₦airaland Forum

pazienza:
They only asked him to revert to federalism and in response he actually began the process. Also he had to dump Aburi Accord when the sovereign public so advised. Gowon's rule had a democratic culture unlike Ironsi whom the sovereign public specifically asked to install Dipcharima and sent a delegation to him to demand a reversal of his centralization of power which he dishonoured under the subterfuge that such was the only way he could operate as military junta.

Who are this "they" you speak of? Who elected them.
How can you shamelessly say that a military dictatorship had a democratic culture? Are you always this demonic? Even Abacha had his own hand picked oh yes civilian technocrats around him too, do those Oh yes Civilians Abacha surrounded himself with also qualify his dictatorship as near democracy, or does this your concept of sovereign public only work for Gowon?

What sovereign public do you speak of? Do you mind explaining more on this your sovereign public, Does this even make sense in military dictatorship rule ?

As a matter of fact, the more I interact with you, the more I understand how depraved the average Nigerian is, and more I'm convinced that complete severance of Igboland from Nigerians, is truly the only way to go.

You are just a plain stupid bigot reeling from broken tribal ego. The same you and your shameless likes have always accused Enahoro, Awolowo and other politicians of being representative of their respective tribes' interest in instigating Gowon to renege on Aburi Accord, create states, etc. I guess Awolowo, Enahoro, and their
equivalents from other tribes were unelected Parliamentarians in your confused and dementia stricken thoughts, yet they acted on behalf of their people to "betray" Igbos? Inconsistent clowns!
Even Zik, your overall elected representative leader was among those who guided Gowon in the later days.
If allowing himself to be guided by elected political leaders does not confer on his government a connection to the sovereign will of the people in your puerile perception, then you lack the basic knowledge of representative governance.
When it is convenient for you, you claim that Awolowo, Enahoro and other elected political leaders were representing their tribes when they "betrayed" Igbos by guiding Gowon on appropriate steps to take in frustrating Biafra. But when it does not suit your narrative in other debates you tend to argue that these political figures did not represent their tribes and people. Shameless turncoats who can't maintain a single line of thought.

You claim you are getting more convinced that the severance of Igbo land from Nigeria is the only way to go but ironically the Azikiwe whose antecedents kept you glued to Nigeria remains your hero. Your self mockery and hypocrisy are simply pathetic and beyond salvage.

Each time I engage you I get more convinced that the average Igbo man's logical inconsistency is the very root of the failure of Nigeria.
Check it: Ojukwu initially justified and defended extreme centralization of power under Ironsi's rule, but with Ironsi out he overnight became a strong believer and apostle of the most decentralized system. Jumping from one ideological extreme to the other.
Zik: Initially invented the idea that the unity of Nigeria was non-negotiable when it appeared that the gods of his tribe would give them power to dominate the obvious contraption, but few years later when it began to appear that the reverse was actually the case, he became an advocate of "separating in peace rather than in pieces".
The same Zik, while Biafra project appeared realizable in the beginning, saw nothing wrong in Ojukwu's style of leadership, but once hopes dimmed irreversibly, Ojukwu's leadership style immediately became arrogant and ego centric.
The same traits of inconsistecy you exhibit here.
However you lots are not really ready to exit Nigeria otherwise you know the right and most effective step to take. Simply ask your kinsman DSP to sponsor a referendum bill and he will get the support of the entire Southern and Middle Beltern colleagues which constitute majority collectively.

pazienza:
Lol! Legitimacy is acquired via elections in civilian rule. It's as simple as that.
There is no way of proving they were rigged, it's often the opinion of rival groups, and if the rival group could prove the election was rigged, the rigged candidate loses legitimacy and is forced to give way. We had already seen this in Oshiomhole and Osunbor case, and Chris Ngige and Peter Obi case.

Ngige own is even noteworthy, as even though he gained the goodwill of the people when he reigned as the governor, that alone didn't confer him legitimacy, as he was deposed the moment it was proved by Peter Obi in the law court that he was rigged into office.

So, No, an election is not rigged because a group of people says so, it's rigged if it could be proved in court of law, using the constitution, which represents the will of the people.

So, your attempt at legitimizing a military dictator, while dismissing civilian regimes as fall out of rigged election is distressing and could have only come from a demonic mindset.

Bottom line is that you can't build something out of nothing.
You can't come to power through undemocratic means, and now claim because a vocal minority ( remember that the only way we can prove the dictator had the majority support, was via election, which is a democratic process, he already gatecrashed) were singing your praises, your government is now legitimate and a democracy.

What you suggest is madness, and it's from this stream of thought process that Nigeria failed.

Legitimacy is not acquired through election in military rule which Gowon's and Ironsi's regimes were examples of. And that simply cuts it. A military rule seeks legitimacy by wearing a democratic culture founded on positive disposition to the will of the people.
Contrary to your claim, the readiness of a rival party to prove rigging beyond doubt could be forestalled by the courts either through technicalities or through sheer bias. Under such a case the candidate who wins the litigation will still remain an illegal one. It happened when the courts refused to admit Atiku's video tape evidences of massive rigging and the fraudulent printing of the ballot papers in South Africa solely on the grounds that it would not do the country's image any good.
Also situations in which the judiciary was later discovered to have been bribed into perversion of Justice would clearly confer illegality on the regime even if in retrospect. So establishing legality through the courts could be indeterminate.

Constitutions are made for the people and not people for the constitution, hence the people have the power to disregard adherence to it under an emergency situation which demands public opinion as guide. When the emergency 'need' came for Ojukwu to declare Biafra based on the Eastern Regional Assembly consensus, he as a Nigerian, disregarded the fact that the constitution had no provision for secession and went ahead.
So your perception that humans must be slaves of their own constitution could only have come from the insanity founded on the demonic and slavish mindset occasioned by the failed system of Nigeria.

Under an emergency situation where the constitution has been rendered useless, elections can't be conducted to measure legitimacy since the document guiding the process is no longer tenable. Therefore a military government which topples an unpopular one that has raped and distorted the constitution does not have to acquire legitimacy through an election guided by that very constitution illegally and criminally amended by its predecessor regime.

gidgiddy:
You dont make any sense.

First is that you complain thatt Ironsi introduced unitary rule but you say that that Gowon that created 12 unitary state was acting for majority of thr people? So that mesns that majority of the people were ok with Ito di s8nce they were hsppy eith Gowon.

So you know that Gowon who signed the agreement with Ojukwu was not an elected official yet you support the same unelected Gowon to act unbehalf of people who never elected him, and go to abolish 4 Regions that were created by law and replace them 12 states created by military decree. Since when do unelected people act on behalf of the majority of the people? Did Ironsi or Gowon have any mandate to act for anyone? So, if you must condemn Ironsi, then condemn Gowon too since both men had no mandate to be head of state.

You are not mature enough to discuss Nigerian history and Politics. You should spend more in in the other sections, Politics is serious business

Lack of maturity is evidenced by tantrums throwing which you are the one guilty of here. Why not just make your point and counter your opponent's with a superior one?

