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.

[b]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.[/b]

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.

the rest of the article can be found in the thread with links below.

the areas in bold are of particular interest to me, of how mallam sanusi clearly thinks, looking for  ways to protest the achievements of the southern part of this country. his writing clearly shows how mediocrity as been his  sustenance up til now as central bank governor,

all the reader need do is to replace his words southern and northern universities with southern and northern banks, to get his drift and agenda for his skewed empowerment of the north at the expense of the rest of the country, mind you in a sense i am not against non interest banking, but that of sanusi, i am totally against.

this is what mr jarus posted and he clearly agreed and stated that mr sanusi wrote rubbish. and readers can find this thread below

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=355080.msg4972931#msg4972931

now for him to be condescending  and be mouthing off a long list of, mediocres, as achievers, just like his master, and claiming ignorance, is what i cannot stand.

df2006:



the rest of the article can be found in the thread with links below.

the areas in bold are of particular interest to me, of how mallam sanusi clearly thinks, looking for  ways to protest the achievements of the southern part of this country. his writing clearly shows how mediocrity as been his  sustenance up til now as central bank governor,

all the reader need do is to replace his words southern and northern universities with southern and northern banks, to get his drift and agenda for his skewed empowerment of the north at the expense of the rest of the country, mind you in a sense i am not against non interest banking, but that of sanusi, i am totally against.

this is what mr jarus posted and he clearly agreed and stated that mr sanusi wrote rubbish. and readers can find this thread below

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria?topic=355080.msg4972931#msg4972931

now for him to be condescending  and be mouthing off a long list of, mediocres, as achievers, just like his master, and claiming ignorance, is what i cannot stand.

This is the kind of mind that passes for "technocratic" among the Fulani elite. What is most tragic however, is the legions of blind and ignorant Yoruba (muslim or not) who slavishly hail this ethnic Fulani Emir-aspirant at every turn, just because he is "eloquent".

The level of debate amongst Southerners in general used to be much higher than it is now, and I have to thank you, df2006, for taking us back to what we used to know: robust intellectual debates backed with facts and evidence, such as the one you've supplied us now.

At least, the Southern Sanusi apologists can now see where their man's mind has always been and where it remains. They can now see what drives his every move, from chasing phantom "bad loans" to hounding Southern bank directors disproportionately for real and mostly imagined crimes, in conjunction with the usual willing middle-belt ally in the most profoundly corrupt EFCC Chairman, Mrs Farida Waziri.

Yoruba, ronu o!!!

Funny, isn't it, how people select quotes in isolation and interprete it to suit their desire, neglecting other parts?

Perhaps you chose to ignore this part:

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

Sanusi, as a 17-year-old student parliamentarian/activist in 1978, supported an aluta that would benefit the South more, even though his northern colleagues were foot-dragging.

A year later, another cause arose that would benefit northerners more and southern students -save Unical - were not willing to support. Tell me who is the hypocrite here?

And that has not in anyway changed his belief that ethnic considerations were backward and reactionary.

Twist the facts all you want, Sanusi did no wrong by his actions in both events.

An issue that concerns the north is seen as purely parochial while one that affects the south is a national question.

This is still the issue today and the problem of many of you. Anytime north or Islam is mentioned, you go haywire!

And as an addition, I don't think a sectionalist(as opposed to nationalistic) Sanusi will have these words for leaders of his region:

Muslim Leaders And The Myth Of Marginalisation
By

Sanusi Lamido Sanusi

lamidos@hotmail.com

Lagos, March 29, 2004



On Easter Monday, Muslim groups met in Kaduna under the aegis of the Jama’atu Nasril Islam and the chairmanship of His Eminence, the Sultan of Sokoto, to decide on a collective line of action in response to the “marginalisation of Nigerian Muslims” by the federal Government under Olusegun Obasanjo. According to newspaper reports, the meeting was rowdy and passionate. A leading Emir called for a Jihad by Nigerian Muslims against the Federal Government, before storming out of the meeting. Indeed so high was the temperature inside the Kaduna International Trade Fair Complex that, according to one newspaper, a leading northern politician, Second Republic minister and traditional title-holder from Bauchi state was slapped by a delegate. Every one who was present at the meeting reports that there was a charged atmosphere and that Muslims were angry at their alleged marginalisation.



