the signifiers of crucial issues that were at stake in the crisis.
These signifiers codify the core issues, grievances and viewpoints that were
absorbed, elaborated and amplified by the press. Before the first shot was
fired, the press had fired several shots in different directions, which
provided the impetus, in part, and reflected the other bases, for the civil
war.
How did the press reflect the contending issues? What role
did the press play? Did the media discourses set the tone and tenor of the
crisis and the war that was to follow? What implications do the discourses of
this era have for post-war political relations? Unless we look at the events
preceding the war, particularly in terms of how they were represented in the
media, we cannot fully understand the representations of the war in the post
war period, marked as they are by the binary discourses of victory and loss-and
the unceasing low-intensity hostilities that continue till the present day.
Wale Adebanwi uses four newspapers’ editorials, data and
opinion pages published daily during the period of the Nigerian civil war and
concluded that the press is complicit in the passion that characterized the
pursuit of the manifold issues that faced the young nation of Nigeria post-independence
as they inflated the claims and invested the “canon” of each of the opposing
parties “too much sanctity, freedom, unity and morality. The discourses of each
of the contending parties advanced by Morning Post (federal government), West
African Pilot (East), New Nigerian (North) and Nigerian Tribune (West) editorials
reflected more openly and without apologies, the interests they served and
protected. He used qualitative methods to analyze no less than 1000 daily
editions of the four newspapers with an average of 250 per newspaper. His data
includes, 1,200 editorials, 30 front page stories and 5 opinion articles
relevant to the crisis.
Wale segmented the discourses into 5 signifiers: Silent
Signifiers, Signifiers of Unity, Signifier of fragmentation, Signifiers of Doom
and Signifiers of Symbolic Insults.
Silent Signifiers
Silent signifiers are threads that link up other past issues
to the matter at hand even without clearly drawing the link, but they are easily
linked by the reader who is familiar with the past events.
For example, the idea of unitarism had been pushed
vigorously by the West African Pilot (WAP) as articulated by its owner Nnamdi
Azikiwe, before independence, and then abandoned it, as Zik joined Obafemi
Awolowo and Ahmadu Bello in the latter
argument’s argument for a federal arrangement. However when Major-General
Johnson T. Aguiyi-Ironsi, and Igbo came to power and revived the idea of
unitary government, WAP picked up the battle again. Igbo elites post
independence supported a centralized government to protect their predominance
in commerce in any part of the country and give them the opportunities they
crave wherever they are. Here is how WAP captures the introduction of a
“unitary budget” for 1966-1967 fiscal year:
“Nigeria’s 1966-1967 Unitary Budget will go down in history as the only realistic fiscal approach to the national problems of this country since independence.”
WAP was silent on the fact that this fits in quite well with
the Igbo agenda in national politics “since in fact before independence”. The
paper asked the Ironsi government to go further by abolishing the word
“federal” attached to Nigeria. If it does, the paper intones:
“the name of the military government of Nigeria will be written in gold as the only Go-Getter Government that brought unity to this country.”
Given the fact that the only other government that Nigeria
had had was the northern-elite led Tafawa Balewa government led government, WAP
needed not to state that that was not a “go-getter government” that failed to
bring “unity”.
Given the tension building up in the country at the time,
particularly in the north, which was then the most dissatisfied section of the
country, WAP pointedly ignored this, as if everything was normal, as it
reported when Ironsi began a country-wide tour-during which he was killed and
his regime overthrown- “that we are marching to progress.
This silence was matched by the peculiar silence of the New
Nigerian, which also seemed to ignore the tension-or rather, to speculate, did
not want to let out the coup-cat from the crisis-bag! In all of July when the
tension actually boiled over, NN concentrated on other issues.
Signifiers of Unity
All the newspapers were very elaborate about “Unity”, even though
the discourses of “unity” were constructed in the service of the positions that
they served. We see this in the way WAP and MP handled this issue of agitation
for a Calabar-Ogoja Rivers State. WAP had a lead story announce to minorities
in the Igbo East that they have hope of realizing their dreams. This was while
Ironsi was still in power. But by the time Gowon came to power and the Igbo
began their quest for a separate state, MP began a different discourse of
unity:
“All we mean is that personal (read, Lt. Col. Ojukwu) clannish or sectional (read Igbo) interests should be considered subordinate to the overall interest of the nation.”
This preoccupation with fighting for unity did not prevent
the MP for instance from somersaulting on its position. On the best political
arrangement that will ensure unity in Nigeria, MP under Ironsi insisted that
“The country has suffered too much from tribalism. The people must unite. And the best and only way to achieve this is through a unitary form of government.”