On the strength of the fact that Ironsi's government made unpopular policies and introduced the distortion of the constitution and ignored the cries of the public to leave it intact, Gowon's regime became legitimate for listening to the public's demands and granting them.
Is this too difficult to understand?
Had Ironsi heeded the advice to leave the constitution alone and punish the January coupists, his government would have acquired legitimacy even though he too was unelected.
Recall that after he turned down the MPs' demand for Dipcharima's installation, the public still sent him a delegation telling him they would not mind his rejection of Dipcharima provided he punished the coupists and reversed his Unification and Anti-secession Decrees and reversed his centralization of the civil service.
All these mean he was offered several concession and chances to legitimize his government but he refused out of arrogance.
Can you mention any single public advice which Ironsi accepted to work with?
I mean just one!

Gowon on the other hand had many to his credit and that made the difference.

Examples are his undoing of Ironsi's Unification and Anti-secession Decrees as demand by the public, his creation of more subnational units which the actual minority (WAZOBIANS) had denied the majority (the non-WAZOBIANS collectively) in the previous regional arrangement, his reneging on Aburi Accord as advised by the elected representative political leaders of the various constituencies, his release of Enahoro, Isaac Boro and all other political prisoners on the advice of the public, etc. Even Azikiwe, the Igbos elected representative leader, was among those who advised Gowon.
Such a government automatically made itself qualified to act on the people's behalf under that circumstances when the reliability of the constitution had become a subject of controversy, and elections were not practically possible against the momentary odds.

pazienza:
When and how did the civilian government sit and unanimously reached a decision to anoint a military dictator?

When was this voting process done, and what was the result of the voting, because obviously, I didn't get the memo.

Even in democracy legitimacy is acquired and not conferred by election or any formal process as such. Most Nigerian elections were rigged thus produced illegal regimes, but along the line some acquired legitimacy by taking decisions backed by popular support. Legalism usually gives way to legitimacy in all human affairs.

gidgiddy:
The narrative is simple. Nigerian was sliding into Chaos after 1960. Young revolutionary officers under Nzeogwu struck in other to arrest the situation. Their coup untimately failed which resulted in Ironsi assuming power.

The problem anyone who wants to blame Ironsi for death of true federalism will have is that they will have to answer certain questions such as:-

1) why did ynose eho came after Ironsi not reverse whatever Ironsi did?

2) why did Gowon dismantle the 4 Constitutionally created Regions and replace the with 12 unconstitutional states?

3) Why did Gowon agree and sign a document with Ojukwu were both men agrreed to a confederation only for Gowon to return to Nigeria to insist on unitarism?

4) Ironsi was in power for just six months, Gowon was in power for 9 years. Who really should be blamed based on lenght of time in office?


The truth is that the North wanted to implement "divide and rule" so as to politically subjugate Nigeria and balkanising Nigeria into several states allowed them to do that.

Answers:
1. Steps to reverse Ironsi's blunders had already commenced by way of the abrogation of his Unification and Anti-secession Decrees, and the re-decentralizaion of the civilian service. But Ojukwu's insistence on Confederacy conflicted with the majority's wish of a return to federalism which Gowon's steps already signalled. This conflict led to the need for Gowon to suspend his steps to deal with Ojukwu first.

2. As at the time Gowon created the 12 states, the constitution was no longer sacrosanct as it no longer reflected the people's will. Under such a circumstances the people themselves who made the constitution had to be consulted through their elected political leaders for any decision of national importance. It was the consensuses of the political leaders on behalf of the people that Gowon abided by in creating the 12 states which was legitimate on the strength of its acceptance by the minorities who collectively make up the majority over WAZOBIANS.

3. Gowon ignorantly signed a document which resulted from an illegitimate legislative summit by unelected soldiers and civilians. On return to Nigeria the people with their sovereign power advised him to dishonour that accord and he did. Are the people no longer sovereign?

4. Those to really be blamed are the Jan 15 coup plotters who toppled a democratically elected government through an unconstitutional means, and plunged the country into crisis in the first instance; and Ironsi who successfully stopped them but unfortunately took an action which did not make any difference from the what the outcome of the coup would have been if successful.

And come to think of it; the crisis which led to the problems had absolutely NOTHING to do with the constitution. It was all about which party aligned with which at the center, and then election and census rigging later. Not one, not even the Southern politicians on the receiving end of those crisis, ever asked for constitution review as a way out of the crisis. But Ironsi ignored all that background and went straight into tampering with the constitution and centralizing the civil service which was an apolitical institution by law. How did the political crisis on ground concern the civil service to warrant Ironsi's attempt to address it by restructuring the civil service?
Did that honestly make sense?
The only plausible explanation for the illogicality of Ironsi's Unification Decree and civil service restructuring was the long held suspicion of Igbo domination agenda held by Northerners. And they used all means available to them to crush it including keeping Gowon perpetually in power.
Would you really blame them therefore?
Put yourself in their shoes and see if you could have reacted differently.

Another truth is that despite being fully aware that the North had always plotted to subdue the South, Igbos choose to align with them politically against fellow Southerners at independence. But within 4 years it boomeranged explosively on Igbos and the South in general. So whose fault?

pazienza:
How exactly did we arrive at the decision that Gowon dictatorship was a popular demand, and that the people prefered Gowon dictatorship to civilian rule?

How can we determine this popularity without a form of voting process or plebiscite? Ever heard of vocal minority before?

How can this voting have occurred with Gowon and his boys pointing gun at everyone, so much that Ogundipe fled for his life?
If Ogundipe stood no chance, what chance did the civilians stand against a military dictator as to say no to his government?

Legitimacy is not ascertained through electoral process or plebiscite but through public opinion consensus which is expressed actively and passively through diverse other means.

The fact that officers who did not run away were not killed or harassed destroys the point you are trying to make on Ogundipe's fleeing.

pazienza:
All amounts to nothing, seeing as he did exactly the same deadly sin of Ironsi.
He never handed over to Dipcharima and the civilian government.
All you have done so far was try to legitimize a military dictatorship. You even labelled it as having a democratic culture.
How could he act in line with the people wish when the people wish could only be ascertained through a democratic process, and he failed to usher in democracy by handing over to Dipcharima honourably

Only Ironsi had duty to defend the constitution and probably hand over to Dipcharima? Gowon was not bound by same duties

How could Gowon have defended the constitution? Very simple: by handing over to Dipcharima, ushering the civilian government, returning back to the barracks with his boys and demanded that Ojukwu did the same.

On the bolded, the democratic ascertainment process of Gowon's actions legitimacy was already in place in the form of the previously elected politicians whose advice he guided himself with in his actions of legislative importance and others.

pazienza:
Governance is about legitimacy and the people. During Gowon's rule the public was no longer keen on having Dipcharima sworn in as events had overtaken such In their eyes. In fact they did not at any time ask Gowon to bring back Dipcharima

How exactly can a military mutiny Anf dictatorship be legitimate? From whence was this legitimacy derived from, how can we ascertain the legitimacy of a military dictator with guns and soldiers at his his disposal?
How can you decide the people acceptance of Gowon mutiny except through a democratic vote?
How can Dipcharima ask to be sworn in, when even Ogundipe, who was supposedly the next in line of secession was on the run for his life?

