@18 platoon

That makes you a liar. You have been all over this place boasting about how Hausa/Fulanis retaliated for the previous incident. You took your boast as far as to claim that you have an Hausa/Fulani army within the Nigerian army, and promising that you are ready with your weapons.

He was not saying sorry, he was being diplomatic - as the governor of a state with many ethnic groups - something that seems to escape your violent mind.

He knows, you know, and everyone knows that Hausa/Fulanis were responsible for the last event - they came out and said so, and so did you - 18 platoon.

If you want to take the olive branch Gov. Jang and the Nigerian government is extending, you would take it as cue to: 1) Call for unity; 2) Ask that every participant in the last act be used as an example of swift justice that is the only way to prevent recurring violence; 3) Call for a just settlement of all issues involved. However, when I asked you what the issues were and how you think it should be resolve peacefully from your point of view, you went silent. However, you found time to proclaim an Hausa/Fulani Army and to promise to meet someone at college park. And now you are coming here to gloat over diplomatese.

Think peace, but if you keep preparing for war your potential victims would be major fools to fold their arms.

18 platoon:

What is propaganda in this, firstly you he accused fulanis of all the wrong things happening in plateau and now he've made 360 degrees turn and he's praising them, he dos'nt have to say sorry verbally for him to mean he's sorry, cos actions speaks louder than voice, he's really sorry and he's begging.

@18 platoon
Jesus once said to the pharisees and I paraphrase: "You say you see, but yet you are blind". In your case, you think a good strategy is to proclaim that there is an Hausa/Fulani Defense Forces as an Army within the Nigerian Army. Keep proclaiming that worldwide and thinking all other ethnic groups are mumu. The joke is on you!

18 platoon:

@lkeyman00, then forgiven.

@Sun of God
Whatever points you have in the first three items below (and I believe everything should be discussed - if you point to the north then you certainly ought to know that you probably have similar issues in whichever state you come from), one would have to conclude that you have gone over the deep end with the fourth one. That is why the entire reply becomes unserious. How can you even think to discuss or suggest such an idea, if you want to be taken seriously?

Sun of god:

Answers - To Be Taken Seriously Unlike the Post / Postee

1) When you see people getting along and respecting each other (Nigeria needs to split)

2) Change cannot be revolutionary as there are more cowards than brave people in Nigeria. It cannot be evolutionary are there are more backward thinking people than progressive minds.

3) Who needs to change = Northerners; Where needs to change = the North; When - Yesterday.

4) Start with detanating simultaneously a small to medium sized biologiical,chemically and nuclear bomb in the North.

@Sun of god
Serious topics like this are meant to look for serious answers. I have asked the moderator to remove your incendiary message. Please desist from making these kind of statements.

Nice blog. On this topic are you suggesting that Nigeria is lacking in people with leadership qualities or that those with true leadership qualities have no chance in our current system? In the former case, how do we go about developing leadership? Since this would not be an overnight process, what do we do in the meantime? In the latter case, how do we change the system so the true leaders rise to the top?

rerute1:

Wat nigeria needs is effective leadership. But how can one lead wen he/she has no idea of wat true leadership is, not to talk of d qualities a leader is supposed to possess. We need to go back to d roots and re-define wat leadership is. I hav put up a blog on leadership and it ranks no. 3 in google search for d phrase - rightful living. So u could check www.rerute-blueboy..com . Thanks

@kosovo
I don't understand how this is dumb. It is part of the EFCC's job. I think it ought to be commended, with the caveat that it is not for show and is addressing other types of corruption e.g. at home internet fraud.

I don't see how this can be considered dumb, afterall policing is not simply about arresting criminals, but also to convince potential ones that they stand a better than 50-50 chance of being caught.

kosovo:

This is just Dumb! I thought yahoo boys no longer carryout their unholy acts in cafes . . . C'mon . . . Internet access at home has gone mainstream. . .
This is just sad! We need to engage our youth. . so that the failed Re-branding exercise can have little effect. . .

@Afam
As noted I agree with most of your points. It was the talk of "big manisim" that necessitated this additional response. While there is no doubt that some people look down on others because of what they do, there is also the issue of personal preference and satisfaction.

My earlier summary of the points made on the thread already acknowledge that these stories are true, but I have a suspicion that it is being repeated by other people to which it does not apply as well.

So, I am not moving the goal posts. The issue is resolved - well according to each one's interpretation, but there are certain commonalities.

Afam:

I am sorry but I think you are shifting the goal post here.

The main crux of this thread was to know if the claims made by most of these taxi drivers are true and I believe that quite a number of us have been able to provide information on this for the reading public to draw their conclusions.

If you are allowed to shift the goal post anytime an issue is resolved then trust me we will be on this thread answering questions till next year without any end in sight.

I hope he is going there to explain his roles in various well-documented international corruption and money-laundering cases.

I don't know why Jonathan is romancing Atiku. We alll know Nigeria's politicians form a thick network, but as Ibori almost literally brought down Yar'adua (until he did it himself), so would any deal Jonathan does with Atiku.

Actg. President Jonathan should sink or swim without inviting sharks into the waters - talk to them, keep them at arms length - don't make them insiders.

@pafun
So you think it is just to show off?

Could it be they also feel the need to put "some passengers" at ease, so they make it clear the passenger is in "enlightened hands" (and not their typical image of a taxi driver - whatever that may be)? That is another possibility.

pafun:



Oga no mind me o, I am only driving this s.hit for a hobby. Actually I have two PhDs, 3 masters, 2 houses each in VI, Knightsbridge, Manhattan and so on. Tell everybody when you return to Naija o. Believe me driving cab is fun,oga. Wallahi may god punish YOU if I dey lie.

If this turns out to be true, then he needs to be recalled by his constituency or needs to be chased away from the National Assembly.

This kind of behavior has got to stop!

We all want Nigeria to change, but it is not clear to me that we are sure of too much beyond that:

1. What would change in Nigeria look like or would we know change when we see it?
2. Can change in Nigeria be revolutionary or evolutionary a.k.a. fast or slow? Why or why not?
2. What in Nigeria needs to change - who, where and when?
3. Most importantly how would you go about changing Nigeria?