In three months, soon after Gowon came to power, MP was
first, reluctant to state categorically, and later, stated emphatically that
federal arrangement was the best for Nigeria:
“(First) …Perhaps our unity lies through (sic) a federal system of government.
(Then)…But still, we are convinced that federalism could suit a society such as ours better than a unitary government.”
(Again)…As far as we are concerned, Nigeria needs a federation in which the center is strong enough to strong enough to sustain the nation…One thing is clear to the people of this country and that is their goal-which is the unity of the country.”
As stated earlier, “unity” meant different things to the
different newspapers. Unity for the New Nigerian, in the wake of the mass
exodus of the Igbo from the North, was a consolation that:
“out of this tragedy has (sic) emerged one great lesson and
a guiding principle to generations to come. This that to live as a nation, the
maturity of the mind, steadfastness and the appreciation of spiritual values
are desirable attitudes, and that these qualities must for in the philosophy on
which the new nation must subsist.”
It (NN) surmises further that this unity cannot be imposed
by force but slowly and gradually built on goodwill.
For Nigerian Tribune, the release of Awolowo from prison
marks the “beginning of new crusade of a new social and political force towards
building of a Nigerian nation welded together by genuine unity and strength”.
For WAP, “everyone from every part of the country stands to
gain by the spirit of oneness among the people.”
Unity did not, however necessarily translate to national
unity, unity discourses were also unity of the ethnic groups/blocs in
contention. Tribune for instance quibbled:
“It is high time the Yoruba took a firm stand on a number of issues confronting the region in particular and (the) uneasy federation in general.”
The NN stated that “our leaders at this weeks meeting must
bear in mind that they have the support of some twenty-nine million people.
They must not fail us.”
While the East was preparing for war in the late 1966,
Morning Post stated “Anyone who condones or abets any such move as secession
today must be regarded as an accomplice of those who want to sabotage the
Nigerian union.”
This “unity” constituted the battle cry of the newspapers
even as they pursued different goals in the crisis leading up to the civil war.
Signifiers of Fragmentation
Wale Adebanwi also found signifiers of a county united in
its fragmentation. As much as newspapers helped the idea of unity, they also
constantly reflected the deep divisions in the country, which lead to the
signifiers of doom.
WAP seemed to have captured the polarized nature of the
politics of that era when in its attack on an unnamed daily in ‘Northern
Nigeria’ (apparently New Nigeria) it charged:
“(I)s trying hard to introduce polemics into the politics of Nigerian again. We have in mind an article published in the 19 April issue of that paper which called for the abrogation of unitarism as a tenet of Nigeria’s reconstruction program … At this stage in our national metamorphosis, we regard it as calculated sabotage or incitement for anybody to do any act overt or covert to engender tribal bitterness or sectional ill feelings. …”
For much of the time, the newspapers also took on one
another over some of the crucial issues at stake. For instance, when a British
envoy visited the north, New Nigerian expressed the hope that:
“Sir Francis (the British envoy) will learn something of the feelings and opinions of the North regarding international and other issues in which Britain is involved and covey these to the British and if the North has strong feelings on various matters which feature in the headlines, this is the opportunity to pass them on.”
In response, WAP argued vehemently against the internalization
of the crisis at this point. It pointed out that Sir Francis is not responsible
for reporting feelings in the North to the Head of the Military Government nor
is the North the responsibility of the British government. WAP argued further
that the editorial exposed where NN stood on the crisis and who its ‘masters’
were. Subsequently, the South based paper called
“Upon the good people of Nigeria who have welcomed the Army take over (sic) to see this issue in its true light and watch out… The only interpretation therefore is that the British envoy is being invited to hear their (Northerners’) grievances, process them and report to Britain. Surely, Britain is not the governing authority unless there is more to it than meets the eye.”
For the NN, the day of mourning for Easterners killed in the
pogrom in the north was something “every reasonable and right-thinking Nigerian
would loathe’. It asked what while the East mourned those it lost in the aftermath
of the July 1966 coup, was it not also important to mourned those who died
during the mad outrages of January 1966 (in the Igbo led coup).
WAP in turn advocated that the federal government imposed a
collective fine taxable people of the north to ensure that the sum of 27,000
pound sterling was paid to the Easterners displaced by the pogrom in the north.
During negotiation at Aburi in Ghana, the NN preoccupation
was not the unity of Nigeria, rather it pressed the leaders of the North not to
“seek concession and reach compromise purely for the sake of unity that cannot
stand the test of time.”
WAP was diametrically opposed to this stand as it urge the
delegates to recognize that the first essential is for an agreement to be
reached unanimously on the form of association that can hold the various
components of the federation together with a minimum of friction.