As I read and listened to the reports, my mind went back to 1998 when southern politicians, and particularly Yoruba and Igbo politicians, launched an aggressive campaign against northern Muslims and “Hausa-Fulanis” who were accused of marginalizing the rest of the country. In those days the clarion call was for a “power-shift” to the south, and every one joined the fad. In that year, I gave a public lecture at Arewa House, Kaduna, (later published by the Trust newspapers), entitled “Power-shift and Rotation: Between Emancipation and Obfuscation.” To place the present intervention in context, I reproduce below and extensive quote from that paper:



‘To claim that the “north” has “exploited” or “marginalized” 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.’



Not too long after this lecture, elections were held and Obasanjo came to power. In 1999 when Obasanjo appointed his first cabinet, Muslim politicians and religious leaders claimed that Muslims were marginalized because the appointments were lop-sided in favour of Christians. Again I made a contribution to the debate in my published article entitled “Religion, the Cabinet and a Political Economy of the ‘North’.” In that paper, I was even more explicit and detailed in stating my position and I quote:



“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 Muslim 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 Christian 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 up-liftment 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 profiles 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.”



These two quotes sum up my historical view on marginalisation. It was on this basis I criticized and debated with the tribalistic elements that formed Afenifere (see “Afenifere: Syllabus of Errors” for example). It was the basis for my debates with Urhobo nationalists like Darah and Ekeh. It was the basis for my long and intense altercations with Ike Okonta and his fellow-travellers among Fulani and Islam-hating Igbo intellectuals. I did not criticize southern advocates of the “marginalisation” thesis because of where they come from or where I come from. I criticized them on principle. I do not believe, period, that because the cabinet has more people who are Muslim then Muslims are better off. Each minister is an individual and he/she either performs or does not perform. Obasanjo’s government has failed to deliver on many of its promises. For the north in particular, the problems of poverty, unemployment, collapsing infra-structure and illiteracy are myriad and reflect incompetence and corruption on the part of Christian and Muslim public officers at federal, state and local government levels. We have every right to criticize the Obasanjo for incompetence. The North as a whole, has many reasons to complain. But to reduce Obasanjo’s crime to the number of members of the Muslim elite he has appointed-or rather not appointed- to key positions, and to pretend that if we had more Muslim appointees then Muslims would be better off automatically, to say this, is to speak from an ethically blind perspective.



The marginalisation thesis has too many flaws. The most obvious is that has not been borne by history. Indeed in 1998, northern supporters of power-shift like Balarabe Musa hinged their argument on the fact that northerners had not benefited from the political dominance of the north. The second, which is captured in my two quotes above, is that the real issue is not about the people, and what the government must do for them, but about the elite and which positions and perks they should be entitled to as their share of the national cake. To call this fight over the sharing of offices a jihad is to make a complete mockery of the Muslim faith. Third, it has nothing to do with religion. No Muslim has claimed that he has been stopped from practicing the five pillars of Islam. Our personal and civil laws-marriage, divorce, inheritance, custody, burial rites, contracts etc-are all governed by the shari’ah. Our courts have been given the right to implement Muslim criminal law, including amputations, even where controversy rages about the propriety of these punishments in the present circumstances among Muslims themselves. We build our mosques all over the country, and Muslims of all sects and denominations and orders from Shiites to Wahhabites, Malikites to Salafites, Tijjanites to Qadirites etc continue to worship God in the manner they choose without hindrance. So the problem is not about the freedom of Muslims to worship or practice their religion, but about sharing the spoils of political office. This is a legitimate political struggle and politicians have the right to negotiate for a larger share of these spoils. But it is not a struggle about the religion or the quality of life of the poor Muslim in the street and he should not be deceived and co-opted into it through the manipulation of sacred concepts.



But there is a more fundamental dimension to this. When a group is marginalized this is only possible because it is weak. Marginalisation, if anything, is a symbol of political fragility and decay. In other words, when a leader complains about marginalisation, he is like a doctor who addresses the symptom of a disease (say a fever) instead of addressing the underlying illness or infection. The point is this. If the Muslims, and particularly northern Muslims are today marginalized as is being claimed, this marginalisation is but a symptom of a more profound problem. We are marginalized because we are weak and divided, and our weakness comes from the loss of our solid political and negotiating base in a unified, multi-cultural, multi-religious north. As partners with Christian neighbours and compatriots, northerners in the First and Second Republic were able to form a formidable political group that was unbeatable in the race for office. The marriage was not always blissful for both parties and it had many internal problems, but while it lasted it served the best political interest of the North and, in particular the Muslims. The protection of Shari’ah and the preservation of our cultural values would have been impossible without control of politics. By losing this simple sense of political pragmatism and reducing ourselves to religious bigots, we weaken our hand in the game of politics and everything we cherish is now vulnerable. The rise of Muslim and Christian fundamentalism has been a major contributor to the fragmentation of the north and its binarisation through the reactionary process of reciprocal “Other-ing”.