@okunoba & @Afam
This thread has generated some interesting responses - for the better. I see your main points, but please also keep the following in mind:

1. Life and nation-building is not all about getting rich. Personal satisfaction is paramount. What can happen if progress is measured by how much money, by any means possible, is what we see in Nigeria today. We all know that teachers are among the least paid of all professions, yet are, perhaps, the most important to the future development of a nation. The main reason is that teachers' services are not measurable in terms of money, while taxi drivers', bankers', etc are almost immediately obvious and can be priced.

2. It is good to talk about how much taxi drivers make, but you also have to talk about their costs. For example, most of those driving taxis/buses in Nigeria do not own these vehicles and operate under very exhorbitant repayment plans. It has also been pointed out that this is a long-day and risky job, that leaves not much time for much else, unless you own your own vehicle. Start-up costs are high, and there is only so much room in the taxi-driving market.

3. You mentioned contributing to society below. Note that one of the reasons that a taxi driver gets to keep a lot of his money in Europe and America is by avoiding taxes. That is certainly not contributing to society. I am not calling taxi drivers dishonest, just pointing this out. The European and American societies in which it is possible to drive taxis or do other jobs and build a good life were built on law and citizenship.

4. Finally, it is one thing to take up taxi driving with a Masters or PhD degree due to a lack of jobs in your area of study, due to your specific circumstances, or because it is more profitable, but that is not the way it should be. Your skills should be used to build your nation up. It may be that some would contribute more through taxi driving, but if a nation is ever going to lift its people out of poverty this cannot be a general proposition.

The dignity of every legal work should be recognized, - taxi driving, doctor, teacher, banker. That is what is going to get Nigeria to the "promised" land.

Returning to the original topic of this thread, perhaps the question should have been this: Why do taxis drivers feel the need to brandish their credentials to passengers?

okunoba:

@Afam, u have said it all of what needs to be said. 

To add a few points, the reason many Nigerians migrate to Europe or America isn`t to be big oga(big boss) but to have access to better health service, decent education, a decent home, constant electricity, good roads, good security, access to clean water and decent basic wages to live on that pays the bills and looks after the family. If being a cab driver or street cleaner in Europe or America is what it takes to have these basic primary needs of the modern era, so be it.  Pride will not feed your family or provide these basic needs.

Being educated isn`t about being big oga but more about a mind set. Education is meant to provides us with the necessary tools to reason and contribute positively to the society we live in, it`s not so u can become some big boss. Judging by the comments on this thread it seems like our people only cram books rather than get educated.

I personally know cab drivers, mechanics and builders  here in England that have loads of money. I also know many in these trades that have no money, it`s all about the individual and how driven the person is. 

Big manism is what is killing us in Nigeria, what is wrong with an honest day`s work that pays the bill? We need to learn humility in Nigeria, that is part of being educated.

So, this is my summary:

Some taxi drivers in certain cities (NY, Houston, etc) do make a lot of money, perhaps enough to own a house abroad and at home. Some taxi drivers already have significant means and drive as a side job that could be flexible - these generally own the taxis. There are Nigerian Masters and PhD degree holders driving taxis abroad (this tells a lot about the state of the Nigerian economy). In general, however, taxi driving, without backup means, is mostly an 18hr and risky job.

In conclusion, while there is no doubt that these are probable stories, it is not a general outcome, and the fact that you are likely to encounter such stories more often these days smells of people repeating other people's stories as their own.

There is nothing wrong with taxi driving or any other legal job for that matter, but if taxi driving were that profitable and comfortable in the West, foreigners would have little room in the business.

I may be wrong - this was not a scientific exercise.

No, not driving taxi. Just wondering if such boasters are giving people the wrong impression that life is fantastic in naija.

Becomrich/:

are you driving taxi naija mini. how many of them do they kill in the USA. What is life, if you have none. I return back to naija. No country can use any law to hold me down. I aboundant that  country and go where they treat me better.

Look after living abroad. I have learn to live. What african take from their leaders, I cant, the way they said imo state government treated one person online. To God who made me. Noman born of a man can do that to me. Not even a government. Even in Nigeria, I have friend in the army , if that happen to me, that would overthrow the government onmy behalf. You dont know anything. It shows Chief Bode George does not have friends.

I have recently heard from at least two people who told of riding with a Nigerian-driven taxi in the US.

In one case, the taxi driver started telling them how he owns 3 houses in the US and farms in Nigeria. He also gets to travel back and forth every now and then. The second story was similar.

Have Nigerian taxi drivers suddenly gotten rich or are they telling fantastic stories? Or are these people merely fabricating stories about Nigerian taxi drivers? What do you think?

marvix:

Bakare has no buisness meddlin in politics, he should be somewhere praying for the nation and encouraging christians to have faith in God and not be carried away by politics. Who are the credible nigerians who contributed to his secretariat.
Bakare you have called your self to the service of God and u can't serve God and Mamon, leave politics to politicians and instead concentrate on soul winning

Those who brought us the gospel has since realized that everything in the universe is physical. Today's telescopes and microscopes see things that use to be considered "spiritual". When the Bible itself tells you to open your spiritual eyes that's a call for you to gain understanding. For what purpose then? To better your life, not for God. God is the ultimate judge, politician, mathematician, economist, physicist, chemist, biologist, technician and any other things we may think of ourselves as capable of doing in the future. The Bible is in essense about how humans ought to conduct their affairs and govern each other. The very first task that God gave Adam, if you are a believer in that view of the universe, was to procreate and hold dominion over the animals and take care of the earth.

One question for you, since you know where the spiritual begins and the earthly ends. In Bible times visitors to planet earth were described as angels with wings, today some people claim alien visits, not with flying wings, but in flying saucers. Is that because those of the other realm have also developed advanced technology? Or is it that the ancients or moderns or both were/are hallucinating? Or could it be that our visions reflect our state of technology?

@ElRazur
I read your other post and understood your main points. The problem is that when someone unaware hears statements like "he is a fraud", it sounds like he did not really achieve anything. On the other hand, this could be seen as a reward for his exaggeration.

It would be good to recognize his achievements, while warning people to take his words with a pinch of salt. Brilliant people always come with a little bit of craziness!

ElRazur:

Let us forget his dissertation for a minute. I am recently back in Uni for a second degree and if there is an option to not write a dissertation I may jump at it.