You obviously are ignorant of the difference between legality and legitimacy hence you use them interchangeably.

While legality is the quality of being in accordance with a law or body of laws, legitimacy is the popular acceptance and recognition by the public of the authority of a governing regime.

Ironsi's actions lacked legality and legitimacy for being against the existing body of laws and for lack of popularity respectively.

Gowon's actions on the other hand were not illegal as the constitution which formed the standard of measurement had been bastardized by his predecessor. They were also legitimate as they were all responses to popular demands. For example the creation of states was welcomed by the minorities who actually constituted and still constitute the majority when taken collectively against the WAZOBIANS who were against splitting of the regions for fear of losing their domineering grips on the minorities in their respective regions.

pazienza:
Unlike Ironsi who polluted and contaminated it, Gowon actually made the attempt to purify it but the circumstances under which later embattled him gave him the genuine imperative to suspend the process

This is you shamelessly making up inane excuses for Gowon.

But truth remains that at no point in time did Gowon attempt to hand over power to civilian government, Dipcharima was there in 1966 when Gowon took over, he was there in 1970 when he won the war and completed his coup he started in 1966, he saw was there when Gowon was booted out.
Any one can makeup excuses for not doing something they ought to do, but as long as they didn't do it, it remains undone and no amount of excuse can credit them with doing what they didn't do.

This is you shamelessly defending Ironsi's execution of the long planned Igbo domination agenda.
As at when Gowon took over in 1966, Nigerians were no longer keen on having Dipcharima sworn in. Their earlier demand to have Dipcharima's sworn in was on the premise that he was going to continue operating with the yet-to-be-mutilated independence constitution. But Ironsi's perversion of the constitution made the Dipcharima thing lose priority to the concern of restoring the constitution first. Dipcharima could not have been sworn to operate with a unitary constitution which was alien to civilians.
At the end of the war Nigerians had begun to hope for reconciliation first and then fresh elections. Had they asked Gowon to just hand power over back to Dipcharima and Gowon turned them down as Ironsi did, then you would have had a premise for comparison.

Gowon's actions were largely based on the advice he received from the sovereign populace through their representative political leaders. So your accusations against Gowon are actually against the generality of Nigerians who with their sovereign powers decided Gowon's actions and inactions under those circumstances. Are the people no longer sovereign?
On which political leaders' unanimous advice were Ironsi's actions based? NONE!

pazienza:
The issue of paramount importance was the preservation of the constitution on which democracy was built. Unlike Ironsi who polluted and contaminated it, Gowon actually made the attempt to purify it

How so?

By creation of abominations called states?

By the reversal of Ironsi's Unification and Anti-seccession Decrees.
The creation of states threw minorities into a frenzy of celebrations unlike Ironsi's Unification Decree which was greeted with riots.
Anyhow you look at it, Gowon acted in line with the people's will while Ironsi's actions were anti-people.
Only Ironsi really had the duty to defend the Constitution as it was yet intact and working the way he met it. Gowon on the other hand met a vandalised constitution which must be cleaned up first before being defended. How could Gowon have continued defending a constitution which had metamorphosed from the form he swore to defend?

pazienza:
Lol!

Still running in circles.
This is not about would have, should have, could have.

This is about what is.

You are the one who says Ironsi did wrong

And I asked for his crimes, and I was told that he refused to hand over to Dipcharima, the civilian government.

And then I was told that Gowon is good and a nationalist.

Then I asked if he handed over to Dipcharima to warrant such praises
Then I was told no, that it doesn't matter that he didn't hand over to Dipcharima, since Ironsi didn't.

And then I asked again, if not handing over to Dipcharima for 6months was a sin, and Ironsi was a sinner for being a culprit and therefore must be crucified, how then is Gowon not a sinner and a bigger culprit for not handing over to Dipcharima for 7years until he(Gowon ) was ousted, and I was told that it doesn't matter, that he is a nationalist nevertheless, handing over to Dipcharima doesn't matter, once Gowon is involved, it only matters for Ironsi, and that I mustn't question that, lest I become an enemy of the state.

And this is why and when I knew Nigeria would forever remain a failed colonial entity . For thats what happens when truth becomes treason and lies patriotism.

You are the one running in circles. The 'would have' premise applies to Gowon and is itself attached to Ironsi.
The issue of paramount importance was the preservation of the constitution on which democracy was built. Unlike Ironsi who polluted and contaminated it, Gowon actually made the attempt to purify it but the circumstances under which later embattled him gave him the genuine imperative to suspend the process.
It is clear that had circumstances remained the same Gowon would have completed the reversal of Ironsi's blunder. Ironsi on the other hand had no such compelling circumstance to justify his attack on the constitution. Here lies the difference which makes Gowon a hero with Ironsi a villain.
Governance is about legitimacy and the people. During Gowon's rule the public was no longer keen on having Dipcharima sworn in as events had overtaken such In their eyes. In fact they did not at any time ask Gowon to bring back Dipcharima. They only asked him to revert to federalism and in response he actually began the process. Also he had to dump Aburi Accord when the sovereign public so advised. Gowon's rule had a democratic culture unlike Ironsi whom the sovereign public specifically asked to install Dipcharima and sent a delegation to him to demand a reversal of his centralization of power which he dishonoured under the subterfuge that such was the only way he could operate as military junta.
So can you now answer the question why Ironsi decided to introduce military rule and unitary system when the public was not complaining about the existing federal system?

pazienza:
This was never the bone of contention.
The bone of contention is that you present Gowon a nationalist and good, for doing the exact same thing you vilify Ironsi for.

Common sense dictates that if you think that whatever Ironsi did was wrong, you should be consistent enough to admit that Gowon had the opportunity to right Ironsi wrongs, but instead repeated and worsened them, and not for 6months like Ironsi did, but for years.

This to me should be simple enough.

Trash story. Have you yourself admitted that what Ironsi did was wrong? That has been the premise.
As long as Gowon dis not introduce the aberration called military rule, he remains a nationalist over Ironsi on a comparative scale. How do we address a problem genuinely when those who created it have remained in denial mode forever?
Again, if Ironsi had done what the constitution and military ethics stipulated, would Gowon have ever come to power let alone do all you accuse him of? This simple question is the starting point for any honest introspection. So answer it first before we can proceed further.
Ironsi's action was the starting point of the tragedy. So in addressing that tragedy common sense dictates that we start from the starting point.

You are as demonic as the Ironsi who introduced military rule and unitary system and set the pace for the bastardization of our "We the people" constitution.

