₦airaland Forum

www.ooduapathfinder.com
February 2, 2015


Terrorism is a strategy aimed primarily to intimidate a Nation State into either introducing a state of emergency by truncating civil liberties which in turn will work in favor of the insurgents or directly overwhelm the State into submission, which, apparently, is the case with Nigeria, as far as the calls for postponement of elections and an Interim Government are concerned, which will not only be a clear subversion of the Sovereign will of the people expressed in periodic elections but also an affirmation of capitulation to Boko Haram’s terrorist tactics.
The former National Security Adviser, late General Andrew Azazi had openly stated that Boko Haram is a PDP affair; Goodluck Jonathan had also openly declared that “Boko Haram is in his government”. Taken together and coupled with terrorism’s strategic goal of utilizing such tactics to bring a country’s democratic pursuit down, the only beneficiary of postponement or interim government is Goodluck Jonathan, as a political product of Boko Haram terrorism, which makes him and by extension, all promoters of election postponement and/or interim government politically culpable in the Boko Haram insurgency .

Afenifere, the self-glorifying group purportedly in pursuit of Restructuring Nigeria, hinged its support for Goodluck Jonathan on the pretext of consummating Goodluck Jonathan’s restructuring of Nigeria via his National Conference, on the basis of which Afenifere is canvassing for the postponement of the elections topped with an interim government.
Goodluck Jonathan has spent six years in office, and the only time he made a foray into the Restructuring process is his convening of his National Conference, in 2014; wherein its resolutions were submitted to a committee to study and make its own recommendations known. Aside from seeking “state police, state constitutions, creation of more states, mergers of states into zonal commissions” there is nothing in the Conference resolutions that centered on powers over resources where such issues were reserved for a “technical commission” to resolve while the states are further balkanized into economically powerless entities dependent on the same center for its survival.
What all of these go to show is that “Restructuring”, by itself, does not automatically translate into “Federalism” as going by the Jonathan Conference reports, which is now deemed as “restructuring”, a further strengthening of the Center, and therefore the Presidency, is its outcome. Coupled with calls to postpone the elections with an interim government in tow, it becomes very obvious that Boko Haram’s strategy of intimidating the State into submission is being strengthened since the only way to achieve it is the subversion of the established Sovereign will of the Nigerian State through postponement/interim government.
By canvassing this line of action, Afenifere has shown that it is an enabler of Boko Haram by advocating postponement of the elections or an Interim Government, subsuming it under an excuse of promoting Federalism which had been at the center of Yoruba political demands since the dawn of anti-colonial politics and which, at one time, was an active participant.
[b]“ooduapathfinder” [/b]reminds readers that in 1994, the Obas, Chiefs, Leaders of Thought and Entire People of Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun and Oyo States of the Federal Republic of Nigeria prepared a Memorandum to the National Constitutional Conference Commission (NCC) in response to the call by Sanni Abacha, to all the people of Nigeria, including Traditional Rulers, to contribute ideas for his proposed National Constitutional Conference that would fashion out an endurable and sustainable political system which will suitably accommodate the diverse cultures of Nigeria and adequately address the fears and aspirations of the various Nationalities in the country.
The memorandum was remitted to all the five states for detailed and critical consideration by the Obas, Chiefs and Leaders of Thought in each of the States. A further meeting of representatives of all five states was held at Abeokuta where all the different Groups, including Committee of Afenifere that had earlier submitted memoranda to NCCC were represented. A post-Abeokuta committee was also set up to harmonize the various Yoruba positions to the proposed Constitutional Conference. The draft memorandum prepared by the Committee was considered by the Resumed Conference of Obas, Chiefs and Leaders of Thought of the five Yoruba States in Akure and was adopted by acclamation by the Conference and it represented the sole and authoritative views of all the Obas, Chiefs, Leaders of Thought and the entire People of Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun and Oyo States of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. The Abacha National Constitutional Conference eventually led to the establishment of “Zones” as “Federating Units”, even as this was not made a Constitutional construct.
In 2005, the government of General Obasanjo organized its own Political Reform Conference, where the content of the Yoruba Memorandum was reinforced and acknowledged by the Yoruba representatives. Also acknowledged were the efforts of other groups like the Yoruba Constitutional Group which had prepared the Draft Yoruba Constitution after several consultations throughout Yorubaland and the Yoruba Diaspora.
The demands made at both the 1994 and 2005 Conferences centered on, among others “a self-governing and autonomous Yoruba Region necessary to mobilize the energy of the Yoruba for progress and development, and to ignite their collective resolve for cultural renaissance, educational resurgence and social stability; the right of the Yoruba of Nigeria (living in Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun and Oyo states) to live under a Regional Government within the Federation of Nigeria, where The Yoruba Region shall have the right to negotiate with other nationalities of Nigeria along the laid down principles of true Federalism, justice and equity; the Yoruba Region shall have its own Constitution that shall not be inconsistent with the constitution of a true Federation; recognized the right of the Yoruba of Nigeria living in Ekiti, Lagos, Ogun, Ondo, Osun and Oyo states to live under one Regional Government of their choice within a democratic Federation of Nigeria; affirmed the right of Yoruba living in Delta, Edo, Kogi, and Kwara states, whose territories are contiguous with the rest of Yorubaland to demand that they want to join the Yoruba Region; affirmed the right of other nationalities and states to form their own Regions within the Federation of Nigeria and the right of non-Yoruba, and indeed, non- Nigerians, to live and work within the Yoruba Region being protected by law like every other citizen of the Region and finally affirmed that it is the right and, indeed, the duty of every Yoruba citizen to work for the creation of the Yoruba Region to protect the legacies of our ancestors, safeguard the heritage of the past, and bequeath a land of freedom and progress to future generations of Yoruba.
But Afenifere, a participant in all of the above affirmations and demands, has now turned these demands on its head, for there is nothing in the Jonathan Conference recommendations that are anywhere close to the above. Even if it is said that current states cannot simply be wished away as administrative units, the fact of the matter is that each “Zone” or Federating Unit should be able to decide for itself how its administrative structure is to play out which is completely different from having a Center in control of resources while being the overseer for the creation of states that will continue to depend on the same Center for its survival allocations. Thus, instead of the Jonathan Conference taking off from where we left off in 2005, it completely overturned the concept and meaning of Federalism and substituted it with an unparalleled unitarism that even the colonial forces were unable to achieve; no thanks, in part, to Afenifere’s antics.
The idea that the “north” does not want True Federalism and opposed it at the Conference is not tenable; for nothing stopped Afenifere from sticking with the Federalist position even if the end result would be a deadlocked Conference, as happened in 2005, where Oronto Douglass, now Goodluck Jonathan’s Special Adviser on Research and Documentation, led the Niger Delta to scuttle the 2005 Conference based on unresolved Resource Control issues and even supported by the Yoruba; yet heavens did not fall. Afenifere is certainly comfortable with only a “successful conference” regardless of its content and the reason is now very clear as it is now being promoted as a campaign platform for the Jonathan-Presidency-in-permanence, which is the direct consequence of the Boko Haram strategy.
Afenifere, for purposes of political opportunism, having completely negated and sold out on historical Yoruba demands, must be unequivocally denounced alongside its political platform, the PDP of Goodluck Jonathan. We have an opportunity on February 14, 2015 to vote out Goodluck Jonathan and we must not let it slip us by. “ooduapathfinder” also calls on the entire Yoruba Global Nation to denounce and reject any attempt at postponing the elections or imposing a so-called interim government.

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin on January 26, 2015



When Jimi Agbaje, the PDP Governorship candidate in Lagos State declared that the Niger Delta would take back its oil if Goodluck Jonathan loses the presidential election, little was it known that he was the forerunner of a script being hatched by the Jonathan Presidency where his continuous stay in power is hinged on either blackmailing the rest of us into submission or making the country ungovernable through the surreptitious introduction of a so-called interim government which, of course, would be headed by Goodluck Jonathan.
Jimi Agbaje provided the take-off point for this blackmail, anchored on rubbishing the Nigerian Army through the institution’s acrobatics when General Buhari’s educational credentials were being challenged(including forgery via alteration of a response from Cambridge Assessment), leading to a determined response from the topmost circles of retired Generals in an effort to save the institution from collapse; a situation which would necessarily entail a north-south divide, especially with the current chief of army staff being Goodluck Jonathan’s homeboy ensuring the necessary coordination. This expected schism within the army will allow the Jonathan Presidency to militarily occupy the south while, at best, leaving the north to its own devices or at worst, start a war supposedly to defeat a Boko Haram controlled or influenced north, either of which would entail the suspension of democratic liberties and installation of a neo-fascist regime, lasting for as long as the crisis persists, which is the Jonathan Presidency’s end game; the seeds of which were sown through all of the Jonathan Presidency’s Unconstitutional behaviors; the typical neo-fascist imposition of political leaders both at the party and governmental(electoral) levels; the subjection of the judiciary to ridicule and the outright militarization of elections in Ekiti and Osun States.
The looming failure of these tactics throw into the open, the ultimate, which is postponement of the elections, whose kite, once again, was first flown by another Yoruba in the person of Professor Bolaji Akinyemi, echoed by another Yoruba, Pastor Tunde Bakare and now officially demanded by the National Security Adviser, a retired army colonel.
From all of these, it is not far-fetched to reach the conclusion that the Jonathan Presidency deliberately allowed the Boko Haram insurgency to fester precisely in order to create the grounds for postponing the elections, both in Constitutional terms as in not having elections in a part of Nigeria would be deemed as not fulfilling the necessary Constitutional requirements and the security issues being an additional reason why such elections should not be held. More so when this attempt is located within the lackadaisical attitude of the Jonathan Presidency to the Boko Haram insurgency, where Nigerian soldiers in the line of fire are either killed or unconditionally retreat with some of the prominent military bases already captured by the insurgents while the Jonathan Presidency is telling the whole world that it is not only on top of the situation but has actually fully armed the soldiers; yet these soldiers still complain about lack of fighting material.

The Chief of Army Staff sees nothing wrong in deploying soldiers to manipulate elections or terrorize citizens during elections but will allow the same soldiers to be defeated by the insurgents with the Presidency blaming everyone else but itself for the situation. Now that the insurgents are taking over significant military bases, the ground is being laid for a “war” against a Boko Haram dominated North which will be the necessary excuse needed for the imposition of the neo-fascist regime.
If all of these are considered speculations, the January 23 meeting of “Ijaw militants” held at the Bayelsa State Government House, where the Special Adviser to the President on Niger Delta Affairs, and chairman of Amnesty Implementation Committee, Kingsley Kuku; Bayelsa state Governor, Seriake Dickson and his deputy were present, is a confirmation.
The meeting resolved that Goodluck Jonathan must win the election, otherwise the “Niger Delta would take its oil back” and that Goodluck Jonathan’s election victory is “non-negotiable”. Either of these demands can only be realized if democratic liberties are suspended or negated; for there is no need for any elections if either of both demands would be the pre-determined result. Thus Jonathan Presidency’s fascism is now in full throttle.
But just as the Goodluck Jonathan agenda has always shot itself in the foot in all of its shenanigans to retain power, this latest blackmail from the Ijaw Nation has also shot itself in the foot.
For,if, as the “militants” claim, the Niger Delta owns the oil, and if, all along, since the pre-independence period, they have always agitated for a measure of control over their resources and indeed at General Olusegun Obasanjo’s Political Conference in 2005, the Niger Delta delegates played a major role in truncating that Conference based on their disagreement with what was then adjudged to be an unacceptable formula for resource control, it stands to reason that when their “son”, Goodluck Jonathan convened his own National Conference, the Niger Delta forces were expected not only to make a strong push for what they consider to be resource control but also to ensure that the subject dominated the Conference. More so when Tony Nyiam, an advocate of Restructuring/Resource Control from the South-South(which includes the Niger Delta), and who had participated in the April 22, 1990 coup attempt which had severed what we now know as the North West from the rest of Nigeria, openly stated that “nobody sets up such a Conference(Jonathan’s Conference) without having an agenda” was a major participant at the Conference representing the South-South.
What happened was that the leader of the Ijaw Nation, Edwin Clark, openly distanced the Ijaw Nation and the Niger Delta from such a proposal articulated by one of their own, Annkio Briggs whose submission was rejected based on such prompting coming from Edwin Clark. Such that, even now, Annkio Briggs is also a frontline supporter of the Jonathan presidency simply because Goodluck Jonathan is their “son”.
Thus, the Niger Delta had an opportunity not only to protect and project their historical demands, but also to ensure their son in power pursues exactly those aims. The Jonathan Conference eventually came up with a myriad of proposals without addressing the all-important issue of Resource Control/Federalism, leaving it to some future “technical experts” to address. Indeed, one of the Yoruba elders who participated at the Jonathan Conference, and who had initially tried to whitewash the Conference, has now openly admitted that they attended the Jonathan Conference “to play”.
It is thus obvious that both the Jonathan Presidency as well as the Ijaw Nation do not want any form of resource control/Restructuring/Federalism but simply the realization of their own form of “born-to-rule”, otherwise reelecting Goodluck Jonathan would not be predicated on the singular issue of his origin.
Beyond this, however, “ooduapathfinder” [/b]sees this latest attempt at blackmailing the rest of us into submission, with the active connivance of both the Bayelsa State Government as well as the Goodluck Presidency itself as the fullest expression of Jonathan’s neo-fascist determination.
The question then becomes what the response of the rest of Nigeria would be.
Since electoralism is of the immediate, [b]“ooduapathfinder” is of the opinion that the best way to neutralize this creeping fascism of the Jonathan Presidency now being openly championed by these Ijaw militants is to ensure that the PDP is defeated at all levels, as a matter of course, with the “Osun Template” as the basis, even if it will be modified in any necessary way. [b]“ooduapathfinder” [/b]recognizes the re-invigoration of this Template in the APC Presidential rallies accompanied by the huge and enthusiastic turn out of the people, even in States considered to be governed by the PDP which is a pointer to the expected electoral victory of the party in all elections.

