Sanusi Lamido Sanusi: The point, therefore, made by conventional wisdom is that neither northerners nor southerners have a monopoly of love for democracy or progress and the call for "restructuring" is usually a clarion call raised by the section of the elite which feels disadvantaged in the status quo. The elite in different parts of the country, like chameleons, change their colour and their ideology when it suits them.


ISSUES IN RESTRUCTURING CORPORATE NIGERIA
BY SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI
Assistant General Manage
Credit Risk Management and Control Div.
United Bank for Africa PLC
57, Marina, Lagos

BEING A PAPER PRESENTED AT THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON THE 1999 CONSTITUTION JOINTLY ORGANISED BY THE NETWORK FOR JUSTICE AND THE VISION TRUST FOUNDATION, AT THE AREWA HOUSE, KADUNA FROM 11TH 12TH SEPTEMBER, 1999.

I.  Introduction : On Restructuring The Superstructure

Restructuring the Federation is a term which has gained wide currency in the nation's political discourse, having been popularised through its indiscriminate and lugubrious use by the most vocal sections of the Nigerian elite. Like all popular concepts, it has hardly ever been clearly defined and its nebulousness has been congenial to the slippery nature of its proponents. Restructuring has come to represent, in reality an omnibus word for all forms of adjustments, alterations and cosmetic manipulations aimed at changing the formula on the basis of which economic resources and political power are shared or distributed among the Nigerian elite. Each section traditionally defends the area of its comparative advantage at any given time, standing by the status quo when it serves its purposes and asking for restructuring when it does not.

Let me illustrate these introductory remarks by sharing with the audience a recent experience I had in Lagos. It will be recalled that before the elections which brought Obasanjo to power, the Alliance for Democracy and Afenifere had made strident calls for restructuring the Nigerian Armed Forces. They were of course very unclear about what exactly was meant by restructuring. Initially, it sounded like they wanted regional armies. Subsequently, leaders of Afenifere denied this and insisted they wanted regional commands. Reminded that the nation had commands in Kaduna, Jos, Enugu, Ibadan and Lagos, they said the commands should be manned and headed by indigenes while denying that this was the same as a call for a regional army.

Now, a day after Gen. Obasanjo announced his top military appointments I was at a small get-together in Lagos. As I sat there quietly listening to groups conversing, my attention came to and settled on a particularly excited Yoruba friend who was briefing his audience on the military postings which he said amounted to a complete restructuring of the Armed Forces. Kosi Hausa kpata kpata. In this friend's view, Obasanjo had restructured the Armed Forces by not appointing Hausa to the top commands. In actual fact Obasanjo has restructured nothing. He has merely reallocated offices (and the spoils of those offices like contracts and licences) to his own preferred sections of the elite. Those complaining now are sections which have now been eclipsed through what they see as prestidigitation.

I recall this experience because it is instructive and illuminating. It dramatises the reality that restructuring is primarily about providing a constitutional frame-work, a formula for sharing the spoils of power. It is about ensuring that the spoils of office do not go to Mohammed, Abubakar, Musa and Umar but to Mohammed, Obafemi, Chukwuma, Ishaya and Ekpeyong.

This notwithstanding, it is a subject that must be discussed. It is true that conferences cannot on their own ever solve the fundamental problems of nation-building and national unity. It is also true that those currently championing for a conference and some paper restructuring of the superstructure know this. But it is also true that this nation has the misfortune of having produced an elite whose selfishness and greed know no bounds. Unless they are able to agree on how to accommodate each other they are willing to tear this country apart and lead us into a meaningless war.

But there is a second, perhaps more fundamental reason, for discussing the structure of the federation. It is the reality that the elite merely exploit or manipulate the secondary contradictions in our polity. They neither created nor concocted them. The contradictions are in themselves a historical reality. We are all Nigerians. But we are also Fulbe, Yoruba, Igbo, Kanuri, Efik, etc. as well as Muslims, Christians, animists, etc. The historical process which brought together these heterogeneous groups was never destined to achieve a magical and immediate erosion of their histories and a total submersion of their individual identities into a common national milieu. Several facets of counterposing cultures and beliefs were always bound to be incompatible, if not irreconcilable. Many of the groups forming the new nation would jealously guard what they considered to be essential aspects of their primary identity.  The task of nation-building does not lie in ignoring these differences, as the military have tried to do. Unity is not necessarily synonymous with uniformity. But it also does not lie in a defeatist attitude of despair, or a return to a nihilist era of ethnic agendas and tribal warfare. It lies, instead, in an intelligent appreciation of the complexity of the problem, a capitalisation on areas of core concurrence, a sober reflection on areas of distinction and a partial liberalisation of constituent parts all within the context of a sincere and total commitment to our corporate existence as a unity.

When we blame our elite for ethnic chauvinism and religious intolerance, therefore, we blame them, not for the caducity, but for the endurance of these reactionary ideologies.  The tragedy of Nigeria does not lie in its diversity, nor in its population, nor in its resources. Our tragedy lies in the lack of a truly nationalist and visionary leadership, an elite that harnesses the diverse streams that flow into the melting pot called Nigeria. The loudest proponents of a conference today are those sections of the elite who are incapable of imagining a nation that is greater than their tribes, who take pride in being leaders of their own primary nationality, and who have long ago given up all hope of acquiring the positive attitudes of broad-mindedness and sincerity without which broad-based acceptance is impossible. I doubt that the present crop of leaders has what it takes to address these questions fully and honestly. Nevertheless, I will try to the best of my ability to share with you some of my views on restructuring the federation.

II. Restructuring the Federation: A historical perspective.

The term "restructuring" presupposes the existence of a "structure", which we can reasonably understand to mean a set format defining the corporate entity in terms of two principal elements:

1) the delineation of its individual parts and 2) the nature and limits of their interconnectivity.

Most of the discussion on "restructuring" has focussed on the second of these elements, and even then in an oblique and reactionary manner. In the first Republic there clearly were divergent views among leaders of the various regions on precisely how the different power-centres in the country were to be positioned or balanced. It seems, in the main, that northern politicians preferred very strong regional capitals and a relatively weak centre, a view that is consistent with what is currently bandied around as "loose Federation". To indicate this, the Northern Premier, Sir Ahmadu Bello, having won national elections, chose to remain in Kaduna as Premier while letting his deputy head the Federal Government as Prime Minister. Ahmadu Bello and his NPC were then labelled "feudalists" and "reactionaries" whose nationalist and patriotic credentials were questionable.

Southern politicians, on the other hand, (who were considered" progressive" were in the main, in support of a strong Federal Centre and faster national integration. Chief Awolowo and Dr Azikiwe both left the regions for Lagos, allowing more junior officers in their respective parties' hierarchies to run regional affairs as premiers in Ibadan and Enugu. They thus indicated the direction in which they felt power should gravitate: to the centre.

Contemporary wisdom now tends to suggest that this difference in position had nothing to do with Ahmadu Bello being "reactionary" or Chief Awolowo and Dr Azikiwe being "progressive". Otherwise we should be constrained to label the Alliance for Democracy which is now canvassing for the same position held by Sardauna as a reactionary and retrogressive element in Nigerian politics, a label that will most certainly be met with an attitude of complete repudiation and considered a slanderous affront to the country's "most progressive nationality".  It reflected, it is now said, the perception of leaders on where the advantages lay for the elite of their respective regions in the political equation.

The north was the largest region, in terms of size, population and economic resources. Unfortunately it lagged behind in terms of infrastructure and, most important, qualified manpower. The interest of the Northern elite therefore lay in a closed region, which afforded the north the opportunity of deploying its resources to the rapid development of its own manpower, and infrastructure - in other words exploit its areas of strength for purposes of addressing its areas of weakness ( and thus play " catch-up".)

For the South, on the other hand, the converse was true. Rich in qualified personnel, the regional set-up was a constraining factor for the elite. The Igbos in particular ( and to a much greater extent than the Yoruba) had neither the natural economic resources to exploit nor the history of political and social organization which tends to blunt the edges of poverty and create a form of social contract between the individual and the society that facilitates provision for the welfare of the deprived.

It is, therefore, not surprising that the Igbo were the prime movers of the first successful military mutiny which eliminated the political leaders and senior officers of the North and West while letting-off those of the East. It is also not surprising that the transformation of the polity from a Federation to a Unitary State was the handiwork of an Igbo leader, Gen. Ironsi by military decree (Decree No 34 of May, 1966). These developments were viewed with fear and suspicion by the North as an attempt by a predatory Southern elite to gain control of all aspects of national life and thus marginalise the Northern elite. Decree No.34 and a leaked document called Cabinet Paper No.10, represented the articulation of this attempt at "restructuring" the Federation in a manner unacceptable to the North.

The consequences of these policies which were seen as part of the effort to complete what had been started by Operation Damisa on 15th January, 1966 by implementing, at later stages, Operation Kura, Operation Zaki and Operation Giwa which would allegedly culminate in the murder of northern emirs and top civil servants led to the pre-emptive counter-coup of 29th July, 1966 and the civil war. The rest is now history. The point, however, is that Ironsi's political programme, as far as the structure of the Federation was concerned, seems to have met with the approval of the political leadership of the South. For this reason, the South supported the military and saw in the government an opportunity for progress. The north, on the other hand, led the protests against military government insisting that the government was illegal and that a referendum was required before the Unitary system  could claim legitimacy. Riots occurred in Kano, Kaduna, Zaria, Katsina, Jos, and Bukuru. This point becomes clear to the student of history on going through Peter Pan's column in the Daily Times of 26 April, 1966. The
editorial stated that in the South, most people regarded army rule as the beginning of a brighter future. In the North, however, political thinking had not faded and there was an undercurrent of dissatisfaction.

Many northerners would like to claim that this was evidence of the democratic credentials of northern politicians. Unfortunately, this is not so. In 1966, Northern society stood for democracy, organized riots and fought against a military dictatorship it did not control and which seemed to encroach on the privileges of its elite. This elite, (including Emirs), was in the vanguard of protests against the abolition of regions and the restructuring of the Federation in the manner pursued by Ironsi.

Thirty years later, by 1996, the Southern elite became the vanguard for a democratic society, rioting and demanding for a restructured federation, for a return to the first Republic and that mythical epoch where the regions developed in what is now called "healthy rivalry". All of this against a Military Dictatorship seemingly dominated by the North.  Meanwhile, the northern political class was the main accomplice of these latter day dictators.

In 1966, the security services ransacked and searched the houses of prominent northern politicians-among them Inuwa Wada and Ibrahim Musa Gashash (NPC) and Aminu Kano and Abubakar Zukogi (NEPU). These were political opponents who had found a common denominator in their "northernness" when faced with a strong Federal Government dominated by non-northerners.

We may consider these leaders of NADECO of 1966. In much the same way, the radical and reactionary wings of the Yoruba political class have recently managed to find common ground under the tribal umbrella of Afenifere when faced by a northern-dominated military government.

The point, therefore, made by conventional wisdom is that neither northerners nor southerners have a monopoly of love for democracy or progress and the call for "restructuring" is usually a clarion call raised by the section of the elite which feels disadvantaged in the status quo. The elite in different parts of the country, like chameleons, change their colour and their ideology when it suits them.

It is my considered view, however, that conventional wisdom misses the point. We may conclude from the above analysis that the Nigerian political elite in the main, lacks consistency and that no section can claim to have monopoly of principles. The recent political acrobatics of the AD, and their seeming mollification once Bola Ige and the two First Daughters (Miss Awolowo and Miss Adesanya) landed plum jobs is sufficient evidence of this. But this inconsistency  must not be confused with the particular views held at various times in themselves.

The truth is that irrespective of the motives which drove Chief Awolowo and Dr. Azikiwe to hold strong nationalist views, their position was indeed progressive. Similarly, irrespective of the motives that drove Ahmadu Bello and the NPC to emphasize the differences between our peoples and resist the progress towards integration, those views in as far as nation-building is concerned, were reactionary. The fact that Afenifere and AD are today championing the views of the Sardauna should not lead us down the path of historical revisionism. Ethnic and Religious chauvinism, in all epochs, are reactionary doctrines. Nationalism and the quest for an egalitarian society are progressive doctrines. Zik and Awo were in this case, progressives. This is not to say that they were not leaders of their tribes. But they had a vision of a Nigeria that was greater than their regions. Unlike the Sardauna, neither Awo nor Zik could have even contemplated being a Premier rather than Prime Minister. Those championing for restructuring the Federation, restructuring the Armed Forces, tribalization of the political process, zoning of the presidency, etc, even if they claim to be Awo's successors, have not kept faith with his nationalist ideology, and are therefore, ideological successors of the northern feudal establishment whom they so much detest. It is against this background that my recommendations in this paper are to be viewed. I do not believe that either Chief Awolowo or Dr Azikiwe ever wanted a Unitary State of the type started by Ironsi and which we seem to have had up to Obasanjo I and still have under Obasanjo II (with the President still talking about UPE and environmental sanitation).

What they wanted was a federation, but not quite the loose federation being canvassed today by Afenifere and AD. They both wanted retention of exclusive jurisdiction for states/regions in their areas of primary competence: Health, Agriculture and Social Welfare, for example. However, they knew that a strong Federal Government was indispensable to national unity  and integration. True, it would also serve as a vehicle for the emergence of the South as the dominant political power. What we need, as a nation, is to develop this Federation of their dreams, but stripped of the desire by a section of the elite to dominate others.

But to develop this argument step by step, we should start at the beginning, with the structure of Nigeria in the First Republic, and which we all seem to be looking back to with misguided nostalgia, in spite of the tragic end of that structure.

III The Loose Federation: Between Myth and Reality

In the last section, I defined the structure, for our purposes, in terms of two principal elements:

1. The delineation of individual parts and
2. The nature and limits of their interconnectivity.

We can therefore say, that the structure of Nigeria, in 1966 was as follows:

a) A country made up of four regions. One of them, the North, was a virtual monolith, bigger, geographically, than the other three combined and larger in terms of population, resources and income than any other region.

b) A legal system which conferred all residual legislative powers on the regions, subject only to the paramountcy to the Federal Law in case of any conflict of interest with regional law. Federal government had exclusive competence in a very restricted list of subjects of a fiscal or semi-technical nature. The only politically sensitive areas   among these were Defence, Emergency Powers over regions and Foreign Relations. All other areas were either exclusively regional, or on the Concurrent list.

What we propose to do is to critically review the strengths and weaknesses of this structure, to guide us in our discussion of restructuring the Federation. To facilitate analysis, it is broken into one of objective and subjective variables. The first deals with material issues, removed from secondary contradictions. The second deals with the complex interplay of ethnic and religious identities.

Objective Variables

First,  the Federating units.

1. We note that one of the major strengths of the structure of Nigeria in 1966 was that it was made up of economically viable and self-sufficient Federating units. It is indeed true, as later developments showed, that each unit could even be broken into sub-units and with each remaining viable. However, this process which, in my opinion, should have stopped with the creation of 12 states by Gowon, continued in  a ridiculous fashion until we find ourselves today with 36 glorified latifundia called states and a Federal Capital Territory. Each state has a bloated civil service, a governor and his deputy, commissioners, state assembly, Judiciary, etc, such that its total revenue is insufficient for prompt payment of salaries and the states have to run to the Federal Government or to banks  for assistance or loans.

As my own bank's Credit Risk Manager, the moment a borrowing company is not doing the business it was set up to do, and needs an overdraft to pay salaries, I know that that company is bankrupt and it is time to appoint a receiver for its liquidation. I do not  know how long it will take for our politicians to face this reality and abolish many of these small-holdings and fiefs by reconsolidating them into viable entities. This is what I meant at the beginning of the last section when I said no one seems to be paying attention to the first component of structure, i.e. the Federating Units themselves. The sine qua non for any viable restructuring is a viable structure which is , by definition, impossible if its constituent parts are not themselves viable.

2. A second objective factor in the structure of the First Republic which is, this time, a draw-back, was the lack of equity in the delineation of its constituent parts. The North was too large compared to the other regions and it was, in reality as well as perception, preponderant and overbearing. By his refusal to go down to Lagos and his decision to send Tafawa Balewa to be Prime Minister, the Federal Government itself seemed subject to dictation from Ahmadu Bello in Kaduna. Northern politicians staunchly deny that the Sardauna controlled Federal Policy from his Northern base. It is however, difficult to believe this fully, especially in view of certain instances of bias.

As an example, Mid-Western Region was carved out of both the Western and Eastern regions in 1965 ostensibly to fulfill the desire of the minorities for self government and free them from marginalisation from the dominant Yoruba and Igbo. However, despite the very large area covered by the North and in spite of tensions and perennial crises led by the United Middle-Belt Congress and the Borno Youth Movement, neither the middle-belt nor old Bornu was able to obtain autonomy from subjugation to the old Sokoto Caliphate. The Tiv riots were brutally suppressed and Sardauna, officially a leader of the whole North, carried on for all intents and purposes as the inheritor of the mantle of Uthman Danfodio with little regard for the sensitivities of citizens of those areas like Bornu and to a larger extent, the Middle Belt which were never conquered by his ancestors and their Fulani protegees. The West and East can therefore be forgiven for taking all arguments proffered for creation of the Mid-West with a pinch of salt given that the same objective conditions obtained in the North, and no similar action was taken.

A second example is the crisis in the Western region which created a fertile environment for the Nzeogwu-led intervention. Irrespective of what the facts of the case were, the position, as far as the Action Group was concerned, is that elections were being consistently rigged in favour of allies of the dominant North. There was also the wide perception, perhaps unfounded, that the Federal Government was unable to take decisive actions and remedial steps because the Premier in Kaduna had not yet firmed up on a decision to dump his ally, Akintola, as a sacrificial lamb for bringing peace to the region.

The lesson in all of this is that the Federating Units must be such as not to give any one unit or group of units, dominance over others. It is my opinion that this condition can only be fulfilled with a strong Federal Government. In a loose Federation, with a weak centre, the various units forming a historical block will just as soon conglomerate into something similar to what obtained in 1966 and negate the very purpose of their delineation.

We therefore take with us from the discussion so far the following points:

1. That the first point of departure in restructuring Nigeria is the reconsolidation of its balkanized constituent parts into individual entities that are economically viable and amenable to smooth administration. Only such units would be able to carry out functions assigned to them.

2. That these entities must be balanced and none of them should be able to dominate or destabilize others, or make possible the unjust oppression of ethnic and religious minorities. This condition is best fulfilled where the monopoly of instruments of repression is in the hands of a broad-based and representative federal government.

This, in turn, immediately leads to a number of other issues. First, the creation of states based primarily (or solely)on the desire to achieve ethnic or religious homogeneity only serves to provide a platform for effective domination of ethnic and religious minorities by more populous groups. There is no doubt that, especially with large groups, some states will turn out to be ethnically or religiously homogeneous e.g. Yoruba in the south-west, Muslim in the far north, Igbo in the south-east, Christian in the south-south, e.t.c. However, this should not be the primary objective and the tendency of like states to come together as a group perpetuates the sense that we are not one nation but a collection of tribes. I would strongly advise outlawing tribal and sectional groups with overt political agendas such as Northern Elders' Forum, Afenifere and Ohaneze. These are dubious organizations that have only served to breed tension and disharmony in the country.

