The Paradox of Free Speech

By

Tochukwu Ezukanma

Writing is to a writer what love making is to a woman. To a woman, love making can be a thrilling and exhilarating experience, if it is done in accordance to her wish. It becomes traumatic and nightmarish if it is done against her will.
For a writer, the compulsion for self expression is so profound. An honorable writer expresses himself not swayed by promises of reward or threats of punishment. Writers with conviction have at points written their way into imprisonment, torture chambers, and even execution. Not because they were not cognizant of the danger associated with their writing, but, because writing is so cathartic, and the urge to express things as they know, believe and feel them so powerful that the possible consequences of their writing becomes relatively insignificant. Writing provides the opportunity to speak from the depth of the soul, from the core of the being. The sense of fulfillment that comes from such a vent is immeasurable. On the the other hand, a writer's conscience finds no repose when he is forced by fear of retribution or other considerations to express views contrary to his own belief.

A writer's worst nightmare must be people's indifference to his writings. Writing becomes a pointless act for a writer who in his  tepidity cannot kindle the interest of his readers to the point of either identifying or disagreeing with him. So, I have always savored reactions to my articles - be them positive or negative, admiring or detracting. With my erudition and mental discipline, I have risen above the primitive tendency of picking quarrels with those who disagree with me. And in my characteristic civility and grace, I can not descend to the pedestrianism of rancor and recrimination in my articles. Consequently, I will always limit them to the impersonal and intellectual sphere.

A group of pseudo intellectuals obfuscated by a hangover of the Biafran propaganda have taken to pontificating in the pages of Igbo Net and Nnewi Forum. They are turning two forums that provide wonderful opportunities for objective and uninhibited discussions of Igbo issues into bastions of obscurantist bigotry. In their narrow mindedness, they have no respect for alternative views. In their false feeling of importance, they feel that they have a monopoly on knowledge and wisdom, because they were combatants in Biafra, or were old enough to understand the unfolding events of the time. That those of us who were not up to military age in Biafra are ignorant, and will remain so of the history of the civil war. 

Well, unlike the other apostles, St Paul was not there with Jesus Christ when it all happened. Interestingly, he interpreted Christ better than them. The most authoritative work on the fall of the Roman Empire is Edward Gibbon's volumes, the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Edward Gibbon lived and wrote in the 18th century, more than 1000years after the fall of the Roman Empire. Eyewitness accounts are generally very limiting. Knowledge on a subject is acquired not by being there when it happened, but by extensive reading and research. Those who understand Nigerian (including Biafran) history are not those who, in their disregard for knowledge and objectivity have chosen to remain captives to the past - Biafran propaganda - but those who have read and researched into the subject. Secondly, being a soldier in Biafra or matured enough to supposedly understand what transpired, only means that your mind was developed and disposed for brainwashing and indoctrination. My then!  fledgling mind was not seasoned enough to absorb a stupefying dosage of the massive misinformation in Biafra. I can therefore afford to be objective in my analysis of the events surrounding the civil war. 

In their naiveté, they think that the Igbo should speak with one voice. In their presumptuousness, they believe that their own voice  represents that only legitimate Igbo voice. To insist on the Igbo speaking with one voice reveals an obvious weakness, that of insecurity. Those who are not sure of their position are scared of its being subjected to scrutiny. Why dread a debate if you can defend your stance? The Igbo political elite, because of their manifest limitations, are also harping on the need for the Igbo to speak with one voice. This crusade for a homogeneous Igbo voice is sophistry - self-seeking stratagem cloaked in moralistic homilies. The Igbo leadership has nothing to offer the Igbo. They lack moral courage and principles. They are more concerned with their accounts than the good of their people. They are political jobbers, contractors, hang-on and opportunists in the payroll of  the northern feudal lords. They have mortgaged their conscience and moral authority for a pittance, crumbs falling off the tables of their Hausa/Fulani and Yoruba masters. So, they know that whatever they stand for will unravel in the face of any serious contention. Consequently, they want to silence contending views and serious questions by railroading the Igbo into speaking with one voice.

Speaking with one voice is wrong because it enthrones mediocrity and charlatanism, stifle ideas and reform, retards progress by  reinforcing the status quo, breeds elitism and inequity, etc. It is dangerous because nations have gone sliding the path towards destruction not always due the malfeasance and corruption of leaders, but also due to well intentioned designs of autocrats who allowed no room for differing opinions. History is littered with disastrous consequences of speaking with one voice. Nazi Germany spoke with one voice. It was a voice intoned and inflected by Nazi barbarism and eugenic lunacy. What
became of Nazi Germany? Biafra spoke with one voice. It was a voice dictated by Chukwuemeka Ojukwu's arrogance, despotism and studied disdain for reason and caution. Those who disagreed with him earned the sobriquet, saboteur. The
"saboteurs" were punished by imprisonment and/or execution. What became of Biafra?