This, however, should not be the end of the matter, since it is very obvious that Goodluck Jonathan’s fascist template revolves around his political dominance of the South, in general. That such a Presidency would want to retain power by hook or by crook is a direct affront on our sensibilities, hence, it is categorically imperative for the Global Yoruba Nation, to openly and directly reject this creeping fascism by ensuring the absolute denial of political space to Goodluck Jonathan’s foot soldiers in the West(Yorubaland) by rallying Yoruba people worldwide behind the APC as a matter of Yoruba National survival not only as an electoral pursuit but also as a response to the threat of these militants as well as Goodluck Jonathan’s neo-fascist pursuit of truncating Nigeria’s democracy by the advocacy for election postponement. We must insist of the February elections as scheduled; we must insist on its being free and fair; we must insist on non-militarization as happened in Osun and Ekiti States.
Beyond these, however, the question remains: will the Yoruba Nation become part of a Goodluck Jonathan neo-fascist driven “Southern” agenda? “ooduapathfinder” unequivocally says NO.

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin on January 8, 2015

As a retired general of the Nigerian Army and a three-time head of the Nigerian State, General Obasanjo is well aware of the reality of all the issues and positions he had taken up and is taking up; right from his role at the onset of the Biafran invasion of Yorubaland to the Odi/Zaki Biam massacres to the attempted tenure elongation and his undemocratic characteristics during his two-term tenure as the civilian President. It would thus be obvious that he would not be interjecting on Nigerian issues the way he does without expecting the flak that usually accompany such interjections; such that there are usually nothing that could be said about him or his interjections that are new or had not been said; yet his interjections are always on point and actually bring forth the worst in his traducers.
In this current political climate, especially in the run up to the 2015 elections, General Obasanjo has, as usual, come out with some serious critiques of the present government, and such critiques are not without their own merit. Yet, his Yoruba opponents, directly found in Afenifere-Yoruba Akotiletas and indirectly through Pastor Tunde Bakare, have deliberately decided not to address the merits of his critique; rather we are treated to a litany of who and what Obasanjo is or is not, ending up with the Jonathanista omnibus response to his failures, blaming past administrations and for these Afenifere-Akotiletas, a special blame must be placed at Obasanjo’s doorstep as if the Yoruba have been shy in making known their views on General Obasanjo’s political trajectory, where, at every opportunity, the PDP political party represented by the general is always defeated, even in his own backyard, such that the only way the PDP could retain electoral relevance is through massive rigging of elections from 1999, which rigging also ensured the continued dominance of the PDP in Nigerian electoral affairs till date.
Thus, when these Afenifere-Akotileta Jonathan apologists declare that Obasanjo laid the foundation for Jonathan’s failures, the question is, when did they and Jonathan come to that realization? Would it be before or after Jonathan assumed the Presidency? For if it was before, Goodluck Jonathan, and by extension his apologists, must be complicit in the laying of such foundation, for it would have been a known material fact to them; and if it is after, it would mean Goodluck Jonathan himself had and has absolutely no idea as to why he would want to be president, aspired for it in the first instance, rigged his way to victory in 2011 and continuously rig in the PDP in other state elections since then; for his purpose in government would have been to address any issues that may come up; inability to do so cannot now be laid at the doorstep of a previous administration, more-so an administration on which Goodluck Jonathan himself rode to power.
For Pastor Tunde Bakare, his subtle defense of Goodluck Jonathan’s failure is Scripturally wrapped around the need for an “interim government” in order to prevent a descent into chaos, which possibility is blamed on the two major contenders, the APC and PDP, and then have such an interim government headed by Goodluck Jonathan, one of the possible harbinger of the expected violence. A Scripture’s conclusions determine its relevance; otherwise, it would be a case of substituting a part of the Scripture for one’s own subjective purposes. Thus, Pastor Bakare likened what he called the expected violence to “euroclydon”, the violent typhoon-like wind that caused Paul’s ship to shipwreck, as recorded in the Bible. Pastor Bakare’s conclusions, with this Scripture, is to have an interim government headed by the same wind that ought to be avoided; for if Jonathan’s defeat will lead to violence, as the pastor says, Jonathan, by default, becomes part of the “euroclydon”; for to calm it is to obey its command; which for the wind is the shipwreck and for Jonathan is continuous stay in office, with or without election; which is what Pastor Tunde Bakare anchored his interim arrangement on.
“ooduapathfinder” expects Pastor Tunde Bakare to utilize his talents and training as a lawyer in this case, just as he did in 2011 when asked to provide some guarantees as to his Vice Presidency, according to his own statements at the time; for anyone coming to equity must come with clean hands. Since the expected violence is to come from either Jonathan’s Niger Delta or Buhari’s “north”, a Goodluck Jonathan, already a suspect in an expected violence cannot, under any circumstances, be asked to adjudicate in any attempt at circumscribing such violence, unless the other party involved is also asked to provide someone to jointly head such an agency, which in this case would either be the “north” in general or General Buhari in particular.
Of course, an interim government as being canvassed by Pastor Bakare is being set up for failure as its purpose will be defeated, ab initio, if it would be headed by a Goodluck Jonathan whose failure in governance is not only blamed on his predecessors in office but also provided the basis for the call for this interim arrangement in the first instance; for he would only blame his predecessors for any future failure of this contraption.
This would, of course, mean that there is no pretense at democracy; for all that any aggrieved Zone or Region needs to do is to initiate violence, or the threat of it and the entire edifice of democratic construction will come crashing down. Otherwise, some responsibility must be ascertained as to either the cause or promotion of a tendency towards violence and a sitting president is the party to be held accountable and responsible; just as Obasanjo was held responsible for the massive rigging that characterized the 2003 and 2007 elections, and still receiving flak for it today. It is thus very clear that in both these instances, the aim is the same: demonize Obasanjo and glorify Goodluck Jonathan.
To extend the logic of their reasoning; for if as we are being told by these apologists, that past regimes laid the foundation for Goodluck Jonathan’s failures, it must follow that each past regime must also be allowed to blame a previous regime for its own failures such that the original blame would go to the original regime, which would rightly be that of Frederick Lugard, who created Nigeria in the first instance.
We do know that Lugard’s contraption was tinkered with through various Constitutional Conferences with a compromise resolution found in both the 1960 and 1963 Federal Constitutions. While succeeding administrations since 1966 had tried to impose their own versions of what Nigeria ought to be, and mainly through Constitutional route, either the 1978 Obasanjo Constituent Assembly; Babangida’s Political Bureau, Abacha’s Constitutional Conference, Obasanjo’s 2005 Conference and now Goodluck Jonathan 2014 National Conference, only Goodluck Jonathan has found it necessary to blame a predecessor for laying the foundation for its own failures; for either by military coup or “moon-slide” elections, it was always a case of having a new regime based on a negation of the old; hence, by definition, a new regime comes into power in order to rectify what it sees as the inefficiency or ineptitude of the previous regime; under no circumstances, therefore, would the new regime blame its failures on its predecessor.
Following on Goodluck Jonathan and his apologists’ reasoning therefore, the “birth defect”, being found in Lord Lugard must also be addressed from that source; hence while the APC is saying, in its Manifesto, that it will take steps to amend the Constitution in order to have “True Federalism” and the “Federal Spirit”; Goodluck Jonathan has concluded his own Conference with recommendations further strengthening Lugardian Unitarism and he wants to continue in office with that mind-set while blaming others for having a “born-to-rule” mentality and encouraging a violent resistance if and when he fails in his re-election bid. Did General Obasanjo also lay the foundation for this obvious negation of Federalism by Jonathan’s 2014 National Conference?

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin



What can be regarded as the informal SWPDP Manifesto for the 2015 elections was unveiled at the Akure gathering of a section of the party, coalescing as the Akure Akotileta Alliance; (Akotileta being the attempt at truncating and negating the quest for True Federalism) comprising some of the members of Afenifere, an organization which had promoted itself as the foremost Yoruba platform for the realization of “True Federalism” led by Segun Mimiko and sundry characters from the PDP whose stock in trade is the promotion of the most anti-democratic and anti-Federal tendencies in Yorubaland where all of the pretenders to elective offices on the platform of the PDP achieved their nominations by foul means; from Ayo Fayose to Iyiola Omisore to Jimi Agbaje who upped the ante in mathematical somersault by ensuring that the total of his votes exceeded the number of accredited delegates.
The gathering anchored its notion that General Buhari is “unfit” to govern Nigeria on its perception of the general’s “antecedents in totalitarianism and dictatorship”. By this, the Akotileta Alliance has formalized its existence as the embodiment of severe violence on our mental health characterized by standing truth on its head and subverting the peoples’ consciousness through deliberate negation of the ideas and the knowledge that has informed our political existence.
Occurring within a society that prides itself as having been in the forefront of developing the intellectual capability of its citizens through educational and social policies that saw to the all-round development of the individual as a necessary condition for social emancipation, where, distinctly in its anti-colonial struggles, “freedom” became a recurring decimal in the political discourse of the day thus ensuring the nurturing of the mind as a necessary precondition, this Akure Akotileta Alliance now turns the mind on its head, in what the Yoruba would characterize as misrepresenting a dog as a monkey.
Otherwise, Segun Mimiko, who actively participated in promoting the vice that 16 is greater than 19 and Ayo Fayose who not only followed in his footsteps by creating a 7 is greater than 19 scenario for the Ekiti House of Assembly, but actually went ahead to beat up judges in order to forestall an unfavorable judgment against him, aside from having the entire state militarized in conjunction with the federal Government of Goodluck Jonathan, just so he could be “victorious” in the election that brought him to power; would not parley and proclaim their rejection of “dictatorship” and “authoritarianism”.
Of course, their gathering would not be complete without praising Goodluck Jonathan’s “achievements”—even as they curiously left out any achievement on the security arena—based on his evolving “cashless financial system, dismantled the fertilizer corruption cartel, improved food security, democratize access to education through the establishment of additional universities, polytechnics and Al-majiri schools and conduct successfully the 2014 National Conference”.
Yet the Naira is in a free fall; which is possible only because the economy is not productive with a cashless financial system being merely a form of economic transaction which has nothing to do with economic production. Even if an excuse would be made of falling oil prices and Russia would become an example of economic downturn as a result, Russia’s issues are not only about oil prices but also about Western sanctions based on the Ukraine crisis as well as the energy conflict with both Europe and China, which makes any comparison redundant.
Besides, to say that access to education is “democratized” by the establishment of additional universities etc” is the supreme violence that could ever be visited on any community; for these establishments have not even started addressing the fundamental issues in the educational sector whereby not only are they lacking in physical structures, the production of knowledge is greatly abridged and what we have are simply certificate mills with no concomitant effect on the economy of the community and which is why the rate of jobless graduates are exponentially increasing. So, if there would be any achievement in that field, the first place to look is in the economic impact which translates into jobs for the graduates in the community hence an effect on the overall economy.
Adjudging the “successful completion of the 2014 National Conference” an achievement is the hallmark of a drowning concept; for Nigeria has had successful conferences in the past; from Ibrahim Babangida’s Political Bureau to Abacha’s Conference to Obasanjo’s Political Conference. The issue is thus not about completion but its alignment with the hopes and aspirations of the people which would be the raison d’etre for organizing a Conference in the first instance and which must manifest in the result.
Only Abacha’s Conference came up with the Zonal Structure, which, though not made Constitutional, is being informally practiced. The Jonathan Conference now touted by the Akure Akotileta Alliance as being “successful” has not only negated this Zonal premise but has gone ahead to further unitarize Nigeria thus entrenching the country’s foundational crisis, which also runs counter to what the Yoruba had always advocated as being the basis for freedom. Which is why this Akotileta Alliance would make a pretense at “Yoruba solidarity” by reducing Yoruba quest for Federalism to having a Yoruba Speaker or a Yoruba Minority Leader, which failures it blamed on the then ACN.
True to type of its inverted logic, the Alliance failed to state that under the watch of the PDP, the Yoruba had produced two Speakers and it was under their watch that the PDP physically and violently rigged elections in the West, with one of the Yoruba Speakers openly declaring, at a rally in Yorubaland, that the PDP will use the anti-riot Mobile Police as its enforcers. It was also under these “Yoruba Speakers” that all efforts at introducing a Restructuring amendment to the Constitution were denied.
Of course, the Alliance would not address this issue because it will be obvious that at the pan-Nigerian level, the issue is not simply the ethno-National origin of the person occupying what position but the political strength of the political parties in contention. Thus, it made absolute political sense for the ACN to deny the PDP from producing another “Yoruba” Speaker, knowing full well that such a Speaker is neither the choice of Yoruba people nor of the dominant political party in the Region but simply that of Goodluck Jonathan, who had not only openly declared the Yoruba to be a minority in the West, but had gone ahead to try to neutralize the dominant party while also promoting further unitarization of Nigeria, under his own presidency.
As far as General Buhari’s “authoritarianism and dictatorship” goes, his period as Head of State in 1983-85 was a period characterized by military authoritarianism and political immaturity, which would not be strange coming from a Head of State who had no hand in planning the coup but whose integrity was so vital that the planners had to invite him to lead the government purposely to establish the credibility of their own actions, more-so when the legitimacy of the military coup itself was already established.
This is where political immaturity comes into play; for a coup, which already had its own legitimacy established, to seek further credibility, ought to have sent danger signals; but such was overshadowed by military solidarity. In this circumstance, all that such a Head of State would want is to apply military solutions to the mess that Nigeria was in, at the time. So, if Gen Buhari was guilty of anything, it would be his total commitment to what he saw as the purity of a military mission while discountenancing the political implications and undercurrents because as at the time of the coup, the military was seen as a “corrective” institution and therefore a-political. And which was why he was also removed once it was clear he would not play ball with the coup’s organizers.
Now that the Akotileta Alliance is comfortable with the Unitarist Jonathan National Conference and the NASS has its own Federalist Amendment; the APC has also come out with its own Manifesto, wherein it is expressly stated, among others, that it will pursue the amendment of the Constitution to really arrive at Devolution and True Federal Spirit.
Thus, it is now quite possible, with this commitment by the APC, to arrive at what the Yoruba really wanted, not only for the Yoruba, but for all of Nigeria as had been the demand all along, right from the inception of Egbe Omo Oduduwa but which the Akotileta Alliance in conjunction with Goodluck Jonathan now wants to throw overboard with their 2014 National Conference concoction.
“ooduapathfinder” finds it curious that the Yoruba are now the main proponents and defenders of the palpably anti-Federal, anti-Yoruba, do-nothing-blame-everyone-else Jonathan Presidency. We can excuse Major-General Olukolade and Brigadier-General Olaleye as carrying out their military duties even as it can be argued whether such postings had been pre-planned or not, going by how the Nigerian military had been rendered useless by the Jonathan regime. But how about the press aides(Reuben Abati and Doyin Okupe); the political mouthpieces(the Akotileta Alliance/SW PDP); the Afenifere Elders and their intellectuals/academics like Bolaji Akiyemi; while Goodluck Jonathan’s Niger Delta/South-South “people” have not even been that defensive except only to invoke their “right” to the presidency.
This is the perfect time to dump all of these Akotiletas: to make them a “Valentine Gift” to the dung heap of history.