A second issue that comes up is the recent decision by the Federal government to support amendments to the constitution aimed at allowing states set up their own police force. No doubt this reflects general dissatisfaction with a corrupt and incompetent Federal Force. The decision is however precipitate. Historical ex perience with the N.A. police in the north for instance, was that the police was a mere extension of the palace,  often the instrument for harassing radical elements. A police force funded  by a state, manned and controlled by indigenes, can never protect the interest of ethnic, religious and ideological minorities. What do we expect  a Yoruba police force to do if Oodua Peoples Congress area boys decide to attack the Hausa or Ijaw community? What will a Hausa, Muslim police force  do if Kano urchins decide to attack Christians?

It is clear to me that the relations between various ethnic and religious groups contributed, as much as ( if not more than) objective defects to the  collapse of the First Republic. In 1999, the country is faced with the same generic problems although they clearly vary in concrete and specific  historical form. These problems, which the nation has to address as an integral part of any restructuring are the subject of the next sub-section.

Subjective Variables

The former civilian governor of Kaduna State, Alhaji Abdulkadir Balarabe Musa, in a recent Newspaper interview, declared that the Northern Bourgeoisie and the Yoruba Bourgeoisie were Nigeria's principal problem. Of the two, he said the Yoruba Bourgeoisie are an even greater problem because of their tribalism and selfishness.

I will take this as my basis for my analysis of subjective factors. Let us begin by stating that  the bane of the Nigerian elite can be condensed into three elements:-

1. Ethnic chauvinism and Religious Intolerance;
2. Selfishness and the inordinate desire for dominating others, and
3. Short-sightedness.

As we prepare for the possibility of a national conference, I believe four issues will remain central to the success or otherwise of whatever Federal Structure comes up. I also agree with Balarabe Musa that the Northern bourgeoisie and the Yoruba bourgeoisie  hold the key to these issues and the manner in which they are handled will to a large extent determine progress made towards our ideal structure. These issues are:-

i. The Sharia and religious intolerance in the North;
ii. The Yoruba elite and area-boy politics;
iii. Igbo marginalisation and the responsible limits of retribution; and
iv. The Niger-Delta and the need for justice.

i. The Sharia and religious intolerance in the North

The Islamic faith has never accepted the dichotomy between Religion and Politics. Political life for a Muslim is guided by Sharia and in all those aspects of law where an explicit religious injunction exists, a Muslim expects this to be held as valid above any other law. Fortunately, most of the areas of conflict between Islamic Law and Secular Law have to do with the law of personal estates (including inheritance), some aspects of contract, and criminal law, especially as it pertains to capital punishment. If muslims wish to have these laws applied on them, and promulgated by their elected representatives, there is no reason why this should pose a problem. There is likely to be a problem however, with punishment for certain civil and criminal offences such as libel, theft and adultery if a non-Muslim is involved. My own feeling is that anyone living in a state should acquaint himself with the operative law in that State before committing a crime. We are all subject to that when we go to other countries. Indeed, the law we have in Nigeria is made for us and we are subject to it. This is one major area that needs to be talked about at any conference and this explains why the Sharia issue always comes up in constitutional conferences. To ask Muslims to abandon Sharia in the name of a Secular Nigeria is to give them an unjust choice. The matter is not one of being either Muslim or Nigerian when they can be both Muslim and Nigerian. The attempt to turn Nigeria into a Secular State seeks the erosion of Muslim identity and history. This will continue to be a source of conflict as Muslims will always resist it, with justification. Nigeria is a multi-religious state which should, however, ensure that no religion is given preference over others.

While the insistence of Muslim North on Sharia is thus understandable, it however, seems that all too often, the northern bourgeoisie ignores a number of key points. First, the Sharia as far as the government is concerned, is not just about the courts and sanctions. It is primarily about providing the people with the best material and spiritual conditions the resources of state can provide. It is about honestly managing their resources, about giving them services in education, health, agriculture, etc. It is all well to ban the sale of alcohol, but this does not take the place of, or have priority over, meeting the material needs of the people. Our elite use the Sharia debate to divert attention from their own corruption, nepotism, abuse of office and un-Islamic conduct.

The second point, which the Muslim elite ignores, is the dividing line between commitment to Sharia and encroachment on the religious rights and dignity of others.

I will give a few examples:-

Very recently, the Katsina State Government tried to pass Bills banning the sale of alcohol and the operation of LovePeddler-houses in the metropolis. As a consequence of this move (and, it is said, failure of the House to approve the Bill), irate Muslim youth, shouting Allahu Akbar decided to burn not just beer parlours, hotels and whorehouses, but also Christian churches.

Now, the Quran (Hajj. (ch. 22): 40) specifically forbids tearing down monasteries, churches, synagogues and mosques. Yet the leaders of Muslims have not come out strongly enough to condemn this violation of the rights of Christians, nor considered the implications of Christians in turn burning mosques in retaliation. It is also worthy of note, that christian morality does not approve of alcoholism and prostitution.

A second example is the recent furore over Obasanjo's appointment of northern Christians into his cabinet. I have elsewhere made my views on this known although several people have branded me, and others like Col. Umar, anti-Islamic or anti-north for not joining this hypocritical farce

In failing to rise above bigotry and chauvinism, northern Muslims act against injunctions of their faith. The Quran expressly preaches freedom of religion [see, for example: Al-Baqarah (ch.2): 256; Yunus (ch.10): 108; Hud (ch.11): 121-122; Kahf(ch18):29;  andAl-Ghashiyah (ch.88) :21-24]

It is also pertinent for those who criticize us to recall that Allah specifically instructed that trust and leadership should be given only to those worthy of them and to judge between men with justice (Al-Nisa (ch.4): 58). Also, if anyone believes that false witness should be given for or against a man simply because he is a Muslim or Non-Muslim, he should read [Al-Nisa (ch4): 135; also 105and Al-Maidah ((ch.5): 6]. Finally for those who object to our inviting good muslims and good christians to come together and give the poor people of this country the good government preached by both faiths, please read [Al-Imran (ch3): 64] which provides a basis for coming together on common ground.

I do not mean by this that only Muslims show intolerance in the North. Muslims in certain areas have been the subject of Christian attacks, such as what happened in Zangon-Kataf and Kafanchan. In the main, those attacks seem to have taken two major forms. The first, and this is common, reflects attacks instigated by Christian leaders who are looking for political and economic space in the North. Retired Christian generals, from Takum to Zangon-Kataf, who find themselves overshadowed by more junior, but Muslim, generals in the North, take out their frustration by financing and co-ordinating religious conflicts. One of them has already been convicted once.

The second form they have taken is one of a genuine protest, an expression of frustration with their consignment to the role of second-class northerners in their homeland, in spite of everything they have given for the North. They have sacrificed their sons in the war against Biafra. They have organized and toppled coups to bring and sustain Northern Muslim generals to and in power. Yet, they are treated with disdain and derision, as we saw in the recent ministerial lists. The violence of northern Christians, therefore, while we condemn it, may be seen as sometimes, being a reaction to the violence inflicted on them, like the violence of the native in Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth.

In the history of the world, it has long been established that intolerance and religious bigotry stultify the development of society. One of the secrets of the greatness of Rome in antiquity lies in the religious tolerance of the Barbarians and their ability to look for common grounds among their faiths.

In the History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon tells us:


Such was the mild spirit of antiquity, that the nations were less attentive to the difference, than to the resemblance, of their religious worship. The Greek,  the Roman, and the Barbarian, as they met before their respective altars,  easily persuaded themselves that under various names, and with various  ceremonies, they adored the same deities. The elegant mythology of Homer  gave a beautiful, and almost regular form, to the polytheism of the ancient  world (Vol. 1:p.57)


Similarly, those who fail to recognise virtue and merit, and adopt it  wherever it is found in the interest of the ambitions of their nation, will  never find progress.

Again, Gibbon tells us in the DF:

The narrow policy of preserving, without any foreign mixture, the pure  blood of the ancient citizens, had checked the fortune, and hastened the  ruin, of Athens and Sparta. The aspiring genius of Rome sacrificed vanity to  ambition, and deemed it more prudent, as well as honourable, to adopt virtue  and merit for her own wheresoever they were found, among slaves or strangers, enemies or barbarians  (Vol.1: p.61)

How much lower can a people sink, when they need lessons in culture and civilization from the history of barbarians? Muslims will recall that the freedom and tolerance of the Islamic State was what led to the glory and flourishing of the Caliphate in both the early Abbasid and Ottoman phases, while Rome declined with the intolerance and bigotry of the Catholic Church.

Indeed, one of the acclaimed attributes of the late Sardauna is that in spite of his very open commitment to and zeal for Islam, he did not show intolerance for other faiths or disdain for others simply because they did not share his faith. This has been acknowledged widely by northern Christians like Jolly Tanko Yusuf, Ishaya Audu, and Sunday Awoniyi. Present-day northern leaders, however, seem characterized by a fake commitment to their religions which only finds expression in antagonising other faiths. They sing the Sardauna's praises but cannot live up to his standards, like the Greeks of Constantinople described by Gibbon in the following words:


They held in their lifeless hands the riches of their fathers, without  inheriting the spirit which had created and improved that sacred patrimony:  they read, they praised, they compiled, but their languid souls seemed alike  incapable of thought and action.   (Vol III: P.420)


So much for our new-breed northern leaders, now to their opposite numbers in the South-West.

ii. The Yoruba Factor and Area-boy Politics.

My views on the Yoruba political leadership have been thoroughly articulated in some of my writings, prime among which was Afenifere: Syllabus of Errors published by This Day (The Sunday Newspaper) on Sept 27, 1998. There was also an earlier publication in the weekly Trust entitled The Igbo, the Yoruba and History  (Aug. 21, 1998).

In sum, the Yoruba political leadership, as mentioned by Balarabe Musa, has shown itself over the years to be incapable of rising above narrow tribal interests and reciprocating goodwill from other sections of the country by treating other groups with respect. Practically every crisis in Nigeria since independence has its roots in this attitude.

The Yoruba elite were the first, in 1962, to attempt a violent overthrow of an elected government in this country. In 1966, it was the violence in the West which provided an avenue for the putsch of 15th January. After Chief Awolowo lost to Shagari in 1983 elections, it was the discontent and bad publicity in the South-West which led to the Buhari intervention. When Buhari jailed UPN governors like Ige and Onabanjo, the South-Western press castigated that good government and provided the right mood for IBB to take over power. As soon as IBB cleared UPN governors of charges against them in a politically motivated retrial, he became the darling of the South-West. When IBB annulled the primaries in which Adamu Ciroma and Shehu Yar Adua emerged as presidential candidates in the NRC and SDP, he was hailed by the South-West. When the same man annulled the June 12, 1993 elections in which Abiola was the front-runner, the South-West now became defenders of democracy. When it seemed Sani Abacha was sympathetic to Abiola, the South-West supported his take-over. He was in fact invited by a prominent NADECO member to take over in a published letter shortly before the event. Even though Abiola had won the elections in the North, the North was blamed for its annulment. When Abdulsalam Abubakar started his transition, the Yoruba political leadership through NADECO presented a memorandum on a Government of National Unity that showed complete disrespect for the intelligence and liberties of other Nigerians. Subsequently, they formed a tribal party which failed to meet minimum requirements for registration, but was registered all the same to avoid the violence that was bound to follow non-registration, given the area-boy mentality of South-West politicians. Having rejected an Obasanjo candidacy and challenged the election as a fraud in court, we now find a leading member of the AD in the government, a daughter of an Afenifere leader as Minister of State, and Awolowo's daughter as Ambassador, all appointed by a man who won the election through fraud. Meanwhile, nothing has been negotiated for the children of Abiola, the focus of Yoruba political activity. In return for these favours, the AD solidly voted for Evan Enwerem as Senate President. This is a man who participated in the two-million-man March for Abacha's self-succession. He also is reputed to have hosted a meeting of governors during IBB's transition, demanding that June 12 elections should never be de-annulled and threatening that the East would go to war if this was done. When Ibrahim Salisu Buhari was accused of swearing to a false affidavit, the Yoruba political elite correctly took up the gauntlet for his resignation. When an AD governor, Bola Tinubu, swears to a false affidavit that he attended an Ivy League University which he did not attend, we hear excuses.

For so many years, the Yoruba have inundated this country with stories of being marginalised and of a civil service dominated by northerners through quota system. The Federal Character Commission has recently released a report which shows that the  South-West accounts for 27.8% of civil servants in the range GL08 to GL14 and a full 29.5% of GL 15 and above. One zone out of six zones controls a full 30% of the civil service leaving the other five zones to share the remaining 70%. We find the same story in the economy, in academia, in parastatals.

Yet in spite of being so dominant, the Yoruba complained and complained of marginalization. Of recent, in recognition of the trauma which hit the South-West after June 12, the rest of the country forced everyone out of the race to ensure that a South-Westerner emerged, often against the best advice of political activists. Instead of leading a path of reconciliation and strong appreciation, the Yoruba have embarked on short-sighted triumphalism, threatening other nationalities that they ( who after all lost the election) will protect Obasanjo ( who was forced on them). No less a person than Bola Ige has made such utterances. To further show that they were in charge, they led a cult into the Hausa area of Sagamu, murdered a Hausa woman and nothing happened. In the violence that followed, they killed several Hausa residents, with Yoruba leaders like Segun Osoba, reminding Nigerians of the need to respect the culture of their host communities.  This would have continued were it not for the people of Kano who showed that they could also create their own Oro who would only be appeased through the shedding of innocent Yoruba blood.

I say all this, to support Balarabe Musa's statement, that the greatest problem to nation-building in Nigeria are the Yoruba Bourgeoisie. I say this also to underscore my point that until they change this attitude, no conference can solve the problems of Nigeria. We cannot move forward if the leadership of one of the largest ethnic groups continues to operate, not like statesmen, but like common area boys.

iii.The Igbo Factor and the Reasonable Limits of Retribution.

The Igbo people of Nigeria have made a mark in the history of this nation. They led the first successful military coup which eliminated the Military and Political leaders of other regions while letting off Igbo leaders. Nwafor Orizu, then Senate President, in consultation with President Azikiwe, subverted the constitution and handed over power to Aguiyi-Ironsi.  Subsequent developments, including attempts at humiliating other peoples, led to the counter-coup and later the civil war. The Igbos themselves must acknowledge that they have a large part of the blame for shattering the unity of this country.

Having said that, this nation must realise that Igbos have more than paid for their foolishness. They have been defeated in war, rendered paupers by monetary policy fiat, their properties declared abandoned and confiscated, kept out of strategic public sector appointments and deprived of public services. The rest of the country forced them to remain in Nigeria and has continued to deny them equity.

The Northern Bourgeoisie and the Yoruba Bourgeoisie have conspired to keep the Igbo out of the scheme of things. In the recent transition when the Igbo solidly supported the PDP in the hope of an Ekwueme presidency, the North and South-West treated this as a Biafra agenda. Every rule set for the primaries, every gentleman's agreement was set aside to ensure that Obasanjo, not Ekwueme emerged as the candidate. Things went as far as getting the Federal Government to hurriedly gazette a pardon. Now, with this government, the marginalistion of the Igbo is more complete than ever before. The Igbos have taken all these quietly because, they reason, they brought it upon themselves. But the nation is sitting on a time-bomb.

After the First World War, the victors treated Germany with the same contempt Nigeria is treating Igbos. Two decades later, there was a Second World War, far costlier than the first. Germany was again defeated, but this time, they won a more honourable peace.

Our present political leaders have no sense of History. There is a new Igbo man, who was not born in 1966 and neither knows nor cares about Nzeogwu and Ojukwu. There are Igbo men on the street who were never Biafrans. They were born Nigerians, are Nigerians, but suffer because of actions of earlier generations. They will soon decide that it is better to fight their own war, and may be find an honourable peace, than to remain in this contemptible state in perpetuity.

The Northern Bourgeoisie and the Yoruba Bourgeoisie have exacted their pound of flesh from the Igbos. For one Sardauna, one Tafawa Balewa, one Akintola and one Okotie-Eboh, hundreds of thousands have died and suffered.

If this issue is not addressed immediately, no conference will solve Nigeria's problems.

iv. The Niger-Delta and The Need For Justice.

This is the final subjective variable I wish to mention. I will not say anything on this because it seems, finally, it has caught the attention of the nation and something is being done about it.


Conclusion

I started this paper by saying that restructuring the Federation was not a simple task, and should be considered only as part of the process of nation-building. The message I have carried all my life is that all Nigerians have a right to maintain their diversity but this should only be on the basis of respect of the same rights for other Nigerians. No nation can be built on the platform of inequity, intolerance and selfishness.

I am Fulani. I am Muslim. But I am able to relate to every Nigerian as a fellow Nigerian and respect his ethnicity and his faith.  I am also convinced that we tend to exaggerate our differences for selfish ends and this applies even to matters of faith.

I have no doubt in my mind that the leadership of Nigerian politics in all parts of the country today, is in the main, reactionary, greedy, corrupt and bankrupt. Brought up in the era of tribal warlords, most political leaders are unable to think first and foremost like Nigerians. To this extent, any conference held today may be a waste of time.

But the audience may ask Is there any hope for this Country?  My answer is yes!  I rest my hope partly on personal experience. In every part of the country, I come across young Nigerians who do not agree with their elders. In the North, there is a new northerner, throwing off the yoke of irredentism, the toga of nepotism and the image of being a beneficiary of quota system.

In the South-West, I find many young Yoruba citizens who frown at the rabid tribalism and provincialism of their leaders.

In Igboland, we see young Igbos who regret the past and look forward to a brighter future. I have indeed received several letters from Nigerians, northerners and southerners, christians and muslims, encouraging me in the fight against the twin vices of religious intolerance and ethnic chauvinism.

But I rest my hope on a much deeper and profound base than these fleeting impressions. The hope for this Country is founded on the existence of the very problems we have just examined. The people of this Country have a long history of being together. Yet each group jealously guards its own identity, be it ethnic or religious. This is so only because our cultures, our religions, teach us core values within which we find full expression of our humanity. If only we would look, we would find that the values that make a good Fulani, Yoruba, Kanuri or Bini man; the values that make a good Christian and a good Muslim; are the same. If only we had in each part of this country, a leadership with the vision to recognize this, to harness this, to bring together good Yoruba, Hausa, Igbo, Ogoni and Angas men and women; good Christians and Muslims; to run the affairs of this country, we would find peace.

I rest my hope, finally on my generation. A generation of young, educated Nigerians, brought up in luxury, weaned by the traumatic experiences of the last two decades, and ready to take up the gauntlet, and ignite the hopes, for a renewed Nigeria. This is the generation much maligned by the present administration of septuagenarians. The generation discarded and treated like a pack of potential thieves. The only truly marginalized generation. This is the generation that will pick up the pieces and by the grace of Allah, leave those coming behind with a legacy far more progressive than the one we inherited.
Thank you

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi is now Governor of Central bank of Nigeria

Last Updated on Saturday, 29 August 2009 20:08

Please register or login to add your comments to this article.

This is a very fantastic article.  Dapito abeg where you get am?  Where was the source?

This man has such a depth to him that it makes me wonder how he got anywhere in Nigeria's system.  I find that intelligence and talent is more likely to be suppress in my country.

It was interesting to find out that states borrow money from banks to pay staff wages. I always knew that Nigeria's colossal civil service is in fact our disguised social security system. However I didn't realise that it was putting our states in debt.

Ogbologbo:

This is a very fantastic article. Dapito abeg where you get am? Where was the source?

This man has such a depth to him that it makes me wonder how he got anywhere in Nigeria's system. I find that intelligence and talent is more likely to be suppress in my country.

You've not seen anything. I spent whole weekend(night and day) reading Sanusi's over 30 write-ups and rejoinders to his write-ups sometime around May this year.
His articles are unputdownable. Name any field, from Economics to philosophy to politics to history to religion, he's there. He is vastly versed and wide read. How this guy combined his job as a banker with reading so extensively in the fields of philosophy, politics and history still dazzles me.