His claims as father of the internet is misleading is my point that I have been saying. What he worked on was not used for the invention of the internet and as such this makes him claims of "father of internet" misleading. Please look up on what he worked on and its application.

If the development of internet started in 57/60s. How can what he worked on in the late 80s make him the father of internet?

@ElRazur
I was quite surprised the first time someone said almost the exact same words as you did about Philip Emeagwali. The statement came from an MIT trained Nigerian Nuclear Scientist.

Perhaps Philip Emeagwali has blown his achievements out of proportion, but this is not different from what people do everywhere. I don't think anyone can point to a single lie he has told about his achievements, exaggeration may be, but fraudulent, No.

On the whole, like President Clinton noted, Philip Emeagwali is an encouragement to Nigerian youths.

That his dissertation was not accepted could go either way - there are many brilliant people who never completed a Ph.D. talkless of writing a dissertation. Nigerians need to support each other where genuine achievements can be demonstrated, no matter how small. A worthwhile question is this: would I have personally awarded him the Gordon Bell prize knowing that he never completed his Ph.D?

On another note, it is delightful to have people like Philip Emeagwali in the global media at this time when the news from Nigeria is about a runaway president, attempted terrorism, etc.

Aloy+Emeka:

Page last updated at 13:43 GMT, Friday, 12 March 2010
Digital Giants: Philip Emeagwali


The Nigerian-born supercomputer scientist speaks about how high speed data cables can connect Africa.
Philip Emeagwali has spoken to the BBC for the Digital Giants series, in which the digital world's top thinkers share their visions of the future. They tell us what they believe will be the next big thing online and how it will change our lives.
Digital Giants is part of SuperPower , a season of programmes on TV, radio and online exploring the extraordinary power of the internet.



Watch BBC video here:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/digital_giants/8561413.stm

@Ndu_chuks
There is some value to discussing the SNC within a forum setting under the presupposition that all ethnic groups accept the others as equals. This allows us to avoid defining what "equality of ethnic groups" means, but this must be addressed before any real & meaningful SNC can ever take place.

@Katsumoto & @Sapeleguy
You both gave the same example (Sharia) but approached it from opposite angles. Any "true" nation must have at its root the personal rights & liberties that are already listed in the 1999 constitution, and have been repeated elsewhere in this thread. As such, while SapeleGuy is right that we need to respect regional religious preferences, this does not mean that everyone living in such a region comes under such a law.

The 1999 constitution seemed to be reaching for such a middle ground, but by letting states define the jurisdiction of these courts left a loophole through which the extremists squeezed themselves . For Sharia Courts to remain this loophole must be corrected, so that nobody can engage in the kind of hand & leg cutting, attempted stoning, control of public events, alcohol bans & the like that seem to have become the order of the day in the Sharia States. What type of nation is that where a Miss Nigeria is not allowed to visit some sections of the country? Not a nation at all.

My personal opinion is that when we truly have a meaningful SNC these extra courts (Sharia & Customary) would be restricted to petty quarrels, personal issues and things that are directly of a customary nature at all levels.

Katsumoto:

Phase 1

Considering the differences in our cultures, I suppose having the same binding laws in all regions is futile. Some laws should be common while others can be dependent on the regions and voted for by the inhabitants of the regions. For instance, the North may vote to have Sharia law. If you decide to work and live in the North, then you have to respect the law there. The same holds for northerners in the East or West. To this end, I think that the only structure that can work is confederationism. Each region manages its resources, paying some tax to the federal government. Each region can also have its own laws, police, healthcare, etc.

I guess the main question then becomes, 'how many regions should there be and how do you delineate the regions?'.

SapeleGuy:

Ndu_chucks - I think your precondition for phase 1 is unnecessary because the very idea of having a sovereign national conference is a commitment to not breaking up - it is trying to establish how we can live together as equals in peace, unity and prosperity.

One of the key things that binds a nation together is a common set of values and security, sharia is clear evidence that this binding glue is missing in Nigeria. Apart from its divisive nature it is also a clear contravention of the constitution. If we don't revisit the sharia and bakassi issue then we must accept that other groups have a right to also disregard the constitution,and do what they like, which will eventually lead to break up.

Indeed, it is a marathon, not a sprint

@SapeleGuy
You have laid down the basic condition necessary to have a meaningful SNC - equality of ethnicities. It is the abscence of same that necessitates MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

Although our constitution guarantees all those things you listed, it continues to be ignored by those who seem to be implementing the objective expressed in those inflamatory quotes. I dare say that there is really nothing wrong with the basic structure of this country based on its paper constitution, with certain adjustments. The main problem is in the gap between theory and practice, which results, in my view, from the ability of one section of the country (or its prominent representatives) to Lord it over the others.

I would agree on the need to discard the inflamatory quotes if it can be demonstrated that all sections of the country, at this point, believe in what you called the "equality of all ethnicities". It is the believe, and apparent evidence, that this is not the case that necessitates a MAD proposal.

I do not believe we have a MAD condition in Nigeria. MAD does not really mean war or instigating war or the like. It simply means that you take a VERY STRONG defensive position when you know the other party is prepared to war against you. MAD forces a condition of equality by mutual strength, if one party refuses to recognize equality willingly. It makes clear to the parties that the only way is peaceful negotiation.

For those who think I am calling for war let me provide a benign example. What happens if one of the states has the courage to take the oil money it receives from the Federal Government, and proceed to develop itself up to a point where it has no need for the FGs funds? That state would have won its independence. States could have state police forces, right now, BY ANOTHER NAME. The Sharia States already have a state police force funded with government funds - called Sharia police. Another state could call its own the Customary Police or Community Police. This is what I am talking about - declare effective independence, but also be prepared for physical independence if it comest to that.

SapeleGuy:

MADness (Mutually Assured Destruction) can be illustrated as banging ones head against a brick wall and expecting a different result other than concussion. So it is with those who doggedly advocate that the status quo must remain, we need a different approach.

As members of the entity called Nigeria we know who we are, I also believe that we agree on the equality of all ethnicities, If we look at the 1999 constitution we have a bill of rights with the following provisions:
[list]
The right to life
The right to dignity of the human person
The right to personal liberty
The right to fair hearing
The right to private and family life
The right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion
The right to freedom of expression and the press
The right to peaceful assembly and association
The right to freedom of movement
The right to freedom from discrimination
The right to property.