If Ironsi had lived by his oath to defend the Constitution irrespective of the circumstance and therefore handed power back to civilians after foiling the coup, would Gowon have ever come to power let alone staying that long?
Please answer this simple question if you are honest about the issue being addressed.

pazienza:
Rather than prove it wrong that Ojukwu's irrational intransigence kept Gowon in power and prevented him from completing his restoration mission you keep regurgitating the questions for which that was given as answer. You speak like a broken record

Tormented soul.

So, it was "Ojukwu irrational intransigence", that stopped Gowon from handing over to Dipcharima in 1970, dissolving his abominations called states, and returning back to the barracks as a soldier, but instead, he clung to power as a military dictator, until another coup swept him off.

You really are a demonic being.

If Ironsi had done the needful, Gowon would not have ever come to power. Why did Ironsi refuse to do the needful? Simple question!

pazienza:
Gowon needed not create states.
All he needed to do was hand over to Dipcharima, and insist Ojukwu handed over to civilians.

Isn't this what you wanted Ironsi to do?

Why are you not demanding same from Gowon?

If Ironsi had done that, Gowon would not have ever risen to power hence the question of him doing it would not have arisen. .Why did Ironsi refuse to do it so that the likes of Gowon would not have later come to power? This is the question you have been avoiding like a plague. Answer it if you are sincere!

pazienza:
Of course your disease of lack of comprehension remains untreated or else how does the clear use of the word "supposedly" translate to the outright claim that Ironsi announced verbatim that he came to restore civilian rule?
And if he did not come to restore civil rule as you claim on his behalf, then what more vindication do people like us need for our belief that he came to entrench Igbo agenda and was actually the hand of Esau behind the Nzeogwu coup?
See how you contradict yourself shamelessly? What mission other than a return to civil rule should any sincere soldier have for foiling a coup? In your vile attempts to justify Ironsi's introduction of military rule you have shot yourself in the foot and indicted him of sinister motives.

You are a jellyfish.
Where and when was it claimed by me that Ironsi ousted Nzeogwu and co, so that he could return power to the civilians.
Where did you get this your "supposedly" from, let me guess, from your degraded brain cells?

So what agenda did Gowon come to entrench by not handing over to Dipcharima, as you expected Ironsi to do. Oh let me guess, this handing over to Dipcharima thing is only reserved for Ironsi, right?
Mpama!

Exactly, what other purpose other than returning power to civilian Government should Gowon have for ousting Ironsi for not handing over to Dipcharima?

You see, you are brainless and cursed not to use your brains for once.

Go back and read your comments to see where you asked whether Ironsi told me he came to restore civil rule. Inconsistent clown.

Like I have said already, answer the question as to why Ironsi introduced military rule before we talk of Gowon who kicked him out for fear of perceived Igbo hegemony entrenchment. Incoherent and self contradictory clown lacking basic compression ability.

gidgiddy:
Ironsi took over power in tumultuous times. The Primeminister was dead, two Regional premiers (Akintola and the Sarduana) were dead, the president was out of the country, most of the political elite had taken flight and half of the country was in Nzeogwus hands. I dont see how Ironsi could have handed over power to anyone in that chaotic situation. But it is possible thst Ironsi used the confusion of the time to sieze power.

Anyone is wrong in saying was that it was Ironsi who caused true federalism to go away. No matter what Ironsi did, he did not abolish the 4 Regions. If those 4 Regions had been maintained, we would still have Regionalism on return to civil rule because it would have been the frsmework of 4 Regions that politicians would have had to work with. Maybe we may have had more Regions by now but we would have still had Regionalism

That act by Gowon of abolishing the 4 Regions and creating 12 states is what brought us to where we are today. All the 36 states of Nigeria were military creations, not one was created by civilians. And it all started with Gowon.

Gowon's creation of states was accompanied with the return of their civil services to them. Ironsi on the other hand centralized the civil service thus effectively centralizing all regional powers.
In the UK where they practice unitary system they have regions but which are very weak compared with the center. So the mere existence of regions does not automatically translate to federalism. It is degree to which those regions are autonomous that says whether there is federalism or not. Ironsi initially left the regions but reduced their autonomy to zero, and then later on erased their boundaries and replaced them with 35 weak provinces which were to be reporting to the center.

pazienza:
It is however an irony that the same Ojukwu who rejoiced at and justified Ironsi's dismantling of federalism and imposition of unitary system - the centripetal structure, later within few months became an Aburi advocate of confederalism - the centrifugal structure. That was inconsistency built on an afterthought. So Ojukwu was as inconsistent as Gowon in the whole exercise of seeking the right structure for the country.

This is you trying to make light of Gowon reneging on Aburi agreement, by trying to push a agenda of Ojukwu holding different opinions before Aburi, but when I reminded you that opinions and agreements are not quite same, you changed like a chameleon and now started preaching how the entire Aburi was a charade that lacked legitimacy, yet you were crying not long ago about the inferior representatives the North had at Aburi.


And by the way, speaking of change of opinions, it's also a known fact that the northern military junta, Gowon inclusive were angling for secession of the North from Nigeria during their counter coup and Igbo massacre. The chant was "Araba ", ie division. But quickly changed to one Nigeria later.

Opinions can be changed, but what's the point of wasting time to make an agreement you have no intention of keeping, especially when this was highlighted by Gowon sending Inferior representatives to Aburi, like you noted.
Obviously, he wasn't ready for any discussion or peaceful dissolutions of the conflict.

The bolded is pure rubbish. When did you remind me of that? And that itself is double standards. Ojukwu was initially an apostle of unitary system when he and Ironsi were in power, but when they lost power he became a confederalist. Jumping from one ideological extreme to the other. Why did he not propose Aburi Summit when Ironsi his brother was in power destroying the structure?
Don't forget to answer the question why Ironsi introduced military rule against the constitution and military ethics? Answer that before we talk of Gowon who came later.

pazienza:
It is however an irony that the same Ojukwu who rejoiced at and justified Ironsi's dismantling of federalism and imposition of unitary system - the centripetal structure, later within few months became an Aburi advocate of confederalism - the centrifugal structure. That was inconsistency built on an afterthought. So Ojukwu was as inconsistent as Gowon in the whole exercise of seeking the right structure for the country.

This is you trying to make light of Gowon reneging on Aburi agreement, by trying to push a agenda of Ojukwu holding different opinions before Aburi, but when I reminded you that opinions and agreements are not quite same, you changed like a chameleon and now started preaching how the entire Aburi was a charade that lacked legitimacy, yet you were crying not long ago about the inferior representatives the North had at Aburi.


And by the way, speaking of change of opinions, it's also a known fact that the northern military junta, Gowon inclusive were angling for secession of the North from Nigeria during their counter coup and Igbo massacre. The chant was "Araba ", ie division. But quickly changed to one Nigeria later.

Opinions can be changed, but what's the point of wasting time to make an agreement you have no intention of keeping, especially when this was highlighted by Gowon sending Inferior representatives to Aburi, like you noted.
Obviously, he wasn't ready for any discussion or peaceful dissolutions of the conflict.