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin



Ebenezer Babatope, in his 2007 diatribe against General Buhari, as reproduced in Reuben Abati’s blog, went, as he is wont to do, on a name dropping spree, as if such are, by themselves, enough to capture the complexity of our political existence, in the process of which no new knowledge is gained, no new road towards proximate strategy and tactics is adduced, where all issues are either left hanging or geared to ensure the continuation of the status quo.
Of course, there is nothing new in what he wrote about Buhari; and when he quoted Chief Awolowo as saying “the omens are still bad” upon assumption of power by the military under Buhari, Awo was also not saying anything new as he was a foremost opponent of military rule and would not welcome such, under any circumstance. A fact which enabled him to resign from Gowon’s regime when Gown reneged on his promise to hand over power by 1976. And Chief Awolowo was on record as saying that the “worst civilian regime is better than the best military regime”. So, for Ebenezer Babatope to now want to use Awo’s take on Buhari’s military regime is not only a-historical but also a disservice to Awo’s legacy and thoughts.
So, yes, Buhari’s regime did all of those things, which was the platform for Babangida’s assumption of power; for his first act was to release all of those detained and jailed while painting Buhari’s regime as dictatorial and neo-fascist.
This singular act endeared Babangida to the country whereupon many intellectuals of different persuasions enrolled in his regime and helped to stabilize it and in fact formulated and implemented policies for the regime; policies which included but not limited to, the Political Bureau, SAP, “popularly administered” by Chief Olu Falae, the “two-party system”, devaluation/privatization, popularly known as “kalokalo economics” named after Kalu Idika Kalu, its foremost proponent.
Ebenezer Babatope was the UPN’s Secretary of Organization; a position that ordinarily ought to place him in a better atmosphere to look beyond the surface in order to understand what was really going on so as to enable him formulate appropriate response.
But this was not the case; for there was a philosophical disconnect between his position as Organizing Secretary and any response to an emerging scenario. Hence, everything became centered on whether Buhari was a “lover of the Yoruba Nation” or not. Yet, from all publicly available information, Buhari was not privy to the coup that brought him to power, he was merely its public face. A Secretary of Organization of a party like the UPN was supposed to examine whether the dictatorship embarked upon by Buhari was actually a stage in a process of engraining the army into the people’s consciousness so as to make it the acceptable alternative to rulership in Nigeria. Thus, by making Buhari an enemy of the people, his successors would appear as better alternatives; and going by the known fact of Babangida’s hobnobbing with the “socialist” and “leftist” circles, in and out of the military, it was no surprise that they all rushed into his team once he assumed power and they created the template for his reign. If this aspect had been examined, they would not have made such a rush, and Babangida would not have been able to impose his will on the country as he did. And this is not simply a matter of hindsight; for such a prognosis was made and dismissed off-hand.
But then, what did this say about Buhari himself?
The country was in total economic and political mess as at the time of the coup; every one outside the NPN(and some inside) was of the opinion that a change must happen even as there were many routes to such a change; even the coalition of opposition, anchored by Abubakar Rimi was planning its own moves in its own way; hence, it was easy for a military mindset to fall into the “normal” military means of resolving issues, which is simply authoritarian. Buhari fell into this category, which was why his regime was characterized by such authoritarianism.
The army, historically, had been an agent of “northern” power in Nigeria; but as it is public knowledge, Buhari, as the military commander of Jos, went against the then federal Government orders to pursue invaders from Chad into their territory, and even under his dictatorship, he went after a foremost pillar of Fulani power, Umaru Dikko, who, but for providence, would have probably ended up facing the firing squad, under Buhari. Thus, as a product of such military-authoritarian consciousness, we cannot expect Buhari to act contrary, especially when it also appeared that the military was the only institution that could have stabilized the country, at the time.
So, the issue is not whether Buhari is or was a “lover of the Yoruba Nation”, for that is not the point. The Yoruba Nation is not looking for a “lover” but a situation whereby the quest for True Federalism would be made manifest.
Does Buhari fit this bill, in this circumstance? When Ebenezer Babatope queried Buhari’s actions as the PTF Chairman under Abacha, he did not query his own actions as Abacha’s Minister of Works, a position he held on to, even after his being asked to withdraw from the regime. Does this make Ebenezer Babatope a “hater” of the Yoruba Nation?
This is an indication of the disconnect; for the UPN was not an “ordinary” political party, having been founded upon the best of intellectual/ideological traditions, unwaveringly tilted towards Federalism; hence, its Organizing Secretary is expected to always look beyond the surface and project the historicity of the quest and not simply look for opportunities to “serve” for this is the only way to respond to not only Buhari’s dictatorship but also those of his successors and ultimately military rule. Such that, now that the questions left unresolved in the second republic are rearing their heads, the experience and knowledge gained with such a position should have mediated the responses the Yoruba Nation would offer.
Rather than go this route, Ebenezer Babatope went on a glorification of the “socialists” and “leftists” and “revolutionaries”, regaling us with their experiences, when we know that it is quite possible to have a historically wrong experience as his examples show. He mentioned the likes of Aminu Kano, Bala Usman, Umaru YarA’dua, Ola Oni, Bade Onimode, Eddie Madunagu, Baba Omojola et al, without contextualizing them as if all that matters is his own personal relationship with them.
Yet, Aminu Kano, as populist as he was, utilized the National Question to have his way in northern politics by creating his NEPU as a response to the overbearing influence of the NPC and he repeated same in the second republic with the formation of the PRP, while one of his “disciples” mentioned by Ebenezer Babatope, Bala Usman, whom he referred to as a “revolutionary historian”, utilized all of his intellectual capacity to deny the same National Question that was the basis for his party’s populism.
It took “June 12”, following on the heels of the collapse of the Soviet Union, to get the Ola Onis, Baba Omojolas and even an Edwin Madunagu et al to realize the necessity of resolving the National Question. Thus, for the Organizing Secretary of the UPN to simply de-contexualize the activities of these “comrades” is to negate the historical necessity of the party.
So, now that the contest in Nigeria is now between a former military dictator in the person of Buhari and a civilian dictator in the person of Goodluck Jonathan, one would expect a former Organizing Secretary of the UPN, founded on the deepest need for Federalism, to not only regale us with name droppings but situate a way forward by making a situational definition of the problem as a prelude to finding a solution.
We have been told over and over again, that the “north” is promoting a “born-to-rule” mentality. Yet, since the beginnings of the anti-colonial struggles, the West had always tried to secure a working relationship with the East; even the formation of the Egbe Omo Oduduwa in London in 1947, was a response to the rejection of such a working relationship. In 1953, when the motion for independence was moved, the East also balked, saying they would not want the “north” to leave Nigeria; in 1959, Awo wanted an alliance with the East(NCNC) which was rejected; same thing occurred in 1979 and even 1983, even as these latter rejections were predicated upon the relationship between the West and the East during the Nigeria-Biafra war, which war was unilaterally taken into Yorubaland by Biafra. Thus, historically, at all times, even if the “north” was to be accused of such a mentality, the East had always been its engine room.

Of course, in 2007, Ebenezer Babatope was in firm support of the PDP’s Umar Yar A’dua, who, but for his singular acknowledgment of the flaws that accompanied his election, floated no idea as to how to restructure Nigeria. The current civilian dictator has already done that, and he actually organized a National Conference to that effect. Meanwhile, the former military dictator has come out with his manifesto and a major point is in amending the Constitution to reflect the “True Federal Spirit”.
It could be argued that Buhari could or would jettison the idea once he assumed the presidency. This is why Ebenezer Babatope’s credentials as an Organizing Secretary of the UPN was queried; for it is not acceptable to take such an assumption as a fact or a reality but to ensure that it does not happen; especially when we know that the current civilian dictator, through the recommendations of his National Conference, has already de-federalized Nigeria, all he is waiting for is to formalize it through his imposed legislature.
Even though, Ebenezer Babatope was not speaking on behalf of Afenifere, in 2007 and 2011, the group supported this former military dictator on the premise that his regime would restructure; the wonder now is why the same group is now teaming up with the Ebenezer Babatopes to promote the civilian dictator thus leaving us no room to maneuver—of course, that is if we allow them.
By Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com


By adminadmin


In a recent letter to both President Jonathan and General Buhari as Presidential candidates of both the PDP and APC, Professor Akinyemi made it appear as if he is proposing a road-map towards a violence-free election. Professor Akinyemi predicated his “warning” on the certainty of violence on the upcoming elections, whoever wins, after which he proposed a solution. Before going into his solution, there is a need to address the presumed certainty of violence, for one will necessarily lead to the other. The Professor is being clever by half, having decided to feign ignorance of the reality of the current Presidency of Nigeria
Professor Akinyemi wrote: “The violence of 2015 is going to be horrendous and worse than the one of 2011 for the simple reason that the illegal massive importation of weapons into the country has reached such alarming proportions that I really wonder which is better armed, the militias on the one hand or the official armed forces on the other hand. For the avoidance of doubt, I am not imputing the illegal importation of arms to any particular zone. Some years ago, some Iranians were arrested for bringing in a shipload of weapons into Lagos harbour. They were tried and jailed and then smuggled out of the country. Some months ago, sophisticated weapons were discovered buried in the basement of a Kano house. All these have now fallen below the radar. These are the ones we know about. How many do we not know about?”

