Chief Sunday Awoniyi and his Arewa fantasies

 ALLOW THE NIGERIAN PEOPLE AND NOT ‘HIS AREWA’ CHOOSE BETWEEN BUHARI AND BABANGIDA

By

Prof. Omo Omoruyi

I read a well-written piece recently titled, "Awoniyi and the ‘New’ Arewa" by Dr. Wale Adebanwi in the Nigeriaworld.com of February 23, 2004. This was obviously a reaction to the new campaign of Chief SB Awoniyi the current Chairman of the Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF).

Chief Awoniyi wants to unite the northern leaders against the south; he wants to settle the assumed quarrel between Generals Buhari and Babangida on the one hand and settle the quarrel between the two Generals and Alhaji Abubakar Atiku one the other. Chief Awoniyi is oblivious to the fact that the difference between Buhari and Babangida has since 1983 been a matter of their contrasting vision for Nigeria. This should not be personalized; it can only be settled by the Nigerian people and not by Chief Awoniyi and the ACF.

Those who have been following Chief Awoniyi’s utterances would know that Chief Awoniyi’s new agenda is a veiled campaign to have one candidate (General Buhari) in the 2007 election from the north. One hope that Nigerians are not fooled by Chief Awoniyi’s new agenda based on what Dr. Adebanwi calls ‘his wish than on reality’. Since when has a viable agenda been predicated on mere wish devoid of reality?

AWONIYI AND HIS DISPARATE GROUP ARE LIVING IN THE PAST

I followed the political career of Chief Awoniyi that was founded on ultra-conservatism. I was not surprised that it was brought to an end because his political views were too extreme. His plan to take over the National Chairmanship of the PDP arose from his miscalculation based on his plan to return the party to his notion of Arewa. Maybe he would have succeeded if his anti-Obasanjo plank were not quickly detected.

I was happy for him when he clocked ‘three score and ten’ and took the decision to retire from partisan politics. I was disappointed when he decided to take up the leadership of a disparate group of people who are living in the past. I say so because they are clamoring for a return to ‘one north, one people and one destiny’ that is in conflict with the various changes in Nigeria since 1999. It is a myth that should have been allowed to die a natural death as part of the consequences of the post military dispensation.

I was not surprised when he lost in the game of partisan politics within the PDP as the leader of the ultra-right wing element in an already conservative party. Having lost in this game, Chief Awoniyi seemed to have lost faith in the gains of the post military dispensation. This is very evident in many actions he took to undermining the party and its officers and castigating the person of the President.

He is now the ‘itinerant Village Headmaster’ like the traveling teachers of old touring the 19 States in the old north and chastising the Governors to devote more money to the education of the people of the north. In what capacity is he doing this? Yes, he was a retired senior public servant under a military regime. He never had the experience of running a state government under a democratic order. May be he did not know that these Governors have political parties and their programs that formed the basis of their election. They do not need the ACF leaders to substitute themselves for their political parties.

Most recently in Maiduguri, Borno State, the delegation of the ACF led by Chief Awoniyi reacted to the wave of armed killings in different parts of the country. What surprised me is that he and his team of traveling Village Headmasters are giving such a national crisis that affects all over the country a regional slant. I am referring to the statement credited to the Secretary-General of ACF, Col. Hameed Ali, and a former Military Administrator under General Abacha who has no experience of managing a democratic administration. According to him:

One could ask if that northern practice would have saved the Governor of Benue from the armed attack. The eminent Nigerian from Benue who was killed would not have been killed if he had done it the northern way. What is the northern way of combating armed attack?

This quest for a northern content in everything in Nigeria today is an attempt to invent uniformity in a disparate society. I can pride myself with knowing the orientation to politics of the different parts of the country. I know that the Tiv’s orientation to politics is different from the Fulanis just as the orientation of the politics of the Edo people would be different from that of Igbo. Even in the US, the American Jews tend to vote democratic and the Arab-Americans tend to vote Republican.

Searching for a northern content in everything only reminds one of the quest of the Canadian authority for a Canadian content in music and in the social sciences. So, the ACF leaders are telling us that there is a northern way of dealing with armed attack as distinct from the rest of the country. They want to enlist the services of traditional rulers and religious leaders in combating armed robbery or armed attack. This is ludicrous.

BELIEVERS OF TRUE FEDERALISM IN THE SOUTH ARE SCARED

One should not be surprised that those who are clamoring for true federalism, especially in the south are reacting to the advocates of a new north. The apostles of ‘one north’ and ‘many souths’ frighten them. They are scared of the prospect of the north as preached by the promoters of the (ACF) to unite and undermine the Nigerian federal system.