The Morning Post will have none of all these pandering to accommodate
the grievances of the East. Long before the federal military government thought
of taking first a police action, then a small scale military action, and later
a full scale military action against the Eastern regional government, MP stated
that it felt
“compelled to repeat the call we made a few weeks ago that the government should be ruthless in maintaining the peace in the country.. The Supreme Commander (Gowon therefore should) go all out to crush the saboteurs.”
Signifiers of Doom
The newspapers during this period were also given to
predicting doom as consequence either for an action or inaction, for or against
the interests that each of the newspapers served.
MP argued that disintegration would “spell disaster for
Nigeria… and ends in everlasting sorrow.”
New Nigerian echoes the coming-doom thesis, arguing that the
nation trembles on the brink of anarchy and despair. In September 1966, NN
states that “A full scale civil war of the most awful kind is a prospect that
must be feared and avoided at all costs.”
The Nigerian Tribune (NT) states “ the nation is sitting on a
tinderbox.” As tensions rose with discussions over the withdrawal of troops to
their region of origin (particularly northern troops in the West), NT argued
that “What we (WEST) needs is a crash program to recruit and train not less
than 4,300 Yoruba within a few weeks. This will bring the quota of the Yoruba
in line with those of other ethnic groups.” NT is emphatic in its call: “Let
the Northern troop go.”
When Ojukwu stated the East would not secede “unless it is
pushed” , NN states “What is the East up to? Does she mean what she says or is
she playing for time? We can’t understand why the East is so apparently intent
to inflict more hurt upon itself.
Few months later, NT asked the federal government to face
down the East quickly: “if we have the force and the will to bring the East into
line by armed intervention, let it be done now with dispatch.” Nigerian Tribune
considers both the Hausa north and the Igbo East as potential foolish outsiders
who were contriving to invoke doom on
Yorubaland. It further states that Yorubas must not allow people on the lunatic
fringe to involve them in the present mass killings and molestation.
WAP emphasized during these difficult times that “until the
East is pacified, the question of considering the future association of Nigeria
is out of the question.”
Signifiers of Symbolic Insult
Central to the foregoing discourse were strong negative or abusive
words and images of the OTHER.
Shortly after the ascendancy of Gowon, WAP wondered at the “strange
nationalism” of the NN, which had under Ironsi trumpeted “domination” by the Igbo
and was now no longer concerned with domination.
“At one time, domination stunt used to fill the pages of some of these newspapers… These days, domination stunt disappeared ..given way to the kind of oneness desired by the paper.”
The WAP even speculated under Ironsi, given NN’s attitude
towards the regime, that “government might be provoked to take precipitate
action against it.”
When MP and Daily Sketch (owned by the central ruling party’s
ally government in the West) attacked each other in late 1966, WAP described
them as “birds of the same nest” which had played identical roles at all
material times in the crises that have torn Nigeria apart.” The Pilot states
that this vicious circle of government newspapers contains germs of the their
own destruction and maybe soon canceling out themselves.
All the rival newspapers were guilty of exaggerating little
incidents and creating imaginary stories to suit them. In reference to the
famed elocution of Oxford-educated Ojukwu, MP warned that “when all the English
of Oxford has been spoken and the British encyclopedia exhausted, the people of
Nigeria will still down to finding how best they can live together.”
NN excoriated Pilot for its type of journalism “such an
information medium should hag its head in shame for helping to tear the country
into pieces.” In a veiled reference to the North which had a preponderance of
beggars, the Pilot stated that whether the East got assistance or not after the
pogrom, it would survive, since Easterners are not a race of beggars.”
Conclusion
It was clear in the period under review that these
journalists saw their media as representatives of the warring regions. Perhaps
one major indicator of the acrimonious battle was a two part front page
editorial by the Tribune after the collapse of the First Republic titled, “Scrap
the Sketch 1 & 2”
The NN put the war before the war in a sharp focus when it
noted with unusual candor that even the NN is conscious of its fall from grace,
but it has always sought to find the truth. It has not always succeeded … but
having said that, let us acknowledge that the Nigeria’s press-even the
government-controlled ones- can do much more to restore peace in the country
than they are doing.”
As William Connolly observes, drive to wholeness becomes
destructive for these newspapers when they all obsessively interpret the
cultural identity they participate in to be the best available copy of a true
model and place that model above the threshold of legitimate interrogation in
politics.” What is required is for us and the organizations we represent is to
challenge the reductions, simplifications and selective mobilizations of
resentment through which self-proclaimed partisans of the ethnic, group or
regional bloc appropriate the most potent symbols of morality, faith virtue and
belonging.”
Will history repeat itself? Let us take a page of lesson
from history.