Professor Akinyemi admitted that the cases he referenced have fallen under the radar and there are many of such that are not known. The question is: who is responsible for the lapses? Obviously it must be the Nigerian Security Agencies of whatever description, and these Agencies report directly to the President. Nigeria has a substantive President in the person of Goodluck Jonathan; and it will be assumed that he must be held responsible for any and all untoward occurrences under his regime.
These agencies were used to intimidate opponents in elections, were utilized to militarize opposition states during elections; were used to harass even the Federal House of Representatives; wherein also, a Presidency that has been acting Unconstitutionally in removing Judges as well as the Central Bank Governor while encouraging the desecration of the judiciary by one of his Governors as well as having the National Secretary of his party retain his office, illegally and against judicial pronouncement; allowing a spurious “ceasefire” without repercussions yet court-martialing soldiers for their inability to confront Boko Haram insurgents, even when the soldiers claimed they were in desperate need for the wherewithal to fight especially when trillions of dollars had always been earmarked for defense etc etc.
Yet Professor Akinyemi would want us to believe that such a Presidency cannot or should not be held responsible for all of these; rather both the president and the opposition should be held accountable for any repercussions stemming from these failures by the Presidency.
There is only one person to be held responsible for any violence—and that is the President. The reason is simple. The President has never held anyone accountable for any high crimes, even as he himself is an active participant. Violence does not occur in a vacuum; conditions must have been set for its occurrence; hence when the security forces embark and engage in illegalities, on so-called “orders from above”; when state institutions are utilized for partisan purposes; it is no rocket science—as the Professor himself would say—- to know that its purveyors are setting the stage for violence.
So, his “warning” would make sense only if the President had been acting within the Constitution and laws he swore to uphold. But he is not, and he must be called into account for those lapses. That is the only way to begin to address the question of violence.
Of course, as President Jonathan is wont to do, blaming everyone for everything except himself, Professor Akinyemi now wants to hang on African and non-African states the responsibility of destabilization in Nigeria writing that they will succeed if we make “ enemies of ourselves and friends of our enemies.”
Yet the only condition for success or failure is the ability of either side to obey the ground rules of behavior, which the Presidency is clearly not obeying. Which is why the Presidency finds it very easy to absolve itself of any untoward occurrence knowing full well that his foot soldiers will go about promoting such chicanery.
Professor Akiyemi’s “Way Forward” is summarized as having the two candidates sign a Memorandum of Undertaking to have peaceful campaigns as well as having their supporters accept whatever the result is, all under the auspices of what he called a “Council of Wise men”.
This recommendation is a way to deflect responsibility of the President and until people like Professor Akinyemi are bold enough to tell it like it is, they will only be fanning the flames of violence they purport to abhor.
We cannot continue to behave as if what is happening is beyond our capacity to address. The problem is in playing the ostrich. Where was Professor Akinyemi when the President was acting illegally and Unconstitutionally; for over a period of 6 years? Is it the same president that will now sign an “undertaking” when his “victory” will be predicated on the same utilization of “security forces” to intimidate and harass citizens?
If the expected violence occurs, it will not be because of a lack of will to prevent it, but because the occurrence had already been predetermined by the Presidency. And the only way to actually prevent it is for the President to come clean, before the elections, as to his own unconstitutional and illegal behavior, with an undertaking not to employ similar means in the coming elections, aside from punishing those who had participated in previous illegal and unconstitutional acts; persons like Selenkere or the IG of Police, Musiliu Obanikoro, Jelili Adesiyan et al. That will at least, show that the Presidency is serious about these issues and that he actually had no knowledge of the illegal acts; and by this, any over-zealous “security detail” would be on his/her own and would face the consequences of his/her actions. Otherwise, this call by Professor Akinyemi is to create a ground for the Presidency to have its way, by hamstringing the opposition, and the Presidency, as usual will utilize the “security agencies” to force its way and the Professor Akinyemis would expect us to abide by the conditions of the undertaking.
“ooduapathfinder” is very curious about the role these Yoruba Afenifere-Jonathanistas are playing in holding the ground for Jonathan’s Presidency in the process of which extreme violence is done to basic human knowledge, logic and freedoms, all contrary to Yoruba(human) existentialism. If they are not promoting Goodluck Jonathan as championing “southern interests” against a “born-to-rule mentality” without telling us that a Goodluck Jonathan with nothing to show for his presidency is also promoting a “born-to-rule” consciousness, especially when he always denies knowledge of anything and everything under his Presidency yet wants to continue in office, they will be likening Goodluck Jonathan to Jesus Christ while condemning Islam as a religion as if there had never been Yoruba Muslims long before Uthman dan Fodio; if they are not defending Jonathan’s National Conference, they will be promoting issues defying all known principles of Federalism while calling members of the opposition all sorts of names, the latest being the statement credited to PDP’s national Secretary who goes by the name Professor Afolabi who is retaining his position all because the President is enmeshed in an illegal and unconstitutional act by virtue of his acceding to the PDP’s contempt for judicial pronouncement; if they are not blaming northern governors for Boko Haram insurgency, they will be acquiescing to Goodluck Jonathan’s conspiracy of silence on the Chief of Defense Staff’s “ceasefire” which turned out to be a hoax with no heads rolling over it and the list goes on and on.
Of course, “ooduapathfinder” knows that these Yoruba defenders of Jonathan have turned history on its head by their a-historical likening of the APC to SLA Akintola’s pre-1966 attempt at alignment with the North, which is also an evidence of the violence they are perpetrating on knowledge.
For Akintola, the basic premise was that the Western Region was not to be controlled by an external force, even as he entered into an unacceptable alliance with the NPC and embarked on a war of attrition against the Action Group. The point is, he refused and disallowed any external political party to dictate to him, hence, his first goal was to neutralize the Western NCNC and absorb it into his newly-created NNDP platform. Which shows us that even an Akintola recognized the necessity to be his own master in his house—which was why he was able to attempt a “détente” with the opposition, offering to resign his premiership in exchange for peace, in the closing days of 1965 but which the military intervention of January 15-16 1966 truncated.
[i]“ooduapathfinder” [/i]compares that period with today’s Yoruba Afenifere-Jonathanistas. Since the AD broke up, as it were, absolutely none of them have been able to hold their political ground; they are always at the beck and call of some outside forces bent on neutralizing Yorubaland.
This is a historical issue for us. The “north”, via the NPC and the “East” via the NCNC had always attempted to neutralize the West, for their own purposes; the failures of which also always end up in a North-East Conflict. Such that be it Akintola or Awo, both of them knew the importance of holding their political ground and hence would not contemplate ceding such ground for any external force even if they are to enter into an alliance with such a force for whatever purposes.
What we are experiencing now is the exact opposite; where the Yoruba Afenifere-Jonathanistas have already ceded the territory to Jonathan by not only overturning Federalism at the National Conference, but have allowed Goodluck Jonathan, who had declared the Yoruba as a minority in Yorubaland, to pick and choose who will be leaders in Yorubaland. And when he agreed to pick one of them as the Governorship candidate for Lagos, it was with a proviso of having an Igbo as his Deputy. In a nutshell, these people are even worse than the Akintola mainstreamers for which Akintola had been pilloried. They constitute a clear and present danger to Yorubaland and Yoruba people all over the world, for a “victory” for Goodluck Jonathan is the end of autonomy/self-determination for the Yoruba Nation worldwide.

www.ooduapathfinder.com

Proof of the fact that Goodluck Jonathan’s “kingdom” is torn is found during his 57th birthday celebration where the Presidential Chaplain, Venerable Obioma Onwuzurumba, likened Goodluck Jonathan to King Saul and in the process made wild claims on both the person of the president as well as his ethnic group, the Izon; which the Venerable claimed is the “least in Nigeria” all in an attempt at situating Goodluck Jonathan’s regime within a Biblical garb. The Venerable also claimed that Jonathan would be surrounded by “valiant and good hearted men” just as King Saul was.
The Izon are not the “least in Nigeria”, as they are considered the fourth largest Ethnic Nationality in Nigeria. There is no way such can be considered the “least” among more than 200 Nationalities, except the Jonathanian mathematical methodology is applied. We all know that this methodology was applied in the Governors Forum’s “16 is greater than 19”; the Ekiti “7 is greater than 19”; the Lagos PDP primaries where the number of declared votes exceeded the number of voting delegates, ascribed to a “clerical error”, even after the PDP claimed the delegates list was in circulation two weeks before the primaries yet the “clerical error” was not identified during the entire period. Claiming the “least in Nigeria” status for the Izon would thus be the icing on the cake.
Equating Goodluck Jonathan with King Saul, the venerable regaled his audience with King Saul being surrounded by “valiant” men. Yet, King Saul, with all of his valiant men, could not confront Goliath, and when David showed up and defeated Goliath, King Saul became depressed and tried all in his power to try to destroy David.
As King Saul and his valiant men could not confront Goliath, so Goodluck Jonathan’s valiant men have been unable to confront the Nigerian goliath, preferring, instead, to blame everyone blamable as to the inability of the Jonathan regime while excusing Goodluck Jonathan himself.
In this blame game, we are told he succeeded in privatizing the power sector. But privatization is not and should not be an end in itself. Rather, such privatization must be measured in terms of what it is expected to achieve within the overall health of the economy. Hence, not only did the Jonathan regime sell off the power assets, he also went ahead to offer “loans” to the same companies that were supposed to bring in direct foreign investment but which now had to rely on the seller to provide the needed capital. Meanwhile, power is neither generated nor distributed by these privatized entities.
Furthermore, while the Minister of Petroleum Resources refused to appear before a National Assembly Committee to answer certain questions, the Minister of Finance did state that there would be an International forensic audit of the NNPC and the oil sector and the report, as at the time of writing, is yet to be made public.
King Saul’s valiant men were supposed to include his military force even though they became cowardly when challenged by Goliath. The same scenario applies to Goodluck Jonathan, where the Nigerian Armed Forces have been found wanting against the Boko Haram insurgency, with all sorts of excuses being offered, ranging from initially blaming the opposition for the existence of the insurgency to attempting to turn it into a religious uprising thus asking the Islamic leaders in the North to tackle them while castigating the Governors of the affected States for not taking care of their own security when these Governors have absolutely no control over the Police talk less of the Nigerian Armed Forces; and then the military spokesperson in the person of Major-general Olukolade went to Atlanta, US to blame the media for Boko Haram’s successes. Yet, the Jonathan regime awarded a security contract to one of the former Niger Delta operatives to patrol Nigeria’s coastline, ostensibly to challenge oil theft with the attendant result of having more oil stolen after the contract was awarded. To cap it all, the Chief of Defense Staff of the Nigerian Armed Forces announced a “ceasefire” agreement with Boko Haram and went ahead to order the Nigerian Army to initiate a unilateral ceasefire only for Boko Haram to strike more violently. Of course, as a valiant man, the Chief of Defense Staff was neither rebuked nor penalized.
These valiant men were not in short supply in Goodluck Jonathan’s militarization of the Ekiti and Osun elections where democracy was turned on its head and intimidation became the order of the day, where soldiers who were unable to confront the insurgents were deployed to intimidate electors with a threat of bloodbath in Ekiti, which they got away with but met a determined resistance in Osun. The irony of this is that the point man of the valiant men on the Ekiti and Osun missions, Musiliu Obanikoro, got a taste of his own medicine when he was surreptitiously shown the door during the Lagos State PDP primaries which he is now contesting.
Before these electoral shenanigans, the valiant men had been employed in arriving at a predetermined position at Jonathan’s national Conference, where, contrary to even the vociferous demands of the Niger Delta for Resource Control, the conference ended up with more insidious Unitarization, which tallied with a statement credited to one of the valiant men, Tony Nyiam who had told anyone who cared to listen that “no one will organize such a Conference without a predetermined agenda.”
When God commanded Agag and the Amalekites to be destroyed, King Saul balked and placed the blame on the people just as Goodluck Jonathan has resorted to the blame game on all instances while pretending to be unaware of the shenanigans. And the venerable would have told us that if indeed King Saul was telling the truth, why were the sheep and the most valuable of the spoils of war found in the King’s palace; for if keeping them was truly the wish of the people, nothing should have stopped them from distributing them among themselves, which would have lent credence to King Saul’s claim.
Similarly, Goodluck Jonathan, by keeping all the spoils of the Federal Government, turning the Armed Forces and security agencies, including the Police into his political tool, refusing to Regionalize the country as demanded by the Nationalities; empowering his own cronies for political gain and ensuring his coronation as the only PDP Presidential candidate; unbridled heist
of monies from the Federal treasury along with the desecration of the judiciary etc at the same time blaming others for all of the malfeasance is classical King Saul.
Which brings in the issue of King Saul’s end; for after his kingdom was torn from him, he became wild and pursued satanic processes in order to maintain his power and prestige, all to no avail; for at that point, he was fighting God.
Thus, when the venerable, in a Holy Communion service, isolated the cause of the Kingship of Saul from its effect within the context of the overall health of Israel, he has not only done a disservice but has become a vehicle for false prophecy and false teaching with its own direct consequences. For every King Saul, there is always a David.
And now that the die is cast between Goodluck Jonathan and the APC, we can only expect Goodluck Jonathan, in the manner of King Saul, to refuse to accept defeat on February 14, 2015 by announcing a favorable result for himself. Being the first in the series of elections, such an announcement will bring its own consequences, among which will be a termination of the remaining elections and with the army under his beck and call, a political standoff can only be expected.
The opposition has also stated it will form a parallel government should the above occur; and from earlier reports as to Goodluck Jonathan’s preparedness to engage the international community through the retained services of 12 SANs, he is working on the expectation of a NADECO-type opposition response; which by itself, is necessary but will not be enough; the general opposition must develop its own strategies beyond but also in tandem with any NADECO-type alternative.
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com