These current apostles of ‘one north’ want to promote the unity among political leaders in the north. What are they uniting for? They want the united north to be prepared to confront the south, which they know is in pieces. They know that the south would naturally be operating as ‘ethnic groups’, ‘states’ or ‘zones’ or ‘political parties’ as the case may be. This is Chief Awoniyi’s wish.

These apostles of ‘a united north’ seem to ignore certain facts in Nigerian political development. This is the subject of this essay, which is to deal with the reality of the politics in a plural society or what could be called the ‘political dynamics’ of ‘Nigerian federal system’ that is predicated on ‘cultural pluralism’. These three concepts (political dynamics, federal system and cultural pluralism) are critical to the understanding of Nigerian politics today. I had to cope with this in the past as a partisan politician (1977-83) and as a policy-maker (1989-93).

YAR’ADUA TOOK ADVANTAGE OF BABANGIDA’S PROGRAM

I saw how General Shehu Yar Adua defied the ‘one north, one people and one destiny’ zealots in 1988. He rejected the notion that the north should speak with one voice, as that would be inconsistent with the demands of the true federalism. He saw IBB’s transition program as requiring a new approach and he went for that new approach.

He understood the political dynamics of Nigeria. This was how he successfully dealt with the Nigerian political dynamics even though he was a Fulani and a soldier with no long experience as a partisan politician. He led a team of Nigerians from all sections of the country. He defied the old politicians who were fixated with ‘north’ or ‘south’ and went on the road in Nigeria from the north to the south and put together a national-wide political machine in 1988. Do Nigerians still remember that he beat the acclaimed popular Yoruba candidates in open primaries in the southwest including the mostly cosmopolitan State of Lagos?

One would recall how the Yar’Adua’s political machine, the Peoples Front of Nigeria (PFN) dominated the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and turned it into a winning coalition first in the National Assembly election in 1992 and in the Presidential election in 1993.

One would recall how those who believed in the motto of ‘one north, one people and one destiny’ like Chief SB Awoniyi trooped to the other formation, the National Republican Convention (NRC) and became the minority party in the National Assembly election in 1992 and the loser of the Presidential election in 1993.

SIR AHMADU BELLO WOULD NOT HAVE BOUGHT THE NEW AREWA.

As a former member of the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC), I am not alien to the thoughts of the late Sir Ahmadu Bello, the former leader of that party. My view is that some of the people waving the motto ‘one north, one people and one destiny’ today were like SB Awoniyi too junior as civil servants to understand the political thoughts of Sir Ahmadu Bello. They knew the late leader as civil servants and not as politicians to appreciate that that the late leader was a pragmatic politician. They are therefore not in a position to know what the late leader would have done if confronted with the political dynamics of Nigeria of today.

I had an opportunity in the past to warn some of my former colleagues in the NPC Club at the University of Ibadan that the new Turks from the north were reading the Nigerian political dynamics wrongly.

I sounded this warning in 1977 also to the erstwhile leaders of the NPC in the Constituent Assembly, which they rejected to their peril.

As a policy-maker charged with political education and management of the two political parties under the auspices of the Centre for Democratic Studies, I used many fora to educate the political class on what it would take to win election especially the national election. Unfortunately except General Yar’Adua, others in the old north could not grapple with the rational behind the decision of President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida to force on the country the two party system in 1989. One would recall that it was informed by the nature of ‘political dynamics’ of Nigerian ‘federal system’ predicated on ‘cultural pluralism’. Do I still believe in the two party system especially at the national level? Of course, I do. This is an issue that I would like to discuss at another time and occasion.

May I therefore counsel my friends that the apostles of ‘one north’ should not be misled in political matters? Their tactics are inconsistent with the requirement for winning power today under the democratic process.

I urge them to reject the wish of the apostles of a new north who are fixated with the past and who are oblivious with the present and the future.

ISSUES IGNORED BY THE ACF LEADERS

1 A FEDERATION OF 36 STATES

The leaders of the ACF ought to have known that Nigeria is a federation with 36 states. These states should cultivate their character. They are recognized as the units of representation under the Federal Character provision in the Constitution.

Chief Awoniyi is leading a campaign to undermine the states. This is why he should be stopped so that federal system may thrive in Nigeria.

2 MANY FORMS OF IDENTITY IN NIGERIA

There are other forms of identity in the geographical north such as religion, geography, language and ethnicity. The proponents of the myth, ‘we are northerners’ seem to ignore the system of identity in the north. Nigerians were born into one ethnic group or the other. The duty of political leaders is to manage ethnic relations and not to ignore them. It is my counsel that political leaders and government should do something to reduce the political salience of ethnicity, religion and so on and not to exacerbate it. This was what I devoted my life to achieving under the two party system and through the CDS in the past under General Babangida. To me, this is still a possibility.