Care to read more of his writings, send me your email addy.

Sanusi on Debt relief:

Dr. Chu Okongwu, Simon Kolawole And Debt Relief: A Comment

By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

LAGOS, AUGUST 8, 2005

lamidos@hotmail.com





I have read Dr Chu S. P. Okongwu’s article, “Debt Relief? Nothing to Celebrate”, published in Thisday Newspaper on Friday, July 22, 2005 and reproduced verbatim by the editors of The News magazine in their August 1 edition under the title “On the so-called debt relief obtained from the Paris Club”. I had followed various criticisms-ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous-of the recent announcement of the Paris Club Debt Relief package by President Obasanjo and his Finance Minister, but refrained from making a comment. However, Dr Okongwu’s voice is a weighty one that deserves consideration. Unfortunately, his intervention in this matter, while raising-or rather, restating-a number of intelligent and valid criticisms, ended up with dangerous arguments that merit a word of caution. These arguments have been compounded by other, more dangerous ones, written by ThisDay’s bold columnist, Simon Kolawole. I had thought that the Finance Minister’s intelligent response to Kolawole had addressed the major issues he had concerning debt relief. Unfortunately, I woke up this morning (8/8/2005) to read his back-page piece, rather uncouthly titled “Before I was Rudely Interrupted”, which was filled with so much economic nonsense presented as intelligent analysis I had to make this intervention.



Dr Okongwu needs no introduction. He is a respected economist with antecedents in the World Bank and he was one of the king-pins of the economic reform programmes of the federal Government under General Babangida, in which he served in many capacities including Minister of planning and of Finance. Along with Dr Kalu Idika Kalu (from the IMF), Olu Falae and Alhaji Abubakar Alhaji (the notorious “Triple A”), Okongwu was one of the blue-eyed boys of the three sponsors of what, thanks to Joseph Stiglitz, we now refer to as the “Washington Consensus Policies”, and these are the IMF, the World Bank and the Government of the USA. In other words, Dr Okongwu was directly responsible for Babangida’s structural adjustment programme with all of the consequences of that obnoxious policy package-including but not limited to the massive devaluation of the national currency, collapse of governmental due process and credibility, huge disparities in income distribution, sale of national assets to a vulgar emergent class empowered through what Karl Marx called “Primitive Accumulation”, the destruction of the economy’s manufacturing base and decimation of the progressive middle classes, etc. I have elsewhere articulated my criticism of SAP from a theoretical perspective and will not repeat those arguments here.



Nigerians must not be allowed to forget who Dr Okongwu is and what policies his ministry pursued. In a sense many-but not all-of the major policy thrusts of the present economic reform team are aimed at cleaning up the mess that this country was thrown into by Chu Okongwu and his peers. We must always bear this in mind, when those who were the most willing tools of international finance capital pretend to speak with an air of patriotism and commitment to the national interest against their hitherto patrons. As stated by President Obasanjo in his speech to the National Assembly, Nigerian leaders, particularly between 1985 and 1995 “…signed all sorts of agreements with outrageous interest rates, squandered loans obtained in the name of development, drew down on foreign loans without executing any jobs, and in other cases stole or wasted such loans.” Okongwu was a key member of the government responsible for all of this.



As mentioned earlier, Dr Okongwu’s piece started with some valid criticism. Along the same lines as other critics like frontline journalist Mohammed Haruna, Okongwu asked valid questions as to what exactly the Paris Club has promised, vis a vis what the President and his ministers have been announcing. There is a difference between an invitation to negotiate debt relief and debt forgiveness; the offer of possible debt relief “up to Naples terms” is inconsistent with the same offer “on Naples terms”. We are also not informed of the content of the Policy support Instrument the government is negotiating with the IMF and the stage of those negotiations. Clearly there are so many ifs and buts to the announcement, and Nigerians have a right to ask if we have in fact not been celebrating prematurely. The stock response from ministers so far has been that this is just about semantics but the deal is a done deal. Objections from Okongwu, given his inside knowledge of the World Bank and experience in dealing with creditors, give reason for pause. We need more clarification, preferably from the creditors themselves, and Government needs to give us more information on the “fine print”, any “attached strings” and, in general, the salient aspects of the agreement. (Dr Mansur Muhtar, Director-General of the DMO, has started the good job of explaining these details to Nigerians in his reply to Okongwu.) It has also not helped the President’s image that he has latched on to the seeming progress out of this impasse to justify his wasteful foreign jamborees. The performance convinced no one, and it was, to say the least, a display of political naivete and immaturity. Nigerians will judge for themselves if those trips were worth it, and making the tenuous link was totally unnecessary and counter-productive.



Before proceeding let me make a few clarifications. I am a strong critic of the Obasanjo government and in 2003 I went public with my endorsement of the Buhari candidacy. I believe the 2003 elections were massively rigged, the judiciary did not do Nigerians justice by upholding those results, and that the achievements of this government are far less than they could have been with better commitment and focus. However, criticism of government should always be fair, objective and principled. The economic reform team of this government is not perfect, and it has many flaws some of which I have discussed elsewhere and will still highlight below. However, that team is the one light at the end of the tunnel, the one hope that all hope is not lost for this country. Given our experience with Okongwu, Kalu and Co most Nigerian economists were skeptical as to the ideological commitment and patriotism of a team filled with World Bank employees and consultants. I was personally not convinced that Okonjo-Iweala could deliver. Over time my skepticism has given way to pleasant surprise, respect and even admiration and I will not shirk away from the critical responsibility of applauding the good even as we censure the bad.



To continue, Okongwu’s intervention ended up as a fierce criticism of the government for “being too eager” to pay the debt he incurred. He suggests, in a manner surprising for a man of his stature and reputation, that “no one in the international financial community really expects these …debts to be paid off” and if we did nothing the debts would “die by semantics”. He would rather that the huge oil windfall we have be kept, even though our history is that it will be wasted by the government or kept for the next crop of leaders to steal. Okongwu also refers to payment of arrears and past-dues as “up front” payments thus misleading the reader on an important component of all debt forgiveness. He does not see why we are “in a hurry” to free ourselves from the burden that has compromised our independence and mortgaged our future and he uses such uncomplimentary words as “scandalous” to describe the arrangement. He thinks that by doing this we are being made into “fools” even though SAP, the policy he championed, was the most foolhardy economic programme ever pursued by a Nigerian government.



The point is that to criticize the government for misrepresenting or exaggerating the commitment of the Paris Club is one thing, to deny that debt repayment-which is never painless-is desirable is another. Okongwu craftily combines both, and in this he finds able support in other Babangida associates like the journalist Muhammad Haruna and former Information Minister Tony Momoh. One wonders why it is that Babangida’s supporters are not happy that we are paying off this debt. Obviously many would prefer that we keep the national reserves for him, since we do not know what the price of oil swill be if he comes to power in 2007 as planned. For this reason alone we should pray that all debt be paid off even if it means emptying the reserves before the locusts return for a second helping.



Nigerians must understand that debt write-off and repayment is a bold political step for the governments of the West. Writing off the national debt is not a free lunch. The citizens of western countries are paying taxes to fund their governments, and those governments gave loans to a country whose leaders stole the money. We have not punished those leaders. Instead they are our national heroes, elder statesmen and community leaders. We have made them ministers and governors and given them national honours. We are planning to bring them back into office in 2007. Why should the American or European citizen pay taxes to fund the corruption of our rulers and profligate lifestyles financed by larceny of the treasury. If we think of this fact alone, we will understand why debt-relief, if it materializes, will be a major achievement of the Obasanjo government which even those of us who are not his supporters should have the dignity to acknowledge and applaud in the interest of the nation and our own credibility.



This brings me to Kolawole’s article referred to above, an obvious reply to Dr Okonjo-Iweala’s earlier protest at his writings. Kolawole is a journalist for whom I have a lot of respect but his latest piece was a great disservice to his intellect. Take the first, rather sensational thesis he put up: there is in fact no debt-relief, because “the whole external debt stock discounted at 4% p.a comes to about the same amount ($12b) the Paris Club requires us to pay now for the offer to be valid”. This argument was apparently given to Kolawole by one of his readers, described by him as “obviously a financial expert”. With all due respect this dense argument shows the opposite of expertise in financial matters. I will explain.



The Present Value of $29billion owed by Nigeria today is $29billion. Period. It is rather dis-ingenious to discount it over 23 years and arrive at $12billion. Think of it this way. If we do not pay off the debt today, we will owe the Paris Club $29billion. Assuming Kolawole’s rate of 4%, the creditors have an asset worth $29b paying 4% per annum over the next 23years on a reducing balance basis. If we pay $12billion today the creditors will have an asset that is just over 40% of the value of what they had, paying them the same rate of interest over 23 years. What Kolawole and his “expert” would have Nigerians believe is that the two streams are equivalent, which is the same as saying the $29billion is equal to $12billion. Now let us see where Kolawole went wrong. In his analysis he makes the implicit assumption that our $29billion debt stock will be interest-free for 23 years! That way, at the end of the period it will still be $29billion, the equivalent of $12billion today earning interest at 4%p.a over the period! In reality, as we know, this is not the case, and the future value of our debt stock is much higher that its present value. Using Kolawole’s own numbers-which I have not cross-checked for accuracy, by the way-as a base, we would say that if $12billion today is worth $29billion(i.e $12b times 2.416) in 23 years at 4%, then $29billion will be roughly worth $70billion over the same period at the same rate. So, using this logic, the creditors are giving up $70billion for $29billion over the tenor of the loans. And Kolawole says this is nothing!



There are other weaknesses in Kolawole’s argument. Debt is repaid from cash-flow and unfortunately for us in Nigeria, our cash-flow is dependent on a variable over which we have no control-the price of oil. Our capacity to repay debt is determined by the price of oil from time to time and indeed our debt crisis started when oil prices crashed in the early eighties. We cannot take it for granted that the high oil prices we are seeing due to an extraordinary international environment are sustainable over the long term. We had this situation during the first Gulf War with IBB in power. We all remember the circumstances under which the Nigeria correspondent of the FT of London was deported for asking questions about the windfall. We are yet to see the details of the Udoji report on those monies. If this government does not take advantage of the windfall and pay off the debt, as proposed by the likes of Kolawole and Okongwu, what is the guarantee that the next government will not just steal it the way the first windfall went?



A second flaw in the argument is the implicit assumption of low world interest rates. Not only did oil prices crash in the 1980s, interest rates sky-rocketed at one time reaching 22% in the US under Ronald Reagan. The annual debt service charge of $1billion we are looking at as affordable today could quadruple or quintuple if rates ever approach the 1980s levels. Now is the time to reduce the overhang and eliminate interest rate risk, while making sure that future contracts are properly structured with options such as caps and collars, or at least hedged against interest rate and third currency risks.



Kolawole’s piece also contained glaring errors of fact. He argues, with an air of authority, that “Nigeria’s Public Debt is 20% of her GDP” and compares this with figures from the US, UK, France, Switzerland, Japan and South Africa. Kolawole makes the strange argument that excessive debt is a sign of a robust economy and suggests that we should strive to be credit-worthy so we can borrow more, rather than repay the debt. The question whether debt repayment is one (albeit not the sole) component of sound economic policies that will lead to better credit rating is not addressed. In any case, the numbers given by Kolawole are simply false. We now all know that our external debt alone is in the region of $30billion. Total Public Debt is a combination of this number and gross domestic borrowing. We also know that our country’s GDP is less than $50billion. So how on earth can our public debt be “less than 20% of GDP”? The fact is that as recently as 2001 the Public debt was already around 120% of GDP and this number has only come down slightly due to the high oil prices and moderation in domestic borrowing and deficit-financing, resulting from improvement in the management of the economy. But most estimates would still place the ratio as somewhere in the 90s.



I can go on and on but will stop here. The point is that journalists and writers must respect the intelligence of their readers and understand that we read columns to be educated and not misled. This government still has a long way to go to convince Nigerians of its seriousness and sincerity. Ideologically, the naïve faith in the market, the lack of preparation for market failure, the urge to display the public sector as corrupt and pretend that the private sector is not equally corrupt-all of these should be exposed and criticized by progressive Nigerians. Economic policies aimed at reducing subsidies, unraveling the welfare state, widening income distribution inequalities and increasing the suffering of our masses to fuel obscene profiteering must be resisted. However, we ought to applaud debt repayment/cancellation, due diligence and increased transparency, a fight against corruption and drug trafficking, and those steps taken by the likes of Okonjo-Iweala, Mansur Muhtar, Nasir el-Rufai, Nuhu Ribadu, Oby Ezekwesili and Dora Akunyili to improve our image as a nation and reform the economy and society.



Those of us who criticize the government also have a burden. We must not mislead Nigerians, we must not fabricate evidence and, as they say, “give a dog a bad name in order to hang it.” To condemn debt-repayment, given all the damage done to the third world by debt is irresponsible. Okongwu, Kolawole, Haruna and Co should be big enough to rise above that.

Jarus:



I have read Dr Chu S. P. Okongwu’s article, “Debt Relief? Nothing to Celebrate”, published in Thisday Newspaper on Friday, July 22, 2005 and reproduced verbatim by the editors of The News magazine in their August 1 edition under the title “On the so-called debt relief obtained from the Paris Club”. I had followed various criticisms-ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous-of the recent announcement of the Paris Club Debt Relief package by President Obasanjo and his Finance Minister, but refrained from making a comment. However, Dr Okongwu’s voice is a weighty one that deserves consideration. Unfortunately, his intervention in this matter, while raising-or rather, restating-a number of intelligent and valid criticisms, ended up with dangerous arguments that merit a word of caution. These arguments have been compounded by other, more dangerous ones, written by ThisDay’s bold columnist, Simon Kolawole. I had thought that the Finance Minister’s intelligent response to Kolawole had addressed the major issues he had concerning debt relief. Unfortunately, I woke up this morning (8/8/2005) to read his back-page piece, rather uncouthly titled “Before I was Rudely Interrupted”, which was filled with so much economic nonsense presented as intelligent analysis I had to make this intervention.

Gbam!

Unfortunately, some of us respect some journalists and believe them even when they are misleading us or talking about things they don't have any idea about.

Jarus:


Those of us who criticize the government also have a burden. We must not mislead Nigerians, we must not fabricate evidence and, as they say, “give a dog a bad name in order to hang it.” To condemn debt-repayment, given all the damage done to the third world by debt is irresponsible. Okongwu, Kolawole, Haruna and Co should be big enough to rise above that.

Exactly! You can criticize someone from morning till night without manufacturing lies or spreading misinformation.

Islam, Christianity and Nigerian Politics: A tribute to Thomas Paine (1737-1809)

By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

sanusis@ubaplc.com

WWW.GAMJI.COM


“I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life. I believe in the equality of man, and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavouring to make our fellow-creatures happy.”

These words of Thomas Paine, in his classic The Age of Reason remain as relevant to our world today as they were when he wrote them in the late 18th Century. Paine died in America in 1809, one year after the final major battles of the Sokoto Jihad, in penury and ill health, rejected by his friends and mocked by enemies. It was a sad death for a man who had played an important, indeed pioneering role in popularizing democratic principles, and who was a major inspiration for American Independence, the French Revolution and the British revolt against political oligarchy. Paine was one of the first proponents of press freedom who recognized the revolutionary potential of mass communication.

The Age of Reason was a late work and was primarily an attack on organized religion and an effort to disprove the claims of the Bible to being the word of God. His views were considered heretical, (though secretly shared by many), and were the basis, or the excuse which friends of his like President Jefferson used to distance themselves from him in his hour of need.

As a Muslim, I would not consider my definition of religion identical to that of Paine. Similarly no Christian who believes in Christianity as preached by his church would accept Paine’s definition of religion as identical with Christianity. If that were so, he would not have been so despised and persecuted.

Yet I must admit that in a very fundamental sense, any Muslim or Christian who did not at least share Paine’s view of religion would find it difficult to call himself a good Muslim or Christian. Paine reduced religion to “belief in one God, belief in the equality of man, doing justice, loving mercy and endeavouring to make fellow-creatures happy.” This view led him to oppose slavery and call for its abolition in America, to fight against monarchy and political oligarchy, to support the French Revolution and then condemn the unnecessary bloodshed unleashed by the Jacobins, to live a life whose fate was that he was an ally and beloved of opposition but outcast to the political and religious establishment. This great man, this much-maligned revolutionary until he died was not considered a Christian. He died in solitude and poverty. Even the Quakers refused his request to be buried in their cemetary and his grave was desecrated, the remains stolen. Perhaps the popular nursery rhyme about him expresses the view so clearly:



Poor Tom Paine! There he lies

Nobody laughs and nobody cries.

Where he has gone and how he fares

Nobody knows and nobody cares



Paine’s works speak a lot for his character and influence on world politics. The Age of Reason challenged the logic behind organized religion’s grip on much of the western world. Common Sense, an argument for independence, helped spark the American Revolution. Rights of man, an essay written in support of the French Revolution, attacked hereditary monarchies and called for universal democracy and human rights, and Agrarian Justice called for radical reforms in the world economy, especially in land ownership. The first three constitute the three best selling works of the 18th century.

Today, most Muslims and Christians would agree with me that Tom Paine was a better model of religious piety than his opponents. Even some of his “heretical” views on certain passages in the bible have become conventional wisdom among bible scholars.

The attitude towards Tom Paine, sadly, remains with us to this day. No one who has visited different parts of this country will be left in doubt as to the fact that Nigerians are basically a deeply religious lot. I recall a few years ago in the Sudan when an International Conference on religious dialogue was jointly organized by the Government of the Sudan and the Vatican. On the high table were eminent world scholars and religious leaders of Islam and Christianity. Nigeria alone produced two of these: Cardinal Arinze from the Vatican, representing the Pope, and Sheikh Sharif Ibrahim Saleh, from Maiduguri, as world leader of a Sufi order in Islam. After the conference, a Sudanese scholar remarked to me his amazement that Nigeria, an African country, produced world leaders of religions, which it, after all, imported from other countries. I told him that in my opinion, Nigerian Muslims and Christians are among the best in the world.

This is what makes Tom Paine relevant to Nigeria today. How come a country with so many religious people finds itself in the situation it is in today? How can there be so much injustice, corruption, nepotism, abuse of office and immorality in the government of a people the majority of whom profess belief in God and in either Islam or Christianity? The only answer one can find is that there is a fundamental flaw in our conception of religion or of the comparative weights of individual as opposed to Social or Collective, Ethics.

Nigeria is a country where religion is more associated with individual piety than social responsibility. Thus a politician or general who corruptly enriches himself through abuse of public office but builds a Church or Mosque, becomes a born-again priest or gives a lot of sadaqah, is considered a good Muslim or Christian and treated with respect rather than like the common thief that he is. It is also true, I suppose, that most Muslims and Christians consider adultery, for instance, a greater crime than bribery and corruption even though the latter can cause more damage and unhappiness to a larger number of innocent citizens than the former. As a result of this attitude, service to the outward expressions of religious identity – churches, mosques, CAN, JNI, even personal charity to Bishops and Imams etc. has served as atonement for the sin of corruption if not a pretext, or worse still, the driving motive behind the acts of corruption. It has become possible for criminals who attend the same mosques and churches as the rest of us to pitch us against each other by making too much of matters of dogma and symbolism which are of no political or, one must add, even religious, significance. Let me give a few examples to illustrate what I mean.