We may dispute the reality or extent of marginalisation of Muslims, or Christians or northerners or southerners. I am even willing to concede, for the sake of argument, that because a smaller fraction of northern Muslim elite has access to the spoils of power then northern Muslims as a whole are marginalized. But this much must be acknowledged: The political asphyxiation of Muslims has been directly collateral, diachronically correlational and causally conjoined with the above-mentioned fragmentatory processes.

We are therefore left with a paradox. The more we resort to claims of marginalisation, construct religiously-charged political identities and threaten jihad, the more we divide the north and weaken its Muslim and Christian elite alike. We fell into a trap.



The problem of religious conflict and parochialism bedevils the north. Of course it is not the only problem, which is why a unified northern forum must address the common problems faced by all northern people. The north suffers from the neglect of agricultural production, the lack of proper access of cash-crop farmers to the international market, the collapse of industry, the debilitation of its infra-structure, lack of alternative source of power to hydro-electricity, among others. Most of all the north suffers from the general massification of its population that is to say, its collective subjection to the intense and deliberate processes of qualitative leveling for the purpose of quantitative maximization. As a result of this, politicians and religious demagogues and fanatics have a ready army of uneducated, unemployed northerners willing to participate in bloody riots and attend rallies where emotional inanities pass for patriotic leadership.



What we expect our leaders to do is to ask Obasanjo what he is doing about these things. More important, to ask our governors and legislators and Local government chairmen and councilors what they are doing to address these things. This should be done on the platform of a unified north, with common problems. Our jihad should be about changing these pathetic circumstances and this can be done by competent leaders. It is difficult for me, for obvious reasons, to take a position that is critical of the Muslim leaders who gathered in Kaduna. But I took this position on principle against those who claimed they were marginalized by the north. Where principle is concerned-and this is the real point-what is good enough for the goose has to be good enough for the gander.

In the article above he criticized the north Muslim leaders for their fake cry that they were being marginalized by Obasanjo.


In the one below, he advanced reasons to criticize Muslims crying that having a Christian as Chairman(Justice Niki Tobi) and Secretary(Father Kukah) was marginalization of Muslims. He defended a Christian against his own northern.muslim people.

An ethnic/religious bigot will not do that.

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

Read this excerpts:

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.

Now, you think Sanusi who criticized his northern Muslim brothers for writing articles that "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", will today be a party to the 'grand plan'(conspiracy) to serve the northern elitists interests?

Jarus:

Funny, isn't it, how people select quotes in isolation and interprete it to suit their desire, neglecting other parts?

Perhaps you chose to ignore this part:Sanusi, as a 17-year-old student parliamentarian/activist in 1978, supported an aluta that would benefit the South more, even though his northern colleagues were foot-dragging.

A year later, another cause arose that would benefit northerners more and southern students -save Unical - were not willing to support. Tell me who is the hypocrite here?

this guy, this guy, upon all your cleverness you still don't get it do you?

what is this northern cause, that u say the south should support?
that a group of student, who would be on scholarship, fail to pass jamb so therefore they are going to protest, and are looking for willing participants, how more stupid can that be?  compare the 1st cause  and the 2nd cause,
clearly shows you, a people who want to sow where they did not reap,
 unilag and ife cannot be more correct, when they urge the government, to make sure that half-baked school-leavers should not fill our universities.

this is exactly what i am trying to put across to you, that you and your masters look for skewed way to empower yourselves, at other peoples expense.

just the same way you will argue that boko haram is a cause that people in the south should support, because u supported a southern cause before.

bring up worthy causes and see if u wont find support across board.

cant you see how stupid it sounds.

Jarus:

Lanre,
Well, I never said the North is more educated than the south, what I always have issue with is this belief by some even below average southerners that the mere fact that they are southerners automatically confers knowedge superiority on them above a northerner.

As for the conspiracy theory, well, God help you if you believe it. But I dont believe it and the Sanusi I know I'm sure can never be a party to it. Period!

The above is so true some if not most southerners feel superior to their northern counterparts and it is funny because their northern counterparts usually come out on top politically. SLS may not be an outright bigot but his recent actions just show that he isn't the best leader for the present position he is occupying. His plans for bringing the banking sector out of the woods remain unclear. On his introduction of non interest banking he could have done better. Nobody can understand till date why the CBN is now into poultry farming and tourism. So far his stay in office has been controversial the only highlight for me was when he changed the leadership of the failing banks(although it seems some failing banks remained) and the new leadership seem to be worse.