That mistake of 1977 is being repeated today under the auspices of a Yoruba and a Christian from Kabba for that matter, which is unfortunate. General Yakubu Gown who presided over thirty months of Nigerian civil war should have warned the ACF leaders that they should go their states and be good federalist. It is a pity that Chief Awoniyi and General Gowon from the Middle-Belt and both Christians are using the ACF leaders to mount pressure of the President and the PDP to ignore the existence of the Middle-Belt and the Northern Christian as forms of identity. What surprises me is that Chief SB Awoniyi fought against this in the past. What ha s changed since then?

One would recall how some leaders of the NPC thought of themselves as the authentic leaders of the north and that the newly elected members of the Constituent Assembly including Chief SB Awoniyi from the new states in the north were irrelevant. We from the south especially from the southern minority were told not to deal with the like of Chief Awoniyi as the true leaders of the north from Kwara, Plateau, Benue, Gongola and Niger states were at home. This was wrong then and Chief SB Awoniyi said so then. Why is he working against what he believed in, in the past? He now wants to be ‘more royal than the king’, more Fulani than those who had the Fulani Empire.

3 30 POLITICAL PARTIES IN NIGERIA

There are 30 political parties in the country today that are supposed to be national in scope and program. One is still to see one of the parties calling itself the party founded to advance the interests of the north. The ACF leaders are ignorant of the political dynamics in a plural society like Nigeria. They are oblivious to the interplay of democratic forces and the use of political parties to become the President of Nigeria.

Is Chief Awoniyi asking the former Chairman of ACF, Alhaji MD Yusuf and Alhaji Balarabe Musa to wind up their political parties?

Is Chief Awoniyi asking the Nigerians from his ‘north’ to subscribe to one political party?

4 TO BE A NATIONAL LEADER DEFIES NORTH AND SOUTH ETC.

The politicians from the different parts of the north are staking their reputation to lead the Nigerian state in 2007. Does Chief Awoniyi appreciate that it would be a colossal mistake to make the reliance on the geographical north the basis of their political activity? This could be a recipe for political disaster. These politicians should speak out.

5 OBVIOUS DISTORTIONS IN HISTORICAL ACCOUNT

It would appear that during the 200th anniversary of the Jihad of 1804 His Royal Highness, the Emir of Kano seemed to be equating the Sokoto Caliphate created by the Fulani with the north created by Lord FD Lugard and ran by the late Sir Ahmadu Bello. (See Daily Trust online of February 23, 2004). This is an obvious distortion of Nigerian history.

The Sokoto Caliphate was the area affected by the Jihad of 1804. It only covered the Muslim section and did not apply to the north created by Lord Lugard and later ran by the late Sir Ahmadu Bello. Certainly the Caliphate did not extend to an area called the ‘pagan area’ by Lord Lugard.

The three changes that Lugard effected in the north during his three tours of duty are beyond the territory under the Sokoto Caliphate. This was the history I was taught by the pioneer Nigerian History Professors at the University of Ibadan in the early 1960s. I had since confirmed this independently as a mature person.

Those who are interested in this episode should read, Margery Perham, Lugard: The Years of Authority (London, 1960).

RIFT BETWEEN BUHARI AND BABANGIDA CONFLICT OF VISION IN ‘MILITARY IN POLITICS’ NOT PERSONAL

To return to the mission of Chief Awoniyi and the ACF leaders, the assumed quarrel between General Buhari and General Babangida arose during the military regime. Their disagreement had to do with what should be the mission of military in politics. There was nothing personal in this. One thought that it should be limited and the other thought that it should be a permanent affair. The one that thought that it should be limited had a transition program and the other had none. The Nigerian politicians can substitute either of these two Generals for these two positions.

If the like of Chief Awoniyi who is inventing disagreement between the two generals from the coup of 1985, both of them knew that the change of leadership in August 1985 had to do with the nature of military in politics. Simply put, in the military in politics, ‘every officer is a potential Head of State’.

General Buhari knew fully well why he was overthrown. Would he be able to communicate this (outside the nature of military in politics) to the leaders of ACF?

General Buhari if he would be frank to the leaders of ACF knew that General Babangida only beat him in the game that both knew very well, coup in the military in politics. In a military in politics, there is no other way of effecting a change of political leadership. What happened in August 1985 was that General Babangida under the principle of ‘dog eats dog’ was able to strike first before General Buhari could. Maybe he was waiting for the return of General Tunde Idiagbon who was then in Mecca to return to Nigeria.