This is the famous expression attributed to Ahmadu Bello, the late Sardauna of Sokoto, as the north’s response to colonialism and borne out of its desire to control the Nigeria created by British colonial power where any form of political settlement to the Nigerian Colonial Question must rest on its own control of political developments.
The East’s response initially revolved around the I(g)bo State Union before it was absorbed into the NCNC and had its own response to the Nigerian Colonial Question through a denial of the Nationalities as a functional component of anti-colonialism, looking at Nigeria through that prism of deniability; while in the West, even with a strong NCNC presence, the dominant political platform was the Action Group, which, since its formation, had always canvassed the recognition of the Nationality as the basis for independence and thus advocated a Federal System; contrary to both the North and the East, both of which were advocating a unitarized structure.
“ooduapathfinder” affirms that prior to all of these, Yorubaland had never been subjected to any victorious expansion by any force, especially from the Dan Fodio’s successors who had tried to expand southwards and were stopped by the Ibadan Army at the 1847 Osogbo battle and driven back northwards. The case of Ilorin was not a case of military expansion but a result of an internal implosion within the Oyo Empire, based on an attempted expansion which eventually led to the collapse of the empire. Historical records do show that Ilorin, being the seat of the rebellion, under Afonja’s leadership, had made Ilorin a safe haven for slaves, mostly of Hausa, Bariba etc nations who would flee to Ilorin, with the sole intention of building up a massive army to confront the Alafin. The conflict between what this “army” later became, as a law unto itself and Afonja’s vision led to his death and subsequent take-over of the town by these emancipated slaves.
When Ahmadu Bello then expressed the intention to “dip the Koran into the sea”, it would be following a historical precedent but this will now be based on current realities, for the old methods would no longer suffice. The British, for its own reasons, had acceded to the demands of the North to ensure its political dominance through a spurious census that gave majority parliamentary seats to the north which also became the political foundation for Independence. That the north had this dominance did not give it the needed political majority hence had to find some collaborators from the south; which was readily made available by the NCNC, for its own reasons, primary of which was its need to neutralize the Action Group which it had accused of promoting “balkanization” of Nigeria because of AG’s promotion of Federalism of the Nationalities as the basis for an independent Nigeria; aside from the shock of NCNC’s defeat at the 1951 Western Regional Parliamentary elections.
There was thus a meeting point between the North’s attempt at “dipping the Koran into the Sea” and the East(NCNC) attempt at a uniform Nigeria both of which depended on neutralizing the Action Group as a political force and philosophy.
The consummation of this necessity led to the alliance between the North and the East and the subsequent illegal proclamation of the State of Emergency in the Western Region on May 29, 1962 as well as the trial of leading persons of the AG in a spurious treason trial and subsequent jailing of Awo and his lieutenants. Of course, a house built on sandy soil will collapse, which was the fate of the alliance, even after it had succeeded in temporarily neutralizing the Action Group leadership. The collapse of the alliance was aided by the coming of age of their junior partner in the West, formed around the Akintola/Remi Fani-Kayode group which saw to the collapse of the NCNC in the West into Akintola’s party and subsequent formation of the NNDP. For the East, its hunters of the AG in the NCNC became the hunted of its former ally, the NPC. All of these led to the January 1966 coup and its civil war aftermath and the subsequent recalibration of Nigeria from a Federation of four Regions into what we now have as 36 States.
Thus, “dipping the Koran into the sea” is a political movement that is not only not confined to the north but was also aided and abetted by the East and can only be achieved by the neutralization of any independent political force in Yorubaland. Its political philosophy rest on controlling the central purse of Nigeria and attracting any and all such forces that are willing to be part of that charade though denying the right of their nations for such an autonomy that was practiced at Independence and which enabled the four Regions to establish a template for their own development.
“ooduapathfinder” notes that it is no longer news that the East, represented by Goodluck Jonathan has no qualms reenacting such neutralization, as evidenced by his regime’s desperation to take control of the land though all sorts of constitutional infractions and illegalities, including promotion of thugs and criminals as Yoruba political leaders; such that his regime has become an albatross that must be removed.
“ooduapathfinder” posits that the only way a nationality can lose its way in Nigeria is to deny such nationality its political independence; that is, where such a nationality will have no control over its own political trajectory and practices; which will be the case in Yorubaland if the PDP of Jonathan has its way. For it will not only be a de facto one-party state, it would be a lawless state, having retained power via turning the law on its head and for Yorubaland, having turned the place into a playground for both Yoruba and non-Yoruba terrorists; with no control over the internal workings of such a one-party state and where its leading promoters in Yorubaland are made to knock their heads against each other by political inducements, which has also made them to succumb to the neutralization of age-long Yoruba demands for Federalism.
Thus, not only did Goodluck Jonathan succeed in neutralizing the Niger Delta demands for its flagship “resource control”, his Yoruba supporters have also denounced any form of federalism, at the recent national Conference where the Yoruba delegates became avid supporters of all anti-federalist recommendations.
With a government run by denials of responsibility, including the latest one being denial of responsibility for the devaluation of Nigeria’s currency; the military being a shadow of itself in its confrontation with Boko Haram insurgency; the Judiciary being rendered its mere plaything where luckless petty criminals are sentenced to long jail terms and high-level criminals in and out of government walk scot-free; where political office holders beat up judges with no repercussions; where the State Security Services have become a serving arm of Goodluck Jonathan’s political preferences with even the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives condoning police illegality and from the reports of the recent PDP electoral primaries where all sorts of illegalities reigned supreme, the only conclusion from all of these is that it is impossible for his Yoruba supporters to have any say in the running of his administration; such that this can only foreshadow what to expect, if he ends up re-electing himself.
For the Yoruba Nation, therefore, this is not simply a case of “dipping the Koran in the sea”; for we are being confronted with an attempt at neutralizing our political existence. The North being accused of trying to “dip the Koran into the sea” is also facing a similar situation, while the East is easily in Goodluck Jonathan’s pocket. In a previous Editorial, “ooduapathfinder” pointed out Goodluck Jonathan’s preparedness to judicially promote his re-election, even internationally and has gone ahead to retain 12 SAN’s legal services for such action which shows his readiness to impose himself on us.
That the SW APC is intact is what Yorubaland has going for it, right now; that APC as a pan-Nigerian opposition is alive to its mission is also a plus; which is why[b] “ooduapathfinder”[/b] enjoins all Yoruba nationalist formations to ensure that the PDP does not smell a whiff of power in Yorubaland. This is not about personalities, as some are wont to say, but a Yoruba National issue; for the PDP represents a clear and present danger to Yorubaland.

www.ooduapathfinder.com


After blaming everything and everyone blamable, except himself, for Boko Haram inside Nigeria, Goodluck Jonathan has now turned on the “external influence from outside Africa”. It is common knowledge that a Boko Haram-type insurgency anywhere in the world is never a local affair but in his continuous blame game, he now says that Boko Haram “had a lot of external influence from outside Africa”. Boko Haram had once publicly aligned itself with the caliphate of the Islamic State, whose base of support, officially and unofficially, is to be found in some countries of the Middle East thus making superfluous any latter-day admission of “external support outside Africa” for Boko Haram; Goodluck Jonathan himself had attended a meeting on Boko Haram in France; news stories had been written about international operations aimed at combatting terrorism in the Sahel, with France’s “Operation Barkhane” intelligence and Special operations forces being the backbone of such efforts while collaborating with the US Central Command’s military efforts across West Africa, in training Chad’s Special Anti-Terrorism Group. Goodluck Jonathan had once gone to Chad, and upon returning telling us about a “cease fire” with Boko Haram; the Australian Stephen Davis had been engaged in negotiations with Boko Haram and more importantly, Goodluck Jonathan and his handlers blame the opposition APC as Boko Haram’s sponsors, to such an extent that they tasked the APC Governments in the North with the responsibility of handling the insurgency. Yet we are now being told about Boko Haram’s “external influence from outside Africa.”
Blame games always exonerate the actual culprits; for Chad and Cameroon are now not being held responsible but those “outside Africa”, such that the approach of elections and probable heat being generated within the PDP itself that may lead to the North abandoning the PDP for him, he embarks on an appeasement drive, whereby Boko Haram has suddenly become a beneficiary of a “lot of external influence” and no longer a “northern” or opposition problem.
Condescending to look at the “politics” of this admission, certain questions are bound to arise. It is common knowledge that Boko Haram usually strike from the Cameroon border areas and the Nigerian soldiers also usually ”tactically” withdraw into Cameroon. The question is, why has Goodluck Jonathan not met with the president of Cameroon on this issue? Since this Chadian adventure is being made public, not making any visit to Cameroon public as an excuse will not wash; same parameters should be applied to Cameroon since both are involved, one way or the other, in the Boko Haram war. Yet, southern Chad and northern Cameroon constitute a sort of homeland for Sunni-Shuwa Arabs, “stateless” Nationalities, just as all of the Nationalities inside Nigeria—indeed in most African countries—- who are also mostly residents of Boko Haram’s areas of operations in the North East of Nigeria . Yet, all “diplomatic efforts” against Boko Haram are being restricted to Chad.
Granted, Chad was the home base of militias from Libya, from where Islamic insurgents in West Africa fan out; Chad itself is an appendage of France with the person credited with initial sponsoring of Boko Haram, Ali Modu Sheriff, under official protection and recognition in Nigeria, a personal friend of Chadian president Idriss Deby and a resident of Chad. Thus, ordinarily, Chad would be the place to go. But having held meetings with France, it becomes suspicious when the puppet master cannot call his puppets to order only for Goodluck Jonathan to be left holding the can; for after the disgrace of the “cease fire”, it would make no sense for Jonathan’s government to continue to rely on and work with the same government that engendered that “cease fire”; otherwise, there is something Goodluck Jonathan is not telling us.
All of these international interventions show that there is “external influence from outside Africa” on both sides, the question being the use-value of this “external influence from outside Africa” on Nigeria’s side.
The nonchalance of the Nigerian Government, starting from the denial of Chibok abductions to Goodluck Jonathan’s “dancing sprees” in pursuit of his re-election even at a time of terror bombings plus the corruption and lackadaisical attitude of the military, where, at some point, Goodluck Jonathan even blamed his predecessors for the military’s ineffectiveness; up to his regime being caught in a covert operation to purchase weapons from South Africa negates the utility of these external influences which would now make the UK to quietly withdraw its reconnaissance aircraft and the US refusing to sell sophisticated weapons to the military based on the military’s violation of human rights contrary to US Laws concerning same.
Thus, if, according to Goodluck Jonathan, it is now “even more imperative for all countries in the region to work together to overcome terrorism and other criminal activities across their borders”; allowing unfettered access to enablers of terrorism in West Africa is not the way to go about it. Otherwise, the quest is only about securing the cooperation of these neighboring countries for the control and deployment of the insurgents as necessary. A friendly Chad coupled with a friendly Cameroon will only serve such purposes.
Further, if, again according to Goodluck Jonathan, “If you look at the economies of Nigeria and Chad, both are linked. The Boko Haram people don’t take permission to move from Chad, Niger, Cameroon and Nigeria. If the countries do not cooperate, we will not find it easy to win the war, because when the heat is strong in one country, the criminals and terrorists will go to another one and hide. So, we must work together and we are discussing along that line.”
But the economies of Nigeria and Benin are also linked such that combatting terrorism, by itself, cannot be a factor in economic collaboration as such collaboration is a matter of course by the mere fact of geography. Making a special issue out of it because of terrorism therefore shows an agenda beyond this mere fact.
Goodluck Jonathan and his supporters have always challenged the opposition as well as northern leaders to resolve the Boko Haram insurgency. And now that Jonathan has suddenly discovered the commonality of borders which should now aim at addressing the issue, what becomes of the charge to the opposition and the northern leaders? If they are to take up the challenge, they must then be able to address the border issues in their own ways. Otherwise Goodluck Jonathan is now saying there must be a difference in the internal and external handling where his government will concentrate on the external and the opposition on the internal. With this, Goodluck Jonathan may finally be admitting responsibility for handling the Boko Haram issue; which may as well be the case, especially if we begin to notice a reduction in Boko Haram attacks, from now all the way to the elections which will now be credited to Goodluck Jonathan, but which will also support the above thesis that both Chad and Cameroon are serving purposes other than fighting terrorism; rather, they are rearguard posts for the political agenda of Goodluck Jonathan and his team.
The Niger Delta borders Cameroon and Goodluck Jonathan has recently let the cat out of the bag by acquiescing to Ijaw militants’ demands on the EPZ, and of course, these militants do not hide their intention to ensure and enforce Goodluck Jonathan’s continuous dominance of Nigeria, hence Cameroon is not to be saddled with Boko Haram’s issues since it would be or it is an ally in its own Ijaw domination agenda.
It is in this context that the sudden interest in Chad becomes critical. The “alliance” between Modu Sheriff Sunni-Shuwa Nation and Goodluck Jonathan’s Ijaw Nation, aimed at crippling Nigeria by utilizing different tactics of intimidation is the reason why a rapport would be built with Chad, easily the country with the most powerful anti-terrorist military in West Africa(courtesy of external support from France) in spite of the poverty of and in the country; a country which ordinarily is capable of crushing Boko Haram because of this “external support” from France but from where Boko Haram does not operate from; while Cameroon, where Boko Haram operates from, at least so far, is simply left alone since Ijaw tactics do not require terrestrial inter-border crossings but maritime interactions. Which would also be a reason why the Ijaw have been tasked with the patrolling Niger Delta coastline under the pretext of securing oil exports when actually oil theft is increasing under their watch.
An aside: The OPC was denied a similar contract for the South West, as we are made to believe; even after both sides of the OPC almost went at each other’s throats in order to get the contract. This simply shows that the SW is of no strategic importance as far as border controls are concerned. The utility of the OPC is simply to be agents of neutralization of SW political leadership and they don’t need a pipeline contract for that. Hopefully, the OPC has learnt its lessons.
There is no animus against either the Shuwa or the Ijaw if their intention is to carve out their own Nation-States. However, from all available evidence, this does not appear to be so. What is happening is an attempt to completely overwhelm and dominate Nigeria by creating secure borders for the Ijaw in the south and the Shuwa in the North East, while the official military is being used for internal pacification purposes and the non-Shuwa Nationalities in the North East are actually hounded in their bid to organize and defend their communities against terrorism; for allowing such will expose the real deal behind Boko Haram, since both “external and internal” issues will now be handled by the Nationalities themselves.
The solution to all of these would thus be to not only ensure that Goodluck Jonathan does not return to office, if the election holds but also to insist on a complete Restructuring of Nigeria; for this will be the only way the Nationalities or what is referred to as the “hunters” will be able to organize themselves for the defense of their land.