[/list]
The above should be our social contract however performance has been less than satisfactory across the country.

Nduchucks, I believe your start point is reasonable.

Beaf, your concessions display political maturity.

Naijamini, If we all agree to uphold the equality of all ethnicities then we can discard the inflamatory quotes. It is Nigerians alive today [not dead mens words] that will repair this country.

Neptunz, The SNC will provide a good start, a contract between nigerians and themselves and nigerians and the state. We need to demilitarise our government, personally I don't believe the  ideals of ejoor, gowon, ojukwu or the military have a place in such a discussion (They were not democratically elected.)

@rebranded
You are on the wrong path with that military talk. The military is infact responsible for the stalemate in which we find ourselves today. Keeping the country together is not necessarily a good thing. The military took the incompetence and deceit of our politicians and multiplied it by a million, then they handed the country back. It was the military that forced a unitary system on the nation. It was under a military "president" that corruption became the going currency for doing business in Nigeria. It was the same military that created Abacha who took the nation on a Mobutu-type ride on the world stage.

Please erase the military as savior from your mind.

rebranded:

We need a drastic move because this is getting worse, unfortunately im starting to believe only the military can save the country from breaking up, these politicians have destroyed the country.

This practice has been banned over and over again in one state after another. That ban holds until it involves a big man, say a governor's friend, the DPO's friend, etc

MrPrsdent:

all the south-west states need the same laws

@Neptunz: The below is a repost of the article you posted earlier with reformating that could make it easier for people to read. I have not fully read it but the few lines I have glanced suggest this is a good summary past attempts at resolving the Nigerian situation. Are you the author or is this from a separate source? In the latter case could you provide a link or a reference. Thanks.

@Beaf: You have started a good topic, but you seem to be undermining the basis for a meaningful discussion by caving in and "hiding" quotes that illustrate the acute need for a SNC in Nigeria. You did not say those things, merely quoted them. If anybody has a problem with it then they need to ask those who said these things to retract them or provide evidence that this is not their successor's current position. Otherwise, we close our eyes to the truth of the Nigerian condition at our peril. Two people cannot start a meaningful conversation (SNC) when one of the parties has a habit of stepping on the neck of the other.

*********Reformated post by Neptunz for easier reading (still long though):

*quote*---the fashionable political theory being bandied about in Nigeria today is “Sovereign National Conference” (SNC). According to the advocates of an SNC, if we held yet another constitutional/national debate – all our problems will be solved. Implicit in the SNC argument is that some at most, want to use the SNC to break up the Nigerian federation, and at least, use it to derogate powers from the Federal Government to such an extent that Nigeria’s constituent regions would become autonomous albeit under a figurehead central government. What we tend to forget  is that Nigeria has already had half a dozen constitutional debates – none of which has ever resolved the nagging problems which have dogged Nigeria from  independence till today (corruption, ethnic actionalism, indiscipline, profligacy).  Given that we have already wasted billions of Naira on constitutional debates, and constitutions that are no longer in use, I do not really see how an SNC could discuss anything that has not already been covered in the previous constitutional debates. Rather than wasting more money on another rancorous conference, which will yet again be hijacked by the same people who produced the constitutions which we are all now unhappy with, I think we should go back, to the “SNC” which Nigeria has already had. On January 5th – 7th 1967, the members of Nigeria’s then ruling military junta, the Supreme Military Council (SMC), met for the first time at Aburi in Ghana under the auspices of the Ghanaian Head of State: Lieutenant-General Joe Ankrah. It was the first official meeting of all members of that SMC. Following two bloody army coups in 1966, the military governor of the eastern region of Nigeria: Lt-Colonel ‘Emeka’ Ojukwu, had refused to attend any SMC meeting outside the eastern region of Nigeria due to concerns over his safety. The massacre of tens of thousands of Igbos in northern Nigeria only heightened Ojukwu’s sense of isolation and insecurity. In turn, Ojukwu’s public belligerence towards the FMG (whom he suspected of tacitly supporting, or having a hand in the massacres) served to antagonise the FMG, who began to suspect that Ojukwu planned to announce the secession of the eastern region from the rest of Nigeria.