First, take the Shariah debate. Students of Islamic legal theory will confirm that the law in Islam has two distinct components. The first is clearly defined in the Qur’an and Sunnah and largely covers areas of worship (like prayer, fasting, Zakat, Hajj etc) and can not change over time. Not even colonialists tampered with these rights for Muslims after Sultan Attahir was killed by British troops which is why the new Sultan signed a Peace Treaty with them as explained clearly by his Wazir, Bukhari, in his defence of that decision. The law of inheritance, which is still applied to Muslims, is also in this category.

The second component of the law, which is by far the larger component, represents all those laws dealing with social, economic and political activities on which the Qur’an and Sunnah are silent and over which man is free to make his own laws and regulations subject to such universal Islamic principles as justice, equity, fairplay, charity etc. Thus an unjust law (like Decree No. 2, for instance) is ipso facto UnIslamic because it violates the universal principle of justice. A large part of what Nigerian Muslims see as unIslamic law was based on the laws of the Ottoman Empire in Turkey which formed the basis of a great deal of European Law. Most of the law of contract is of this category so long as it complies with universal guidelines such as prohibition of usury, over invoicing or deliberate deception. This flexibility is what accounts for the applicability of Shariah over time and its adaptability to changing social, political & economic environments.

There is however, a third category over which a lot of controversy rages: that of punishment. Under Islamic Law, the hand of a thief under certain circumstances is to be cut off, an adulterer and adulteress are to be stoned to death and a fornicator and fornicatress whipped one hundred lashes each. Eighty strokes are the lot of a slanderer and of the alcoholic. Most of these laws were revealed in the last two years of the prophet’s life, after the stabilization of the Islamic State. The general theory is that where the punishment is specified by the Qur’an and Hadith (Hadd) it falls into the first category of laws, i.e. it is non-negotiable. Where however it has crystallized as a deterrent (ta’zir) then appropriate deterrents may be applied by different societies at different stages of development. This latter case may for instance apply to the punishment for imbibing alcohol which is not specified in the Qur’an and which legal historians insist was only 40 lashes in the time of the prophet but increased to 80 in the reign of ‘Umar when drinking became rampant among soldiers. We therefore find that only a small fraction of our laws would need to be changed if Shariah were to be adopted today.

But even this argument is not that conclusive. It is a fact for instance, that the second Caliph; Umar, stopped the punishment of the thief by cutting-off the hand in a year of famine due to the possibility of the thief having been compelled to steal due to hunger. What this means is that in a time of economic austerity such as ours, true proponents of the Shariah should address themselves to the question of proper economic management and a return to economic prosperity, as only then will the objective economic conditions be in place that will justify implementation of the law. By downplaying massive corruption and economic mismanagement, it has become possible for Muslim elite to engage in diversionary propaganda and express a hypocritical commitment to Shariah while impacting on objective conditions in a manner that would make the implementation of Shariah, even where adopted, improbable and unjustifiable. Full application of Shariah succeeds, rather than precedes, the creation of its objective conditions. It is the irony of our political situation that in the Vanguard of those calling for full implementation of Shariah we find some who have over the years condoned, rationalized, encouraged, initiated, participated in or benefited from the very processes whose logical culmination is the total negation of the said objective conditions.

This is not to dismiss certain positive aspects and valid arguments for Shariah in Nigeria. My view is that the issue is best solved through the evolution of true federalism which allows constituent states to evolve and adopt laws that take full cognizance of their religious and cultural peculiarities. This is what obtains in all truly democratic federations. Ironically, those who claim to want the Shariah are in the forefront of those objecting to a restructured federation which may deny them access to the resources they have so far feasted on with impunity.

A second example is the debate over Nigeria’s membership of the D8 and OIC, and here we find Christian demagogues in action. The D8 (i.e. Developing is a group of eight third-world, predominantly Muslim nations put together by Turkey with the objective of strengthening economic ties largely in the areas of trade and technological transfer. It is no different from, say, the ECOWAS except that the countries are not all geographically contiguous. It seems to me evident that given the nature of World Trade Relations, any economic grouping that offers third-world countries an opportunity for diverting some of their trade to new markets and sharing common experiences is desirable. It also seems to me that given what we know about the structure of property ownership in the Nigerian economy and control over means of production, Christians may perhaps stand to benefit more than Muslims through opening up of large and new markets and sourcing of potentially cheaper products. The question here is not how much can in reality be achieved, which is a debatable issue. What is not debatable is that the economic benefits from this arrangement if, and when, they do materialize, will not be limited to Muslims but, on the contrary, may accrue largely to Christians, considering that Nigerian Muslims (particularly those from the North) have remained largely contractors and rentiers with little potential for benefiting meaningfully from the opening up of frontiers before producers. A similar argument applies to the OIC which is an organization that includes countries with a clear Muslim minority and non-Muslim Heads of Government.

In spite of this, self-styled Christian leaders have held on to symbols and made these issues seem like a grand design to Islamise Nigerian Society. Not one of the opponents of Nigeria’s membership of these organizations deems it necessary to define precisely in what manner Christian interests are jeopardized. Like their counterparts in the Shariah debate, they have allowed themselves to be used in a diversionary debate which leaves one baffled at their gullibility. When the Pope came to Nigeria recently, and it seemed that some Muslims were grumbling about the amount of money the Federal Government was spending and its elaborate plans to receive him, the Sultan of Sokoto simply revisited the OIC issue to balance things up. It also served to detract attention from the real issue of Abacha’s attempt to perpetuate himself in power, and the strong moral implication of the Pontiff’s bold and honest condemnation of dictatorship.

The questions of Shariah, OIC, the D8 and Israel have been used primarily as propaganda tools to divide and rule Nigeria by an elite without conscience. Members of government from both sides of the sectarian divide fund and fan the embers of religious bigotry and propagandism to provide a justification for their retaining power and divert attention from their UnIslamic and unChristian acts.

This situation will continue until we make Tom Paine’s religion the yardstick for judging our political leaders. A good Muslim or Christian leader must show a commitment to equity, justice, mercy and welfare of the people. This last implies a commitment to peace, honesty and national unity.

Some may accuse me of some form of religious reductionism. In reality the real reductionists are those who reduce religion to dogma and to false declaration of faith. In politics we should not primarily ask if the leader believes in the Qur’an or Bible or considers Christ the prophet or the son of God. These are matters of faith that only God knows. We are however interested in what that faith yields as fruit and how it impacts on his public conduct. I believe this is what Christ meant when he said “By their fruit ye shall know them”. We must learn to de-emphasize dogma and look at objective reality, to stress social responsibility rather than individualist ethics. In doing this, we may find that some elements of morality, or aspects of law, may have to be sacrificed. This is sad, but only in an ideal world will everything fall in place.

In fairness to religious leaders, both Islam and Christianity have texts that encourage confrontation rather than unity between believers and non-believers. The Qur’an expressly forbids believers from holding Christians and Jews as allies (V:51). Christ , according to the bible came to set a man at variance against his father, the daughter against her mother, the daughter in-law against her mother-in-law, so that a man’s foe is his household, he that loveth father and mother, or son and daughter more than Him is not worthy of Him (Matt X:35-7) These texts clearly seek to establish a bond based on creed, a Muslim or Christian brotherhood, a family in Islam or in the Lord, whose ties are closer than biological ties and which is set against those not in the fold, no matter how close. This much is true.

Having said that, however, there are other texts preaching universalism of religion, good neighborliness, and mercy to mankind. The Qur’an in several verses speaks of “people of the Book” with respect and urges Muslims not to argue with them except with the best language.

Yet, those other verses are there in the Qur’an and Bible and both Muslims and Christians hold on to them very strongly. The Christian church over its history displayed a great deal of intolerance and violence towards Jews, Muslims, Pagans and Christian “heretics” like the Aryans and Unitarians. The Islamic State, although more tolerant of Jews and Christians, nevertheless consigned them to the status of second – class citizens on account of creed. Today, there is certainly much more tolerance and respect for religious (even Islamic) views and freedoms in the U.K. and U.S. than in most Muslim countries.

My view is that we must understand those early teachings of Islam and Christianity in their proper historical context. Jesus Christ and Prophet Mohammed were both leaders of small communities persecuted by the society in which they found themselves. Christ faced the persecution of the Jews and the Romans who had political control of Isreal. The Prophet faced not just persecution and war from Pagan Arabs but war with Jews and general mockery and threats from both Jews and Christians. The instinctive reaction (and perhaps the only logical one) in such a circumstance is to stress identity and rally the community around its creed. This happens in all similar circumstances.

If we considered Malcolm X’s attitude towards whites today we should think him a vitriolic and rabid racist. We should also consider the “Black Muslim” religion which considered the white man as the Devil and God as black heretical and blasphemous. Our attitude would slightly change, however, when we consider the condition of blacks in America, particularly in neighbourhood slums like Harlem and Brooklyn in the 1950s and 1960s. Anyone reading the speeches of Odumegwu Ojukwu and other Igbo leaders and their attitude toward other Nigerians in late 1966 will cringe at the hatred lacing those words. Yet, contextualised in the pogroms against Igbos following the “revenge” coup, one gets a slightly better perspective. After June 12 and the death of Abiola it has become possible for the Yoruba to band around Afenifere and stress their ethnic identity. Political opportunism and ethnic bigotry which had previously gone out of fashion have reclaimed some degree of dubious credibility. This is only possible because the Yorubas imagine, or believe, they are targets of ethnic prejudice.

The point in this is that Jesus Christ and Prophet Muhammad had to stress the “otherness” of their community and its alienation from surrounding creeds as a matter of necessity. In subsequent centuries with the emergence of their communities as successful political states in their own right, some of their followers were not above using their words to justify intolerance and war. Every crusade launched by the Catholic Church or Jihad launched by an Islamic State has been accompanied by some religious justification for hating and killing those who profess other creeds. The hunted had become the hunter and bigotry, like tribalism, was an ideologically expedient tool. Muslims and Christians must be wary of confusing the experiences of the Church and Caliphate through various stages with the teachings of the founders of their religions.

It is our failure to recognize this that makes critics of religion like Bertrand Russell argue that the purpose of religion is to give an air of respectability to three otherwise disreputable human vices: fear, conceit and hatred. Russell is, of course, in my opinion wrong. Yet one must admit that he has enough ground for his argument since religious persons have in some instances acted as if the whole purpose of religion is to tame these impulses and channel them in certain areas. In reality, the fear of God and Hell fire and eternal damnation, carried to extremes, may blind us to the fact that He is a loving and forgiving God and lead to our showing too little love, understanding and forgiveness to his creatures, even where we disagree with them. Conceit, based on confidence in our own righteousness denies us the humility that comes from recognizing our frailties and failings. Hatred for those who do not profess our creed leads to aggression, war and oppression. None of these was taught by the founders of our religions.

Once we understand these teachings as the logical corollary to the survival of an emergent and persecuted group, we should understand that as an attitude, bigotry is permissible only in an environment of persecution. Where there is freedom of religion and mutual respect, religious conflict and animosity become inexcusable and I believe this is the essence of Paine’s religion. Muslims and Christians can only be a credit to their religions by focussing on these issues and creating an environment of complete religious freedom. There can be no program for liberation and progress of Muslims or Christians without a general program for social and political transformation, and the revolutionary transformation of the objective conditions of injustice, intolerance and poverty to which Muslims and Christians alike are subjected. Our just war is against our common enemy not against each other.

The Qur’an says: “Tell them: O people of the Book, let us come to an agreement on that which is common between us, that we worship no one but God, and make none His compeer, and that none of us take any others for lord apart from God”. (III:64)

We also read (XXIX:46) “And do not argue with the people of the Book except with the best language except those from among them who do evil. And say “we believe in that which was revealed unto us and revealed unto you, our God and your God is one and we submit to Him.”

I believe Thomas Paine also captures common political ground between Muslims and Christians. We may choose to listen to him or ignore him. Our choice will determine if we want peace, progress, justice and unity or war, retrogress, injustice and division.

I have no doubt in my mind where our God would want us to go, and it is not the direction in which self-styled leaders have continued to lead us.

I also have no doubt in my mind that we owe a duty to our faiths to fight against the attempts to divert attention from issues and define the problems of Nigeria in ethnic or regional terms. We need leaders who, like Tom Paine, believe in one God and in equality of man, justice, loving mercy and happiness of fellow creatures: wherever they may be from and without regard to tribe.

Tom Paine inspired liberating revolutions in America and Europe. Perhaps he will yet inspire one in this nation of Muslims and Christians, if only we would care to listen and be guided by the lessons of history. I fear that the political debate in Nigeria in 1998 sounds too much like it did in 1958. I fear that if care is not taken, the fourth republic will share the same fate as the first, founded as both are on questions of ethnic and regional politics rather than principles of social and political ethics.

Ever since I read SLS's many articles, I have vowed to develop the habit of reading widely in different fields. I want to be able to talk in the areas of history, philosophy,religion, politics, and of course in addition to my primary fields of Economics and Accounting. I want to sharpen my writing and analytical skills.

Call me a Sanusi wannabe, I totally agree.

POWER-SHIFT AND ROTATION: BETWEEN EMANCIPATION AND OBFUSCATION

By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

sanusis@ubaplc.com 


 

Since the deaths of General Abacha and Chief Abiola, political discourse in the country has been dominated by talk of a power-shift, rightly or wrongly defined as producing a president from somewhere below the rivers Niger and Benue, but at any rate south of Ilorin which though geographically in the South, is politically and historically a component of the Sokoto Caliphate courtesy of the Kakanfo Afonja who played into the hands of the Fulani Jihadist Alimi- in the early 19th century. 

There have been several arguments both for and against the principle of a rotational presidency, ranging from the sublime to the ridiculous. Being a topic loaded with a great deal of sentiment, politicians have been quick off the mark in positioning themselves as ethnic champions of rotation or of the status quo. As a consequence, Nigerian politics has become deprived of real issues leading to what at least one commentator has referred to as “the death of ideology”. Nigerian politicians are calling for a return to the First Republic, that long-forgotten era of tribal chieftains viciously attacking each other, fighting each other for their regions’ share of the nation’s depleting wealth rather than pooling human and material resources for the betterment of the nation.

The result is that the quality of political discourse has degenerated to the old level of calls for Oduduwa Republic and Biafra by another name. Although the old war horses are, in the main, dead, the next generation (which constitutes their supporters and goons) and which we all thought had had its turn in the Second Republic and was finished by the Third, has hijacked the mantle of leadership once more.

The experience of this country in the past decade or so but particularly the trauma and crises of the last five years seem to have had a lasting negative impact on our collective psyche. We seem to have allowed the “Abacha years” as they have come to be known, to block from our memory two centuries of Nigerian history, beginning from the links and contacts between the Sokoto caliphate and the kingdoms and tribes of the South, to colonial invasion, amalgamation, independence, civil war and successive periods of national pride and shame, hope and despair, success and failure. We have allowed our vision of this country to be shaped not by the dreams we had of a great, united country, which we hope to bequeath as a legacy to generations yet to come, but by the memory of a nightmare which is over. In a dawn full of promises and a ray of hope, we have resolutely pulled down the blinds preferring to remain in the darkness of suspicion and mutual mistrust. In this, Abacha, though dead, has earned a final victory. He has succeeded in reducing the best amongst us, the brightest of minds, to myopic, close-minded tribalists. In each part of the country, but particularly in the South-West and South –East, a small band of ethnic bigots seems to have assumed political leadership. The Awoists have manoevred their way back to political relevance in the South-West. Ojukwu has come out of political obscurity and Igbos have forgotten what he threw them into three decades ago only to run-away. He is becoming a hero once more. Perhaps in the North, soon, someone will raise the flag of Uthman Dan Fodio and call for a holy war against the ‘infidels’ of the South. So in the year 2000, Nigeria will be exactly where it was in 1960. Maybe another civil war will be fought and the whole process will run its course once more.     

Will no one raise the alarm before it is too late? Shall we ask, or rather, are we permitted, dear tribal chiefs, to ask, what is the sense in all this? How can people present as progress the pursuit of a path that will lead to political disintegration such as the world has seen in Lebanon, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Rwanda and Kosovo? Let us, if you please, address the issues on power shift and zoning. I shall argue in this paper that they are not the same thing, and are not even necessarily correlated.

For the sake of argument only, we will grant that the presidency is equivalent to power. It is a ridiculous dictum unless the president wishes to disobey the rule of law. In a democracy that works (even imperfectly) the president shall soon find that he can have no project sited, no ministers and advisers appointed, no ambassadors posted, no law promulgated without the support of the entire nation as represented by its elected legislature. But we shall assume all the same, that the presidency in a democratic system means power (of the sort wielded by say, Abacha).

The argument is that with the exception of the brief periods when Ironsi, Obasanjo and Shonekan headed the government, Nigeria has been ruled since independence by the “north”. The time has therefore come for a “southerner” to be the president since “northerners” have failed to move the country forward and are responsible for the nation’s failure

Several opponents of rotation have proffered arguments to counter the position of pro-zoning politicians. It is my opinion that these counter arguments so far lack merit and have not addressed the fundamental weaknesses in the arguments of the pro-rotationists. Some have argued that “northerners” have never ruled alone and every northern leader had many “southerners” in his government as allies. To this, one would reply that in every society and polity, the leader is held responsible for the conduct of his officials. His selection of lieutenants is based on his judgement and if he selects corrupt and bad advisers he can not absolve himself of responsibility for their actions.

Others have argued that the very idea of zoning or rotation is antithetical to democracy. Again, although this argument is intuitively strong, it has technical weaknesses. If the majority of Nigerians choose rotation then it is democratic. Besides, quota system is not exactly democratic and the north has benefited from it at least in some respects.

For me, the issues in the current debate are more fundamental.

The first is the question of whether at all zoning the presidency is necessary. If one good thing came out IBB’s jump-start then aborted transition, it was that it presented us with multiple and convincing examples that Nigerians have matured beyond the ethnic/tribal politics of the First and, to a lesser extent, Second Republic. In the SDP primaries running up to the first attempt at producing flagbearers, Olu Falae, Yoruba politician from the South-West, defeated Shehu ‘Yar Adua, Fulani aristocrat from Katsina, in Kano and Jigawa States. Shehu ‘Yar Adua, on the other hand, roundly defeated his  Yoruba opponents in Southwestern States. In June,1993 elections, M.K.O. Abiola defeated his opponent, Bashir Tofa in his home states, Kano and Jigawa nay, in his ward, Gandun Albassa. No one had to zone Abiola into Kano. No one needed to tell voters that he should be voted for because they felt he was less bad for Nigeria, for them, than Tofa. Now our politicians want to reward Nigerians by insulting their collective intelligence and urging them to return to the primitive era of tribalism.

The second issue is the formula for the rotation. Proponents of zoning are yet to agree on what formula to apply. Some say “North”and “South” Others want the nation zoned into six. Both of these matrices are purely geographical with the exception of the second, as it applies to the South-West and South-East. The citizens of the South-west, practically 100% of them, are Yoruba. Citizens of the South- East are Igbo. It is not by accident that in 1998, only two tribes still have tribal political organisations with an explicitly ethnic agenda – the Igbo (Ohaneze) and the Yoruba (Afenifere).

The presidency from the South-West means a Yoruba presidency. From the South-East it means an Igbo presidency. Citizens of those zones can then actually feel power has shifted to them if their zone wins. But would an Ijaw man feel the same if an Itsekiri or Bini or Asaba Igbo president emerged? Would a Tiv man feel the same if an Idoma or Ebira man emerged?  Would the Fulani of Yola feel he has power if a Bachama, Jukun or Mumuye emerged? Would the Babur feel that way if a Bobole or Kanuri won the presidency? If a Fulani or Hausa from Zaria city won, would the Kaje and Kataf feel they have power? The answer in each case is no.