www.ooduapathfinder.com


The Goodluck Jonathan political narrative, now consummated in his formal declaration to pursue the presidency, is anchored on the twin ideas of keeping the Boko Haram (BH) insurgency alive and making religion an electoral issue within the context of his supposed political reformation of Nigeria. It is now common knowledge that the beneficiaries of this narrative both economically and politically are located within the North-West/South-East/South-South axis, with the NW virtually getting all of its demands on how to re-launch Nigeria accepted by delegates at Jonathan’s National Conference.
In the First Republic, the North East (and parts of the Middle Belt) was the epicenter of opposition to the NPC with its headquarters in the North-West while the Western Region occupied the place of ideological and parliamentary opposition. With Boko Haram’s epicenter of operations now located in the NE, it is very clear that that Jonathan’s strategic goal is to render the Region politically impotent, thereby ensuring the dominance of the NW in the North’s political calculus. The way this works out is that the Jonathan presidency is able to retain the scions of the NW political establishment in power while it continues to ascribe Boko Haram’s successes to a supposed backing if not direct enablement by the opposition. In this scenario the Jonathan Presidency itself is a victim and is entitled to blame everyone, including the international community, about its ineffectual campaign against the Boko Haram insurgency. This will assure him of a deal with the NW. Meanwhile the SW will remain the only Region “outside the fold.” The “rush” into the PDP currently being engineered by a few pro-Jonathan politicians from a group of one-time followers of Awolowo political group in the SW, with an eye into “capturing” Lagos should be seen therefore as a move to corral the SW into the Jonathan narrative of politics of power and personal survival.
Yet this narrative is being played out without any element of democracy, even though generally dressed in the garb of electoral democracy. On the contrary, it has all the signs of creeping fascism. Jonathan’s faction of the PDP neutralized the Obasanjo faction in the SW by negating democratic principles, to the point of ignoring judicial pronouncements. Other instances were his illegal use of the military and police in Ekiti and Osun; his imposition of Ayo Fayose and Iyiola Omisore as the PDP governorship candidates in Ekiti and Osun respectively. Emboldened by the imperial backing of Jonathan, both candidates proceeded to act as occupying blackshirt commanders rather than politicians seeking a popular mandate. In Ekiti, a sitting high court judge was physically assaulted in Ayo Fayose’s presence and on his alleged instruction. In Osun, Iyiola Omisore continuously derided a pending judicial matter, whose outcome would have meant banishment from political office.
Such contemptuous treatments of the judiciary and abuse of the justice system are traceable to Goodluck Jonathan himself. Some of Goodluck Jonathan’s better known examples include the unconstitutional removal of Justice Ayo Salami from his role as Justice of the Court of Appeal, the removal of the then governor of Central Bank, Lamido Sanusi, for his questioning of the management of the nation’s oil money. Less an attack on institutions, but no less vexatious is the administration’s mix-messages over its handling of the Boko Haram insurgency. Less than 48 hours after the military’s Chief of Defense Staff announced that a ceasefire agreement had been reached with the murderous group, a further raid and seizure of citizens, men and women, was carried out in parts of the North East. Since the so-called “ceasefire”, the BH has taken over more territories. Notwithstanding all this, both the minister of defense and the national security adviser are still at their jobs, while President Jonathan asks Muslim leaders in the North to “fight” Boko Haram at the same time he accuses the opposition party, APC, as Boko Haram’s enabler.
Furthermore, the Goodluck Jonathan presidency introduced the religious card; yet the Yoruba are well-known for their religious tolerance and harmony. This is not only in their attitude to Christianity and Islam, but also implicit in their belief system and ways of life. It is no accident that the Yoruba traditional religion is made up of multiple deities and multiple worship systems, each of which is believed to have as much validity as the other. The traditional notion among the Yoruba that religion is more of a private matter than a political one explains why even after decades of received religions in the Yoruba region, husbands and wives cohabit as Muslims and Christians amicably. It is becoming increasingly clear that a key element of the Jonathan strategy in the SW is to undo this settled belief and attitude about religion. Mr Jonathan’s foot-soldiers are all over the southwest playing the religious card, claiming to be voicing the resentments of Yoruba Christians.
The truth is that while we might have had our own deranged proselytizers, of both Christian and Muslim varieties, the Yoruba have historically been at home and at peace in the matter of religion. For us the motto is faith is jolly good as long as it does not get in the way of social progress and human achievement. Nothing must be done to unsettle the unstated but heavily implied consensus in Yorubaland that religion is personal and should stay as such.
It should be obvious that behind the orchestrated Christian versus Muslim issue in Yoruba politics is a calculated move to subvert what is left of radical political tradition in Yorubaland, if not a wholesale overwhelming of the region. This is to make it possible for those who would rather like Nigeria to be kept in a state of permanent underdevelopment – unable to protect its citizens or achieve its potential as a possible beacon of enlightenment for the rest of the African continent to have their way. For all our difficulties, the Yoruba remain a glass is half-empty rather than a glass is half-full in our collective understanding of politics and nation building. Everything must be done to protect that tradition of plurality of perspective and tolerance of difference.
For all the supposed complexity of managing Nigeria, the roots of many of the country’s current political difficulties are traceable to the failures of past years, especially the subversion in the First Republic of the constitutional and democratic order put in place at independence. It is worth stressing, not least for the education of those who now speak of the present moment as if it was exceptional, that the Independence Constitution was a negotiated document that was mutually agreed by all the nationalist-political leaders of the day. That it was subverted shortly after independence by those feudal elite whose political interests had been promoted by the British in the run up to independence is the real issue at the heart of Nigeria’s failure, not the unworkability of the Independence Constitution.
To all intents and purposes, the Jonathan presidency is following in the same but thoroughly discredited tactic of using a crisis, in this case Boko Haram insurgency, which it has failed to address, as the leitmotif for its own continuation in office. Had Nigeria built a truly democratic culture, such a declaration would have been inconceivable. The recent governorship election in Ekiti and Osun states respectively showed how the Jonathan presidency might ‘capture’ the South-west to return its incumbent to power. We would do well to resist the violence that is surely to be unleashed at the elections by extending the lessons learned from Osun state to the rest of Yorubaland. All that we want is for our people to be allowed to exercise their democratic right as they want, and in a free and fair atmosphere.
Demanding answers from our own leaders, however the demand is phrased, must therefore not be misconstrued as an invitation to those less historically developed than us in matter of society and politics to come and sweep leaders currently representing our tradition of progressive politics away. We do not need outsiders to do our duty for us. Those who sought in the past, often with good but misguided intentions, to use the template of others outside our culture to ‘liberate’ us ended in abysmal failure. None was more so than the brilliant late Colonel Victor Banjo who collaborated with the ill-fated Republic of Biafra.
If Yoruba leaders are to protect and support Yorubaland effectively in the years ahead, they will need to demonstrate that they understand and respect Yoruba history and ideas of state formation and use that to commit themselves to the idea of True Federalism for the whole of Nigeria.
For the Yoruba, the 2015 presidential election is not only about who is preferable as president, but also about what sort of country do the Yoruba want to belong? This is a vital question if the Yoruba energy and resources are to be mobilized and channeled towards meeting many of the challenges that lie ahead of us as a people and culture.
Hence,”ooduapathfinder“ calls on the SWAPC, National APC and whoever emerges as the Presidential candidate to commit to returning Nigeria to the 1963 Constitution, with the necessary adjustments/changes, especially in terms of Regions and commit to use its legislative forces, both at the National and Regional levels to neutralize any form of Constitutional amendment by NASS and the Jonathan presidency to enthrone further unitarization of Nigeria in the event of its being tabled before the 2015 election.
Furthermore, “ooduapathfinder”, in association with others, is Convening the “Yoruba Parliament”, as a Standing but non-official body whose task include, among others, preparations for a Yoruba Constitutional Convention to ratify the Yoruba Constitution, the Draft of which is once again, published in the “Messages” section.

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin


The above is very relevant at this point in time, when issues surrounding House Speaker Tambuwal’s quitting the PDP and pitching tent with the APC dominates the news. In the beginning, Tambuwal became Speaker on the basis of a working agreement between his own group within the PDP known as the “Integrity Group” and the then ACN, upon which the ACN was accused of selling out the “Yoruba slot” in the Nigerian political calculus.
Unless it is being said that a “Yoruba slot” can only be defined as having the occupier answer to a Yoruba name, it should be obvious that what constitutes such a slot must be anchored on what the Yoruba know as their core interests; for interest, however defined and in whatever circumstance, must add value; positive value otherwise it becomes a deficit and no human interaction survives on perpetual deficit. Before delving into the issue of a “Yoruba slot”, we must identify what the Yoruba have defined as their interest.
Early historical records show that Yoruba people had always been opposed to violations of societal rules and laws, which led to the creation of the Ogboni as the custodians of the law; the widely-known punishments for any Oba’s infractions and any of its abuse which would also be resisted and punished by the generality of the people. Coming down to the beginnings of the anti-colonial struggles, Yoruba people promoted “True Federalism” in order to fully assert the social and cultural impulses of the people as the foundation for a socially responsible society where there will be “freedom for all, life more abundant” and this was pursued in Yorubaland through such mechanism as the culturally-inclined Egbe Omo Oduduwa and the AG political party even as the Egbe also had its political function. Thus, any pursuit of “Yoruba Interest” must add value to the above otherwise it becomes its negation for it will then become a deficit.
As Yorubaland is not existing in a vacuum but within the post-colonial state, the AG had to devise its own methodologies, not only as the dominant party in Yorubaland, but also as the veritable opposition to the central forces whose only weapon was the utilization of the central state apparatus to try to negate the AG and subdue Yorubaland. In the process, two tendencies emerged, with such tendencies shifting tactics as necessary; the tendencies being the Akintola and AG Tendencies.
Thus, when the Yoruba Mulikat Akande became Goodluck Jonathan’s choice, whether such is in tune with “Yoruba Interest” or not must come into play.
The Akintola tendency, dubbed the “mainstreamers” had a mantra based on an alignment with a faction of the Center(NPC) in order to promote its understanding of “Yoruba Interest”. In doing this, however, the Akintola Tendency retained its independence of action by absorbing the NCNC in Yorubaland which enabled it to impose its dominance on the land as well as preventing its being at the mercy of the central forces even as the Tendency was rejected by the people. Similarly, the AG tendency retained its independence of action even while pursuing an alliance with the NCNC of the East.
This is in direct contrast to latter-day proponents who are less concerned about their homeland hence their surrender to the dictates of the center, such that any “Yoruba Interest” is confined to their personal pursuits, especially when they have no independence of political thought and action that would be beneficial to the land since there is no political base upon which such actions would be effectuated.
That Mulikat Akande was Jonathan’s choice would mean interrogating Jonathan’s purpose as far as Yorubaland is concerned hence if serving him would constitute a “Yoruba Interest”—that is whether his actions add value to what the Yoruba promote as being their existential paradigm in Nigeria.
Over seventy percent of the agitators and agitations that led to Goodluck Jonathan’s emergence as Acting and later substantive President were led and pursued by the Yoruba. Yet, when Goodluck Jonathan embarked upon his 2011 campaign, his first “victims” were the Yoruba, where he not only described our political leaders as rascals, he also stated that we are a minority in our own land.
On assuming the presidency in 2011, the ACN met with him and submitted a memorandum for restructuring Nigeria into a Truly Federal State only for the memo to be thrown into the dustbin. Even then, his now vociferous promoters had cause to complain about Jonathan’s marginalization of the Yoruba in the Nigerian set-up such that he had to placate them with some inconsequential appointments while making promises as to what he would do for them. By the time he would keep his promises, it was to get them appointed as his Conference delegates where they succumbed to the move towards de-federalization of Nigeria, a move that is in direct contradiction to what the Yoruba had always dedicated themselves to.
Goodluck Jonathan revels in violating the Constitution and turning State Apparatus into his own formation, working only to promote his interests; from the militarization of Ekiti and Osun elections to acquiescing to the desecration of the judiciary by his party nominee in Ekiti; his own un-Constitutional behavior in removing Justice Salami and Lamido Sanusi; ordering the police to negate its statutory duties in securing the safety of the Speaker; approving a fluke “ceasefire” arrangement—which actually constitute high crimes, for asking the Chief of Defense Staff to order a ceasefire in the midst of warfare; initially denying the abduction of the girls; engaging on a surreptitious purchase of weapons etc etc.
The situation is even made worse when Goodluck Jonathan surreptitiously introduced religious sentiments into his attempt at political dominance; yet there had never been religious strife in Yorubaland in spite of the existence of different religious faiths, a situation attributed to the welfarist, tolerant society ingrained in Yorubaland. Goodluck Jonathan’s activities are similar to Basorun Gaha’s shenanigans in his days; actions which were resisted and negated. With all of these (and more), serving Goodluck Jonathan is antithetical towards promoting “Yoruba Interest”.
In this attempt at religious befuddlement, the Jonathanistas completely forgot a Christian in the person of Chief Olu Falae, the overseer of the Structural Adjustment Program, a program responsible for the massive brain drain in Nigeria. Chief Falae would tell anyone who cared to listen that he was not the author of SAP but merely its bureaucratic implementor. He worked assiduously to implement this sorry economic paradigm, contrary to sound developmental economic principles where he was on record as saying that SAP allowed cocoa farmers to buy all sorts of things when these purchases were largely imported, with their cocoa having no added value yet we have a Christian economist blowing his trumpet about it as an achievement.
SAP’s remote origin was in the Chicago School led by Milton Friedman who tried to have it implemented by the Nixon White House which found it politically suicidal and promptly shipped it off to Chile for trial which led to the Pinochet coup and its attendant repercussions, after which it was exported to Africa. This is what a Christian will promote, a foundation for massive brain drain and dislocation in the system, with dire consequences for Yorubaland.
With all of these, it is definite that any pursuit of “Yoruba Interest” must depend on having a politically independent homeland even if such independence is not conditioned on a single party. Thus, when ACN was the dominant party and some of the Jonathanians are not comfortable with it, for whatever reason, the recourse is not to dissolve into the nefarious forces in the center when that center is not shy about its intention to neutralize the homeland, as Goodluck Jonathan has clearly shown.
A similar scenario exist in Scotland and Catalonia where many political tendencies are not particularly enamored of the dominant political tendencies yet had to line up beside them and with them for the purposes of pursuing their independence paradigms to such an extent that, for Scotland, the talk is on how to ensure the total eclipse of the UK Labor Party in Scotland, aside from its own internal implosion.
For the pursuit of “Yoruba Interest” therefore, any form or part of Goodluck Jonathan is contrary to such a pursuit hence Yorubaland cannot afford to even toy with the idea of equating promotion of Jonathan and his PDP to such a pursuit.
As Buhari’s emergence as APC’s candidate is yet to be confirmed, “ooduapathfinder” can only say that his emergence should not be a problem for Yorubaland; for, in spite of Buhari’s previous actions while he was a military head of state, he was given a clean bill of health in 2006 by Afenifere when the group endorsed him based on an understanding about Restructuring; similarly in 2011, certain members of Afenifere went along with him on a similar understanding. Would Buhari have kept to his side of the bargain? Yes, if the political homeland is under our control. No, if Buhari determines the political infrastructure of the homeland.
Within this context, not only has Afenifere and its Jonathan subset turned in an absolute opposite direction by acquiescing in the rejection of all forms of Yoruba historical antecedence and True Federalism, the organization has now found it necessary to ride on Goodluck Jonathan’s back to deny the same Federalism it had been part of unless they are now telling us that their previous endorsements were a fluke. Promoting Jonathan and his PDP in Yorubaland, in whatever form, does not in any way correspond to any “Yoruba Interest”.