BETWEEN ONE AMBITIOUS COLONEL AND THE REST OF THE COUNTRY
The military governor of the north: Lt-Col Hassan Usman Katsina, dismissed Ojukwu’s inflammatory public remarks as attempts “to show how much English he knows”. As far as Katsina was concerned, Nigeria’s problem was a stand-off “between one ambitious Colonel and the rest of the country”. Throughout the six months following the coup of July 29th 1966, Ojukwu repeated his mantra that “I, as the Military Governor of the East cannot meet anywhere in Nigeria where there are Northern troops”. That virtually ruled out an SMC meeting inside Nigeria’s borders. Ojukwu had even turned down offers to attend an SMC meeting on board a British (whom Ojukwu, and Igbos in general did not entirely trust) naval ship, and at Benin, but was finally convinced to attend in the neutral territory of Aburi in Ghana. Ojukwu’s aides were not without doubt. Some warned him that the Aburi meeting could be a trap set by anti-Igbo members of the Federal Government to arrest or kill him. Ojukwu brushed aside their concerns by pointing out that he had received a guarantee of safe passage from Lt-Col Gowon (then the Nigerian Head of State), and that he had to trust Gowon’s word as an officer and a gentleman. Virtually everything discussed at that Aburi conference is relevant till today. So much so that a reader would be tempted to believe that the discussion was on Nigeria’s problems as at 2002, rather than 35 years earlier, in 1967. It is probably the best recorded constitutional debate in history. Aware that something momentous was occurring, the Ghanaians had the conference tape recorded. The tape of the discussions were later released by Ojukwu as a series of six long playing gramophone records. In attendance on the Federal Military Government (FMG) side were Lt-Col Yakubu Gowon (head of the FMG), Commodore Joseph Wey (head of the Nigerian navy), Colonel Robert Adebayo (military governor of the western region) Lt-Col Hassan Katsina (military governor of the northern region), Lt-Col David Ejoor (military governor of the mid-west region), Major Mobolaji Johnson (military governor of Lagos), Kam Selem (Inspector-General of Police), Mr T Omo-Bare. Ojukwu was in attendance as the eastern region’s military governor. The federal delegation came “wreathed in smiles” (see Akpan: The Struggle For Secession) and anxious to mollify their former brother-in-arms Ojukwu. Colonels Adebayo and Gowon even offered to embrace Ojukwu. Ojukwu for his part, was still stung by the terrible massacres of his Igbo kinsmen in northern Nigeria the previous year and was in no mood to embrace his former colleagues. The contrast in the demeanour of the participants was in itself a microcosm of what took place over the course of the next two days. While the federal delegation behaved as if the Aburi conference was a social gathering to reunite former friends who had fallen out over a tiff, Ojukwu saw the conference for what it really was: a historic constitutional debate that would determine Nigeria’s future social and political structure. As per usual, western perspective were focused on image, rather than on the genuine problems of the protagonists. Documents recently de-classified by the United States’ State Department depicted the FMG-eastern region stand-off as a personality clash between Ojukwu and Gowon. According to the American perspective: “many Americans admire Ojukwu. We like romantic leaders, and Ojukwu has panache, quick intelligence and an actor’s voice and fluency. The contrast with Gowon – troubled by the enormity of his task, painfully earnest and slow to react, hesitant and repetitive in speech – led some Americans to view the Nigerian-Biafran conflict as a personal duel between two mismatched individuals” (Airgram from US Embassy in Nigeria to the Department of State: Lagos A-419, February 11th, 1968). As they were busy fighting in Vietnam and fighting a “cold war” against the USSR, the Americans did not become militarily or politically involved in the dispute. Instead, treating the conflict as one falling within Britain’s sphere of influence. Although Commodore Wey played an avuncular role, it was obvious that the discussion revolved around the younger Colonels: Adebayo, Ejoor, Katsina, Ojukwu and Gowon. Ojukwu showed from the beginning that he was prepared for serious business. He arrived at the conference armed with notes, and an army of secretaries. The other debaters should have realised at this point, that something serious was going to occur. The Ghanaian host Lt-Gen Ankrah made a few introductory remarks and reminded his guests that “the whole world is looking up to you as military men and if there is any failure to reunify or even bring perfect understanding to Nigeria as a whole, you will find that the blame will rest with us through the centuries”. Ankrah added that although he understood that the eastern region/rest of Nigeria stand-off was an internal matter for Nigerians, they should not hesitate to ask him for any help should they feel the need. After the hostility and bitterness that preceded the Aburi meeting, the civilian observers were stunned at the camaraderie displayed by the military officers. The debaters threw off formality and addressed each other by their first names: “Emeka”, “Bolaji”, “Jack” (nickname of Lt-Colonel Gowon) were thrown around as if addressing each other in at a social gathering. Ojukwu decided to show his good faith, and to test the good faith of the others by asking all present to renounce the use of force to settle the crisis. Ojukwu’s motion was accepted without objection. While this request by Ojukwu may sound very noble, he was in fact playing a cunning soldier- politician. Ojukwu (despite his boasts of the eastern region’s military prowess) realised that he could not succeed in a military campaign against the far more heavily armed FMG. By getting them to renounce the use of force, Ojukwu was trying to negate the FMG’s military advantage. For he knew that if the political situation eventually got out of control, the FMG would find it difficult to resort to a military campaign having already given their word that they would not use force. This may have been an influential factor in Gowon’s reluctance to engage the eastern region in a fully fledged war. Gowon was even accused by some of his own men of treating Ojukwu with kid gloves. The fiery Lt-Col (as he then was) Murtala Muhammed had unleashed his famed volcanic temper on Gowon during an officers’ meeting prior to Aburi. Muhammed slammed his fist down on his desk, and threatened to march into, then sack the eastern region unless Gowon stopped  being so soft with Ojukwu. Murtala was eventually posted away from Lagos up to the north. Despite the leading role he played in the coup that brought Gowon to power, Gowon felt Murtala had been making a nuisance of himself by turning up uninvited at SMC meetings. At Aburi, the assembled military officers struck a chord in unison on the subject of politicians. All of them voiced their contempt for the behaviour of civilian politicians whom they blamed for the wholesale bloodletting of the previous year (completely ignoring the fact that more Nigerian civilians had been murdered by politically motivated violence, in the one year of military rule so far, than in the preceding five years of civilian democratic rule). Commodore Wey slammed the point home rather forcefully when he declared that “Candidly if there had ever been a time in my life when I thought somebody had hurt me sufficiently for me to wish to kill him it was when one of these fellows (politicians) opened his mouth too wide”.

OJUKWU’S PROPHECY
Despite agreeing to attend the conference, Ojukwu was still refusing to recognize Lt-Col Gowon as Nigeria’s Head of State. Ojukwu had defiantly continued to address Gowon as the “the Chief of Staff (Army)” (the post which Gowon occupied before the July counter-coup) in his public statements. Ojukwu was alarmed at the ascension of Gowon to the highest office in the land despite the presence of several other officers who were more senior than him (Brigadier Babafemi Ogundipe, Commodore J.E.A. Wey, Colonel Adebayo, Lt-Cols Hilary Njoku, Phillip Effiong, George Kurubo, Ime Imo, Conrad Nwawo and Lt-Cols Ejoor and Ojukwu who were promoted to Lt-Col in the same week as Gowon). Ojukwu almost prophetically warned that allowing a man backed by coup plotters to become the Head of State, would create a dangerous precedent which Nigeria would find difficult to emerge from. He told Gowon that “any break at this time from our normal line would write in something into the Nigerian army which is bigger than all of us and that thing is indiscipline, How can you ride above people's heads purely because you are at the head of a group who have their fingers poised on the trigger? If you do it you remain forever a living example of that indiscipline which we want to get rid of because tomorrow a Corporal will think, he could just take over the company from the Major commanding the company…”. Ojukwu’s warning was of course not heeded and his prediction that junior officers would in future overthrow their superior officers proved to be correct. The NCOs and Lieutenants that shot Gowon to power graduated into the Colonels that overthrew him exactly nine years later. As Brigadiers, they overthrew the elected civilian government of Shehu Shagari on the last day of 1983, and removed Major-General Buhari from power in 1985. Ojukwu’s impassioned monologue at Aburi could serve as an anti coup plotter thesis. He continued “you announced yourself as Supreme Commander. Now, Supreme Commander by virtue of the fact that you head or that you are acceptable to people who had mutinied against their commander, kidnapped him and taken him away? By virtue of the support of officers and men who had in the dead of night murdered their brother officers, by virtue of the fact that you stood at the head of a group who had turned their brother officers from the eastern region out of the barracks they shared?”.When Ojukwu expressed his disgust over the murder of Igbo army officers by their northern colleagues in July 1966, Lt-Col Katsina interjected by asking Ojukwu why he had not reacted with the same revulsion when senior northern military officers were murdered by Igbos seven months earlier. Ojukwu reasoned that in January 1966, soldiers from every region of the Nigerian federation (Nzeogwu: Mid-West, Ifeajuna: East, Ademoyega: West, Kpera: North) had staged a coup in which soldiers and politicians from every region of the federation (Akintola: West, Balewa: North, Unegbe: East, Okotie-Eboh: Mid-West) were also killed. Whereas when northern soldiers staged a revenge coup in July, soldiers from one region of the federation only (North: Danjuma, Murtala, Martin Adamu et al) singled out soldiers from one region in the federation as their targets (East: Okoro, Okonweze, Ironsi etc). Katsina took this opportunity to remind Ojukwu of the effort he had put in to prevent the murder of Igbos. Katsina told Ojukwu that “I have seen an army mutiny in Kano and if you see me trembling you will know what a mutiny is…, I saw a real mutiny when a C.O. of northern origin commanding soldiers of northern origin had to run away”.

