Port Harcourt, Nigeria.

A Fundamental Problem Of Paradigm Paralysis

We live within two concentric layers of protection. ⁽¹⁾ The outer layer is that of a country, and the inner layer is that of a government. A few centuries back, both layers were one and the same thing. In those good old days, a government defined a country. The political space within which a ruler exercised his sovereign powers, also defined the geographical boundaries of his domain. Trouble starts if, after the formation of a country, a group, or an individual grabs control of power and governs against the will of the governed. More often than not, such phenomena take place later in the lifetime of a new state or country. The first generation is normally very cautious in matters of governance. It is later generations that afford themselves the luxury of analysing critically, the two basic contracts (of country and of government) under which they were born. In some cases, they gladly inherit the burden of past generations, but in some others, they bluntly reject unacceptable liabilities. Thus, social contracts that aim far ahead into the future, survive the test of turbulent times.

Ever since the incursion of soldiers into Nigerian politics, Nigerians have never had the chance to plan strategically. Almost without fail, every despot that ruled Nigeria in the past 36 years, imposed on the citizens, a faulty constitution that was deliberately loaded with all manner of concealed schemes, and short-term gratification for its authors. Therefore, Nigerians have learnt never to underestimate the power of incumbency. Therein lies the Nigerian paradox of a very vicious cycle of impunity-instant gratification-complacency-hopelessness-impunity, in which the governed find themselves entrapped in a quagmire of short-circuited expectations and paradigm paralysis.

When the form of a government in a state or country changes, bringing it into direct conflict with the aspirations of its founding fathers (and mothers), or citizens, or when a group of people controlling power negates representative governance, then that group has, in effect, violated the initial contract. In most cases, where the nature of government changes, some groups would be content with the changed form of government, while others would not be. It is up to the discontented groups of people, whether or not they would want to retain the original contract, and work to correct the deviation. On the other hand, they might believe that the violation is such that it has rendered the initial contract meaningless, and therefore feel sufficiently motivated to terminate any further adherence to that contract. In other words, people could decide that they would like to change the government, and bring in another set of people that would govern them in conformance with their aspirations. That is the essence of democracy. Alternatively, they could decide they have lost all hope, and that no matter what they do, they would still end up with the same gang of undesirable persons in government, and therefore decide to leave the initial contract, the very contract of which they were once a part. At this point, they either demand "freedom", or ask for a totally new geopolitical configuration.

Definitely, a group oppressed, is a group enslaved. Nevertheless, how do we define oppression? How much oppression amounts to group slavery? There can be no hard and fast rules. Whenever a group, a community of people, in unison, feels that it is being oppressed, and that it wants to control its destiny, then that community has a moral right to seek effective redress, or demand to control its own destiny as appropriate. For the conscientious ruler, governing a group of people is a great task, since he is responsible for their well-being and safety. Conscientious governments very rarely encounter rebellions. Feelings of marginalisation and cries of separation are symptomatic of countries where rulers find power sweet and intoxicating, where power is coveted, and when acquired, painstakingly guarded. Groups of people demanding independence in such a setup are bound to meet stiff resistance. Oppressive regimes are even crueler when a group of people demands freedom. That is why freedom should not be demanded for lightly. It must be planned and systematic extracted.

Trouble Sleep, Yanga Wake Am:

Newswatch Magazine recently sought the opinion of Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN) on the far-reaching recommendations of the Human Rights Violations Investigation Commission (HRVIC), particularly with respect to allegations of complicity of former military dictator General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (GCFR) in the murder of Dele Giwa, and the linking of General Abdulsalami Abubakar (GCFR) with the sudden and mysterious death of Aare Kakanfo (Chief) M.K.O. Abiola.

Below is the gist of Chief Gani Fawehinmi’s opinions:

Prevailing public naïveté, general ignorance, and crude intimidation allows Nigerian rulers to either desensitise or extricate themselves self-righteously from the guilt, enormity, and severity of the perfidy that has resulted from their mismanagement of the business of nation building, including their myriad audacious breaches of the trust of Nigerians over the years.