Trash! Issues are addressed in their chronological order. Ironsi introduced military rule and that led to all the other tragic events.
So first answer the question as to why Ironsi introduced a government system alien to the constitution before we can talk of Gowon who came after him. If you don't tell us what justified Ironsi's action, but keep trying to jump over it to Gowon's which was just a fallout of that, then you are a fraud. Answer the question on Ironsi first so that we can have enough premise to talk of Gowon's decisions which followed.

pazienza:
As usual, bunch of verbose trash

From blaming Ojukwu for winning a debate against inferior people Gowon sent, to now totally discarding Aburi as a charade,when you saw you were losing out on that angle. you have come in full circle just in hours.


I'd like to know where and when Ironsi told you he ousted Nzeogwu and co, because he wanted to re install civilian government, you really are making a fool of yourself.

Nzeogwu and his boys had already taken power from the civilians, Ironsi did a mini coup and took away power from them almost immediately, it was a coup within coup, go figure.

So, why did Gowon foil Ironsi government? Let me guess? It wasn't to undo Ironsi "blunders ", it was to perpetuate himself on power, when he had all the liberty to undo all the supposedly wrong Ironsi did.
Why did Gowon not hand over to Dipcharima when he won the war? Why did he have to be booted out of power? Let me guess, it was Ironsi fault, right? Gowon took forever doing your phantom refederalization until he was booted out of power years after the war lasted
You are a comedian.

You hold Ironsi unto the same standard you wouldn't want Gowon being held unto, and you vilify Ironsi for his actions which lasted for 6months, while you praise Gowon for doing similar and worst thing for years.

It's the norm for mischievous Nigerians like you, to hold Igbos to standards none of you and your rulers can live up to.

The incoherent chatter from a demented melancholic as usual. Aburi remains a charade as it lacked representative legitimacy. Prove that wrong with sound reasoning rather than your usual blunderbuss of self contradictory postulations.

Of course your disease of lack of comprehension remains untreated or else how does the clear use of the word "supposedly" translate to the outright claim that Ironsi announced verbatim that he came to restore civilian rule?
And if he did not come to restore civil rule as you claim on his behalf, then what more vindication do people like us need for our belief that he came to entrench Igbo agenda and was actually the hand of Esau behind the Nzeogwu coup?
See how you contradict yourself shamelessly? What mission other than a return to civil rule should any sincere soldier have for foiling a coup? In your vile attempts to justify Ironsi's introduction of military rule you have shot yourself in the foot and indicted him of sinister motives.
.You are a shameless revisionist. In one sentence you claim Ironsi foiled the coup, yet in another you claim Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna had already taken power. Who takes over power through a foiled coup? What you smoke is very powerful. Did Ifeajuna take power from the Ghana he escaped to? Your lies give you away obviously. I have never seen a person as unintelligent as yourself. Do you check the coherence of your messages at all before pasting them?

Rather than prove it wrong that Ojukwu's irrational intransigence kept Gowon in power and prevented him from completing his restoration mission you keep regurgitating the questions for which that was given as answer. You speak like a broken record.
Gowon rightly found it more expedient to address Ojukwu's threat to national sovereignty than to continue with re-federalization. What had Gowon got to do with Dipcharima when Ironsi's unification and Anti-seccession Decrees possed a more deadly threat to national existence than the Ifeajuna coup?
Yes we hold Ironsi and Igbos to a higher standard because they ignited the problem of constitution mutilation in the first instance. If you people had left our constitution the way you met it Gowon would not have even risen to power let alone tamper with it as well. Adam is called the father of sin not because he is the biggest sinner the world ever knows but because he introduced sin to humanity.
Before Ironsi came the constitution was sacrosanct and sacred. But his pioneership role in vandalization of it emboldened all others to attack it. He also introduced military rule which led to the dog eat dog situation that created a vicious cycle of such.

gidgiddy:
You are completely wrong. As history tells us, Nzeogwu was already successful in the North, while thr coup fell short in the South. Ironsi then took control in the South and there was a stalemate. It took the intervention of Lt Colonel Nwawo and Major Obasunjo to negotiate between Ironsi and Nzeogwu, both of who were threatening to attack the other. In the end, Nzeogwu decided to surrender on the condition that Ironsi would grant the coup plotters amnesty, to which Ironsi agreed. Nzeogwu then flew with Nwawo back to Lagos where he surrendered and was detained. It was due to this agreement that Ironsi did not immidiately try and execute Nzeogwu and his fellow coup plotters. He instead he kept them in detention. I also do not think that it was practical that Ironsi could have handed over to to civilians straight away in those tumultuous days. Nzeogwus coup was actually initially very popular because the people were tired of Politicians.

Also, Ironsi did not change the structural configuration of Nigeria. Ironsi met 4 Regions and left four Regions. But Gowon met 4 Regions and created 12 states. This was the biggest thing that changed the structural makeup of Nigeria for had Gowon kept the 4 Regions the way Ironsi kep them and not subdivided them, we would have continued Regionalism whenever civil rule returned. Nigeria was like a compound with 4 autonomous buildings. Ironsi comes in as the new caretaker and draws up a news tenancy agreement in which he takes some powers from the tenants and gives it to himself at the center. Gowon comes in as the new caretaker, not only does he change the tenancy agreement like Ironsi, he goes the extrer step further to go into the 4 building yo reconcruct them into 12 flats. While a tenancy agreement can always be renegotiated, returning the flats into the houses the once were is far more difficult.



From 4 Regions we today have 36 unitary states. While it is true that there was an agitation for COR Region, it was not the duty of Gowon to create it. The duty of Gowon was to hold a constitutional conference and conduct elections in the 4 Regions. The agitation for creation of more Regions can then continue in a civilian setting.

Gowon was the true destroyer of Regionalism in Nigeria and not Ironsi

Your claim that the success of the coup in the North translated to overall success is quite wondrous. It is like a student who failed Math and English but passed in all other subjects is qualified for university admission.
As far as Ironsi could within split seconds rally loyal troops to quell the coup between 4:00 am and 6:00 am same day, he had all it would have taken for him to give powers back to the civilians and rally his loyal troops, which were in the overwhelming majority in the military, to guard the civilians heavily against any stupid attempt from any stupid young officer. Moreover the tension on ground at that moment was so scary that no young officer would have tried any mess if Dipcharima had been sworn in by their GOC.
As per the structure Ironsi dismantled; let me lecture you a bit on some few details.
Ironsi unified the civil service immediately he got to power. Now let's take it from there.
In elementary Secondary school Government classes it is taught that the civil service is the only institution through which government exercises all its constitutional powers be it for revenue drive, execution of projects, payment of salaries, employment of new persons, etc. In other words government is civil service and civil service is government.
Now, how could Ironsi's unification of the civil service have translated to regional structure intactness? The intactness we are talking of is not about the shape or map outline of the regions but the powers which the constitution provided them with. A regional or state government without its civil service is as good as a dummy. Imagine you being the governor of your state with your state's civil servants answerable to Abuja and not you. What kind of government will you really be able to run? By unifying the civil service Ironsi castrated the regional governments thus took away their powers to generate revenue, control their resources, etc. How do you think Ironsi could have continued paying the salaries of the centralized civil servants without also centralizing the regional sources of revenue from which those salaries were initially being generated? Was Ironsi that rich to have been able to pay them entirely from his own pocket without recourse to analgamating the regional sources of revenues thus killing resource control?
Eventually in May of that year Ironsi made his infamous broadcast in which he announced that Nigeria had ceased to be what is called a federation and that the official name of the country had ceased to be "Federal Republic of Nigeria" but had become just "Republic of Nigeria" meaning the federating units had died. He went further to argue that the bane of national unity was regionalism, and then lied that all well meaning Nigerians wanted it abolished.

pazienza:
Trash as usual from you.