The intent here is to show, in clear and simple terms, the futility of defining power, a social and political category that is only perceptible in its historico-political context, in terms of “zones”, which are a spatial category devoid in themselves of social and political character. Power does not “reside” in a geographical area called the “north” and can therefore not be “shifted” to the “south”. It is and has always been possessed by a class, or if you like a group or cabal whose defining characteristic is their ability to gain and retain control of the means of production, the means of persuasion and the means of coercion – a characteristic that gives them dominance and control over all the social beings living in the geographical area called Nigeria.

It was Chief Awolowo who called Nigeria a geographical expression. In a fundamental sense, and from a particular perspective, he may have been completely correct. But no less so are such expressions as “north” or “south” as we have shown, with the exception of “south-west” and “south-east” which are in reality not geographical expressions, but a craftily employed diversion aimed at obfuscating and camouflaging essentially ethnic and tribalistic agendas for the Yoruba and Igbo. This is why the Igbo and Yoruba are the most vociferous elements in the clamour for a power shift. It is also why the most tribalistic elements in the two camps, such as Ojukwu and Nzeribe on the one hand and Adesanya and his Afenifere on the other, have assumed the mantle of spokespersons and raised once more spectre of Biafra and the Oduduwa Republic. Finally it explains why the proponents of the “Power-Shift” to the south are not likely to be satisfied in a complete sense. The Yoruba will never accept that power has shifted to them because Ojukwu, Nzeribe or Ekwueme, for instance, has won the presidency. Nor are the Igbo ever going to consider power as finally shifting to them with Ige, Falae or Adesanya as president.

To claim that the “north” has “exploited” or “marginalised the south is linguistically incorrect and politically nonsensical. It is the equivalent of claiming that all or most of the human beings who are from the “north” possess or control the means of production, persuasion and coercion which are the source of power, while all or most of those in the South are dispossessed of these. Only the most hypocritical of analysts would pretend that he holds this to be even possibly true. A group made up of people hailing from different parts of this country controls these means to varying degrees and the vast majority of Nigerians, northerners and southerners, have been dispossessed and exploited by this group. What we have on the political stage today is an internal conflict among various subsystems of this class of oppressors, each trying to drag us into his camp by appealing to native instincts.

Balarabe Musa, respected PRP governor of Kaduna State, is credited with introducing a novel dimension to the argument. He says the “north” has not benefited from northern leaders and for that reason he supports “power-shift” to the “south”. The logic seems to be that those in power are more likely to promote the interests and development of regions other than their own. But if this is so, then why would the south now be clamouring for a power shift? The answer of course is that neither the “north”  nor the “south” has benefited from crooks in power. The solution  is for good people to struggle to replace these crooks in the interest of both the north and the south. The logical step for Balarabe Musa, a man known for his credibility, should be to seek power himself and try to emancipate the Nigerian Talakawa in the true spirit of NEPU and PRP. Instead he reduces the political struggle to tribalism. Balarabe Musa is intelligent. But geniuses, it seems, are not beyond occasional bouts of banality.

The whole charade about zoning and rotation  has provided a camouflage for discredited persons to gain acceptance. Even Abdul Rahman  Okene’s Northern Elders Forum which endorsed Abacha’s self –succession has joined the chorus, because it is a ‘safe’ issue. If corruption were an issue, many Second Republic governors who were convicted by the tribunals set up by Buhari for corruption would today be explaining to the voters why they should be voted in again. Governors convicted include some leaders of all major political parties including the AD.

If service to the nation were an issue, Ekwueme who was Vice-President, Lar, Rimi, Ige, Gana, Adamu Ciroma, Wole Soyinka, Olu Falae, Bamanga Tukur, Jubril Aminu, Nwobodo, Ani every one who was a minister, governor, head of parastatal or public servant would today be accounting to Nigerians and telling us what he did when he was there to justify his having a second chance.

But these are not the issues because these are not questions politicians want to answer. The issue is not one of emancipating any “zone” from marginalisation. It is one of emancipating politicians from these disturbing questions and providing them with a cloak in which to raise their shameless heads. If Karl Marx were alive, he would probably recognise tribalism, rather than religion, as the opiate of the Nigerian masses.

Let me stress that criticism of the ‘zoning’ argument does not constitute opposition to the emergence of a southern president. Perhaps the most appealing of arguments in favour of a southern president is that a certain perception which by accident or design, has come to pervade Nigerian politics needs to be addressed. It is the belief that some Nigerians can not aspire to the highest office of the land on account of their ethnic origin. This is a perception which all Nigerians are willing to correct. Northerners are willing to repeat their feat of electing a southerner in 1993. However, this is to be achieved through dialogue, campaigning and the normal political horse-trading not through blackmail or constitutional fiat. A forced situation creates a winner-loser scenario fraught with instability. Those struggling for a change through threats and blackmail are not looking for a sense of belonging. They are looking for a victory and, worse, retribution.

The president who emerges from an open democratic process will have the support of the majority of Nigerians. No one, from either north or south, can win a national election based on an ethnic or sectional agenda. The south currently enjoys a tremendous amount of goodwill. Only reciprocity and assurances that a southern president will be a president for all Nigerians are required for a southern president to emerge. Such a president would be a Nigerian president, his victory a victory for all Nigerians.

Zoning stresses differences between peoples, and is based on a principle of rivalry rather than cooperation. The signs are already very evident. Afenifere has been making strident calls for a South-West presidency. The argument is that Abiola was Yoruba and the nation owes it to the Yoruba that the next president should come from the zone. The Igbos believe it is their turn because they paid the highest price for justice in this country and have been marginalised for too long. The South-South has joined the call and believes it is its own turn because it produces the oil on which all other Nigerians have be parasiting for three decades.

Meanwhile the north looks on in complete fascination, amused by this comical spectacle of politicians whose very utterances give the lie to claims on the positive impact of zoning.

It is time to return to issues, to go back to ideology and to discuss principles. “Zoning” is a can of worms, its potential contribution to national unity dubious and its negative consequences unpredictable and unmanageable.

Thank you all.

THE “NORTHERN” CROSS IN NIGERIAN POLITICS: Ethnic bigotry and the subversion of democracy

By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

sanusis@ubaplc.com



Two experiences in my life, or rather, one experience gleaned from two incidents a year apart , made a profound impact on my mind and altered drastically my perception of Nigerian politics. Both incidents occurred about two decades ago in my early years at Ahmadu Bello University and my first real contact with national politics.

The first was in the 1977/78 session during the “Ali must go” riots. The Obasanjo government had announced its intention to partially withdraw subsidies from higher education, which would increase the cost to students of feeding and accommodation. Feeding cost in the dining halls would increase from 50k per day (for three square meals) to N1.50k per day. I do not recall the figures for hostel accommodation.

Southern universities led the call for resignation of Colonel Ali, the Education Minister. Northern universities were still looking up to A.B.U for leadership as all others were young and some had just metamorphosed from A.B.U Satellite Campuses to separate universities. Thus the Universities of Maiduguri, Sokoto, Jos and B.U.K were waiting for us to take the lead.

The dilemma for the students’ leadership was this: northern universities had a predominantly northern student body practically all of whom were on state government scholarships and would not be in any way affected by the policy. Southern universities, on the other hand were predominantly populated by students from the South who were paying their own bills and this increase would stretch parents' resources and force some of them out of the universities. The National Union of Nigerian Students (NUNS) led then by Segun Okeowo had the task of carrying ABU Students’ Union on a national protest over an issue that was of little direct consequence to the majority of its members.

I was then the youngest member of the Students’ Representative Assembly (SRA) or students’ parliament. The debate went on and on into the morning hours with the parliament divided. Okeowo and his PRO, Nick Fadugba, had come to Zaria to lobby. I strongly endorsed the boycott of the lectures and forcefully spoke on the need for ABU to rise above ethnic sentiments and fight the cause of Nigerian Students. Fresh from the nation’s premier Unity School (King’s College) I was convinced that one Nigerian was not different from the other and that ethnic considerations were backward and reactionary.

We won the debate, northern students joined the boycott, a number of A.B.U. students were shot, wounded and killed, and the rest is now history. But we were up to that point proud of ourselves and what we had done, even though it was condemned by Northern elders.

The second and final component of the experience happened one year later, during the JAMB crisis. The genesis was the publication on the front page of the New Nigerian Newspaper of a histogram showing the distribution of the students admitted into Nigerian Universities for the first time by JAMB. There were 19 States in the Federation then, 9 of them in the South. Eight of the Southern States took the top eight positions in the ranking followed by Kwara and then Cross River, the final southern state. The States of the north other than Kwara took the last nine positions. Bendel State alone had more students admitted than the ten northern states combined. Northern students were alarmed.

The understanding was that part of JAMB’s mandate was to help bridge the educational gap in the country and promote national integration. It was clear that the skewed admission would only widen the gap. Moreover, northern students were not taken into southern universities who refused to recognise the IJMB, while southern students filled northern universities. We tried to have a national protest.

Delegates sent from A B U to the universities in the South were evaded and the only courteous response came from the University of Calabar. The problem divided the students’ body and southern universities made it clear it was a northern problem. The boycotts took on a regional character as northern universities ended up closed. To add insult to injury, the Students’ Unions at UNILAG and UNIFE actually issued statements supporting the military junta and condemning the protests. The exercise was to be seen as the enthronement of merit over mediocrity and the government was urged to make sure that half-baked school-leavers should not fill our universities.

For many of us who just one year earlier had championed a southern cause, the experience was traumatic. It confirmed the warnings of all those who considered us naïve in our struggle for national unity. But worse, this experience has not remained on isolated item but an example of incidents and attitudes with which our political history is replete.

It seems that the failure of the Nigeria opposition can in the main be traced to this inordinate fear, contempt and resentment for the ‘north’, feelings that are borne primarily out of ignorance and misunderstanding. An issue that concerns the north is seen as purely parochial while one that affects the south is a national question. The Nigerian opposition, by failing to rise beyond their desire for an ethnocracy has denied the people of this country of an opportunity to forge a truly democratic opposition.

When in 1992 the electoral process seemed certain to produce two northern presidential candidates, the opposition press raised alarm at what it called northern designs to present the country with a faits accomplis. Politicians snowballed the process and played straight into the hands of Babangida. The illegal cancellation of the primaries and the banning of the politicians in violation of existing electoral law were not condemned by most of those now calling themselves democrats. It was only the annulment of June 12, 1993 which involved a southern politician that was viewed as a travesty of democracy.

Let me state for the avoidance of doubt that I condemn the annulment of the June 12 election. But I also condemn the annulment of the primaries in 1992. And I also condemn the coups d’etat which overthrew Shagari’s democratically elected government. The difference between the democrats and the ethnocrats does not lie in whether or not June 12 should have been anulled, but in whether June 12 was an issue at par with all travesties of democracy, or a special case because of the ethnic pedigrees of the victim.

M.K.O. Abiola was elected by all Nigerians. He won the election in Kano and Jigawa, defeating Tofa, the so–called son of the soil. The dissolution of that election was a violation of the rights of all Nigerians who voted to freely choose their leader. The action was that of an individual who wanted to remain in power at all cost.

Why did Abiola accuse the “ north” of stopping him? Why does the opposition attack the same “north” that voted for Abiola? Why has Abiola, a man seen by all Nigerians as one of them, suddenly been transformed into a “southerner” on the landscape of political action? How much justice do we do ourselves if we expect the north to lead the fight for June 12 in the face of what it sees as a betrayal?

The result of defining June 12 in tribal terms was the transformation of previous allies of Abiola into allies of the military or at best, passive by-standers. Key supporters joined the Military Junta. Many of these could claim, in good conscience, that hey did not betray MKO or democracy. They had simply abandoned a cause which had been hijacked and derailed. Abiola before and up to June 12 was the leader of a broad-based nationalistic front about to take over from a military dictatorship. After June 12, the cause had been hijacked by “ethnocrats” who had always seen Abiola not in terms of what he may have had to offer the nation but in terms of where he was from and what he, in their view, represented: A chance to get rid of northern leaders. In this, Abiola’s greatest enemies are those who claim to be his friends, people who contributed nothing to his campaign and had always mistrusted him because of his detribalised outlook.

Sadly, the lesson has not been learnt. Tunji Braithwaite recently joined the race for the nation’s presidency and lost the election on the first day by defining his agenda in anti-northern terms. It was a sad day for us, northerners who welcomed his declaration for politics and hoped to rally behind him or M D Yusuf or any other serious candidate with the capacity to make self-succession for the military a difficult, if not impossible task. A few days after Braithwaite’s press conference, Arthur Nwankwo, a prolific writer, dismissed M D Yusuf’s candidacy on the pages of This Day Newspaper. Nwankwo was not the first to do this but his primary reason seems to be that M. D. Yusuf is from the North, and that a northern candidate is unacceptable to Nigerians.

The likes of Braithwaite and Nwankwo will again play directly into the hands of Abacha. The opposition will always fail unless it transcends the fight for ethnic ascendancy and fights for enthronement of the people’s rights and defence of their liberties. The greatest shortcoming of the political philosophy of the opposition lies in the redefinition of democracy to mean the emergence of a southern president. In this, the philosophy is no different from that of the northern bigots who believe only northerners should rule the country.

For northerners who want democracy, the fight is a two–pronged one: Against so-called elders who out of selfish interests subvert the will of the people and falsely claim to speak for us, and against those who would make all northerners carry a cross that is not their own and answer for the deeds which they condemn and leaders whom they reject.

Ethnocracy as an ideology pitches the northerner against the southerner

Democracy pitches us all against dictatorship and violation of human rights.

M. D YUSUF AND ABACHA :Between Complicity And Confrontation

By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

sanusis@ubaplc.com

At some point in the life of a great individual, he takes a small step, or so it seems, which ends up as a turning point not only in his life, but in the historical development of an entire people. Without exaggerating and mystifying the significance and implications of the candidacy of M. D. Yusuf, Katsina Prince and former Inspector General of Police, it is still indisputable that the implications of the candidacy for the country’s political development are far deeper and more profound than he may have imagined. The decision to plunge into the jungle of Nigerian politics, borne out of a personal conviction, has become a burden on the quiet mystic, by constituting a ray of hope piercing through the darkness of our collective despair. Like all hopes , this one would be either fulfilled or dashed, and the one result, or the other , will decide the fate of M. D. Yusuf in the book of this nation’s history - that of a hero or a villain, a true leader or a pretender. It is in this , in being the bearer of the hopes of millions, that the burden lies on this old man.

The fulfilment of this dream does not lie in M. D. Yusuf winning the presidential election. Indeed few people give him or , for that matter , anyone a chance of doing that against an incumbent determined to exploit all the resources under his control ( and which rightfully belong to all Nigerians) to ensure the attainment of his own goals.

Its fulfilment lies , rather, in this being an honest, focused and committed campaign, that expresses on the platform of political discourse and public opinion the desires and yearnings of the voiceless majority of Nigerians. Its fulfilment lies in the emergence of one man, just one man, from amongst many whose voices would be heard, who chooses to speak not with the voice of sycophancy and hypocrisy but with that of patriotism and sincerity . Its fulfilment lies in its being made known to one and all that the voice of reason and politics of principle have not been stamped out in an era of political dictatorship.

In this, the fulfilment of this dream is akin to its fulfilment in the campaign of late Shehu Yar Adua, M. D. Yusuf’s colleague and relation from Katsina. It did not matter that he never became president. He succeeded in building that bridge across the Niger and in leading a political movement with a definite and responsible ideological coloration, concrete enough to be considered a threat to the powers- that- be. Even his death at the hands of his persecutors represented, ironically, the ultimate fulfilment of that dream, by graphically bringing to the forefront the cruelty and inhumanity of the system he was committed to supplanting.

It is in the significance of the need to carry on with this struggle that the real danger lies in M.D. Yusuf’s campaign. In the final analysis, his political program can only have real value if it represents a real alternative to the current system. He will have to carry that torch which the forces of darkness thought extinguished with the death of Yar Adua. He will have to light for them their own faces, and hold a mirror before their eyes, that they may see the extent of their own depravity. They will not like what they see, but, incapable of changing, they will try to blow out the torch or break the mirror. But let them tarry a while in their false comfort, soon another knight emerges, raising the torch aloft and holding a fresh mirror for them to see themselves in an even more degenerate and distasteful state.

M.D. Yusuf started his campaign with a limited objective, that of inviting other politicians to join the parties and contest the elections. It seems his genuine intention was to withdraw from the scene on achieving this limited objective. At this point, to most observers, the ultimate aim of his campaign seemed to be in the service of the junta by giving its transition programme some element of credibility, and ultimately creating the impression that the incumbent won a keenly contested, free and fair election. The participation of politicians would give the lie to the theory of a muzzled opposition. This perception of the campaign was reinforced by a general feeling that he has remained too close to the administration for him to represent a credible opposition.

What ever may be said about this initial limited objective, it seems that M.D. Yusuf has so far failed in achieving it. Front-line politicians have refused to join the race. Paradoxically, they seem to be lining-up behind M. D. as the alternative to Abacha. The dark horse has become a front-runner in the opposition. The campaign has taken a life of its own and its dynamics seem beyond the initial plan of its prime mover. Perhaps no words express the change in scenario as MD’s own words in a newspaper interview: “ if Abacha asked me to run then he has made the greatest mistake of his life. Because if he contests I will defeat him”. The exposure M.D. Yusuf has had in the print and electronic media has stirred the interest of Nigerians who now dare to hope that all is not lost. Unlike Braithwaite who is viewed as something of a comedian and opportunist, M. D. Yusuf is seen as too serious and responsible to take such a matter lightly. Nigerians are further impressed by his impeccable record of public service, a refreshing prospect in an environment filled with corruption. Finally, it seems that his aristocratic background serves as a magnet for revolutionary support. The history of revolutionary leadership the world over is replete with carpet-crossers , born into privilege but with the honour to fight the cause of the oppressed. Vladimir Lenin and Fidel Castro are but two examples. In the contemporary political history of Nigeria, the Fulani aristocratic classes have produced some of the most prominent revolutionary theorist and politicians . Kano and Katsina have been most prominent in this. Murtala Mohammed and Aminu Kano from the Kano aristocracy; Shehu Yar Adua and now M. D. Yusuf from the Katsina aristocracy; And of course the indefatigable ideologue of northern radicalism, Dr. Yusuf Bala Usman, whose paternal grand father was the Emir of Katsina and maternal grand father was the Emir of Kano.

At a time when the political landscape is filled with pro-Abacha campaigners and fence-sitters, it is therefore not surprising, given these antecedents, that Nigerians see in M D Yusuf’s campaign a voice for the masses , and a struggle against oppression, corruption and injustice. They have seen other leaders of theirs emasculated, framed - up, jailed , murdered, assassinated or compromised. Every time one is cut down , God raises up for them another . Now they dare to hope in M. D. Yusuf. The question is : IS THAT HOPE MISPLACED ?