THE STAR OF THE SHOW
It was obvious to the non military observers of the Aburi conference that Ojukwu “was clearly the star performer. Everyone wanted to please and concede to him” (see Akpan). Using his “skillful histrionics and superior intellectual adroitness”, (Kirk Greene: Crisis and Conflict), Ojukwu managed to get the other Colonels to understand, and share his reasoning: that in order to keep Nigeria together as one nation, its constituent regions first had to move a little further apart from each other. A paradox maybe, but the Colonels accepted the logic of Ojukwu’s argument. On the federal side, only the military governor of the Northern Region: Lt-Col Hassan Usman Katsina, seemed to realize the significance of what was going on. Anxious not to allow Ojukwu’s domination of the proceedings to continue for too long, he at one point dared Ojukwu to “secede, and let the three of us (West, North, Mid-West) join together”. Alarmed by talk of a possiblebreak-up of Nigeria, Ankrah quickly interjected and told his guests that “There is no question of secession when you come here” (Ghana). Although the FMG delegation were keen to mollify and make concessions to Ojukwu, Lt-Col Katsina was more blunt than his other colleagues. He preferred to declare matter of factly to Ojukwu: “You command the East, if you want to come intoNigeria, come into Nigeria and that is that”.  Ojukwu envisaged a titular Head of State that would act only with the concurrence of the various regional governments: “what I envisage is that whoever is at the top is a constitutional chap – constitutional within the context of the military government. That is, he is a titular head, but he would only act where, say when we have met and taken a decision”. Amazingly Gowon accepted Ojukwu’s thesis without really understanding the constitutional implications of what he was agreeing to. Gowon was effectively sanctioning measures which would paralyse his own powers. To signify the limited powers that would be exercised by the Head of State he envisaged, Ojukwu proposed that the watered down phrase “Commander-in- Chief” should be used to address the Head of State as opposed to “Supreme Commander” (a phrase signifying immense power). The title “Commander-in-Chief” has been employed by every Nigerian Head of State subsequent to Aburi. While the other delegates arrived at Aburi with a simple, but unformulated idea that somehow, Nigeria must stay together, “Ojukwu was the only participant who knew what he wanted, and he secured the signatures of the SMC to documents which would have had the effect of turning Nigeria into little more than a customs union” (Kirk- Greene). Ojukwu managed to get virtuallyeverything he wanted, and was so pleased by his success that he even declared that he would serve under Gowon if he (Gowon) kept to the agreements reached. At that point, Gowon arose from his table position and embraced Ojukwu.The fulcrum of the agreement at Aburi was that each region would be responsible for its own affairs, and that the FMG would be responsible for matters that affected the entire country: a simple enough concept. Afterwards the officers tasted their agreement with champagne. The federal delegation’s jubilation was such that on his plane flight home, Ojukwu asked one of his secretaries whether the FMG delegates had fully understood the implications of what had been agreed. Hindsight tells us that no one at Aburi (other than Ojukwu) really understood the constitutional implications of what had been agreed. Ojukwu was obviously delighted with this – hence why he was in such a hurry to implement the decisions taken, and why the Federal Government had to renege on them. Some have argued that Ojukwu took the FMG for a ride by using his superior intelligence to trap the FMG officers into an agreement they did not understand. This argument ignores the fact that Ojukwu was engaged in a constitutional debate by himself against five military officers, a police officer, and an FMG civilian, yet still got his way. Surely it is the FMG members of greater numerical strength who should be criticised for allowing Ojukwu to secure such substantial concessions from them. Back then, as now, each region of Nigeria was petrified of domination by other regions, no region of the federation was keen to adopt a course which would concentrate too much power at the hands of Nigeria’s central government. Even Gowon acknowledged this (and unwittingly played into Ojukwu’s hands) by admitting that he would “do away with any decree that certainly tended to go towards too much centralisaton”. Ojukwu pounced on the central powers theme and remarked that “Centralisation is a word that stinks in Nigeria today. For that 10,000 people have been killed (this figure was later revised up to 30,000, and then 50,000). The clash, and ill defined relationship between Nigeria’s central and regional governments has been the greatest source of political bloodletting in the country’s history. It led indirectly to the gruesome “religious” clashes that resulted in the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians over the introduction of Sharia law in some northern states in 2000. It led to the civil war in which over a million civilians died. It led to the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa after he agitated for greater self determination for his Ogoni people. I am of the opinion that with the failure to implement the Aburi decisions, Nigeria missed a golden opportunity to find a constitutional arrangement acceptable to all of its constituent parts. Had even half of the Aburi accords being constitutionally ratified, Nigeria would have been in a much better shape today. It is a sad commentary on the lack of progress that Nigeria has made since Aburi that the issues discussed then (35 years ago) are still being argued over today. Back in 1967, the Aburi decisions were not implemented for one primary reason: oil. Nigeria’s greedy power brokers did not want a loose constitutional arrangement that would deprive them of the vast revenues which Nigeria earns from its crude oil exports. Hence Nigeria is glued together under a powerful central Government of a type more suitable to a country with contiguous ethnicity.