Now, should Nigerians, either individually or collectively, admit, atone, or pay for the deaths, humiliation, dispossession, and exile of millions of victims of the ethnic cleansings of 1966, 1967, the Nigeria-Biafra War, the Asaba Massacre by Nigerian soldiers, the ethnic cleansing, looting and torching of Kalaari villages and fishing ports, and the genocide at Krakama, via Abonnema, by Biafran soldiers, state-assisted terrorism in the Niger Delta and the Middle Belt regions, and twenty-nine (29) cumulative years of military dictatorship? Definitely, General (Chief) Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR; pss; fss) thinks otherwise. Whitewash!

Since General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (GCFR) did not go to court to stop Justice Chukwudifu Oputa from submitting the HRVIC report, one wonders where, and how Babangida got his information from, about the HRVIC recommendations. Was it a member of the HRVIC, or somebody at the Presidency that actually leaked the contents of the HRVIC report to General Ibrahim Babangida? Who? Why? Where? When? How? Nigerians need to know. Chief Gani Fawehinmi (SAN) thinks that the Presidency may be guilty, and therefore, not serious. Meanwhile, the totality of the outcome of the HRVIC process has been conveniently reduced to injustices and human rights violations meted by the living and dead successors of General Olusegun Obasanjo as Heads of State of Nigeria: Major General Mohammadu Buhari, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida (GCFR), and General Abdulsalami Abubakar (GCFR), the "off-shoots of the Murtala-Obasanjo administration". Whitewash!

I Beg, Do As I Say, Not As I Do:

Provoked by long overdue warnings from the White House, the citizens of the United States of America now realise that a nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan could wipe out millions of human beings from the surface of Planet Earth. Thereafter, the tone of news coverage shifted dramatically towards full-blast alarm. Meanwhile, the history of the use and abuse of nuclear, chemical, atmospheric, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction by the United States of America remains largely antiseptic. Policymakers in Washington DC keep stockpiling their nuclear arsenal with reckless alacrity, while showing-off their nuclear might against many countries with glee, declaring, in effect, "Do as I say, but not as I do".

On 6 August 1945, US President Harry Truman, while doing his best to engage in a combination of duplicity, and self-inflicted memory loss, said, "The world will note that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished, in this first attack, to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians." Meanwhile, civilians populated the city of Hiroshima, as well as Nagasaki, where the United States of America detonated another Atom Bomb barely three days later. Hundreds of thousands of Japanese civilians died thereafter. US military strategists, as they claimed, were eager "to use the Bomb first, where its effects would be not only politically effective, but technically measurable". Horseradish! Whitewash!

For the US mass media, the nuclear bombardments of the two Japanese cities have been rather sacred: kind of "No Go Area". Indeed, in 1994, a national commotion broke out when the Smithsonian Institution, announced plans for an exhibition marking the 50th anniversary of the nuclear bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The ferocity of media attacks caused the Smithsonian Institution to quickly cave-in, rather than proceed with the exhibition. Even half a century later, the American Establishment considered an objective appraisal of the atomic bombings of Japan unacceptable. Whitewash! In 1983, a statement by Catholic Bishops of the US of A wisely called for Americans to express sincere regrets over the atomic bombardment of Hiroshima and Nagasaki thirty-eight years earlier, and advised that without such contrition, there can be no possibility of finding a way to repudiate future use of nuclear weapons worldwide. Nevertheless, American officials and leading journalists continue to be highly selective with their repudiations: For them, a nuclear warhead belonging to the United States of America is not really a "weapon of mass destruction" as such. The threat, they believe, is from "The Axis of Evil"! Whitewash!