The consensus of public opinion seems to rest on one reality: That for the purpose of the upcoming presidential elections , Nigerians for now acknowledge the existence of only two contestants: Sani Abacha and M. D. Yusuf. Yet a peculiar feature of M. D. Yusuf.’s campaign to date is his refusal to assume the mantle of an opposition candidate to Abacha, refusing to acknowledge Abacha as an opponent because Abacha himself has not announced it. This may very well be an astute political strategy to avoid emasculation of a budding campaign machinery. If however, it is a statement of fact, then one must be excused for finding it naïve and simplistic. To almost all observers, Abacha is already in the campaign. Abacha’s administrators receive pro- Abacha groups all over the country. Infants( who call themselves youth) are sponsored to call for Abacha and arrange rallies and are given audience in the highest quarters and unlimited access to government media coverage. Abacha’s right-hand man trusted friend and accomplice, Jerry Useni, is chairman of the forum of miserable, incurable sycophants called Traditional Rulers who have recently made a public call to Abacha to contest. By refusing to recognise these developments for what they are and acknowledge that he is in fact running against Abacha , M. D. Yusuf treads a dangerous path that may cost him his personal credibility.

By jumping into the political fray, M. D. Yusuf has lost every right to sit on the fence. No serious participant in Nigerian Politics can run away from being either pro- or anti Abacha. This is because the contest is for votes, and few voters are ambivalent about Abacha.

The reason for this is that irrespective of one’s view of Abacha, it is indisputable that he is a decisive, determined and committed leader, who has shown a ruthless willingness for the pursuit of his own agenda. A leader like this ( like J. F. Kennedy ), you either love or hate. The Nigerian voters are divided into two and it is a great divide: Those who are fanatically pro - Abacha to the point of adulation for him and those ( among whom the present writer proudly counts himself) who have nothing but contempt for the man and his primitive tactics and little respect for his intelligence , character and disposition.

Of the first group we have seen and heard a lot. The group includes top government functionaries, and sycophants like the traditional rulers who visited Aso Rock recently. A large portion of this group actually pretends to love Abacha because it pays to do so. As one listens to the Sultan of Sokoto extolling the leadership of Abacha and arguing that he is the best material for leadership of this country, one could nor help thinking of the qualities of a leader enumerated by Uthman Dan Fodio in his magnum opus: BAYAN WUJUB AL-HIJRA. Sheikh Uthman must be turning in his grave to see his descendant and flag bearer of the Caliphate reduced to such a level of sycophancy as to pervert all the principles for which the Jihad was carried out. The sultan knew, in his heart that those words were not sincere. As did every one else apart from , perhaps Abacha. One recalls the foolish King Lear: ( in Shakespeare’s tragedy) who rejected his daughter Cordelia and divided his kingdom between his two elder daughters Goneril and Regan based on their ability to tell him in sweet language how much they loved him. That reliance on the sweet words of greedy sycophants led to avoidable betrayal, tragedy and death for all. Abacha would do well to bear in mind the lesson of that foolish king as he accepts the “challenge” of his own appropriately costumed court-jesters.

As for the second group, their opposition to the regime is borne of deep-rooted political and moral principle. We do not mean here those whose opposition is founded on ethnocentric and religious bigotry. We mean the large number of Nigerians who see in this regime the glorification of corruption in our society. Those who see a lack of respect for human life and liberty, and how individuals and their wives and children have turned government into some kind of family business.

Nigeria is the only country in the world where the Finance Minister can publicly announce that billions of Naira released to the Oil ministry for work on refineries were squandered and then nothing happens. If the Finance Minister was lying, he should have gone. If he was speaking the truth the Oil Minister should have gone. Both of them retained their portfolios in spite of the inescapable fact that either the Finance Minister is congenital liar or the Petroleum Minister is a thief. It is a leader who maintains these two in his cabinet that the Sultan credit with a commitment to transparent honesty.

Nigeria is the only country where the president’s son can take his girl- friend and party-boys on private trips in the presidential jet until nemesis catches up with them and no eyebrows are raised. Instead mosques are built in their honour and services held in ever-loving memory.

Nigeria is the only country where a political prisoner , any political prisoner , not to talk of a former General and No 2 Citizen , can die in prison custody without the government finding it necessary or even appropriate to offer an explanation.

Nigeria is the only country where the Head of State can voluntarily address the Nation on key issues like release of political prisoners or implementation of the budget and proceed without honouring his word.

Nigerians are in a stage of siege . They have been traumatised and physically and psychologically brutalised. They have lost their sense of self -esteem.

It is not surprising that they feel insulted and insist that Traditional Rulers who claim that the incumbent is the best candidate for the presidency speak for themselves and not the people.

Abacha and his supporters are quick to point out his achievements, which make him qualified to continue as a civilian president. Prime among these , is that he saved the country from disintegration. Some would even suggest that, were Abacha to hand over power, the country’s fragile unity which he is holding-up would break down( one shudders to think what would happen to Nigeria if he were to die a natural death or from his cirrhosis of the liver).

This claim, were it not so often repeated and believed, would be laughable . Abacha was the No 2 man in the regime which dissolved an election in which Nigerians freely expressed their choice of a president, an act which plunged the country into a major crisis. Now in solving a problem which he created, Abacha expects gratitude from Nigerians. Every time Abacha points to the state the Nation was in when took over power , he is in fact pointing to the state he and Babangida brought the Nation to. It is the proverbial case of a man pointing to another with one finger, forgetting that his three other fingers were actually pointed at himself.

It is also said that by setting up failed banks tribunals Abacha had confronted corruption. These tribunals, in spite of their positive sides which none would deny, have also been associated with the incarceration and unjust castigation of innocent citizens, in detention for extended periods without trial and in slow rate of conviction and recovery of public funds. Besides, Abacha find it convenient to ignore alleged wide-spread corruption in the Ministry of Petroleum , Ministry of Defence, FSP and the Presidency, as well as allegations that certain public officers and their relations who died in sudden and tragic circumstances had amassed unbelievable wealth from government coffers.

Abacha also claims to have brought inflation under control. This has been achieved by strangulating the economy and simply refusing to spend even on those things that have been budgeted for. If economic management was so simple there would be no inflation in the world. By refusing to pay its debts and provide services the government can proudly point to low inflation and high reserve figures. These figures are but a celebration of inactivity.

If it pleases Abacha , he may believe that he has major achievements. Even if these were genuine , they would pale into insignificance when viewed against the reality that Nigerians have been stripped of their dignity and their value- system has been gradually eroded. Traditional rulers, long-viewed as the custodians of that value-system have sold their conscience for 5% of L. G. A Statutory Allocations ( their twenty pieces of silver).

When M. D. Yusuf , honest, experienced , serious public servant stepped into the fray , Nigerians felt they had found their voice. The choice before M. D. Yusuf as he jumps into the ring with Abacha is a clear and simple one : Complicity or Confrontation.

If , like traditional rulers of today , he sees in Abacha the messiah for this country, the honourable thing is for him to withdraw and join the chorus. If , like his forebears , he detests what he sees the courageous thing is to confront Abacha on the level of politics and an ideology founded on good conscience , ready to fight to the finish.

M.D. Yusuf can not run away from making this choice . he may delay it a little by avoiding the reality of an Abacha candidacy but inevitably Nigerians would know if he is a hero or a villain , a true leader or a pretender.

When he finally does make that choice we pray for his sake and that of the nation that he makes the correct one and marks out for himself a place along side our heroes , dead and alive : Aminu Kano , Murtala Mohammed , Shehu Yar Adua , Bala Usman and Gani Fawehinmi, among others.

The following words from the Old School Song of King’s College are quite instructive:

“ Others went before you

and attained the light

Where they wait to cheer you

victors in the fight.”

Jarus

I think you should spend more time educating Sanusi and getting him to talk less than trying to educate the rest of us.

Lets limit this to economics and it will benefit the rest of us, Sanusi's view of politics is of no use to me

a man 'who thinks Northerners are justified not to accept secularity because in his view securality is a christain concept' should never be taken seriously in a country that wants to make progress.

Sanusi is yet to tell us what version of the bible talks about secularity. Or is it the case that because secularity gives you freedom to lead any life of your choice regardless of whatever religion you choose then its christain.

If  to have freedom of choice is christain and must be forbiden then someone needs to explain to me what Islam is all about and why Sanusi thinks its clever to make this point.

only God knows how a country of roughly 50% christain and 50% Muslim can co-exist? Some people think we still live in the age of Uthman Dan Fodio.

Like I said its ridiculous to get into this debate, lets stick to economics and see if we can rescue our Nation from the brink.

RELIGION, THE CABINET AND A POLITICAL ECONOMY OF THE ‘NORTH’

By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

sanusis@ubaplc.com


Newspaper reports these days are full of stories about the unease of the ‘North’ occasioned by General Obasanjo’s recent appointments and nominations. These are seen to be, at least numerically speaking, in favour of Christians. The names of the ‘prominent northern politicians’ who expressed their displeasure are usually not given, at their instance. This, of course, is understandable since they stand to gain most from the pre-emptive hysteria, which is the object of these stories, and their chances are hardly likely to brighten if their identities were known. It is however presumed, from the nature of the complaints, that the aggrieved party is the ‘ Muslim-north’, that gargantuan monolith which is also sometimes referred to by that dubious and questionable referent of a non-existent composite ethnic-group, the ‘Hausa-Fulani’.

About one decade ago, the ‘north’ was also uneasy about Ibrahim Babangida’s cabinet reshuffle, which swept out the so-called ‘Langtang Mafia’. Then, the aggrieved party was the ‘Christian north’, that unwieldy amalgamation of tiny ethnic groups with historical grievances against the dominant and hegemonic Caliphate. In the parlance of northern politics, the ‘Christian north’ is synonymous with the ‘middle belt’. A Muslim from Ilorin is not a ‘middle-belter’ but a ‘Hausa-Fulani’. A Hausa Christian from Kaduna or Zaria is a ‘middle–belter’. The ‘middle-belt’ is therefore a stormy territory of religious tension, the arena in which two religions face down each other, instigated by ‘ religious leaders’ who are always willing to play the ‘religion’ card to achieve selfish goals. When the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) northern branch arranged its demonstrations in Kaduna, Yola, Bauchi and Jos to protest Babangida’s alleged attempts at ‘Islamizing’ the Federal cabinet, it ran into a quagmire of internal squabbles, with the Christian Birom of Jos and the Christian Tiv of Benue unable to support the protests since their sons had been major beneficiaries of the changes.

It is important to open our discourse with this trip through history for two reasons. First, it is to be noted that this obsession with the professed faith of public officers is a peculiarly northern phenomenon. In other parts of the country, such as Yorubaland, differences between individuals revolve around more fundamental issues, such as ideology and programmes. It is easy for northerners, Muslims and Christians, to dismiss this as evidence of the chronic tribalism of the Yoruba, who place a higher premium on ethnic identity than religious affiliation. This may well be true, although I find it simplistic. Whatever the case, it does not negate the fact that the religious tolerance shown by the Yoruba has created an environment of peaceful coexistence, and that the Yoruba are able to maintain a unified front on national issues such as June 12 and a ‘south-west’ presidency. The north, on the other hand, remains fractionalised and weakened with its citizens living in constant mistrust and fear of one another.  While other parts of the country make progress in education and the development of human capital the northerner remains pitifully backward and a veritable parasite. I will return to this point.

The second reason for our trip is to establish that this intolerant and sectarian attitude cuts across the northern religious divide. It would be a travesty of truth to infer, from current developments, that this ‘unease’ is a specifically ‘Islamic’ or ‘ Muslim’ phenomenon, or to attribute it to some imaginary ‘Islamic fundamentalists’ or ‘fanatics’. To do so would be to lose sight of the real nature of the northern political economy, which is that there are, in reality, two norths: The north of the poor, oppressed, illiterate and deprived masses (Christian and Muslim) and the north of the so-called religious and political leaders, members of the establishment who grow fat on the state machinery, and who are willing to play the ‘religion’ card at any point, willing to create mistrust and hatred, willing to unleash sections of the ‘poor north’ against each other, to shed blood, to burn places of worship, in the name of Allah and to the glory of the Lord Jesus. This reality has been craftily replaced with an illusory duality, one of a Muslim north Vs. Christian North, or Hausa-Fulani Vs. minorities. Again I will return to this point.

That issues have come to this state is partly attributable to a patent lack of political education. Due to illiteracy of the masses and their manipulation by the dominant hegemony, the northern people are yet to comprehend the nature of the state, which is, as aptly described by Gramsci, ‘ the entire complex of practical and theoretical activities with which the ruling class not only justifies and maintains its dominance but manages to win the active consent of those over whom it rules.’ Through a dialectical interaction between structure and superstructure, between the objective and the subjective, a form of consciousness is diffused through the mediation of agents of ideological control to the extent that it has become part of the ‘common-sense’ of the northern masses. By manipulating the intoxicating agency of religion, the dominant classes have been able to create a contingent, socially constructed form of correspondence between essentially contradictory economic and political regions of the northern social formation. Consequently, the poor peasant farmer in Zaria, condemned to life-long penury by the circumstances of his birth, the inadequacy of his education and the deprived state of his general existence, feels a stronger bond with and affinity for his rich, capitalist emir than his fellow farmer in Wusasa. Similarly, the poor Christian peasant in Zangon-Kataf is willing to kill, maim and destroy his poor Muslim neighbour on the orders of a retired general who was, and remains, part and parcel of the oppressive establishment.

This anti–reductionist emphasis on the specificity of the ‘popular-Islamic’ or ‘popular- Christian’ in contradistinction to class demands and struggle, has enabled the dominant northern classes, Muslim and Christian, to appropriate under their respective wings the so-called ‘Hausa-Fulani’ and ‘middle-belters’, as instruments in what, ultimately, is competition and struggle among various class-fractions of the bourgeoisie with the state as the principal arena. Viewed in this light, the northerner is in a pitiful state, crying for a saviour he does not know. Only education of the northerner, and upliftment of his consciousness, will provide him with the requisite power of introspection through which the nonsensicality of his common sense can become apparent. Only then will it occur to him that although Babangida, Abacha and Abubakar were Muslims, and although Useni, Shagaya, Mark, Bamaiyi and Dogonyaro were Christians, the rising social pofiles and increased personal opulence of these members of the establishment was accompanied by the continued impoverishment, ill-health, and deprivation of the Muslim and Christian masses. Only then will he wonder where his emir obtains his fancy limousines and well-fed horses, where his church gets its millions, where his pastor finds his wealth when the school to which his child goes is empty and teachers are not paid, when there are no drugs in the government hospitals, when he can not afford one square meal a day. Only then would it dawn on him that the issue is not one of Islam Vs. Christianity, but of competing vested political interests in which he has no stake. He can never be a minister even if there were one hundred ministers from his faith. Nor would his son be one. He fights and is willing to die in the name of Islam or Christianity, only to facilitate access of some lurking and predatory kleptomaniac to the Federal treasury, whose license to this access is his capacity for the manipulation of religious symbols and effective use of slogans and other tools of opportunistic propaganda.

Let me emphasise, as a pre-emptive stroke aimed at avoiding misconception, misconstruction or misrepresentation that my objection to the anti-reductionist and opportunistic ideology of sectarianism does not translate into an attack on religion, per se . It also does not posit the intellectually insupportable postulate that all religions are the same and that we could somehow wish away the fundamental differences in doctrine and character between Islam and Christianity. I do not claim that the distinction between Muslims and Christians can disappear, nor do I even consider it a feasible or necessary objective. Being neither an agnostic secularist nor materialist atheist I do not propose that an ‘iron curtain’ can or should be placed between religion and state. Indeed such issues like the Shari’ah should remain the subject of continuous dialogue until the limits of the State are clearly defined and citizens are not compelled by a constitution drafted by politicians to subject themselves to laws which run counter to their religious injunctions and thus negate the principles of religious freedom. This, I believe as a Muslim. I also believe that in all future discussions and constitutional provisions for a restructured Federation, religious pluralism and its cultural and legal implications can not be indefinitely ignored.

However, the religions of Islam and Christianity, as I understand them, show a remarkable confluence in the political realm enjoining adherents to strive for honesty, justice, and compassion for the poor, which together make for a good government. In consequence, a government run by a good Muslim or a good Christian and a cabinet made up of good Muslims and Christians should impact favourably on the material and temporal existence of all citizens and should therefore command universal support. The correspondence between the ‘masses’ and the ‘establishment’ under such a dispensation is established on foundations of a commonality of interest and exists not because, but in spite of secondary contradictions in the realm of faith and doctrine.

There is no doubt that no one would claim, with seriousness, that Abacha, Gwarzo, Sabo and El-Mustapha were good examples of the quintessential Muslim leader. The argument that the ‘Islamic’ or ‘Muslim’ interest is always best served by persons who claim to be Muslims without reference to character and integrity therefore has implications that may put to question the right of the holder of such views to claim adherence to the very faith he seeks to promote. The same goes for Christians. Their masses should therefore not be carried away and celebrate a cabinet strictly on the basis of the number of nominated Christians.

Classical Marxism holds the premise that  ‘ the base determines the superstructure’. Subsequent developments, especially by neo-Marxists like Gramsci, Althuser, and Poulantzas have amended this to infer that ‘ the base determines what forms the superstructure can take’. This dimension to political thought is relevant to the understanding of our present predicament. The Nigerian constitution in as far as the cabinet is concerned, specifies ‘ Federal Character’ as representation from all states of the Federation. In terms of religion, one would expect it to be very difficult for a Muslim minister to emerge from the South-South or South- East. It is equally difficult for a Christian minister to emerge from the North-West or the North-East which represent the erstwhile Sokoto Caliphate and Borno empire.  The balance is usually tilted  from selection from the  religiously pluralistic zones of South-West and North-Central. In theory, the president can, without violating the constitution select all ministers from these zones from one religion. It seems this is what practically happened in the present dispensation. The question is , in what way are Muslims or Christians helped by corrupt and incompetent officers selected on the basis of religious  considerations? In what way  would a cabinet composed of thirty Christian thieves be better for the Christian masses than one made up of thirty Muslim thieves?      

As we examine  Obasanjo’s ministerial list , therefore, let us scrutinize each of those  names for correspondence between his/her world-view, character and capabilities and what  is deeply required by our  popular masses: peace , stability, economic empowerment, freedom and progress. Any one found wanting should by all means be rejected. Our recent history  has shown that Islam is not necessarily better-served by Muslim Leaders, unless they are good Muslims. The arrests, detention and extra –judicial executions  of Muslim Brothers by Abacha’s government are well-known to us. The humiliation of the Sultanate and the removal of  the Sultan based on  false charges are known to us.  The arrest and death in detention of prominent sons of Islam like Shehu ‘ Yar Adua  (President of Islam in Africa Organisation) and Moshood Abiola (Baba Adinni of Yorubaland) are known to us. All  of these crimes, in addition to wanton stealing, breach of trust, abuse of office, nepotism and gross violation of human rights were perpetrated by a Muslim Head of State working with Muslim Officers in charge of his security apparatus. Should Muslims forget so soon, and have a nostalgia for that period of darkness and collective despair?

True, Obasanjo should have done a little better by showing some more sensitivity to the religious diversity of the middle-belt. Not doing this was bad politics. However, the net result is the eclipse of one section of the bourgeoisie by another. What the poor northerner (Muslim or Christian) wants is a programme, a policy that addresses his plight. He really could not care less who is implementing it. Indeed, Obasanjo may finally liberate the northern masses from the shackles of subservience. What is important is that those in government remember the trust reposed in them. They must remember that their constituency is Nigeria, not their religions. They must remember that, Christian or Muslim, they will be called to account by the God they profess to believe in.

Obasanjo’s prestidigitation may have shocked his northern political allies. The establishment may be uneasy, but the masses are not. Sadly, they can be taught unease, and used as destabilising agents by those who live off sectarian acrimony. The only protection against this is good government, and the sense that their conditions are improving. That, ultimately, is the final test.