A CONSTITUTIONAL CHAP
It is clear that Nigeria is quite simply too large, too diverse, and too fractious a country to have an all powerful central government of the type we have today. Everywhere you look in Nigeria, there are groups agitating for greater devolvement of federal power to the regions. Although the mantra of these groups is “restructuring” of the Nigerian federation – what they really intend is what Ojukwu wanted to achieve at the Aburi conference in 1967: a constitutional arrangement that would devolve so much power to the regions that the entity known as Nigeria would exist in name only. Each ethnic group in Nigeria believes that their interests can only be looked after if their man is the president of the country. Hence the uncompromising manner in which some Yoruba politicians refused to recognize any non-Yoruba presidential candidate for the 1999 presidential election, and the argument of some northerners that the political leadership of Nigeria is their “birthright”. Yet northern Nigerians are generally poorer than their southern counterparts despite the fact that northerners have ruled Nigeria for 36 out of Nigeria’s 42 years of independence. Conversely, nobody has noticed a sudden increase in the number of Yoruba millionaires since a Yoruba (Olusegun Obasanjo) became Nigeria’s president in 1999. Rather than engaging in another constitutional drafting/conference exercise at which will waste more taxpayers’ money, and serve as a means for corrupt “big men” to get even richer, we should dust off the Aburi record, and learn from the debates and mistakes of the past in order to ensure a better future for ourselves. What we need in Nigeria is a constitutional arrangement that convinces each Nigerian that their interests will be taken care of regardless of the ethnicity of the Head of State. What we need is a “constitutional chap” of the type we have now

@SapeleGuy
I am in disbelief at the conclusion I'm reaching about Nigeria - used to be so optimistic.

There is only one reason why we can't have any of the below things, and it is not the constitution. As imperfect as they were, all the constitutions that we have had since independence contain the basic lofty ideals that make a nation great, if they were followed.

The true reason is that one section of the country behave like they were born to rule. That is why power had to be rotated from South to North in 2007 even when the South had ruled this country for only 12 out of 50 years - and only by the same person who they happen to have under their thumb (Sure Zik was President in the first republic, but Balewa was the real ruler at that time). The constitution has no power rotation clauses, but this was imposed based on what they called a "gentlemanly agreement" - who gave them the right!!!

It is the same reason the VP was almost recently denied his constitutional role as the fill-in for the President - if he were another Northerner the whole country would not have been dragged through the mess of the last 3 months.  Even with the forced resolution how do you think the people of the Niger Delta, from whose region almost 100% of government finance is derived, are going to react for years to come.

These are but just two examples of how the constitution is being disregarded, and would continue to be disregarded (along with any other national agreements, such as the outcome of a SNC) unless we have a level playing field. Until then don't hold your breath. The sad part is that the majority of the Northern populace are simply "tools" in the hand of these evil elite. They are not doing this for their people - for all the resources they abrogate that region remains the least developed of all.

There are only two ways to such a level playing field:

1) Those who have continued to pursue these war-like objectives must disavow them and agree to follow the spirit & letter of existing national documents. Then, and only then, is there hope for a SNC to address the issues you raised here;

2) MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.

Here is a minimum imperative: If the north goes for a second 4 year run in 2011, then in 2015 under whatever circumstances it is the turn of the SE for at least 8 years.

SapeleGuy:

In truth, our problems started before the so called founding fathers. We as a 'more enlightened generation' can begin to problem solve by dealing with the issues as they manifest themselves today.

There is a synergy between those quotes from the so called founding fathers and our situation today but there needn't be a dependency. Let us move forward.

1. Resource Control (Land Use Act).
2. Federal Character.
3. Religious or Secular State.
4. Balanced Military (equal contribution from all the geopolitical zones to the armed forces)
5. Decentralised Police Force.
6. Common pass marks for national exams.
7. Genuine Census Figures.
8. Regional Political Parties.

These are just some of the issues that we need to address to move forward.

ndu_chucks:

What's wrong with removing these inflammatory quotes and moving on?

@ndu_chucks
We cannot move on until we honestly address the issues raised by these quotes, and others.

The question is whether Nigeria's reality reflects elements of those quotes or not. The answer seems to be yes, but if someone feels otherwise then they should educate the rest of us. The worst thing would be to jump to the wrong conclusions.

If after considering everything the answer remains yes, then we need to call on that section of the country to disavow these statements, and right all the wrongs committed in the pursuit of such objectives. Otherwise, we can pretend to have a nation all we want, but these statements would continue to hunt us. The only solution would then be MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction.

@Beaf

Thank you for this thoughtful piece on the "geographical expression" called Nigeria. A couple of comments:

1. Unitary Government: A system imposed by our militaricians in their futile bid to forge a country out of the mess created by the British. However, the British in their time were wise to rule each section of the country according to "what works best". At independence they simply left control of the country to those who had proved to be their most willing tools in colonizing and exploiting our continent. While, I would not attribute any deliberate intention to the British as you seem to suggest, it is also safe to say that an invader being forced to move out of the house he took by force is not going to put in place arrangements to benefit the owners or might even seek to make the house unliveable. In any case, the outcomes are indistinguishable, predictable, and is exactly what we see today. The 45 or so year experiment of our militricians have failed woefully.

[size=14pt]Unless the fact is recognized that Nigeria cannot exist as a unitarily governed community the ultimate end for this country would, sadly, be a bloody dissolution. So how do we really avoid a bloody dissolution or even a peaceful dissolution, and perhaps make a workable nation?[/size]

2. Sovereign National Conference: This suggestion in your piece matches well with what many eminent Nigerians have being calling for over many decades. However, its is doubtful that a SNC will ever happen in Nigeria or even if does happen, it is unlikely to resolve our constitutional/governance issues. The reason for doubt is buttressed by the two quotes from your piece as below, statements that were made right after independence, and by no less than the First Premier of the Northern Region and his assistants.

“This New Nation called Nigeria, should be an estate of our great grandfather, Uthman Dan Fodio. We must ruthlessly prevent a change of power. We use the minorities in the North as willing tools, and the South, as conquered territory and never allow them to rule over us, and never allow them to have control over their future.”  ---Sir Ahmadu Bello, Sardauna of Sokoto in THE PARROT of October 12, 1960.

