Oodua Pathfinder
Don't Miss

Home > The Yoruba World > Editorial: Chief Falae and the Fulani Bogey
Editorial: Chief Falae and the Fulani Bogey
By adminadmin on September 27, 2015

oyo 1

On February 27, 1933 the German Reichstag(German Parliament) was burnt and even though a communist partisan was charged with the crime and sentenced to death, the Nazi Party blamed the entire world wide communist movement for the act and created the bogey of Communist take-over of Germany as the basis for its own absolute hold on power and this singular effort subsequently led to the destruction of the Communist party as well as the rise and dominance of the Nazis with all of its implications for the rest of the world.
Afenifere and its associates, having made a bogey of the Fulani, have attempted to place the recent kidnapping of Chief Olu Falae, one of its leaders, within the context of their anti-Fulani rhetoric. Afenifere had earlier made the anti-Fulani narrative its political showpiece in an attempt to coral Yoruba votes for Goodluck Jonathan, hence situated the 2015 presidential election within an anti-Fulani, anti-North paradigm, even as it is on record that the same Afenifere supported and promoted Buhari’s 2007 and 2011 presidential runs, regardless of Buhari’s Fulaniness. This transformation from a pro-Fulani(Buhari) to its opposite within a space of four years came without any significant change in Buhari’s persona or political views, so much so that making anti-Fulani its mantra is the stuff of political opportunism at its highest. The organization wasted no time in concluding that Chief Falae’s kidnappers were Fulani herdsmen intent on destroying not only the chief’s farmland but also advance their long-standing ravaging of farmlands.
There is thus a need for the Yoruba Nation to be circumspect in the emerging narrative lest we be corralled into a fruitless political endeavor unwittingly allowing unfriendly interests to have political control of our land.
While it is historically true that Fulani herdsmen embark on forcible use of farmlands, “ooduapathfinder” says that the modus operandi of these herdsmen has not, so far, involved kidnapping-for-ransom. They have maimed, raped and killed in the process of grazing their cattle but have not engaged in kidnapping-for-ransom. The matter is not helped by Chief Falae himself, who, according to his published statements, tended to allege the kidnappers as “Boko Haram”; that is, “Northerners” and by implication and following Afenifere’s logic, Fulani, simply on the reference to the terrorist group by one of kidnappers.
“ooduapathfinder” believes that Chief Olu Falae is capable of knowing a Fulani when he sees one; just as he ought to know, given his very extensive participation in Nigeria’s governance at the highest levels, that a casual reference to any organization by a kidnapper or criminal does not necessarily translate into the criminal belonging to such an organization.
Yet, we all know that the Niger Delta “militants” specialize in kidnapping-for-ransom; and they still operate in that mode, even after their amnesty program. Coupled with this is the fact that the Ijaw “militants” have not only threatened Yorubaland preparatory to the 2015 presidential elections, they have also been active in the Ondo axis, especially in the riverine areas which they lay claim to while an attempt was made, during Jonathan’s Conference, to carve that portion out of the present Ondo State as a state on its own. “ooduapathfinder” believes that Chief Olu Falae’s experience lie between these two possibilities.
The reference to the Nazi paradigm is to alert us to the reality of using a bogey to neutralize an opponent while establishing a different order. So, what would Afenifere gain by flip-flopping on Buhari when it is not only not in power but also not in contention for it? The only answer would be an effort to make Yorubaland a “no man’s land”, make the land lay prostrate for any taker; a case of cutting one’s nose to spite one’s face; its ultimate expression of political degeneracy.
In this process, it has embarked on all sorts of political somersaults, primary of which is its insistence on the recommendations of the Jonathan Conference. Yet, when Afeinfere gets on its anti-Fulani, anti-North bogey-wagon, it fails to acknowledge the reality of the National Question in the North itself. The NE zone actively participated in the same Jonathan Conference; yet many of its representatives have now agreed that the conference was a sham and would not remotely address their own issues hence called for a fresh Conference to specifically address their problems. The difference between the aspirations of the NE and what Afenifere is selling is as clear as daylight. What then would be the difference between the two if not that the NE is very concrete about its own problems hence sure of its solution in not being subservient to a Jonathanian adventurism while the Afenifere would prefer continuous subjugation under what would have amounted to a more centralized State were Jonathan to get away with his Conference recommendations?
Granted that historically, the Fulani had exhibited and perfected the assimilationist tendency which allowed its autocracy to accommodate non-Fulani in its power structures, primary examples being the likes of Sunday Awoniyi and Adamu Ciroma in the first republic, it is also historically proven that both the then Middle Belt represented by UMBC and the NE via the Borno Youth Movement were not shy from displaying their autonomist tendencies which allowed for their alliance with the Action Group, the foremost party advocating for a true Federal State at the time. Befuddling the political space with the “Northern” or Fulani bogey is therefore not only a-historical but also anti-Federal.
The implication of all these would be an alienation of the Peoples of Nigeria not only from themselves but also from each other such that the only beneficiary would the central state structure which would be able to manipulate the peoples to its own advantage hence creating its own assimilationist mechanism. Thus, the Peoples self-expression would be folded into a “Northern” and “Southern” paradigm aimed at neutralizing even such current demands of the NE for a development rethink on a country-wide level.
Aside from all of the above, it is common knowledge that Fulani herdsmen trample on farmlands at will, without any existing State apparatus able to do anything about it which also calls into question the necessity and/or viability of such State structures. Within the context of this kidnap therefore, Afenifere and its associates have not done any favors to the grazing problem, which, paradoxically, the NE call for a developmental Conference for its zone must necessarily address. That Afenifere would fail to see the connection and simply resort to an anti-North, anti-Fulani alarmist mode would show its complete political inadequacy while pretending to advocate its own version of “Yoruba interest” which is at variance with the general interest the Yoruba have always demanded.
Even if limited to a contradiction between the herdsmen and farmers like Chief Olu Falae, a non-opportunistic approach would not fail to see the solution to this contradiction residing in the resolution of the National Question, where, leaving aside the criminal nature of the kidnap, which itself is a function of the limitations of the post colonial Nation State, grazing issues go beyond Nigeria borders; hence a clear roadmap towards resolving it ought to have been the major issue of the day, rather than the bogey of the “North” or the Fulani. Once again, the NE call for a fresh Conference provided the impetus where such could be addressed; for if Afenifere would be true to history, it would note the fact of the establishment of farm settlements in the Western Region where some were set up as cattle ranches, hence if today’s grazing issues were to be addressed, it would have to take into consideration the possibilities of other Regions in Nigeria establishing such ranches for its own cattle development which will in turn directly translate into relationships between nomadic and sedentary production of cattle.
The beauty of the NE call is in the fact that her own people will make their own decisions rather than an amorphous group which had always been the case with previous conferences. This initiative by the NE ought to have been the recommended template for other Regions/Zones which would ultimately lead to some sort of negotiations between the zones for a new Grundnorm for our mutual existence. Afenifere lacked the capacity and the courage to take this step, unlike the NE, who, even after being part of the Jonathan Conference, rejected it and promoted an alternative.
This Editorial is the copyright of Ooduapathfinder please. ( The headline was slightly ammended)

too long