As for politicians of the Muslim north, if they genuinely believed that with a Southern president, it would remain, for them, business-as-usual, then ( it must be admitted) they have long been given more credit for their intellect than they deserved. The decision to willingly cede the presidency to the south and promote the candidacy of Obasanjo came with certain obvious sacrifices. Politicians took the decision without consulting the ‘poor north’. They must not call upon the ‘poor north’ to fight their war for them. Wake up, elders! You have lost it.

mikeansy:

Jarus

I think you should spend more time educating Sanusi and getting him to talk less than trying to educate the rest of us.

Lets limit this to economics and it will benefit the rest of us, Sanusi's view of politics is of no use to me

a man 'who thinks Northerners are justified not to accept secularity because in his view securality is a christain concept' should never be taken seriously in a country that wants to make progress.

Sanusi is yet to tell us what version of the bible talks about secularity. Or is it the case that because secularity gives you freedom to lead any life of your choice regardless of whatever religion you choose then its christain.

If to have freedom of choice is christain and must be forbiden then someone needs to explain to me what Islam is all about and why Sanusi thinks its clever to make this point.

Like I said its ridiculous to get into this debate, lets stick to economics and see if we can rescue our Nation from the brink.

Mike, here we come again. In fact, I had vowed I was done with Sanusi debate on NL before but this thread just reignited my interest.
This thread is not about Sanusi's current actions, his banking reforms, it's purely an expose on Sanusi's mind as far as political thought is concerned.

We have already overdiscussed the Economics and political economy of Sanusi as CBN governor in many threads. This is Sanusi as a public affairs commentator.

ok let us do public affairs

what do you make of a man who thinks the North is justified to reject the secular nature of Nigeria?

Dialogue with a Critic
By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

sanusis@ubaplc.com

[LAGOS, NIGERIA]

January 31 2001

 

Mr. Critic: " Mallam Sanusi, why are you so controversial?"

Me: "Not  knowing what you mean, I am unable to answer."

Mr. Critic: "Of course you know what I mean.  Sometime ago, you wrote a Fulani article in which you said Igbos had no culture."

Me: "I said no such thing.  I said the political structures in Igboland at the time of arrival  of the colonialist were  udimentary in comparison with the Sokoto Caliphate and  Yoruba Kingdoms."

Mr. Critic:  "You see what I mean!  How could you say such a thing? For six weeks Igbos were up in arms in the Newspapers. You almost started a second Biafran war.  But that is not even the issue now."

Me: "Really! What is the matter on hand?"

Mr. Critic: "Look, it is one thing to attack Igbos, another to attack your own people."

Me:"Who did I attack now?"

Mr. Critic: "Stop pretending.  Your article on Faseun was an insult to the north.  Uncle W has already said you support genocide."

Me: "Uncle W did not mention my name.  He was referring to somebody else."

Mr. Critic: "Tell that to the birds.  Everyone knows he was talking back to you and you deserved it.  He was even soft on you.  How could you say the killing of northerners in Lagos was identical to the retaliatory killings of Yorubas in Kano."

Me: "I did not say they were identical.  I said they were similar?"

Mr. Critic: "You talk too much English.  Identical, similar, same difference."

Me: "The presence of certain common features is one thing.  The absence of all difference is another."

Mr. Critic: "Oyingbo! So tell me, in what sense are they similar?"

Me: "In the sense that many innocent Nigerian lives were taken, that the State could not protect those lives and that no one was brought to Justice at the end of the day."

Mr. Critic: "I see.  Do you believe that the killing of northerners by OPC vandals is an attempt at ethnic cleansing?"

Me: "I do."

Mr. Critic: "Do you agree that the murder of the Hausa woman in Shagamu for seeing Oro was barbaric?"

Me: "I do."

Mr. Critic: "Do you believe the killing of Yorubas in Kano was retaliatory?"

Me: "I do."

Mr. Critic: "Stop being sarcastic."

Me: "I am not.  I sincerely believe these things and have written that in my articles.  Read my Afonja article, or my Restructuring paper and you will see.  However…."

Mr. Critic: "Now what?"

Me: "I am honest enough to admit that my views are subjective, and reflect my identity as a Muslim, Fulani Northerner."

Mr. Critic: "How is that?"

Me: "Take the woman in Shagamu.  A Yoruba man is likely to believe she deserved to be killed for seeing Oro.  The cult would have killed her even if she was Yoruba."

Mr. Critic: "But is that not barbaric?"

Me: "Let me ask you a question.  If a Christian in Maiduguri defecated on the Qur'an what would the indegenes do?"

Mr. Critic: "Probably sever his head, deservingly so!"

Me: "Christians would think that  barbaric.  While you see the murder of Yorubas in Kano as an excusable retaliation for the murder of Hausas in Shagamu, the Yorubas see it as a callous and unjustifiable attack on innocent citizens because the people of Shagamu defended the integrity of their culture.  It is a matter of opinion."

Mr. Critic: "I see your point.  But does that mean motives do not matter?"

Me: "They do but in these cases they can not be established because we can not be objective.  Even if we could, the nobility of the motive does not confer legitimacy on mass murder."

Mr. Critic: "Okay.  Let us move on.  Uncle W. made a very sound point.  While Yoruba leaders defended OPC, the JNI and CAN in Kaduna were calling for trial of culprits.  What do you say to that?"

Me: "Did you read the reports of religious groups to the Board of inquiry?  Muslim groups claimed Christians were responsible for the carnage.  Christians blamed Muslims"

Mr. Critic: "Where are you heading?"

Me: "JNI was calling for conviction of Christians. CAN was calling for conviction of Muslims. Each party had already pronounced the other guilty. That is not what uncle W claimed they were doing."

Mr. Critic: "Let us go to the substance of your article, the continued detention of our brothers…."

Me: "Which uncle W deliberately side-stepped…"

Mr. Critic: "Shut up and listen.  All Yorubas supported Faseun and called for his release. When Bola Tinubu lied to a court they refused to prosecute him and the police refused to investigate.  Are you not naïve, asking us alone to give up our own for trial?"

Me: "I am happy you mentioned Bola Tinubu.  Tell me, what role did Gani Fawehinmi play in Tinubu's case?"

Mr. Critic: "He went to court as a private citizen asking the court to compel the police to investigate the charges."

Me: "Exactly.  How many lawyers do we have in the north?"

Mr. Critic: "Don't be stupid how can I know?  Very many."

Me: "Did they study the same law as Gani?"

Mr. Critic: "Of course they did, get to your point!"

Me: "How many of them have gone to court in the name of the north they love, and the northerners who were murdered, asking the court to compel police to investigate or the A.G of Lagos to prosecute Faseun?"

Mr. Critic: "I never thought of that…."

Me: "Of course you did not.  How many lawyers has the Arewa Forum retained as Advisers on this issue, or mandated to play the role of Gani?"

Mr. Critic: "None."

Me: "Does that speak of seriousness to get a conviction?  The Lagos State CP recently alleged tampering with Faseun's case file.  Still no lawyers in court!"

Mr. Critic: "Are you questioning the sincerity of our leaders?"

Me: "They are demagogues."

Mr. Critic: "Now you have abused them."

Me: "I have not.  What is a demagogue, do you know?"

Mr. Critic: "All I know is that it sounds abusive."

Me: "A demagogue is one who argues based on sentiment and emotion, rather than rationality."

Mr. Critic: "You see!  I knew you abused them.  Our Emirs, past Presidents, Leaders.  You have no respect for your elders."

Me: "If you insist.  Can you listen to me for a change?"

Mr. Critic: "I will try."

Me: "Do you know that not too long ago, Obasanjo really wanted Na'abba removed from his Speakership post?"

Mr. Critic: "Who doesn't know that?

Me: "Then suddenly some Ghana-must-go bags appeared in the House…."

Mr. Critic: "Yes! Members said they were bribes from the presidency."

Me: "Good.  What happened after that?"

Mr. Critic: "Apparently nothing."

Me: "Nothing!  No more talk about corruption in the House and self-probe.  No talk about presidential bribery."

Mr. Critic: "Okay, I get your drift.  So a deal was struck.  What does that have to do with this matter."

Me: "It is the same pattern.  Our politicians are not really after Faseun.  They are after a deal."

Mr. Critic: "What deal?"

"They want to release Bamaiyi, Abacha, Al-Mustapha and co."

Mr. Critic: "That is not fair"

Me: "Why do they link the two cases?  They can go after Faseun and those who perpetrate genocide but why say: Release my sons since you released yours?  They want a deal"

Mr. Critic: "Now look here…."

Me: "This time you shut up and listen!  So many of our politicians were on the Abacha gravy train.  They were Ministers and Advisers, friends of the First Lady and First Sons and First Daughters, in the forefront of the self-succession program-the notorious ta zarce.  So many of them turned up in one party it was called Abacha Peoples' Party by opponents.  Is that true?"

Mr. Critic: "Yes."

Me: "They all backed Obasanjo.  At that time no one said he was Yoruba.  Now Obasanjo picked his Running-Mate, his Ministers, his Ambassadors and Advisers, and contracts have been flying left right and centre but their number has not come up.  They remember the man who buttered their bread and try to get our uneducated masses to join their battle .  When some of us screamed against power-shift where were you?"

Mr. Critic: "You make sense.  But let me ask you a question.  In your heart do you consider it right to break ranks with your people?"

Me: "I believe the detainees have a case to answer and they should answer it.  If they are acquitted or convicted based on evidence so be it."

Mr. Critic: "But do you know you hold a minority view in the north today?  Should you speak against the current, as it were?"

Me: "Do you read philosophy?"

Mr. Critic: "Philosophers are pagans, I have no time for them."

Me: "Good for you.  Let me tell you a story from one of Plato's Socratic Dialogues.  Do you mind?"

Mr. Critic: "Go ahead if you must.  Do you really care if I mind?"

Me: "Calm down.  This story is from one of the early Platonic dialogues.  Socrates quizzes a man called Euthryphro on the nature of holiness.  The occasion was Euthryphro's prosecution of his own father for unintentionally killing a slave who had himself murdered another slave."

Mr. Critic: "The man prosecuted his own father?"

Me: "Yes.  His family thought it impious but Euthryphro said his family were ignorant of what is holy.  He saw holiness as doing what the gods love, and was willing to do it even if it offended his own family."

Mr. Critic: "Interesting.  Go on."

Me: "Does this not remind you of a verse in the Qur'an, asking believers to bear true witness even against themselves or their parents and close relations?"

Mr. Critic: "Are you suggesting that the Qur'an was copied from Greeks?"

Me: "Stop being silly.  This is why in the north we will never progress. When we fail to confute an argument we libel the advocate."

Mr. Critic: "Like accusing you of supporting genocide?"

Me: "You really are smart. You read between the lines. My point is this.  You ask me to bear false witness, or defend fellow-Northerners on trial for killing Southerners based on one of two reasons: Our adversaries are doing the same or our compatriots have joined them and abandoned their values. Not because you believe they have no case to answer.  Is that so?"

Mr. Critic: "In a manner of speaking, yes."

Me: "If I did that I would be taking my values from the Yoruba or from Northern politicians rather than Islam and would then be worse than Euthryphro, who in your books is a pagan, wouldn't I?"

Mr. Critic: "You know you are not as horrible as I thought you were.  But before you go, do you know what people say about you?"

Me: "Does any one ever know such things?"

Mr. Critic: "Sorry to say this.  Some people think you are mad.  Why are you laughing?"

"Because they may well be correct."

Me: "I can not believe this! You are horrible!"

Not sure how that long passage amounts to my answer to my simple question below

mikeansy:

ok let us do public affairs

what do you make of a man who thinks the North is justified to reject the secular nature of Nigeria?

There is no point re-printing texts by a man trying to re-say what he has already saind in the past.

You can continue to ignore it of which I will assume you have no credible defence to my question at this time.

mikeansy:

Not sure how that long passage amounts to my answer to my simple question below

There is no point re-printing texts by a man trying to re-say what he has already saind in the past.

You can continue to ignore it of which I will assume you have no credible defence to my question at this time.

See this man. I did not ignore anything. I was already working (copying and pasting of course) on the next article while you posted that. So I did not see your question before posting the long article.

Now oevr to your question:

mikeansy:

ok let us do public affairs

what do you make of a man who thinks the North is justified to reject the secular nature of Nigeria?

Where did he say this? I want to believe you meant his message here:

The Islamic faith has never accepted the dichotomy between Religion and Politics. Political life for a Muslim is guided by Sharia and in all those aspects of law where an explicit religious injunction exists, a Muslim expects this to be held as valid above any other law. Fortunately, most of the areas of conflict between Islamic Law and Secular Law have to do with the law of personal estates (including inheritance), some aspects of contract, and criminal law, especially as it pertains to capital punishment. If muslims wish to have these laws applied on them, and promulgated by their elected representatives, there is no reason why this should pose a problem. There is likely to be a problem however, with punishment for certain civil and criminal offences such as libel, theft and adultery if a non-Muslim is involved. My own feeling is that anyone living in a state should acquaint himself with the operative law in that State before committing a crime. We are all subject to that when we go to other countries. Indeed, the law we have in Nigeria is made for us and we are subject to it. This is one major area that needs to be talked about at any conference and this explains why the Sharia issue always comes up in constitutional conferences. To ask Muslims to abandon Sharia in the name of a Secular Nigeria is to give them an unjust choice. The matter is not one of being either Muslim or Nigerian when they can be both Muslim and Nigerian. The attempt to turn Nigeria into a Secular State seeks the erosion of Muslim identity and history. This will continue to be a source of conflict as Muslims will always resist it, with justification. Nigeria is a multi-religious state which should, however, ensure that no religion is given preference over others.

If you take your time to read the whole article, you will not utter such.
And in any case, I also believe Nigeria is a multi-religious society, not a secular one.

277. (1) The sharia Court of Appeal of a State shall, in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by the law of the State, exercise such appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal Law which the court is competent to decide in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) of this section, the sharia Court of Appeal shall be competent to decide -

(a) any question of Islamic personal Law regarding a marriage concluded in accordance with that Law, including a question relating to the validity or dissolution of such a marriage or a question that depends on such a marriage and relating to family relationship or the guardianship of an infant;

(b) where all the parties to the proceedings are muslims, any question of Islamic personal Law regarding a marriage, including the validity or dissolution of that marriage, or regarding family relationship, a founding or the guarding of an infant;

(c) any question of Islamic personal Law regarding a wakf, gift, will or succession where the endower, donor, testator or deceased person is a muslim;

(d) any question of Islamic personal Law regarding an infant, prodigal or person of unsound mind who is a muslim or the maintenance or the guardianship of a muslim who is physically or mentally infirm; or

(e) where all the parties to the proceedings, being muslims, have requested the court that hears the case in the first instance to determine that case in accordance with Islamic personal law, any other question.

1. (1) This Constitution is supreme and its provisions shall have binding force on the authorities and persons throughout the Federal Republic of Nigeria.

(2) The Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any persons or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

(3) If any other law is inconsistent with the provisions of this Constitution, this Constitution shall prevail, and that other law shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void.

Jarus

You can choose to believe what you like but what Sanusi is advocating which you have rightly re-printed above is criminal as it is inconsistent with the laws of the land.

Nobody is asking muslims to drop their religion by embracing secularity, we are only asking them not to enforce a law of choice on Nigerians who do not want to recognise such laws.

The constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria, recognises sharia as a law of choice, used to resolve disputes where Muslims are involved and where the muslims involved consent to this being used as the law to settle their dispute. And it should be in civil matters which is why it is describe as Islamic personal law.

This particular point is responsible for why the man who married 80wives could not be prosecuted because because all he needed to do was opt out of the sharia law even when he is a Muslim.

But your so called civilised Sanusi thinks its ok for a Nigerian travelling from PortHarcourt to Sokoto to master a new set of laws as if he was going abroad. 'so much for one Nigeria'

Yes Muslims can be Muslims and be Nigerian as well living in a secular Nigeria while practicing their religion as they so wish. What we oppose is a situation where people mis-interprete the constitution and sanusi goes ahead to endorse such timidity.

If the likes of Sanusi is the best North can produce in terms of civilisation and having an honest debate about the future of Nigeria, then Nigeria is in trouble.


Get it and get it straight

The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria which is the only book of law that binds us all gives every Nigerian the Fundamental right to live in any part of the country practicing any religion of his choosen.

The idea that there should be one set of criminal laws for port harcourt and another set of criminal laws for Kaduna just like Sanusi seemed to suggest in the above post is very shameful.

It is a testament that to the fact that we live in a Bannana republic that is why a man can show such contempt for the constitution of the federal republic of Nigeria and yet still occupy such a sensitive position in the country.

I think if you have direct access to Sanusi Lamido Sanusi advice him to retract the above statement.

The statement above makes Ahmed Sani Yerima look more of a progressive pragmatist than Sanusi.

Poster thanks so much for this thread. Its throughly educative. He is so intelligent.

In Defence of Reverend Father Kukah

By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

Lamidos@Hotmail.Com

LAGOS, MARCH 8, 2005





I am deeply concerned by two recent articles written by my friends and brothers, Garba Deen Muhammad and Kabiru Yusuf in the Trust newspapers, criticizing Reverend father Mathew Hasan Kukah for his recent criticism of those who questioned his appointment as secretary to the National Political Reform Conference (NPRC) in view of his religious affiliation. Deen’s paper was entitled “The Manipulation of Religion” and appeared on the back page of the Weekly Trust on Saturday, March 5, 2005, and Kabiru’s piece, entitled “The Kukah I didn’t know” appeared almost immediately thereafter on the back page of the Daily Trust of Monday, March 7, 2005. An urgent Muslim intervention is required before the debate becomes one between Muslims and Christians.



Both Kabiru and Deen are gentlemen for whose views I hold the greatest respect. More important, they are highly respected journalists whose views are influential particularly among those who have become the principal constituency of the Trust stable, Muslim northerners. Neither of them is, by any definition, an ethnic bigot or religious propagandist. However, the two articles above risk falling into the trap of serving reactionary northern elitist interests, bent on appropriating religion as an obstacle in the way of any meaningful progress towards constituting a true national consciousness. Moreover, each of the two articles under discussion, beneath the veneer of common sense, contains logical leaps, unfair deductions and dangerous conclusions, none of which serves the best interests of the nation, or even any particular constituency however defined.



Let me begin by admitting that I do not know father Kukah as well as Kabiru does, and certainly never had the opportunity to visit with him in his rooms at the catholic secretariat or elsewhere. I have also never attended a church service at which he officiated so I do not even know if he is a competent priest and theologian. I have met him on a few occasions and have had brief discussions with him, but what I know of him comes from my reading of his articles, presentations, and one book based on his Ph D thesis at SOAS. In other words, I know Mathew Kukah not as a Christian, or a priest, or a theologian (although he is all of those), but as a Nigerian intellectual who writes on matters of national importance and who has shown a deep and sincere commitment to addressing the problems of developing nations.



I do not necessarily agree with everything Kukah writes or says. I also do not believe that Kukah, or any social scientist, can be completely neutral or objective in his interventions in social discourse. The man is an intellectual engaged in knowledge production in a specific social and historical context in which he is implicated. That implication comes with a consciousness of a real or imagined adversity suffered by northern Christians at the hands of northern Muslims in Nigerian political history, and a commitment to address that adversity and alleviate it. I may not agree with him on his perceptions of the nature and true extent of this supposed adversity, but I do not necessarily link his views as an intellectual to his calling as a priest or his choice of the Christian religion. I have been, to give a personal example, perhaps more critical of the northern Nigerian Muslim elite than Father Kukah, even though I am Muslim (although admittedly, a leading Wahhabi scholar in Kano, Ja’far Adam, literally questioned my Islamic credentials in a radio program during the last Ramadhan). I agree with most of what northern Christians have to say about the northern Muslim elite. I only differ with them on two fundamental points. First I believe that not only northern Christians, but-and perhaps more so-, the northern Muslim poor, have been visited with adversity by the northern elite. Second, many of the Christian elite at the forefront of the attack on Muslims are no better than those they criticize. But I digress.