For the Nigerian status quo, the horrendous crimes perpetrated against Nigerians and humanity at large by both Nigerian and Biafran soldiers during the Nigeria-Biafra War, especially the looting of the Central Bank of Nigeria in Benin City, the bloodbath that soldiers, under the command of the then Lieutenant Colonel Murtala Mohammed, later Head of State of Nigeria, inflicted on Asaba, the nightmarish evacuation, looting, and destruction of several fishing ports, villages, and towns in the Niger Delta by wistful Biafran soldiers, the callous executions or indefinite imprisonment of captured soldiers and suspected saboteurs by then Colonels Benjamin (Black Scorpion) Adekunle and Joseph (Air Raid) Achuzia, and several others, have remained rather sacrosanct. Today, ironically, the Nigerian twenty naira (N20) currency note bears a portrait of General Murtala Mohammed (in military uniform). Of course, twenty-naira note changes hands in Asaba, and everything is OK. Even after over 30 years, any objective re-appraisal of the mindless acts of genocide of 1966 and 1977 remain "No Go" issues as far as the Nigerian status quo is concerned. Whitewash!

Understandably, the HRVIC called for an expression of sincere regrets for 32 years of authoritarian rule in Nigeria, and advised that without such penitence, there can be no possibility of stopping any similar abuses of the fundamental rights of Nigerians by their rulers, either now, or in the future. However, successive Nigerian governments continue to be evasive, reluctant, or highly selective in showing sincere remorse: For them, there are, and will always be "no victors and no vanquished", and any damages caused were actually collateral to the process of preserving the "unity", "the corporate existence", and "the overall interest" of their great country. What goes up around, comes down around. Whitewash!

The ABC Of Resurrecting The Dead:

"One nation solemnly promised to a second nation, the country of a third." - Arthur Koestler

At the beginning of the 20th century, millions of people in the Middle East believed that an Englishman’s word was his bond, and that the United States of America was neutral in the affairs of the Middle East. One century later, those of them who know the facts, believe that the United States of America is, in fact, the enemy: the "Great Satan".

Essentially, at the beginning of World War II, Britain, France, and Italy, controlled Arab territories. Thereafter, the United States became the controlling imperial power in the Middle East. Prior to World War I, Arab territories were part of the Turkish Empire. The Sultan of Turkey took the title of Khalif-al-Islam or supreme religious leader of Moslems everywhere: Eze gburugburu Ndi Moslem. When Turkey joined Germany in the war, the Sultan of Turkey sent a summons to Sherif Hussein of Mecca, the great-grandfather of the present King of Jordan, to declare a Jihad (holy war) against the Allied Forces. The British promised the Arabs independence, if only Sherif Hussein revolted against the Sultan of Turkey. They promised Sherif Hussein independence in return for Arab support in destroying the Turkish army. Sherif Hussein complied. However, the British reneged on their pledge to the Arabs. Eventually, shamed by what happened to British honour, Sir Lawrence (of Arabia) returned his national honours and decorations to the British monarch.

The Economist of 15 October 2001 commented about the attack on both the World Trade Centre, and the Pentagon, noting that on the day a British mandate for the creation of the modern state of Israel came into force in Palestine despite stiff Arab opposition, the Arabs declared a day of mourning, and shops were closed throughout Palestine, in protest against the formal proclamation of that mandate. That day was September 11, 1922. If only Lawrence of Arabia could rise from the dead today, he would very well understand why September 11, 2001 (alias, 9-11), happened. Today, US President George W. Bush believes very strongly that the United States of America is a target of international terrorism primarily because it stands for democracy, freedom, and human rights worldwide. But then, we all know that the Dutch, the Japanese, the Swedes, the Canadians, and the Norwegians also enjoy democracy, freedom, and human rights, but the "enemies of democracy, freedom, and human rights" have never bombed Japanese, Dutch, Canadian, Swedish, and Norwegian embassies. So, why did 9-11 happen, almost 80 years after an act of perfidy? Why have US Presidents and the United States Congress indulged in the glaring breach of trust towards Palestinians?