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin



The Nigerian Constitution is supposedly the foundation of the Nigerian State. That Ayo Fayose has now sworn to uphold this “Constitution” has clearly shown the lawlessness of the Nigerian State and necessitates a fundamental questioning of that State and the Constitution that purports to define it. The Constitution itself, with a preamble that starts with “We, The People”, is an embodiment of illegality and illegitimacy since “we the People” had no hand in its making, which is why all governments that had been operating under its provisions have been able to get away with absolute impunity and illegalities, so much so that it is only worth the paper it is written on only when it suits the fancies of its operators.
Thus, when Ayo Fayose went to Ado Ekiti court premises and conspired with his thugs to beat up the judge, tear his clothes as well as the court records, he was not arrested, unless we are being told that Ayo Fayose’s June 21 electoral heist includes beating up judges. The Presidency concurred with this act by locking up the court premises, even when the Constitutionally mandated National Judicial Council had ordered the re-opening. Even then, the NJC did not find it fit to ask the Nigerian Police Force to arrest and prosecute the culprits; ostensibly because the Police Force itself looked the other way when the deed was being perpetrated such that, if any “ordinary” litigant decides to go the same route, such a person would be promptly arrested, if not shot by these same policemen. On its part, the National Assembly did not deem it fit to call the presidency to order for this clearly treasonable and impeachable activity.
It is thus very obvious that, for these operators of the Nigerian State, Nigerian Constitutionalism is not an end in itself but a means towards an end; which end depends on whoever is the main proponent at a particular time and which has absolutely nothing to do with the citizens, universal rights or legitimacy; either in terms of a particular Nationality or a pan-Nigerian environment. For the Yoruba Nation therefore, such means cannot be outside the context of the end, which is the creation of a socially-responsible society where “freedom for all, life more abundant” reigns supreme and which, ordinarily, ought to be the end of any Constitutionalism. The pursuit of this aim has always occurred within the context of the general Nigerian political firmament, hence the desperation by the Nigerian central forces to truncate the march towards such objective and this is always done via such illegalities founded on Un-Constitutional behavior.
First, it was the illegal imposition of the State of Emergency in 1962, by the Central forces, using the instrumentality of its local surrogates and when the people rose up against these local surrogates in 1965, the central army struck, ostensibly to impose Awo on Nigeria. Even if we take this at face value, such an attempt was without the input or agreement of the Yoruba, either as a Nationality or as the Territorial indigenes of Western Region, hence our “heads were shaved in our absence”. By the time of the second republic, the same central forces were back at their game, so much so that its points man in Yorubaland, Richard Akinjide had cause to state, publicly, in 2002, that the twelve-two-thirds issue was simply a function of subterfuge and not legality or Constitutionalism and that the Yoruba should also give them the chance to initiate such subterfuge at the time since their bags of “tricks” still exist. Now, we have a similar scenario from the same central forces, only that this time, it is not a question of “tricks” but a direct assault on its own foundation.
If then, the central forces cannot obey its own foundational principles, We, the people, are also not under any obligation to do so; even as the State will rely on its current monopoly of force to try to compel us. We, the People, are objects, being “tricked upon” and being disenfranchised; We, the People, are objects of derision; objects of scorn; non-existent participants in our own reality; while the central government, with its local goons, are comfortable flying in our faces the “Constitution”, the terms and conditions of which We, the People, are supposed to obey, but which the central government and its goons are not to be held responsible for. The only legitimacy for the Nigerian State, therefore, is its application of force.
With all of these, what then is to be done?
The central Government, through its National Assembly is now embarking on an amendment exercise, amending provisions of the same Constitution that had been rubbished by the Presidency; while the president himself had organized a conference ostensibly to re-define the foundations of the Nigerian State in consonance with provisions of the same Constitution. And because of this singular act of the Presidency in terms of its Un-Constitutional behavior in Ekiti, enabling a false adherence to a Constitution by swearing to uphold it while undermining it, the Yoruba Nation, Globally, must set up, at the minimum, a Yoruba Parliament, in exile. It is “in exile” simply because the Nigerian State is lawless, hence we cannot rely on its application of legal measures to address issues brought before it. We cannot embark on our journey on its terms.
This proposition is without prejudice to the APC, either in pan-Nigerian terms or as a SW entity; and the Yoruba Parliament will not be in competition or conflict with existing Houses of Assembly. As an electoral platform, the APC is quite capable of navigating its ways around the contours of the Nigerian State, up to the point of electorally taking over the running of that State. And Yes, the APC must be supported, for its little advances will count towards the eventual solution to the lawlessness pervading the land. What is being proposed is to ensure that our eventual freedom and freedom from illegalities are not imprisoned within the boundaries of Nigerian central electoralism which it can always manipulate according to its fancy as we have now witnessed in Ekiti.
I am particular about APC because it is not only the main opposition party in Nigeria and the dominant electoralist platform in Yorubaland, but mainly because it is the only party, so far, that has seen the Ekiti illegality and Un-Constitutionalism, if not treason, for what it is. The Yoruba/SW PDP are comfortable with the imposed Un-Constitutionalism simply because it is carried out in aid of one of their own and they are willing tools in the hands of the presidency in pursuit of whatever agenda the president has and have not been shy about being his foot-soldiers in Yorubaland. That obviously eliminates them from any movement towards Constitutional Freedom for Yorubaland.
The functions and duties of such a Parliament are already cut out for it.
Internationally, the world is currently dealing with the limitations embedded in the formation of the modern Nation State, where the “Obama Doctrine” of “No boots on ground” is partly an admission of the necessity for the peoples concerned to take care of their destiny without being encumbered by physical foreign intervention even if such intervention would be made available “from a distance”. Thus the “Obama Doctrine” is a challenge to the Sykes-Picot order of the Middle East to reinvent itself. Besides, the UK has a moral(and political) obligation to work with such a Parliament, being the colonial creator of what we now know as Nigeria and having allowed the Scots to peacefully decide on their relationship with the rest of Britain while undergoing processes of redefining interrelationships between the various Nations of the UK. Canada, on its own, had allowed Quebec to make similar determinations. Yet, Spain is still caught up in its Francoist dictatorial traditions with its insistence on having all Spaniards, as a whole, determine what each component would wish for itself, which is not only similar to what is going on in Nigeria but also against the grain of all processes of self-determination in Europe itself.
It is thus obvious that the political health and safety of the Western World depends on its coming to terms with the failure of its Nation State paradigm as conceived in the early part of the 20th century. While the façade was kept alive in the Middle East and North African via the dictatorships, the attempt at introducing formal, westernized democracies forced out some of these dictators only for the political space they had occupied to become filled with all sorts of radicalisms now coalescing around Caliphate insurgencies. The missing factor in all of these is the People, the Nationalities, who had been denied their existential role in their lives.
The implications of this for Africa in general and Nigeria in particular, is that the Nation State would no longer be an alienating platform for peoples’ existence but will be its defining factor since it would have emanated from their historical and contemporary experience. Thus, the Yoruba Parliament would assist in facilitating this reality not only internationally, but also within Nigeria as the movement and drive towards recalibrating the structure of Nigeria cannot be placed in the hands of those whose political activities rest squarely on negating the exact provisions upon which its own existence rest.
Many opportunities thus abound for such a Parliament, the extent of which will also be informed by the implications of its acts inside Nigeria itself.
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin


Goodluck Jonathan has finally admitted there is no connection between Islam and terrorism. All of his footsoldiers in Yorubaland, who had predicated their support for him on fighting “Islamism” and who have labeled APC as Islamist can now bury their heads in shame. All of these people, including pastors who have been holding seminars and church activities to try to mobilize their congregations into voting for a “Christian” president and in the process hiding behind the façade of evangelism at the same time saying they are against “born to rule” must now come clean as to their real reasons for their support for Goodluck Jonathan.
Even if it is assumed that Jonathan is playing the electoral card in terms of the upcoming elections hence the necessity to appeal to Muslim votes, it can also be assumed that he is trying to distance himself from these Christians so that he will be able to present himself as a “statesman” above the fray, which will tally with his response to calls for him to re-contest, where he stated that he “will place the greater interests of national harmony, cohesion, unity, security, political stability, progress, equity, justice and fairness above any personal ambition or sectional agenda”. Which is only possible if he does not run.
To run for office in the context of Nigeria’s elite political firmament is to pursue a personal ambition, otherwise, it would not be necessary to attempt an emasculation of the opposition without a superior philosophical or ideological paradigm as a substitute; to deny such personal ambition as immaterial to the quest for office, is to promote oneself as the ultimate in power, the embodiment of all solution to all issues that may arise, which is only one step away from absolutism; to deny such personal ambition is to deny all of the illegalities and massive corruption that has characterized his regime; and to deny any sectional agenda is to deny the ethno-national manifestation of his regime, which had, through the instrumentality of Ijaw terrorists and mercenaries, created a state of siege in electoral contests in Yorubaland. It had also prompted serious complaints from the marginalized sections, among which are his Afenifere foot-soldiers who have had cause to complain while he had to try to placate them with some road projects as well as latter-day official appointments which also led to serious infighting within the organization.
Goodluck Jonathan had ensured the ascension of PDP criminal elements from Yorubaland into power through the neutralization of the Obasanjo PDP faction he sees as being an obstacle to his own quest for power; having ensured the emergence of criminals like Iyiola Omisore and Ayo Fayose as his candidates and having the audacity to not only campaign for them but also to let the Yoruba know that his PDP faction is engaged in warfare in Yorubaland; (needless to say, the emergence of both candidates, through raw force, was no different from how Seriake Dickson emerged in Bayelsa State); he had attempted to cause a rift in Yorubaland through a contrived crisis within the OPC while dangling the prospects of coastal and oil pipeline security contracts before the organization; he had demanded Igbo deputy governor for Lagos State based on a spurious census; his now having to “force” a Segun Mimiko to become a member of his PDP as a replacement for Ayo Fayose who may have to be sacrificed by losing his governorship seat based on his criminal attack on Ekiti State judiciary which will also allow Jonathan’s faction a foothold in Yorubaland coupled with his fully unitarizing Nigeria through his national Conference, of which Segun Mimiko was his anchor in neutralizing Yoruba demands, and this was after Goodluck Jonathan had “assured them he would restructure”. Yes, he is “restructuring” by making Nigeria more centralized and this is what Afenifere and the Jonathan PDP has to offer Yorubaland.
Goodluck Jonathan had also embarked on several Unconstitutional and impeachable offenses primary of which is his sacking of the CBN Governor for the latter’s exposure of missing billions of dollars; and this was after his utilization of similar methods to sack the then president of the Court of Appeal with all of these under the ambiance of the most corrupt executive establishment in Nigeria’s history where, in spite of spending billions of dollars on security surveillance of the Niger Delta through contracts awarded to former Niger Delta operatives, Nigeria experienced the highest volume of crude oil theft; he had shielded absolutely corrupt officials in his government and lately been involved in covert operations to procure arms from South Africa where a covert operation was mounted with the active connivance of the President of the Christian Association of Nigeria yet Nigeria’s military was officially unable to procure arms in its prosecution of the war against Boko Haram because it had become a laughing stock in the international community.
All of these are not the hallmark of someone not pursuing a personal and sectional agenda but point to an attempt at ensuring electoral dominance, which, if it is not towards personal power, would be a preparation for a soft landing, whereby political power would be returned to the north under the guise of “national harmony cohesion, unity, security, political stability, progress, equity, justice and fairness above any personal ambition or sectional agenda”. Either way is not acceptable to Yorubaland.
That OPEC would reject Allison-Madueke as Secretary General was a signal of Goodluck Jonathan’s rejection by the West which is now entering its final lap. The geopolitical North would not field a progressive candidate for the PDP, while the APC will have to battle within itself to make such a certainty as even Buhari himself had, in his previous attempts at the Presidency, made True Federalism a major plank of his quest, which, if pursued at this time, would endanger his own chances in the north. The end result would be that both major parties would field conservative and reactionary candidates and what these Yoruba enablers of Goodluck Jonathan would have us believe they are fighting against would have become a fait accompli under Jonathan’s direct supervision.
Once, the Governor of Ogun State stated that Gbenga Daniel, another Goodluck Jonathan foot-soldier, is not Yoruba and it is now also being said that Segun Mimiko is not Yoruba. Both became accepted into Yoruba socio-political make-up simply because Yorubaland would not discriminate against anyone as it is a welcoming society proven by its existentialism through the ages. It is important to note, however, that the concept of a “foreign” Yoruba became a political issue in Ondo State under Segun Mimiko, where Yoruba from other states outside Ondo became labelled as “foreigners” simply for being in the political opposition; for Gbenga Daniel, his tenure in Ogun State was dominated by a deliberate, vulture-like under-development of the entire state such that even the elite who ordinarily would have been unperturbed by the then social and economic chaos in Nigeria, found its voice in opposition.
Of course, this would not be the first time Yoruba tyrants would decimate the land, especially when, in contemporary times, we have had the Adedibu experience to show for it. Even so, with an Adedibu doing an Obasanjo bidding, we can also see that Obasanjo would rather leave Nigeria as it is, “unrestructured”, even while ensuring the dominance of the military politicians, rather than neutralize whatever was left in the hands of the ethno-Nationality.
The issue is that, in historical times, even up to the second republic, resolution of the crises promoted by these Jonathanian types were always almost in the hands of the Yoruba nation and people; whereas, were Segun Mimiko and Gbenga Daniel to get away with their Jonathan-induced unitarization agenda, any form of resolution would be taken away from Yoruba nation and people and handed over to the central authorities. The task before the entire Yoruba nation, globally, therefore, is to see to the complete neutralization of this unitarist agenda and making its foot-soldiers in Yorubaland as politically irrelevant as possible.