The point I make is that Father Kukah is a northern Nigerian Christian priest, but he is also an intellectual who is appointed to a position on personal merit. As a liberation theologian, he finds in his religion resources to oppose instances of injustice and, unlike many “men of God” on both sides of the religious divide in the north, restricted his public utterances to social and political issues, as opposed to attacking other faiths. To this extent, Kukah is perfectly within his rights to consider as irresponsible the attempt to ignore completely his role as an intellectual and focus on his private choice of religion and profession. He is also perfectly within his right to point out that there are people for whom religion is a business and they will always find something to say in these matters. I remember some months ago a discussion with a Christian friend on the decision by President Obasanjo, a Christian, to suspend Joshua Dariye and declare a state of emergency in Plateau state during the crisis that engulfed that state. I remarked that, had Obasanjo taken that step in a Muslim state like Kano or Zamfara, all hell would have broken loose as Muslims, who were commending him over his action in Plateau, would have come out with conspiracy theories to show how this was all a grand design to wage war on “Islam” or “Muslims” or the “Shari’ah”. What I was not prepared for was the response I received. My friend said Obasanjo was a “stooge” of the Muslims and that he was “acting out a script” written by the Caliphate in Sokoto. OBJ, this friend continued, was not really a good Christian and he was victimizing a Christian to please his “Muslim paymasters.” This is the level to which Nigerians, Christians and Muslims alike, have allowed themselves to be dragged, a level at which all issues disappear and everything is seen through the prism of the constant process of construction of identities and manufacture of difference. The concern I have is that this process, long associated with scholars steeped in mediaeval political literature, has sucked in progressive intellectuals who should know better. Now what are the issues, and where did Kabiru and Deen go wrong, in my view?



First, an issue that should be central to any argument of this nature was not addressed, not even tangentially, by either writer. What are the functions of the chairman and secretary of this so-called NPRC and in what way can they determine the outcome of the dialogue and impose their view on the participants and the rest of the nation? If the conference is hijacked by vested interests, are the Muslim participants under any compulsion to hold their peace, to passively acquiesce to the subversion of the interest or their constituency? In any event, for a conference whose legality is doubtful and which is yet to receive the backing of the federal legislature, not to talk of the general skepticism with which it is viewed by most Nigerians, what is the significance of its conclusions and in which way can they undermine Nigerian Muslims? Finally, in the event that Kukah may have an influence on the outcome of the conference, who says he will exert that influence in the name of his religion? Why not in the interest of the North, or the country, or a radical political ideology? And if religion is what Kukah seeks to promote, is he going there as a representative of Christianity as a whole or of Catholicism? What is the basis, from his work, his writing and his actions, for drawing these conclusions? They were reached through a series of logical leaps with little effort at substantiation.



Second, underlying the criticism of Kukah is a presumption that there is something legitimate about the concerns expressed in some quarters on the lop-sidedness of the conference. This in turn assumes that there is something like a “Christian” or “Muslim” position in a national conference about to be hijacked by bigots and converted into a confrontation between two religions. Are the Muslims at this conference representing an “Islamic” position? Who defines it and on whose authority? How do we know that those who are at the conference are not there to serve an agenda driven by the interests of their sponsors and totally unrelated to the people of this country, as a whole, or their ethnic and religious “constituencies” in particular?



The myth that there is anyone speaking for popular Muslims or Christians at a conference is, at least philosophically speaking, highly problematic. The discourse of religion is never monotonous. There are so many conflicting issues within a single religion, issues growing out of say, ethnic and class interests, questions of gender and the limits of personal liberty, the relationship between religion and state etc. that the only way to approach this discourse is by displaying a certain simultaneous, contrapuntal sensibility to the various (sometimes harmonious, often discordant) notes of its polyphony. To pretend that a group of Muslims-irrespective of who, or how the group came into constitution- speaks with a single voice for an undefined Muslim interest under threat from an equally undefined non-Muslim one, is to fall into the trap of complicity with the opportunistic purveyors of superficial panaceas for deep-seated socio-economic and political maladies. The duty of the intellectual is to warn and advise against such characters, not defend and support them. This is what makes the position taken by my two friends a source of concern.



I must stress at this point, that both Kabiru and Deen engaged Kukah with the utmost respect, and criticized him without the use of aggressive vocabulary. However, I must take up issue with a few specific arguments, to underscore the main thrust of this intervention. Take for example, Garba Deen’s surprise at Kukah’s expression of “rather strong opinions on matters over which he has little or no knowledge.” The matter in question is the comment made by Kukah that “if you go to Saudi Arabia they will mess you up as a Muslim”. Garba Deen’s only evidence that Kukah is ignorant of events in Saudi Arabia is that if “Kukah had ever been to Saudi Arabia, it couldn’t have been as a Muslim.” This is what philosophers call a “genealogical fallacy”, the refutation of an argument not based on its truth but on who its advocate is. Kukah, because he is a Christian (and, one may add, a man in a cassock!) simply cannot know about what happens in Saudi Arabia! Moreover, if he makes a comment as to what happens there he is speaking out of ignorance. I am a Muslim, and I bear witness that Kukah is correct that many Muslims do receive humiliating treatment at the hands of Saudi Authorities, and that for many non-Arab and non-white Muslims, the only reason they will not stop going to Saudi Arabia is because of the Kaaba Mecca and the Prophet’s mosque and tomb in Madinah. Many people have had personal experiences of humiliation in so-called Muslim countries, with Saudi Arabia being a leading example, by virtue of the colour of their skin or their nationality. Most sincere Muslims who have traveled or lived in Saudi Arabia will openly acknowledge it, so it is an open secret even to those who have never been there. Deen does not deny this, but he argues, in effect, that Kukah cannot know it since he is Christian and thus cannot claim knowledge of how Muslims are treated there!



Similar examples of unfair arguments can be drawn from Kabiru’s piece. Kabiru discusses “complaints” to the effect that there is “an unwritten rule of our coexistence (not) to appoint two Christians (one of them a reverend father to boot) as chairman and secretary of the conference”, and then proceeds with arguments showing he finds this position reasonable. When did this unwritten rule ever exist, one wonders? This country has had its highest offices held by Christians and by Muslims in the past. Garba Deen has pointed out that General Gowon and his second-in-command, Rear Admiral Wey, were two Christians at the helm of affairs for nine years. Generals Buhari and Idiagbon were both Muslims and ruled Nigeria for about two years. In 1993, the Social Democratic Party sponsored two Muslims, Chief Abiola and Ambassador Kingibe for the presidency and Nigerians voted for them. So why are Muslims crying because of some silly committee without executive powers and whose report cannot be binding on anyone? Kukah is absolutely correct. It is irresponsible.



A second instance is the discussion of Kukah’s views on PRONACO. At the end of his discussion, Kabiru says “it is certain that if Datti Ahmed, AbdulKarim Dayyabu, AbdulKadir Balarabe Musa and other northern rejecters of the conference had decided to hold a parallel meeting in Kaduna and Kano, neither the government nor probably Kukah would have been so sanguine about it.” In making this averment, Kabiru does not adduce a single piece of evidence in the form of an instance in which Kukah took a position against such a group. Maybe he is aware from his intimate knowledge of the man and his views but he did not give his readers that information. There are more examples but these suffice.



Let me conclude. Reverend father Kukah is perfectly competent to defend himself against criticism and does not need any one to help him. Also, I have no doubt in my mind that many Muslims, particularly northerners, agree fully with Kabiru and Deen and their criticism of Kukah. However, it is important to say that many Muslim Northerners, the present writer included, do not care about the religious identity of competent Nigerians appointed to any office whatsoever, so long as they consider their constituency to be the whole nation in the conduct of their official functions. We owe it to ourselves, and to this country, to announce our faith in one Nigeria, a nation in which we can be Muslims without being enemies to fellow nationals. We have had decades of Muslim leadership that brought no benefit to Muslims and the false promises and fears that are raised to deceive Nigerian need to be exposed. For me, Father Kukah as a person is neither here nor there, but the principle counts, and the principle must be defended. That principle is one that stresses the plurality and multi-vocality of the discourse in the “Muslim North”, and resists the attempt to manufacture sectional/religious identities that undermine the unity of the nation. This view is one that, I am sure, I share with Kabiru and Garba Deen, but I believe that, in fighting the “northern Muslim corner” and criticizing Father Kukah, they risk giving credibility to the crass opportunism of the northern elite.



In the final analysis, and for the avoidance of doubt, I do not believe this conference has any meaning or use, and I predict that it will be a political jamboree at which alliances are formed to promote some selfish political agendas. Let us focus on what they are saying and doing, and forget their personal choices in matters of faith. In any event, it promises to provide the nation with some hilarious entertainment.

















SANUSI LAMIDO SANUSI

LAGOS, MARCH 8, 2005

The point I make is that Father Kukah is a northern Nigerian Christian priest, but he is also an intellectual who is appointed to a position(Secretary, National Conference) on personal merit. As a liberation theologian, he finds in his religion resources to oppose instances of injustice and, unlike many “men of God” on both sides of the religious divide in the north, restricted his public utterances to social and political issues, as opposed to attacking other faiths. To this extent, Kukah is perfectly within his rights to consider as irresponsible the attempt to ignore completely his role as an intellectual and focus on his private choice of religion and profession.

Here was Sanusi criticizing his Muslim northern brothers for their opposition to Christian Kukah's choice as Secretary of National Confab in 2005. Anyone remember that debate?

It's a pity Sanusi is now a victim of what he was defending four years ago. Substitute Sanusi for Kukah, Muslim for Christian and CBN governor for National Confab secretary for you will have a plausible defence of Sanusi's choice as CBN governor.

Jarus,

It might be useful to always quote the source of your articles to increase their streetforum credibility.
You can modify your posts to put them in.
Cheers.

anonimi:

Jarus,

It might be useful to always quote the source of your articles to increase their streetforum credibility.
You can modify your posts to put them in.
Cheers.

I have a special folder for them. I downloaded them from the internet about four months ago after a thorough search. Now that he is making news almost on hourly basis, recent news involving him(as CBN governor) are likely to have overriden his past works on search engines, but if you do extensive, deep search on the various internet search engines, you can still dig them out.

Sanusi is no doubt an intelligent Nigerian,one who does not seem to have fear of no one in pursuing his beliefs.But the question I want an answer to how far/positively is this man ready to use his intelligence to advance the nation?cos reading from the above excerpts I still find some gray areas Sanusi has not impressed me @ least relating to his views on religion and peaceful co-existence.I believe someone with his intellect should be able to rise above such parochial views.

@Jarus

There is nothing as dangerous as being part of a personality cult, you're starting to sound like a teenager in love.

Sanusi is a flawed genius. His writings are inspiring but they contain dangerous traces of bigotry and condescension. He could get booted out sooner than later.

Beaf:

@Jarus

There is nothing as dangerous as being part of a personality cult, you're starting to sounded.

Call me any name, I will not desist from defending him, in whatever actions/views of his I agree with.

Of course, I have also disagreed with him on some issues, even on the pages of newspaper.

No! Sanusi is not intelligent as many people here are wont to assume. What he has expressed here is brilliance. There is great difference between brilliance and intelligence.
The guy is merely brilliant. He has read a lot and is vast in areas regarding politics & his religion!Bravo!!

Intelligence is more than just expressing what you've read or learned. It demands extraordinary creativity, Innovative intuition, precision action, logical and abstract resonance, etc. These are all elements of intelligence. Sanusi hasn't  expressed any of these elements.
The guy is only brilliant and I think brilliant is easy. On intelligence, he should work harder.

If he was intelligent, his agenda on the bank reforms would have been more sublime. Nobody would have noticed until he was through.
It is called Action precision! His loose mouthedness and regular flip flops do not represent someone witha good amount of intelligence.

The second and final component of the experience happened one year later, during the JAMB crisis. The genesis was the publication on the front page of the New Nigerian Newspaper of a histogram showing the distribution of the students admitted into Nigerian Universities for the first time by JAMB.  There were 19 States in the Federation then, 9 of them in the South. Eight of the Southern States took the top eight positions in the ranking followed by Kwara and then Cross River, the final southern state. The States of the north other than Kwara took the last nine positions. Bendel State alone had more students admitted than the ten northern states combined. Northern students were alarmed.

The understanding was that part of JAMB’s mandate was to help bridge the educational gap in the country and promote national integration. It was clear that the skewed admission would only widen the gap. Moreover, northern students were not taken into southern universities who refused to recognise the IJMB, while southern students filled northern universities. We tried to have a national protest.

Delegates sent from A B U to the universities in the South were evaded and the only courteous response came from the University of Calabar. The problem divided the students’ body and southern universities made it clear it was a northern problem. The boycotts took on a regional character as northern universities ended up closed. To add insult to injury, the Students’ Unions at UNILAG and UNIFE actually issued statements supporting the military junta and condemning the protests. The exercise was to be seen as the enthronement of merit over mediocrity and the government was urged to make sure that half-baked school-leavers should not fill our universities.

For many of us who just one year earlier had championed a southern cause, the experience was traumatic. It confirmed the warnings of all those who considered us naïve in our struggle for national unity. But worse, this experience has not remained on isolated item but an example of incidents and attitudes with which our political history is replete.

@Jarus
If you've read this excerpt from his article, you should by now understand Sanusi's state of mind and the reason for his bank reforms.
There is a great similarity between the events he referenced (the JAMB results of 78/79) and the  Banking scenario post Soludo's consolidation.

In the Jamb result palaver, the Southern  states crushed the Northern states flawlessly. Imagine Bendel State having higher intakes than all the Northern states put together. Sanusi and his fellow northern hegemons, instead of working out strategies  to improve the educational lot of their kin, they changed the JAMB formula to one that would kill merit and promote mediocrity.

Banking, post consoludotion- very similar scenario. Out of 25 banks that survived the consolidation, only one had Northern majority shareholding= Unity Bank.  Sadly, despite its northern shareholding, 90% of its branches are domiciled in the south. It is also the worst bank in the country.

Once again, Sanusi was miffed by this "anomaly" called merit which always seeks to subjugate his northern folk and expose their intellectual inferiority in comparison with their southern brothers.
This time around, instead of protesting as  he did in the his ABU days, he finds himself with the power and capacity to further promote mediocrity over merit.

It's called the "Balancing Act". That"s what many are terming Northern Agenda. Its the desire to enthrone mediocrity. It has happened too many times in Nigeria and it is the reason we are still where we are today.It hasn't helped the north, and has prevented the south from growing. So the whole country is at a loss for it.

The only reason why Sanusi sacked the five bank executives is the create a balance in the banking industry. He envisages an industry where both north and south would have equal banking credentials notwithstanding the detrimental effects that philosophy would have on merit.
Good news is that his mission has failed from the onset, as he wasn't smart enough to make his moves sublime.

PapaBrowne:

@Jarus
If you've read this excerpt from his article, you should by now understand Sanusi's state of mind and the reason for his bank reforms.
There is a great similarity between the events he referenced (the JAMB results of 78/79) and the Banking scenario post Soludo's consolidation.

In the Jamb result palaver, the Southern states crushed the Northern states flawlessly. Imagine Bendel State having higher intakes than all the Northern states put together. Sanusi and his fellow northern hegemons, instead of working out strategies to improve the educational lot of their kin, they changed the JAMB formula to one that would kill merit and promote mediocrity.

Banking, post consoludotion- very similar scenario. Out of 25 banks that survived the consolidation, only one had Northern majority shareholding= Unity Bank. Sadly, despite its northern shareholding, 90% of its branches are domiciled in the south. It is also the worst bank in the country.

Once again, Sanusi was miffed by this "anomaly" called merit which always seeks to subjugate his northern folk and expose their intellectual inferiority in comparison with their southern brothers.
This time around, instead of protesting as he did in the his ABU days, he finds himself with the power and capacity to further promote mediocrity over merit.

It's called the "Balancing Act". That"s what many are terming Northern Agenda. Its the desire to enthrone mediocrity. It has happened too many times in Nigeria and it is the reason we are still where we are today.It hasn't helped the nort, and has prevented the south from growing. So the whole country is at a loss for it.

The only reason why Sanusi sacked the five bank executives is the create a balance in the banking industry. He envisages an industry where both north and south would have equal banking credentials notwithstanding the detrimental effects that philisophy would have on merit.
Good news is that his mission has failed from the onset, as he wasn't smart enough to make his moves sublime.

KPOM, KPOM, KPOM to the core. Yet we are still in the same country with these fools that knows only how to destroy.

To ask Muslims to abandon Sharia in the name of a Secular Nigeria is to give them an unjust choice. The matter is not one of being either Muslim or Nigerian when they can be both Muslim and Nigerian. The attempt to turn Nigeria into a Secular State seeks the erosion of Muslim identity and history. This will continue to be a source of conflict as Muslims will always resist it, with justification. Nigeria is a multi-religious state which should, however, ensure that no religion is given preference over others.

And we are still in the same country with these ignorant fools. In a secular state, no religion is given preference over others. In fact, in a secular state, the government is officially neutral in matters affecting religion. Also the state does not support nor oppose any particular religious beliefs or practices in such country. So why sound as if secularism in nigeria will give preference to other religions (Christianity in sanusis warped and islamic rotten mind) over islam? These fools have their agenda already made up and are trying to lord it over nigerians, but they have already failed before even starting. This is not 1967 and there will be no Britain, USSR, Egypt and Sudan to help you ahlmajiris this time when the show down sets. Useless, illiterate and backward set of people.

@mikeansy
I think your argument on the sharia and your interpretation of the constitution is uneven.

4. (7) The House of Assembly of a State shall have power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the State or any part thereof with respect to the following matters, that is to say:-
        (a) any matter not included in the Exclusive Legislative List set out in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Constitution.
        (b) any matter included in the Concurrent Legislative List set out in the first column of Part II of the Second Schedule to this Constitution to the extent prescribed in the second column opposite thereto; and
        (c) any other matter with respect to which it is empowered to make laws in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.

277. (1) The sharia Court of Appeal of a State shall, in addition to such other jurisdiction as may be conferred upon it by the law of the State, exercise such appellate and supervisory jurisdiction in civil proceedings involving questions of Islamic personal Law which the court is competent to decide in accordance with the provisions of subsection (2) of this section.

The above sections of the constitution makes it legal to expand the jurisdiction of the sharia courts beyond the defaults (stated in 277.(2) ) to cover any such areas as conferred by the state. So your argument of sharia courts being 'a law of choice' is not true in all cases, and having different laws in different states is not unconstitutional, as it is provided for by the constitution. That does not bar one from arguing against its practicality, though some supporters would point out that it is needed for true federalism and it has been successful in countries like the US.

While I would rather we have one legal code for the whole country, obtaining such is a long and arduous task, and would require us starting slipstreaming the constitution. Till then, states adopting sharia is legal as far as I can tell from the constitution.

As to the secularism of the state, Nigeria is far from a secular state, but more a multi-religious one. A secular state is theoretically devoid of religious affiliations, but several facts,  like the religious swearing in the judicial system, the adoption of religious public holidays, hint otherwise.