In the wars that resulted from the abandonment of the British pledge, its implementation, and subsequent support for the new state of Israel by the US A, millions of the neighbours of the Palestinians in Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, Qatar, the Philippines, Lebanon, Iran, Indonesia, Pakistan, Yemen, Syria, Afghanistan, and even Saudi Arabia, have been involved. Can anybody deny righteous anger, even outright hatred, of their descendants who, someday, somehow, will know the truth? Did the young men who piloted those planes on September 11, 2001 really know about September 11, 1922? Public ignorance of these facts worldwide, particularly in the EU and the US of A, allows Britons and Americans to free themselves from the guilt of the enormity of the crimes that have resulted from the perfidy of 1922, and the breaches of trust by their Prime Ministers and Presidents, including those that followed them. For sure, Germans have been made to acknowledge, atone, or pay for the sins of some of their recent ancestors. Should Britons, Americans, and Israelis admit, atone, or pay for the brutal deaths, humiliation, dispossession, and exile of millions of ordinary Palestinians, too? Should Palestinians also admit, atone, or pay for the agony of the gruesome deaths, or the induced hyper-paranoia inflicted on Israelis caused by their suicide bombers?

The Dogma Of Life Everlasting, And The Gra-Gra Of Bravado Diplomacy:

- from "Crimes and Diplomatic Immunity" by Bola A. Akinterinwa. ⁽⁵⁾

Beyond religion, there seems not much cause for empathy or affinity between the Federal Republic of Nigeria and the (feudal) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. Historically Nigeria started to feel the heat of Saudi Arabia, long before the 15^th century, when Islam was introduced into Northern Nigeria. Prior to the 15^th century, the trans-Saharan slave trade thrived between Saudi Arabia, North Africa, and Northern Nigeria. In other words, while Western Europe traded in Nigerian slaves at the Southern fringes of Nigeria, Arabs traded in Nigerian slaves at the Northern fringes of Nigeria. In the north, beyond slavery, came Islamic colonisation. In the south, beyond slavery, came Christianisation, then colonisation. We are all living witnesses to this sublime difference between six pence and "sísì", between six, and half a dozen, between the Bight of Biafra, and the Bight of Bonny, between Northern Nigeria, and Southern Nigeria. Today, beyond the hints of the residual trauma of deep-rooted Arabic colonial mentality, Nigerians derive little or nothing from Saudi Arabia. After all, there is polo, there are turbans, there are Emirs and Emirates, there is the dominant green colour of the national flag, and there is Sharia, in Northern Nigeria, as it is in Saudi Arabia. There ends the commonality.

In 1971, the Federal Government of Nigeria sought the intervention of the WHO (World Health Organisation) when, all of a sudden, Saudi Arabia instituted stringent health criteria that were specially targeted against Nigerian Moslem pilgrims. In 1975, over 4,000 destitute Nigerians were repatriated forcibly from Saudi Arabia to Nigeria. In March 1979, over 30 Nigerian pilgrims were massacred in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. In 1986 and 1989, Nigerian Airways planes were impounded in Saudi Arabia. In 1996, twenty-six (26) Nigerian medical doctors working in Saudi Arabia came home to Nigeria on vacation, only to be refused entry into the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia after their holidays. In 1996, four (4) Nigerians were beheaded publicly in Saudi Arabia, for robbing a jeweller’s shop. In 2000, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirate (UAE) banned Nigerian livestock based on rather trivial excuses. Earlier in the year 2002, two (2) Nigerians were arrested for obtaining US$3.1 million fraudulently, that is to say, via 419, from a Saudi Arabian executive. Clearly, Saudi Arabia’s posture towards Nigeria is, to put it very mildly and diplomatically, rather reckless, spiteful, and belligerent. In short, beyond the euphoria, and aesthesia of religious fraternisation, there is little or no love lost between Nigeria and Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia is the birthplace of Islam, and as would be expected, its laws (Sharia) are firmly anchored on Islam. It will be recalled that Zamfara State pioneered the formal declaration and enforcement of Sharia by any state of the Nigerian Federation. As far as the Executive Governor of Zamfara State, His Excellency, Alhaji Yerima, is concerned, the enforcement of Sharia is a true manifestation of the rights and aspirations of the good people of Zamfara State. In a sense, Sharia is a practical actualisation of "true federalism", as per their expectations of the dividends of "nascent home-grown" democracy. Today, Nigeria and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are in a diplomatic face-off as Nigeria has refused to accept the letter of credence of the new Ambassador of Saudi Arabia to the country, until a member of the House of Representatives, now detained in Jeddah, is freed and returned to Nigeria, safely.