The Hausa/Fulani North does not speak with one voice. Colonel Madaki, a northern soldier-lawyer-liberal thinker has taken repeated verbal swipes at the northern conservative political establishment. In his speeches, he has lauded the January
15th, 1966 (Nzeogwu) coup, and critisized the July 29th 1966 (Muritala/Danjuma) coup which in his view was not a coup, but a mutiny. The political conservatism of the Ahmadu Bello, Tafawa Belewa and Shehu Shagari did not exactly conform
with the quasi-liberal politics of Aminu Kano, Abubakar Rimi and Baralabe Musa. Evidently, the Muritala Mohammed and Yakubu Gowon had divergent political agenda. Neither did Mohammed Buhari and Shehu Shagari nor Ibrahim Babagida and
Buhari speak with one voice. In the last presidential election, Babangida's support for the Obasanjo presidency was at odds with Buhari's presidential ambition. However, the North has a consensus - northern hegemony. While there are different ideological strains and power bloc! s in the North, their political lodestar remains the same - northern domination of political power in Nigeria.

The Yoruba do not speak with one voice. A number of Yoruba political commentators have been quite acidic in their criticism of the Obasanjo government. The Gani Fahimiwimi/Beko Ransome-Kuti political activism does not always correspond with conventional Yoruba politics. Moshood Abiola was not a disciple of Obafemi Awolowo. His broader political outlook contrasted with Awolowo's narrow tribal politics, and he did not flinch in stating his misgivings for Awolowo and his politics. Olusegun Obasanjo has been a protégé of the northern powerbrokers. He has been twice foisted on Nigeria, not by Yoruba tribal chieftain, but by his northern masters. He has in some of his writings portrayed Awolowo in very unfavorable terms. Until recently, he was an anathema to the mainstream Yoruba ethnic leadership. In addition, Obasanjo and Olu Falae were political opponents set against each other by rival powerbrokers. However, irrespective of their political hue and bent, the Yoruba have a guiding political principles - Yoruba irredentism.        

The Igbo need diversity of perspectives and ideas, and then, a consensus. A consensus sifts through variegated persecutions and views, and charts a common denominator. It provides an overarching ideological stance. It lays the
philosophical foundations for politics. It gives a people a unified sense of purpose, thus, nudging individuals with different political slants - liberals and conservatives, conformists and nonconformists, ultra-rightist and left-wingers, etc - towards a common political goal. The Igbo cannot forge a consensus because the Igbo leadership is too greed, too loyal to their masters, and are unable to subordinate their personal interests to the collective good of the Igbo.

There can be no progress without innovation, and no innovation without dissent. Not surprisingly, the most successful countries in history are the Western democracies. These are countries that allow independence of thought and freedom
of expression. They do not repress individual rights to free speech in an attempt to protect the pretensions and follies of the privileged few. They allow even the dregs of the society a voice, and place no individual, irrespective of his status above criticism and censure. The United States of America remains the most cacophonous country in the world. Her society allows unparalleled spaciousness for self-expression: ideas, believes, lifestyles, etc. Paradoxically, it remains the wealthiest and most progressive, powerful and politically stable country in the history of humanity. 

I am an iconoclast. I am an independent-minded thinker. I cannot be goaded into conformity, beguiled by cult of personality or myth-encrusted image of any individual, persuaded by erroneous, but prevalent thought or influenced by a need for acceptance. My writings are informed by my beliefs and knowledge. My views are definitely not mainstream. They are actually sometimes renegade. However,  I reserve the right to them, and I make no apologies for them. Similarly, while I may not agree with you, I have absolute respect for your right to your viewpoint. The ill-baked, low class, back alley pundits at Igbo Net and Nnewi Forum are into emotional outbursts, insulting and disparaging those who do not readily agree with their parochial views. Any witless man can throw tantrum and haul invectives. It takes a little more, intelligence and knowledge, to write a trenchant piece buttressed with information, reason and a sequence of thought. So, I challenge them to make their case, state!  their positions and support them with some facts, and rebut an "errant" writer's perspective with their own reasoned and logical presentation. Let us turn these media (Igbo Net and Nnewi Forum) into fora for debate, unbridled discussions of Igbo issues. I revel in debates. I thrive in controversy. Controversy enlivens journalism and intellectual discourse.      


Freedom of speech can be likened to a lobster. The lobster is a despicable scavenger of the sea, voraciously gorging the foulest refuse of the ocean floor. But, from the lobster comes the most succulent and priced seafood. Free speech has a loud mouth. It wields a big pen. It can be obnoxious, noisy, and unruly. It is sometimes intrusive, divisive and disruptive. It has at times profaned the sacred, violated the sacrosanct, debased the exalted, etc. But then, it serves the public good. It furthers societal reformation because it awakens the political consciousness of the masses, heightens the social awareness of the people and restrains the individual from sinking to the basest of human proclivities. It fosters equity and justice by drawing attention to the travails and deprivations of poverty, exposing the indulgence and extravagance of affluence, denouncing the superciliousness and aloofness of intellectual elitism, checking the excesses and arrogance of power. It enlighten! s the mind, liberating it from timidity and fear, and stimulates its creative energy. So, from the freedom of expression with its attendant discordant debates, and combative and acerbic arguments, a people's collective mind is
edified, their horizon enlarged, their freedom nourished and their progress ensured.

Tochukwu Ezukanma writes from Washington DC. 

March 2004