It was a common knowledge that General Buhari had made up his mind to have a show down with General Babangida and was only waiting for the safe return of his number two person from Mecca. This is the nature of the military in politics, potentially unstable. This is why we should allow the past to rest.

My plea to the leaders of the ACF who are inventing quarrel, that we should let both General Buhari and General Babangida write their memoirs detailing what happened between 1983 and 1985.

ACCOUNT OF GENERAL BUHARI IS ONE-SIDED

It is unfortunate that Nigerians have been allowing General Buhari to justify why he overthrew our respected President, Alhaji Shehu Shagari who was democratically elected by the Nigerian people.

General Buhari is allowed to justify why he dumped many members of the political class in jail for 100 years and why he attempted to crate a Nigerian from London to Lagos.

One would expect the same Nigerians to have asked him why he failed to live with the fact that something was wrong with the system that he put in place in 1983 that led to his overthrow by another military clique. This too is unfortunate. Is this what the ACF leaders want to inquire into? Since when have civilians been involved in settling intra-elite crisis within the military? In a military regime every officer is a potential head of state under the well-understood principle of ‘dog eats dog’.

LET NIGERIANS JUDGE BETWEEN BUHARI AND BABANGIDA

I cannot forget one memorable day I spent with President Shehu Shagari in his village at Yabo, Sokoto State after his release from Buhari Gulag. I also had the same opportunity at Oko, in present day Anambra State with the Vice President Dr. Alex Ekwueme after his release from the Kirikiri Maximum Security Prison where Buhari dumped him. What was the crime of these two Nigerian leaders?

I wept within me for the country listening to President Shehu Shagari what he was made to go through in the hands of General Buhari. I am happy I did not see too much bitterness in Alhaji Shehu Shagari’s memoir; General Buhari’s account of his ordeal in the hands of IBB is full of bitterness as if that was the first coup in Nigerian history.

Buhari was in ‘a protective custody’ in Benin while many of his victims were kept in his Gulag. He survived and was eventually released but his victims such as Professor AF Alli and Chief Bisi Onabanjo of blessed memory died. I recall how many times President Shagari had to complain that he was losing his sight in the Darkroom that General Buhari kept him before he was allowed the visit of his private Physician.

But for Babangida, Chief SD Lar would have died in Kiriki Prison for the ‘sin’ he committed that was partially recounted in Alhaji Shehu Shagari’s memoir, Beckoned to Serve.

Also for Babangida, President Shagari would have been allowed to waste away in the solitary confinement with no access to his doctors as and when he wanted and his family as a matter of right.

The pictures of smiling faces of politicians who were released from Buhari’s Gulag by Babangida are still in the archive.

These are facts of Nigerian history. The AFC leaders may not know the full extent of the harm done to the Nigerian political class by General Buhari.

It is wrong to narrow Buhari’s travail in the past to how he was overthrown in 1985 by General Babangida.

How many coups did Nigeria live through in the hands of these political generals? Sometime Nigerians of today tend to forget the number of military interventions in Nigerian political life and the number of Nigerians who died in the process between 1966 and 1979 and between 1983 and 1999.

Are we going to devote our time going through what happened between 1966 and 1979 and between 1983 and 1999, the two long periods of ‘military misrule’ of Nigeria?

Our resolve since 1999 is NEVER AGAIN!

NIGERIANS WANT THEM TO DEBATE THEIR CONTRASTING VISIONS FOR NIGERIA

Nigerians have not heard the last of these two Generals. Nigerians including me are waiting to see them function in a democratic order. This is what the leaders of the ACF should encourage.

One hopes that the AFC leaders would join others in future to organize a debate between General Buhari and General Babangida as Presidential candidates. One should look forward to that day.

I can assure readers that what happened to him (Buhari) in 1985 would come in then just like what happened to Shagari, Dikko and all of us politicians in 1983 during that debate. These events are fair game.

ACF SHOULD NOT STIFLE HEALTHY DEBATE

The ACF leaders should not deny Nigerians the opportunity to learn from the mouths of these two political generals why they did what they did in the past as military political leaders. There is no way this would not come up in a Presidential Debate if both of them were Presidential candidates.

The ACF leaders should not trivialize the Nigerian history into making a serious conflict of vision even under the military ‘a personal issue’ between Buhari and Babangida in their lives as ‘political generals’.

The ACF leaders should encourage them in a future date to go to the Nigerian people with their visions for Nigeria. One hopes that this would be sooner than later.

One hopes that Nigerians of all geographical zones, states, ethnic groups and religions in a democratic Nigeria would settle their new quarrel that would be based on their contrasting vision for Nigeria.

The ACF should stop causing confusion.

March 2004