www.ooduapathfinder.com

By adminadmin

Chief Ayo Adebanjo, an Afenifere leader, recently accused the SW APC of not “knowing history”; but[b] “ooduapathfinder”[/b] asks: what history? Does history consist of linear, separate actions of individuals and events; coordinated actions of individuals finding their niche in the march of time and its contradictions, the underlying causes of which such individuals may not even be aware of; or consciously stamping one’s signature on unfolding events even when such events have negative consequences on the existential paradigms of the society being claimed as the beneficiary? Of course, history could also be considered as merely an academic exercise of time lines, regurgitating what is generally known in order to achieve whatever purpose, which “ooduapathfinder” believes is Chief Ayo Adebanjo’s definition and which is why he would reduce “history” to the “person” other than himself thus removing himself from any responsibilities to that history or series of events itself, thereby affording him the opportunity to act as an agent of its negation.
He was helped along by Pastor Tunde Bakare, whose sole rendering of this history is about how a Tinubu cannot be an Awolowo as if that is even an issue, such that disparaging those who wear Awo-type caps or eye glasses becomes his attitude to that history. That someone copies Awo’s mode of dressing is nothing more than an appreciation of the man, Awo; just as there were and are those who dress like Mao Tse Tung and Che Guevarra without any exchange of identities. “ooduapathfinder” says it is a failure of understanding and the thought of seeking political relevance that makes such reductionism an attractive concept among the Afenifere folks where Yoruba political trajectory has been reduced to the level of the “person” as if such persons are not active participants in history but are outside and therefore supposedly against it.
So then, what is the role of an individual in history, since history cannot be made without individuals? Yoruba political history is replete with individuals who have tried either to negate Yoruba existentialism or made efforts at its consolidation and promotion. But what exactly does this existentialism consist of? Without going into the full details of Yoruba history, “ooduapathfinder” realizes that whatever the form of the coming into being of the Yoruba Nationality, the Oduduwa revolution in Ife that eventually gave birth to the Oyo Empire as its foremost expression would provide us with an insight into Yoruba history’s trajectory. The empire, with all of its apparatus and paraphernalia, collapsed, which led to the various wars of attrition that culminated in the 1883 Armistice, which attempted to formalize the relationships between the various Yoruba communities. It was also during this time that colonial expansion became an arbiter thus ending such an attempt whereupon Yorubaland was placed firmly under colonial yoke.
From that time, Yoruba politics became not for itself and definitely not by itself, it had now to contend with other subject peoples of Nigeria and the colonial power itself. Even if we are to arbitrarily decide on any starting point as a boundary, it would be a-historical to pretend as if such a boundary precludes a context which would make nonsense of the arbitrariness and turn it into a self-serving mechanism.
Thus, Chief Obafemi Awolowo situated his political philosophy within the context of Yoruba existentialism which informed his setting up of the Egbe Omo Oduduwa and his subsequent promotion of Federalism as the only pathway for true development of Nigeria, thereby making Federalism the essence of Yoruba history, which, in contemporary times, is based on the recognition of the quest for Federalism as a major factor in the Kiriji Wars and also served as the formal political configuration of Yorubaland, in the setting up of Yoruba Kingdoms after the collapse of Oyo.
Did Awo achieve the quest for Federalism in the current historical epoch? The answer is No. Can it be achieved? Obviously Yes. Hence, our interrogation of our history can only proceed from that point; “knowing or not knowing history” thus has to proceed from this intersection of the “Yes” and “No”, for it is the interplay between the two that would determine an individual’s knowledge of, and role, in that history.
Why Awo and the Federalists failed in the bid to enthrone Federalism is very well known, even as there are variations and different interpretations, even among “Awoists” which did not negate the failure of such efforts. Proceeding from the realization of this failure, the pursuit of further efforts to entrench this failure cannot in any way be considered as being unconscious of that history to such an extent that one’s knowledge of it would be doubtful, thus providing an escape route for the continuous failure, which is what Chief Ayo Adebanjo is enmeshed in.
Hence, Chief Ayo Adebanjo and his allies, pretending to “know” history, are in the forefront of those who wanted to take over Yorubaland in order to neutralize it as a major player in Nigerian political firmament and completely surrender whatever form of political independence that can be mustered, and all of these against the grain of the same Yoruba history which he accused others of not knowing. They actively cultivated and supported a Goodluck Jonathan who had already declared the Yoruba as a minority in the West; and as is well-known, the same Jonathan, with the active backing of these Afenifere folks, utilized all sorts of Nazi Gestapo tactics to try to take over Osun State against the backdrop of “Ekitigate” still fresh in our memory. Alongside these, Afenifere was and still is, promoting the recommendations of Jonathan’s conference as the “Federalism” that anchors Yoruba history both within Yorubaland as well as in Nigeria itself. Yet, the recommendations wanted eighteen more states while the central control of resources is retained by the central government and worse, wants the central government to control and disburse funds to every local government. To add salt to injury, the Jonathan regime did not even use these recommendations as campaign issues anywhere outside Yorubaland, which would mean that the Yoruba were treated like Pavlov’s dogs salivating over a bone.
Chief Ayo Adebanjo and his allies are now trying to foist this culture of negation on us, hiding behind the mask of history and promoting his own supposed entrenchment in Awo’s political paradigm as the foundation of his negation of history. In their bid to foist this culture, they have resorted to hiding behind the “North-South” divide as if this is a function of a Manichean division between the “North” and the “South” and which, by so doing, obliterates the Ethno-National Question within both the North and the South.
They disregard the present in their excursion into history when history itself can only be relevant as a consequence of the past and an expectation of the future. Hence, in a situation where there is economic paralysis, both at the State and national levels, and where there is a convergence of the political and economic contradictions, a proper contextualizing of history ordinarily ought to alert the Ayo Adebanjos to the continuous process and possibilities of the “Yes” paradigm. They could not do this because they are focused on playing the fifth columnist inside Yorubaland and using the SW APC, especially the person of Asiwaju Tinubu, as the bogeyman. Reducing “knowing history” to mere personal interplay in social and political conflicts of the day truncates the meaning of history itself and leaders supposedly entrenched in a historical paradigm cannot, on the one hand, run with the hares and on the other hunt with the hounds. “ooduapathfinder” says Chief Ayo Adebajo cannot promote the anti-Federalism of the Jonathan conference while placing himself as a knowledgeable and historical defender or promoter of the Yoruba or even a Federalist. Both are at variance with each other.