Civilians were toppled by Nzeogwu coup. Zik was on the run, Balewa and Saraduna were dead and the military were in control.
The civilian government had been toppled already, they were no longer in charge before Ironsi stepped in.
The civilians were no longer in charge the moment Nzeogwu and his boys struck. Any body could stay in his room and throw up people to replace Balewa, but they were no longer in charge. The military, first Nzeogwu boys, then Ironsi boys were in charge. Ironsi met no sitting president or prime minister, the deposed civilian government were at the mercy of the Khaki Boys, and they were still on ground when Gowon won the war, Dipcharima didn't die before 1970, did he? What stopped Gowon from doing the right thing?



You keep going in circles, making conjectures Up and down.


Gowon didn't at any point tried to hand over power to the civilian government, and Ojukwu declined.
Gowon was power grabbing, and continued doing so even after the war ended, until he was booted out.

Gowon sent Inferior brains to a supposedly important Aburi accord, and you blame Ojukwu for this, when in actual fact, Gowon intent of keeping any agreement reached at such gathering should be questioned, seeing as he didn't consider it important enough to send superior brains, obviously because he had no intentions of keeping agreements reached there, he was prepared to roll out his guns from the very beginning?
Or was he just plain incompetent and lacking in knowledge, as to not know the importance of such gathering and it's agreements?

For now I will ignore the fact that you have as usual introduced emotions and insultive language into the debate again. It actually takes someone devoid of logical input to easily resort to emotional outbursts and foul language.
That said; the reason for which Ironsi supposedly foiled the coup was to prevent a disruption of the civilian regime by the military and thereby preserving democracy. On that note he was expected to hand over power back to the civilians. But his taking over power yielded exactly the same result ( military incursion into politics) as Ifeajuna's coup would have yielded if successful. So of what use was his foiling of the coup when the end result of it was going to be the same as that of the coup he foiled? It is like uprooting a diseased mango tree only to replace it with another diseased mango tree. How does that make sense? Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna wanted to take power from the civilians. Ironsi stopped them from doing so but he himself took the power and claimed he stopped the coup as if the coup was meant to achieve anything different from what his own action resulted in. This alone shows he was after power for a hidden agenda.

Government is never about individuals but institutions which are founded on constitutional provisions which the military swore to defend. So even if the civilians in charge had been wiped out, the constitution had not. Ironsi met the constitution still in place and intact and he knew what the constitution prescribed for such situation. Why did he not simply follow it despite having sworn to uphold and defend the Constitution by virtue of his profession and rank? Did the constitution permit taking of power through any means outside election? Before then a person who attempted it had been jailed and also people had started accusing the federal government of lawlessness for earlier on bypassing the constitution to install a premier in one of the regions. So why did Ironsi choose to defy the sanctity of the constitution? When Yaradua died and there was constitutional crisis, did soldiers take over against constitutional provisions on how to get out of the imbroglio? Why did Ironsi not simply follow military law and arrest the coupists while allowing the civilians to invoke constitutional provisions to sort themselves out as per the power vacuum created thereof? Was the Ifeajuna coup legal to warrant using it as a premise or excuse to get himself involved in governance of the country?
Did the constitution or military laws recommend military take over as a solution to any crisis in the country?

Not even Ojukwu himself was supposed to attend the Aburi Accord where Michael Okpara was. Ojukwu was never elected by the Easterners represent them in any legislative businesses. Same with the attendees handpicked by Gowon.
Aburi Summit lacked legitimacy for the fact that as a legislative meeting supposedly on behalf of the civilian populace, the civilians themselves were neither consulted through their elected representatives or allowed to have a say.
Why on earth would just few soldiers just handpick themselves, go to a far away country and claim they were making laws for millions of civilians who already made their laws themselves as far back as 1957 in London and in that document spelt out how the laws could be altered by themselves alone? That was pure rubbish!
Aburi Summit was at best a charade organized by unelected persons for themselves. It was its shambolic and illegitimately constituted manner that made it possible for dullard's to be handpicked by Gowon with Ojukwu himself usurping the supposed role of Zik and Okpara in representation.

Gowon actually began a re-federalization of the country and that was enough evidence that he was sincerely committed to eliminating the vestiges of the coup and the eventual demilitarization of the polity. His revoke of Ironsi's Unification and Anti-seccession Decrees were the most salient pointers

pazienza:
Ironsi met no civilians on ground as well.
Nzeogwu boys had ransacked and toppled the government before Ironsi stepped in.
So what's your point?

Gowon toppled Ironsi because it was believed Ironsi didn't do a good job, No?

So, did Gowon do a good job?

Did he hand over to civilian government and undid all Ironsi did by restoring order as it was before Nzeogwu and his boys struck?

What national interest inspired Gowon demanding for numero uno power from Ojukwu, when he could have won the times Man of the year by relinquishing power to civilian government, insisting Ojukwu does same, and re establishing the constitution?

Instead he fought a war trying to claim numero uno authoritarian power for himself, and when he won the war, clung tenaciously to it, bastardizing the regional structures by perpetuating abominations called states, and had to be booted out of seat!

Where is Gowon nationalism?

Wrong! Ironsi met civilians on ground and even had audience with them according to the account given by Richard Akinjide and corroborated by Maitama Sule. The civilians threw up Dipcharima to replace the slain prime minister so the country's affairs would continue being run peacefully while putting the past behind. But Ironsi refused and threatened them into unwilling submission. That heightened the perception of a hidden agenda on Ironsi's part on behalf of his kinsmen thus inspiring the counter coup through which Gowon rose to power. A counter coup plotted by Northerners aimed at crushing in the bud a perceived domination agenda by Igbos and abrogating offensive centripetal decrees put in place by Igbos to entrench Igbo hegemony could never have been allowed to throw up Ojukwu, an Igbo man, as the ultimate beneficiary in the name of following seniority order.
At that moment the military had become polarized along ethnic lines and thus lost professionalism which seniority considerations are a hallmark of. So seniority rule went away with the loss of professionalism to tribalism.
Moreover, before then, Ojukwu's silence on Ironsi's refusal to punish the coup plotters who murdered their superiors in cold blood had made nonsense of the seniority case Ojukwu was trying to make.

