www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin



In an interview published on Monday, August 25, 2014 by the Nigerian Tribune, Afenifere Elder, Sir Olaniwun Ajayi made some intriguing points, some of which require further interrogation. He was asked about the allegation of AD giving “choice offices” to people Afenifere elders did not “know”. His response was that it was true that they did not “know” many of those people given “choice offices” which was against their practice as such decisions are supposed to be made based on their “knowledge of the person” where such a person is recognized for his/her service.
Since “knowing” someone is a reflection of the person’s “service”, its particular context becomes imperative, which context may or may not flow from a previous experience; hence the fact that an Adefarati was “known in those days” did not mean that in these days, others cannot be “known”; for both times do not exist pari passu and sometimes they can even exist outside each others’ frameworks; which would mean that being “known” is very subjective and may be prone to errors of fundamental and historical magnitude.

Being “known”, therefore can only be expressed through their works in reference to the challenges posed at particular times within the context of the general pursuit as each historical juncture will necessarily produce its own actors, because the quest is a continuum until it is achieved as a particular goal which will immediately create a new set of contradictions requiring a new set of interactive parameters; unless Afenifere Elders want to sentence us into a frozen time-space where everything worthy is judged and defined by a particular, subjective, experience.
From here is but a short step towards opportunism where the ego of the leader(s)/Elder(s) will be promoted in such a manner that successive leaders would have to emerge from the ego massagers who would then substitute themselves as the “organization” thus inherently limiting the ability of the actual organization to relate with emerging realities which may even be more complex than what had hitherto been experienced. This was what brought about the “personality cult” syndrome of the one-party states, largely communist, and in some cases in Africa, but which relied on such “knowing”, having passed the “loyalty” test.
All of these had to do with the substitution of a philosophy for the organization, where the philosophy becomes the organization and the organization becomes an end in itself, hence a presumed loyalty to the organization—which is now referred to as “knowing” will be enough to gain acceptability; similar to the experience of the erstwhile Communist one-party states where their communist state apparatus supposedly embody the communist philosophy. Yet, different persons could subscribe to the same or similar philosophy without being members of the same organization pursuing that philosophy; unlike when it was deemed possible for different philosophies to co-exist in Afenifere, even when it has claimed to be a socio-cultural organization pursuing a particular interest, that is, it is not a political party, which is normally a grouping of different, sometimes contradictory interests, which made the organization become palatable to the PDP.

Which was why Sir Olaniwun Ajayi would respond to the question as to the reasons for Bola Tinubu’s conflict with Alhaji Dawodu by saying Alhaji Dawodu was a loyal party man since the AG days who accepted whatever decisions the party asked of him and Bola Tinubu wanted to remove such a man as party chairman, even after he, Sir Olaniwun Ajayi went, three times, to “beg” Tinubu to leave Alhaji Dawodu alone. When pressed further on any particular reason for Bola Tinubu’s insistence, he said there was “no reason”.
It is surprising that a political fight of such magnitude would be fought for “no reason” and that Sir Olaniwun Ajayi would leave his house, on three different occasions, to go and “beg” Tinubu; all for “no reason”? Be that as it may, the Afenifere Elders have made their choice to fight Tinubu to the finish, and they should be able to live with its consequences, part of which is already playing out in Afenifere’s subservience to an external force bent on capturing Yorubaland.
Afenifere Elders’ inability to realize this led it to jump from one political experience to another and without a firm root anywhere, unlike its much-vaunted links with the Action Group which makes one to wonder why it was and still is impossible for the products of the AG to create and maintain a political party in that mold, even within present circumstances, instead of what they now do via transitioning from one party to the other.
Sir Olaniwun Ajayi was a prominent actor in the DPA which went into oblivion after its 2007 defeat in Lagos State. Its candidate, Jimi Agbaje, was and is “known” having served Afenifere substantially. The question then is, why, since 2007, has the DPA failed to root itself, even if only in Yorubaland and even if only as a counter to Bola Tinubu? And then the Elders’ migration into “supporting” Gbenga Daniel in his PDP days all the way to the Labor Party and the “son” in Jimi Agbaje now back in the PDP; in all of these, it was not a question of the DPA retaining its core and entering into any form of working relationship or alliance or merger. The DPA simply folded up and acquiesced in the replacement of its supposed original aims with its alignment with a center that has bastardized Federalism. Yet, the Bola Tinubu they are fighting, and who was not “known” retained his AD/AC/ACN/APC core, with any necessary transformation through working relationships, mergers, alliances etc till date.
The defining issue between the two, as they both claim their origins in the AG, would be the quest for True Federalism, which was AG’s prime concern. To all intents and purposes, when Goodluck Jonathan was to begin his Conference, the ACN Governors in Yorubaland made formal proposals as to what they mean by True Federalism, which included the core issues of Parliamentary System, Regionalism, Derivation, all of which constitute the core of Federalism and without which Federalism cannot be said to exist.

It was in Sir Olaniwun Ajayi’s house in Isara that Segun Mimiko led the charge against all of the above by proposing “states as Federating Units” and not touching Resource Control, as it were; and we are now being told to accept the increase in states to 54 without their corresponding control of resources as Federalism. Afenifere as an organization reinforced this aspect which even ran counter to what the AG proposed and acted upon and which led to the conspiracy against it. And when Sir Olaniwun Ajayi withdrew from the Conference, it took Afenifere a long time to have Sir Ajayi’s suggested replacement in the person of Supo Sonibare to attend. Supo Sonibare came into the Conference on the day it was folding up. He came to “grace” the conclusion, after the hair had been barbed in his absence.
When therefore, Sir Olaniwun Ajayi castigates the APC alongside the PDP without giving us the benefit of an alternative—for it is not enough to state what we are against, we must be able to state what we are for—it was a reflection of the limitations of the choices of the Elders, especially their not being able to, so far, create an alternative but have only subsumed themselves under the center which would be why these parties are compared with the AG without telling us how a Party like the AG would come into being, especially when all of their “knowns” are now in the PDP , which amounts to wanting a breathing space for the PDP, which would be why it had to be placed alongside APC for condemnation.
Yet, everyone in Nigeria, including the PDP President knows that the Party is “not it” otherwise it will not be going around militarizing everything in sight; hence the APC had to be corralled in as equally responsible. But the APC is not in charge of the Federal Government, so it cannot be held responsible for the irresponsibility of that Federal Government, it cannot be held responsible for the looming military helplessness in confronting terrorism; it cannot be held responsible for the missing billions from NNPC; it cannot be held responsible for the invasion of Yorubaland by armed and masked terrorists aided and abetted by the PDP—and the list could go on.
And if they want to reduce the issue to their being both corrupt, we have instances where a Democratic Governor in the State of Illinois, US was convicted for corruption while the erstwhile Republican Governor of the State of Virginia, US is also facing similar charges. Would it then be correct to then say there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans because their Governors are adjudged to be corrupt?
Yet, in the Yoruba States under APC Governments, the difference between them and previous PDP regimes is very clear so much so that some of the PDP Governors that previously ran those states have come to realize their mistakes and left that party and did not contend with the APC; while those PDP members who wanted to contest the political space with APC are doing so via a process of enforcement which shows their culpability in the deliberate underdevelopment of the Region. On what basis then, is it to be concluded that “both” APC and PDP are “the same”? Making APC a “partner” in PDP’s crimes is an attempt at whitewashing both the crime and the criminal.
Leye Ige