The honourable member of the Federal House of Representatives, who, incidentally, is from Zamfara State, is in detention in Saudi Arabia for attempted importation of fake US dollar bills into that country, and for trying to bribe the Saudi authorities in order to secure the release of his uncle, who was, and still is in a Saudi jail. We do not know yet why the uncle of the honourable member of the Federal House of Representatives from Zamfara State was clamped into prison, in line with the Sharia laws of Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabian authorities had reportedly snubbed the Nigerian government, which sought to intervene and secure the release of the lawmaker, who is now spending his fourth week in detention without being charged to court. The detained legislator and his uncle had no access to Nigerian embassy officials until very recently. The government of Nigeria is taking the matter seriously, and unless the Saudi authorities do something serious, the government of General (Chief) Olusegun Obasanjo (GCFR; pss; fss) is considering downgrading Nigeria’s diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia. Suddenly, it seems like the era when Nigerians were treated shabbily in foreign lands is gone, and at last, the Federal Government will no longer tolerate such treatment … or so, it seems! Horseradish! Hogwash! Whitewash!

Could the Federal Government have been that assertive if the detained honourable member of the Federal House of Representatives was, say, from Imo State, stranded or in trouble in Johannesburg, or from Edo State, stranded or in trouble in Milan, or from Rivers State, stranded or in trouble in Louisiana, or from Abia State, stranded or in trouble in Berlin, or from Delta State, stranded or in trouble in Atlanta, or from Bayelsa State, stranded or in trouble in Athens, or from Anambra State, stranded or in trouble in Beijing, or from Akwa Ibom State, stranded or on trouble in Pretoria, or from Cross River State, stranded or in trouble in Rio de Janeiro? Yes, or No? Simple!

By the way, why did the honourable member of the Federal House of Representatives from Zamfara State attempt to import fake US dollar bills into the Holy Land? As if to add transgression to grievance, the Zamfara "honourable" even tried to bribe the authorities in Saudi Arabia in order to secure the release of his uncle, the way he would have done very effortlessly in Nigeria, Sharia, or no Sharia. Quite frankly, it sounds rather absurd trying to state the obvious that bribery, currency peddling, and counterfeiting are very serious crimes, worldwide, Sharia or not.. It seems like the Ministry of Foreign Affairs badly needs to be given the hint.

The indiscriminate issuance and abuse of diplomatic passports in Nigeria is a very likely cause of the brazen contempt shown towards Nigeria, Nigerians, and anything Nigerian throughout the known universe. Meanwhile, according to the UN Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, diplomatic passports, and their associated privileges and immunities, are meant to be granted strictly to those who embark on official missions, on behalf of the issuing nation. The frivolity with which Nigerian diplomatic passports are issued is such that there could be up to 10,000 Nigerian diplomatic passports currently in circulation: That is to say, one each for all the spouses, children, dependants, and certain other appendages of the staff of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs on overseas posting, one each for the President, Vice-President, Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Senators, Members of the House of Representatives, Chief Justice of the Federation, Ministers, Special Advisers, Senior Special Advisers, Governors, Commissioners, including their spouses, girlfriends, boyfriends, servants and paddy men, used and abused for expediting essentially personal holidays, health care trips, business transactions, financial manoeuvres, and general escapism.