Ojukwu's refusal to let reason prevail over emotions was what kept Gowon in power longer than necessary. How could Gowon have continued with his re-federalization steps to the point of handing power back to civilians when Ojukwu was no longer ready for anything other than war? Could Gowon have conducted elections to return power to the civilians thus restoring federalism in the country including the Eastern Region where Ojukwu was saying "confederalism or war"?

Gowon did not meet any democracy in place or civilians in power to warrant the accusation that he could have safeguarded it by restoring power to the civilians. I can't be accused of not preserving a property I never inherited. However, Gowon had begun to reverse Ironsi's unilateral Decrees like the Unification and Anti-seccession Decrees. He had also restored the region's autonomies back to status quo ante within his first 11 months in office as that was actually what they killed Ironsi for. But unfortunately when Ojukwu began insisting on Aburi Accord against the well thought out advice by the politicians back home to Gowon to to dump it due to its offensive departure from the exact previous federalism they were expecting, the only means available to Gowon to reign Ojukwu in was to start retracing his precious re-federalization steps. Had Ojukwu seen reason why the Aburi Accord was no longer tenable due to its lack of the people's sovereign approval, Gowon would not have had the cause to halt his re-federalization process.
With the above, it is obvious that Gowon actually and sincerely attempted to correct the mess caused by his predecessor and the coupists but had to soft-pedal in the national interest of crushing the threat to the corporate existence of the country which Ojukwu's posturing represented.
What genuine national interest could be said to have inspired Ironsi's own action? What impediment was on his way to just leaving the constitution as he met it? ABSOLUTELY NONE!

gidgiddy:
There some things to take note of

1) There is nothing like "true federalism" in military rule. When Nzeogwu and co toppled the government, the 1963 constitution went up in smoke.

2) while it is true that Ironsi changed the workings of the Federation with decree 34, the blame of why Nigeria still practices the unitary system is the fault of Gowon who cut up the 4 existing Regions into 12 states.

3) The Aburi agreement was a meeting to resolve the crises in the country. Military leaders met and agreed on certain issues. They signed and shook hands over only for Gowon to reneg on the agreement he signed.

It was actually Ironsi's taking over of power that led to the evaporation of the 1963 constitution. The coup of Nzeogwu and Ifeajuna was a military mutiny which Ironsi could have punished them for with court-martial according to military code of ethics, and thereafter proceeded to uphold the constitution by simply replacing the slain premiers with their deputies and swearing in Dipcharima to complete Balewa's new tenure, and then exiting the stage as a professional apolitical soldier amidst cheers and international accolades and possible international awards of Nobel Peace prize in subsequent times. With such action, peace and confidence would have returned to the military as an unbiased arbiter hence the military would not have become this politicized and unprofessional, thus the tragic Civil War would have been avoided.

As per the bolded, there was nothing really wrong with Gowon's creation of 12 states as agitation for more regions had already been on before the military ever came. After the creation of the Midwest, COR and Middle Belt were to follow under the civilians. So the action of Gowon's, being from a minority himself, was actually a positive response to the minorities' age long quest to secure their own autonomy and insulation from the three dominant tribes. What really mattered therefore was not the number of states or regions created but the degree to which they were autonomous. Had Ironsi never tampered with the structure, the pre-military era true federalism would have trickled down to as many states or regions as would have later being definitely created. That is why even though we are now 36 states we still correctly believe that resource control for the states, and not a return to the four regional structure, is all we genuinely need put an end to Nigeria's failure.

The crisis which Aburi Summit was aimed at resolving was actually a direct fall out of Ironsi's pioneership in the mutilation of the "we the people" constitution we started with. Logic therefore dictated that the only resolutions that everyone back at home would have welcomed gladly and wholeheartedly was the restoration of the independence constitution exactly as it was mutually accented to in the 1957 conference by all stakeholders before Ironsi vandalised it. Had the political leaders of the regions been allowed to attend the summit Ojukwu definitely wouldn't have had his way so easily as to get the less educated Northern attendees to sign his confederalism proposals blindly without having a deep knowledge of what it implied.
It is however an irony that the same Ojukwu who rejoiced at and justified Ironsi's dismantling of federalism and imposition of unitary system - the centripetal structure, later within few months became an Aburi advocate of confederalism - the centrifugal structure. That was inconsistency built on an afterthought. So Ojukwu was as inconsistent as Gowon in the whole exercise of seeking the right structure for the country.

Onlytruth:
Ibime you are beginning to lose my respect here, and believe me you don't want to do that! No matter how deltans see Biafra or Aburi Accord, they were DELIBERATE [/b]actions of the [b]EASTERN NIGERIAN [/b]government. I still believe that the Accord could have served Nigeria veritably if not for the selfish and myopic leadership of other majority tribes (and some minority ones like Clark, Enahoro and Saro wiwa). The war broke out because the Federal government decided by its own caprices not to implement the Accord. The war or Nigeria's years in the wilderness were all avoidable. Today everyone is clamoring for a [b]SOVEREIGN NATIONAL CONFERENCE (whatever that means!). Clarify yourself or lose my respect for good.

Aburi Accord proposals are not in any way similar to the objectives of today call for sovereign national conference. Here are the reasons:

1. Were the resolutions at Aburi truly in harmony with the true federalism/resource control which Ironsi and Ojukwu dismantled against genuine national interest, and which Nigerians like the ones you mentioned above were expecting the Aburi Summit was going to bring back?

2. Before Ironsi's misadventure into politics, all Nigerian tribes and peoples had in the 1957 constitutional conference in London mutually consented to Federalism as the system Nigeria was going to practise permanently. But Ironsi came six years later to unilaterally alter that agreement without consulting those who made it and sealed it after exhaustive debates which took them weeks of sleeplessness. Why did Ironsi believe he alone knew better than hundreds of persons among whom the least educated was more educated than him who never stepped foot on any tertiary institution?
3. The Aburi Summit was in principle a legislative business. But Ojukwu and Gowon who were soldiers arrogate to themselves the power to legislate on behalf of civilians in a supposed democracy to the exclusion of the politicians whom the people themselves had with their power of sovereignty earlier chosen to represent them in all future legislative businesses. To that end it becomes pertinent to ask why Enahoro, Awolowo, Azikiwe, Okpara and Dipcharima were not allowed to participate in the summit? How sensible would it therefore have been on their part to accept an Accord which they were not only schemed out of but also brought back confederalism against the pre Ironsi status quo ante of federalism they were already used to and were rightly expecting?
4. The Accord made no proposal on return to civil rule, no date for election, nothing! It was all about how soldiers were going to share power across the regions thereafter. Which normal civilian or political leader do you expect not to reject such accord or advice Gowon to honour it?