“The conquest to the sea is now in sight. When our god-sent Ahmadu Bello said some years ago that our conquest will reach the sea shores of Nigeria, some idiots in the South were doubting its possibilities. Today have we not reached the sea? Lagos is reached. It remains Port-Harcourt. It must be conquered and taken.”  --- Mallam Bala Garuba in WEST AFRICAN PILOT, December 30, 1964.

So, if we can't have a SNC or if one would be a waste of time, what is my suggestion?

3. My suggestion is MAD - Mutually Assured Destruction. The statements above make clear that one section of the country has set out their own imperatives i.e. conquest of the entire country for religion's sake. In the face of such a regional imperative, which to my knowledge has not been disavowed, and the creeping move to realize this objective over the last 4 decades, the only alternative is for each region to set out their own imperatives and actively work towards it. For example, if any region stockpiles arms, officially or unoffically, then the remaining regions must stockpile similarly, etc. 

At this stage in Nigeria's history if we "want peace then we have to prepare for war". This proposal is not to encourage regions to go to war, but to assure any constituent region that attempts to impose itself would be fatal - leveling the playing field as it were. May be then we can have a meaningful SNC. Until then please expect calls for a SNC or the like to be ignored.

@18 platoon
You seem to be intimate with the events surrounding this crisis - based on your postings on NL so far. Under that assumption, and no matter what anyone thinks of your expressed views on this forum, may I ask you a few questions?

Could you provide a brief summary of the origin and history of these conflicts?

Could you outline the losses on your side during each of these conflicts?

Who in your judgment were the instigators of each conflict? Were they doing this in retaliation, provoked or other reasons as you may see fit?

Most importantly, what do you, please do not hold back, think is (are) the solution(s) to bring peace, permanently?

What rights do you see as minimum for your side of this argument in achieving peace?

What responsibilities do you see for your side of this conflict in bringing about peace

What prospects do you see for such peace?

Looking forward to your informed responses.

18 platoon:

@odunnu, cos his family was murdered one month ago and everyone was clapping saying it serves them right, but now the music have changed, and now everyone is shouting, people can shout all they want, if jang is no satisfied with shedding innocent blood it wont stop, so please direct you pls to jang.

They need to stay on red alert continuosly from now on.

By REUTERS
Published: March 7, 2010
Filed at 12:36 p.m. ET

ABUJA (Reuters) - Nigeria's Acting President Goodluck Jonathan on Sunday put the security forces in the centre of the country on red alert and ordered them to hunt down those behind violence which killed more than 100 people.

"The Acting President has placed all the security forces in Plateau and neighbouring states on red alert so as to stem any cross-border dimensions to this latest conflict," Jonathan's office said in a statement.

(Writing by Nick Tattersall; Editing by Jon Boyle)

@Beaf
OK. Let's agree to disagree, although I don't think we are too far apart on this one. The Actg. President needs to be more proactive, because I believe that he could be decisive, and really assert his authority now - quiet waters run deep. Otherwise, this is how they would rubbish his good intentions.

Enough said.

Beaf:

@naijamini

There is no point carrying on the argument, because it is a long stretch. Yes Jonathan said a similar crisis would never occur again in Jos, but I am quite sure he meant, it would never again happen with impunity. In other words; the current investigation would be thorough, the true sources of the crisis would be unearthed. . . We still have to wait a few months before drawing conclusions.

@Katsumoto
Obviously you are not familiar with the way I approach things. I respect your views, and don't see things in black and white. At the same time, I don't care whose ox is gored if you are responsible for something, especially involving life, and don't live up to your responsibility.

I have been all over this forum defending then VP Jonathan. The only reason I have to do that, and I believe any Nigerian should, is a believe that he is not only entitled to becoming substantive president, but also that HE CAN DO THE JOB. Without the latter, we might as well let Yar'adua rule from his bed because there would be no difference. I am not committed to any politician if they don't deliver on their PROMISES. If you promise you had better fulfill. The lives of 140 million people far outweight the peace and quiet of one man, whoever he may be.

We need to get over this personal approach to public administration. We should know our government only by what they do, and not who they are, although one is not easily separated from the other.

I agree that the governor of Plateau State is completely incapable, but then we have this nation where Abuja thinks it can police 140 million people with a unitary police force. That is what is pathetic.

Uneasy lies the head that wears the crown. We don't need people in government for personal accomplishment, we need people who would say "my security is not guarantteed if the security of my fellow citizens is not".

Katsumoto:

Your attempts at laying some blame on Jonathan for this are rather pathetic. Here is a man who is still held down by some irresponsible people in his cabinet. How do you want him to succeed when there will always be individuals who are there to sabotage his efforts? He is due to be in the position for only one year and you expect him to cure Nigeria of all ills bedeviling in it in one year. Please let him be.

@aisha2

While all of these might be true, the fact is that Jonathan, perhaps out of necessity, gave false hope, but hope nevertheless.

The fact that this crisis has seen 3 presidents is another symptom of the mess we are calling a nation.

It is a mess not because Nigeria is incapable of becoming a united, strong and peaceful nation, but because all we keep getting are leaders who simply don't know what to do or at least for some reason pretend they don't, yet keep making the same promises over and over again - and failing over and over again.

aisha2:

Sharrap there? An acting President that has not been empowered to act. May i remind u that this crisis has seen 3 presidents? I am from Jos, we know the people responsible, but because they are the same group who have influenece in Govt. They are the same people heading the committee to investigate the crisis

@igwe

You may be right about political sabotage here, and that he has not settled in. However, I hate it when promises involving life-and-death are made to people without thinking about what that involves. Perhaps these people would not have relaxed so much, and would have been ready to protect themselves.

I would have expected Jonathan to keep a good force in place in the interim given his promise so that he is not surprised by this type of man's inhumanity to man.

mikeansy:

the commander in chief is in charge of security of lives and property at all times.
u can not blame the c-in-c for causing the violence but you can blame his in-action for his inability to prevent this violence.

Except folks think violence and killing of compatriots should be part of our normal life without that I don't see why we can't hold the President responsible.

Most importantly I think the repitition of this status quo of violence in Jos punctures Jonathan's decision to retain all cabinet and intelligent outfit as is.