The mere possession of a diplomatic passport does not confer a seemingly seamless immunity on the bearer (as some might wish to fantasise). Was the "honourable" from Zamfara State on a specific mission from the President, on behalf of the citizens of the Federal Republic of Nigeria to the (feudal) Kingdom of Saudi Arabia? If so, why?

Jump-Starting A Perpetual Motion Reinvention Engine:

After several centuries of experimentation, humanity has come to believe in a few non-negotiable rights. The most fundamental of these rights is the right of an individual to be free. In the 21^st century, very few people will argue against this notion. A parallel can be drawn between an individual’s right to freedom, and that of the right of a group of people to be free of subjugation. Just as freedom is a basic individual right, groups of people too have the right to demand self-determination.

A country and a government are the most overarching of all civic contracts that every human being enters into, willingly or unwillingly. ⁽¹⁾ The process is straightforward: First, you form a country. Then, you decide on how you would like to be governed. And then, you get people to form the government, based on those ideals. However, country and government are inter-related. People forming a new country do not go blindly into a contract with far-reaching consequences. After the formation of the country, they have tentative ideas on how they would like to be governed. The founders of a country would wish to see "their" government as a just representation of its people. They expect the government to be the indicator of the desires of the people it governs. After all, that was the very reason why they demanded independence in the first place.

When a group of people thinks or feels that a particular bond of ethnicity, geography, vernacular, traditions, belief, or race between its members makes it unique in comparison to others, feels oppressed, then such a group has the right to seek redress. How, in today’s world, should a dissenting group of people come out of one of the principal civic contracts peacefully without being labelled "anti-party", "the opposition", "rebels", "secessionists", or even "terrorists"? In the present chaotic global scene, where there is no instrument in place for demanding a separate homeland peacefully, people tend to resort to violence when demanding for control of their collective destiny. Forming a new or independent local government council, state, or even country is obviously daunting, particularly when the other party, the party that presently has control over you, is not ready to let you go. So, the question remains: How do we agree to disagree, peacefully?

That the collective psyche of Nigerians was violently brutalised by 29 cumulative years of military dictatorship is no longer news. However, no one can stop Nigerians from dreaming of a better Nigeria that is conscious of the rights of its citizens to demand freedom, and the right to overhaul their governance, as they want. In that paradigm, there will be a national body for effectively guaranteeing the rights of individuals, communities, and nationalities in Nigeria. Such a body would listen to demands from individuals, or groups of people, and operate a legitimate framework to redraft, fine-tune, or revitalise the initial contract, if need be. The national body for protecting the rights of individuals, communities, or nationalities would come up with a non-violent strategy that should be followed in demanding for, say, a separate local government, or state, or even a new country. Adoption of this strategy could help resolving related conflicts peacefully.

Nigerians, particularly its rulers, must realize that there is nothing sacred about any country. A country is simply a civic contract between its ruler and its citizens. Just as Nigeria obtained its independence from Great Britain, (and there is no single country on Planet Earth that did not free itself from some other oppressor state some time in history), just like Nigerians once felt oppressed by British colonialism, and felt it their God-given right to seek independence, in the same way, Nigerian rulers must appreciate the fact that any community now living in Nigeria, may also feel misgoverned, and thus exercise the right to also ask for equity.

Countries come, and go. Things change. People and communities can develop attitudes that are unfair, or simply become irredeemably mean. Governments can become oppressive. In the scheme of evolving realities, demands for a change in the principal civic contract should be tolerable. If the rulers of Nigeria want to see Nigeria united, with individuals or communities not grappling with feelings of alienation, "marginalisation", contempt, or irrelevance, then it is obligatory for them to rule prudently, and keep the various constituencies of Nigeria happy. The difference between whitewashing reality and controlling entropy is too clear. You cannot eat your moin-moin and still have it!

Sources & References:

June 2002.