VULCAN:
You have put up a very strong attempt to deconstruct Yaradua. Your facts appear to be sound but your conclusions are basically naive. I would recommend that you go study award winning biographies of any 5 major world leaders, whether living or dead. What you will discover is that ALL of them did things at one time or the other that were either morally repugnant, politically disappointing or economically disastrous. To think that running a country exerts the same mental or emotional pressures as being a Sunday school teacher is a sign of delirium. With the mindset you currently have, If you become President of Nigeria tomorrow you will be unable to cope with the terrible compromises that the office demands. Brother, it's not a walk in the park especially when you are in a bastardized system as we have in this country.

Yaradua was a good man struggling against a broken system

First and foremost your theory of compromise is not really relevant to this issue. Compromise is a thing demanded of the freedom fighter and not of the oppressor entity. A sitting president has all the executive powers to correct a social injustice if he is really genuinely committed to democratic ideals.
On whose behalf was Yaradua supposed to 'compromise' by way of giving amnesty to the militants? This obviously suggests that a refusal on his part to 'compromise' would have hurt those who have been milking the Niger Delta dry, thus his compromise was a way to preserve their access to the oil wealth which they have stolen for years.
The spirit of "compromise" is exactly what caused the broken state of Nigeria system.
Had Abraham Lincoln compromised on his rather unpopular anti-slave ownership stance on getting to power, America would likely not have lasted too long as an intact nation afterwards let alone becoming the world's best example of what genuine nation building entails. Abraham Lincoln's anti-slavery philosophy initially sounded like a Sunday school exercise to compromise-peddling cynics back then in the US until it came to fruition through his uncompromising doggedness.
As for the peace awards, yes the winners so far might be guilty of havocs and blunders at some point, but such blunders were committed by them in the genuine quest to address the fundamental causes of the problems rather than just treat symptoms. Yaradua treated symptoms and never attempted to address the root causal factors of the Niger Delta unrest. Had he, without naming it amnesty, just offered to calm the Niger Delta Militants with that monetary offer so as to engender the needed peaceful atmosphere to examine the fundamental cause of the problems and execute the recommended solutions, then you would have had a point.

kenoyad:
Umar Yar adua, a president with good ideas and plan e. g PIB, AMNESTY etc to move Nigeria forward but ailment and cold hand of death never allowed. May his gentle soul continue to rest in perfect peace!

Please recall that the Amnesty was an afterthought on Yaradua's part after his order of massacre in Gbaramatu and Oporoza began to boomerangs in the form of Niger Delta Militants' reprisal attacks on oil installations which within two weeks cut output by over 75℅ thus causing an unmanageable hemorrhage of the economy.
The Amnesty offer was itself a contingency approach to the Niger Delta unrest as it circumvented the fundamental ideals of the struggle as spelt out by the very pioneers in the persons of Isaac Adaka Boro and Ken Saro Wiwa. Neither of these two asked, on behalf of Niger Delta youths, for stipends which total amount constitutes a negligible fraction of the value of wealth that has continuously been stolen from the region by the alien ruling class which the entire Yaradua family belonged to. Rather they fought and died for resource control which would place their God given wealth under their control as obtains in saner climes.
So giving credit to a man for putting in place an amnesty policy which redefined and reclassified freedom fighters as criminals deserving pardon from the very establishment that had oppressed, repressed, brutalized, massacred and milked them dry is nothing other than political correctness.

FANE4Naija:
Yar Adua. One of the best President of Nigeria. Man had valuable plans and reforms.

I disagree with you.
Yaradua was not really too different from Obasanjo and Jonathan. His sickness imposed gentile appearance created the wrong perception in most Nigerians that he was a good man. Had anything happened to take Jonathan out of power just few days after he sacked Aondoakaa, visited the victims of bomb blast in the hospital, and declared that his ambition was not worth anyone's life; we also would have by now believed that he was just the Messiah we never had.
Come to think of it;
This same Yaradua rejected the two key recommendations of Uwais Electoral Reform Panel report which would have permanently put paid to election incredibility that has plagued the country from 1960. The same Yaradua overruled Charles Soludo's Naira redenomination project which would have in no small measure restored the value of our currency and stimulated economic development. It was Yaradua still who, like OBJ ordered the massacre of innocent women and children in Gbaramatu and Oporoza all in the name of smoking out militants - one of whom was never caught. After revealing the massive corruption his godfather, OBJ, perpetrated through phantom power sector reforms, he could however not send EFCC after him. The same Yaradua had Ibori always around him despite how strongly the later was smelling of corruption and sleaze.
The same Yaradua would in his second year in office appoint Tony Anenih, a corruption gold medal contestant against Obasanjo, as his campaign manager for second term ambition which death cut short.

I can go on and on. There was nothing spectacular about Yaradua's administration to warrant all these fondness for him. The typical Nigerian just doesn't speak ill of the dead.
If OBJ, GEJ, IBB, Buhari, and any of the past rulers still alive dies today the manner by which Nigerians will speak good of them at their funerals will leave one trying to figure out whether these rulers are not the same as the persons currently being cursed daily for their roles in bringing the country to this sorry state.

nio68:
Jegede sharp guy ..the news of new funding , likely fake/ packaging has been a smart move.. the price would likely even rise beyond 50k

I feel by now NSEMPA should be controlling things NSE ... lets make the move guys ! Pls invite me if any such arrangement is going on already

Since such idea occurred to you first, why not make the move to create such NSEMPA based price control cabal so that others like me will gladly join?

Where is the bell ringer?

xaggar:
How do you believe in someone you don't even know or heard about.

I may believe in someone even if I haven met him but because I've heard about him or his ways.

If the eunuch believed in Jesus, how come he asked Phillip who the Isaiah's prophesy referred to?

Get your definition of a messiah right!

How come John the Baptist believed in Jesus and was baptizing in His name despite not having known Him in person?
Did that make John an unbeliever?

This is the particular question you all JWs here have been avoiding like a plague.

If the Eunuch did not believe in Jesus the promised Messiah, then why was he so interested in knowing Him that in addition to going for worship in Jerusalem he was searching the scriptures to see how he could identify Him?
This was just like How Moses knew God so closely to the extent that he transacted with Him and brought down the scroll from Him at the top of Mount Sinai, yet at the end of the day Moses still wanted to identify God and so demanded to see Him. Does that mean that Moses did not believe in God all that while? Seeking to identify someone in physical appearance does not mean you don't yet know that person.


What does knowing someone mean? You think it is only by seeing the person?
To know a thing means to have knowledge of it in any form. You can know (i. e. have knowledge of someone) without having seen him or her.

You have knowledge of God thus you know Him and believe in Him, but that doesn't mean you have ever seen Him or that He has ever spoken or transacted business with you.
Likewise the Eunuch knew of and believed in a Messiah whose was going to be peaceful and save from sin. He only asked Philip to help identify Him. John The Baptist too knew that Messiah as Jesus and believed in Him, before getting to know Him in person.
Was John the Baptist therefore an unbeliever?
Please answer this question for once if you are sincere.