Leye Ige

By adminadmin



This presentation by Prof Ropo Sekoni is to commemorate the anniversary of the Kiriji War being celebrated today as an introduction to brainstorming on where the Yoruba are at present within the context of the post-military structure of Nigeria and where they need to go, if they are to realize their potentials and sustain their age-old civilization which is expected to spur the beginnings of a fundamental rethinking on the part of the Yoruba Nation. Thank you for reading.

The state of the Yoruba Nation is not as bright as it should be. In fact, the state of our civilization has never been under so much threat, internal and external. Those who grew up in the 1950s and are now in their 60s cannot but wonder what had happened to a civilization bolstered with modernity in the era of Chief Obafemi Awolowo as the premier of Western Region, then the heartland of the Yoruba people of Nigeria. In the 1950s, the Yoruba region under the leadership of Chief Awolowo was able to serve as a model for modernization in many respects: education, physical and social infrastructure, political party organization, and development and implementation of a pro-people social democratic ideology. But the position of the Yoruba today is starkly different from what it used to be in the years between 1952 and the 1983.
The situation got worse for the Yoruba in the era of the military’s final push for de-federalization of the country, in particular during the reign of Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha. Many people including several Yoruba men and women who struggled against military rule between 1993 and 1998 expected that their struggle for democracy through demands for restoration of the mandate given to Chief MKO Abiola in June 1993 and for a sovereign national conference would lead to de-militarization of the polity and restoration of federalism, and thus give the Yoruba an opportunity to use their core values to drive the governance of their region within a federal system. Sixteen years after the exit of military dictatorship, the states of Nigeria carved out of the three regions remain hobbled by a central government that can choose to be overbearing and to unleash its forces on any part of the country even during peace-time activities as voting for state officials.
Consequently, Yoruba states have remained the vassals of a central government that is either defined or projected as a Northern or Ijaw or Southern rule. Instead of using their energy to plan for development of their region, the Yoruba have been either herded into the bandwagon of Fulani or Ijaw rule or been saddled with struggling to stay out of any bandwagon. There had been much talk by pundits or in social media to suggest that the recent national conference would provide an opportunity to restructure the country and thus give more space to regional development within a proper federation. It is now clear that this too has not happened at the end of the conference. If anything, the conference has divided the Yoruba, not necessarily into pro-federalist and anti-federalist groups but into fragments struggling to stay relevant politically within the context of the country’s post-conference unitary system.
It does not matter in which direction one looks, the Yoruba appear to now hold the short end of the stick of development in the country. In terms of education, a region that used to be the pace setter and model for other regions now lags behind in educational statistics. For example, Yoruba states lag behind Anambra and Delta in this year’s secondary school leaving examinations. And it has been like this for the past four or more years. It is also no longer a cause for concern to see young Yoruba children who should be in school to be busy vending telephone re-charge cards on road sides during school hours in many Yoruba cities. A region that used to be a model for development policies that promote individual empowerment through education and entrepreneurship now boasts of having the greatest number of professional praise singers for corrupt regimes and sycophants for narcissistic rulers at various levels of government. Only recently, accomplished Yoruba professionals are in the forefront of those scheming frantically to be appointed campaign managers for sectional leaders from the North or the South.
With respect to infrastructure, major trunk roads linking major centers of population in the Yoruba region have been stalled in the process of renovation, expansion, and repair for several years, thus reducing the value of efforts of several state governments to build intra-state roads. Improvement of infrastructure within the Yoruba region has become a recurrent theme in campaign strategies and in the rhetoric of road building and rail line extension. While it is not only the Yoruba region that suffers from neglect with respect to infrastructure and development, the point is that physical mobility within the region today is inferior to what it used to be in the 1960s. Inter-state commerce within the Yoruba region has been diminished by lack of good roads and the absence in most parts the region of rail transportation. Had Nigeria been left as a federal system by military dictators that ruled the country between 1966 and 1998, and had the post-military governments since 1999 made genuine efforts to return the country to the federal system in place in 1966, it would have been possible for the Yoruba to choose how to sustain modernization of the region.
Political development in the region has also experienced substantial decline. A region that used to have in the Action Group a well-organized political party system considered to be the most sophisticated in sub-Sahara Africa and the most tolerant culture of multiparty contest for power has now become a theatre of intimidation by federal or central forces of coercion that has turned voting into a danger-laden exercise for citizens, thus leaving voting at elections, whether in Ekiti or Osun states to only foolhardy individuals. If anything, the Ekiti and Osun flaunting of federal power over state and citizens’ rights to associate freely may very well be a rehearsal of what is to happen in 2015. The Yoruba region which used to be a model for free and fair elections and which created the first official residence for the leader of opposition in the Western regional legislature now have its citizens being held as hostages in their natal communities before and during elections to offices to govern Yoruba states and communities. Unlike the era of secular politics driven largely by ideology in the Yoruba region, political leadership positions now are determined on the basis of religion in many states. Just as one’s religious affiliation—Islamic or Christian—can be an advantage in some states, so can it be a drag for candidates for political office in others. In fact, candidates of political parties are being dictated to by their party leadership at the center to choose their deputies from particular diaspora groups resident in their states. Unlike other regions of the country, the Yoruba region is now a political space that is increasingly acquiring the cognomen of no man’s land.
A region whose head start in terms of the culture of development and tolerance of political and cultural plurality has made its space a point of attraction to people from other Nigerian nationalities has now become a victim of economic marginalization and political dictation from those in charge of levers of central power. Migrants from other regions whose search for double residency benefits-from both their ancestral regions and Yoruba cities to which they have migrated– now feel emboldened to claim to be the landlords while Yoruba indigenes are now viewed as tenants. All these are happening in a unitary political order that gives most powers and functions to a central government and thus makes subnational governments vulnerable to parochial men and women in positions of leadership at the central level.
Without doubt, the state of the Yoruba Nation should be worrisome to Yoruba-Nigerians who want to live in harmony with other Nigerians without having to be suffocated in their own space by migrants who are not contented with the freedom to live and prosper without molestation but are more pre-occupied with domination of the Yoruba. But Yoruba political leaders and intellectual pundits often misdiagnose the problem facing the Yoruba. Tolerance of difference, which is an abiding aspect of Yoruba culture, is not the cause of what seems like lack of political focus on the part of the Yoruba today. Nor is the fact that Yoruba people are active in opposing political parties a cause for alarm.
What can free the Yoruba from their current situation of under-achievement is not calling for an end to Yoruba membership in various parties, regardless of how ideologically unsavory such parties are. To do so is to encourage the Yoruba to commit political and cultural suicide. The Yoruba region was the only region in which ruling and opposition parties vied for elections competitively in the years before 1960. There was no time in pre-1966 Yoruba political history that the leading opposition had anything less than one-third of the legislative seats in the region, in contradistinction to the other two regions that were virtually one-party systems. What is needed is for serious-minded Yoruba people to determine what kind of union they believe is capable of enabling the Yoruba to realize the region’s potential to provide its citizens with the benefits and freedom that modernity bestows.
Should the desire of a sizable portion of the population be to turn Nigeria into a country that practices a federal system without fetters, then such citizens should brace themselves to struggle for such political structure, without allowing any of its members or other Yoruba groups ostensibly working on behalf of the region to depend on finding shortcuts to bring federalism back to the country. A federal system in which the constituent parts are respected cannot emerge through a half-hearted bid that smacks more of collaboration with the levers of the current unitary system as much as it can through openly struggling for re-federalization without any preconditions. There are several examples worldwide from which to borrow strategies for struggling for self-determination. Scotland is the closest to home in this respect. Although Scotland has not achieved a Yes vote to turn it into an independent country, the struggle of Scottish people over the years for devolution has indirectly brought what can be considered regional autonomy to Scotland and even to other nations within the United Kingdom. The tone of the campaign by the British Prime Minister and other leaders of the country’s three major political parties to make sure that a Yes vote brings more powers to the constituent regions of the United Kingdom indicates that the Scots have not labored or struggled in vain.
In this respect, Yoruba federalists and autonomists should not allow themselves to be derailed by their fellow Yoruba politicians in political parties that are against federalism or those parties that pay only lip service to restoration of federalism. Pleading for reconciliation of Yoruba people in diametrically opposed political parties as a way of achieving Yoruba unity is akin to making a religion of primitiveness. Plurality of perspective is as Yoruba as Amala or Iyan, and such value is a sign of social and political sophistication that is uncommon in Africa and that has become a hallmark of the modern world. Yoruba citizens need to ensure that whatever political parties they subscribe to have clear ideological positions that can assist electors to make an informed choice. One-party rule is anathema to Yoruba culture and routing for one-party rule at any level of government is a dishonest way to further deceive and exploit the citizens.
The challenge to save the Yoruba from a badly structured and badly governed Nigeria is not to expect good leaders to suddenly emerge. Undoubtedly, it takes leadership to shape a nation and its society. But it also takes character to shape leadership. If the Yoruba vote for or even countenance persons known to be without character, they should not expect them to become good leaders that can create a good life for citizens. What is needed are clear-cut ideological positions. Chief Awolowo used the espousal of pro-people ideology to turn what was largely a terrain for the politics of power and self-glorification to one that voted during peace time for the Action Group and that stood by the party during its moment of travail towards the end of the country’s first republic. The NCNC with its own clearly articulated ideology also attracted voters, thus furthering the Yoruba value of plurality of perspective as far back as the 1950s. While parties have the responsibility to be honest enough to make their ideological stances clear to electors, so do Yoruba citizens have the responsibility to push their parties to state their governance mission and goals clearly.
Without doubt, the score card today for the Yoruba in political, social, and economic terms is clearly bad. But it is not hopeless as many Cassandras among us would want us to believe. Given the Yoruba philosophy of Alterability, nothing can get irredeemably bad for the Yoruba. This is the time for the humanist impulse of the Yoruba, the ever-present belief in the power of human beings to improve on their condition, to reign supreme. This is the time for Yoruba federalists to put their money where their mouths are. Hundreds of self-determination organizations meeting to issue communiques and disperse thereafter is not likely to bring federalism to the polity. Those who believe that federalism is the best way to make the Nigerian experiment in multiethnic state formation work need the discipline to come together, submerge individual’s lust for attention, and build a solid organization or movement that is devoted to pushing for re-federalization of Nigeria. With regard to political parties that are not ashamed of being known for reactionary or conservative ideology, Yoruba citizens whose worldview fits into such ideology have a right to identify publicly with such parties. But it is citizens in other parties that will draw the line between freedom of association and the propensity of any political party in power at any level to intimidate citizens who belong to other political parties. It is also the responsibility of Yoruba citizens who see federalism as the way out of the politics of underdevelopment in the Yoruba region in particular and in Nigeria in general who must push the political parties of their choice to state in categorical terms their commitment to the ideology of regionalism.
If all existing political parties are too timid to have a public stance on federalism, Yoruba federalists should not need to be reminded that freedom of association includes the freedom to form movements and political parties that promote the vision of federalism. Having to come back to an administrative management of recommendations from the last national conference as the committee recently established by President Jonathan suggests, it is clear that the time for excuses for Yoruba federalists has been exhausted. As one of the delegates from the North advised at the conference, sovereignty is not given to people; it is taken by those who want it. The same goes for shared sovereignty that federalism represents. Expecting that about 90 Yoruba delegates (nominated to represent Yoruba political interests at a national conference that is also denied the provision of submitting its recommendations to a referendum) would give birth to a federal constitution is certainly being naïve. Also for Yoruba federalists to commit time and resources to making the last conference look more successful than it was or to demonstrate that it was the lack of cooperation from a section of the country that stands to gain everything from the status quo that watered down the success of the conference is to waste valuable resources that could be put to better use. To invoke a Yoruba proverb, Iyan di iyan a tun gun, obe naa di obe a tun se (there is need to change the recipe). As bad as things may be for the Yoruba today, there is still enough intellectual, moral, and financial energy in the region to find our way out of the woods.
Ropo Sekoni

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin



Those of us who are not Scots but nevertheless belong to the conglomeration of people pursuing self-determination/autonomy and independence for their various peoples in the various Nation States they found themselves where the pursuit itself will necessarily lead to the establishment of their own preferred Nation State capable of ensuring the best form of mediation between the different interests within that Nation-State as well as between it and different countries(nation-states) in the International arena, are not flummoxed over the victory of the British “BetterTogether” in the Scottish Referendum on Independence.
Of course, Scotland’s circumstances are different from those of the Yoruba Nation, as they naturally should, even as both Scotland and Yorubaland have, as it were, embarked on a quest for self-determination from the same imperial power. It is thus not surprising that the British Government, in the negotiations that brought about the Independence referendum, rejected a third option even when prodded by the SNP, which is the Federalist Option which would have enabled Scots to consider a vote to remain in the Union under a Federalist system. Having initially rejected such, the British “BetterTogether” now has no option than to initiate moves to decentralize power and pursue Federalism for the entire Kingdom.
This is opposite to what is playing out in Nigeria of today, where Nigeria’s version has completely thrown Federalism overboard and without the option of Independence thus leaving us only with the unitarism; and this is being vociferously championed by those Yoruba, exemplified by Chief Ayo Adebanjo, whose foundation for political relevance is in such quest for Federalism and who made the desperation that trailed the British “BetterTogether” towards the end of Scotland’s Independence Campaign manifest.
Chief Ayo Adebanjo, now a frontline Yoruba “BetterTogether”, based his turn around on what he regarded as the general agreement on Nigeria, to wit: “We have all agreed that it is a queer federation, all the parameters of federalism are sidelined and we called it a federation………, I am one of those who does not believe in the creation of more states because we will be creating states that will not be powerful. But that is the wish of the people because this is the government of the people, by the people and for the people.”
Aside from the fact that a “government of the people…” will not design and implement the invasion of the State of Osun by Ijaw mercenaries and terrorists disguised as official soldiers and embedding them within official security agencies supposedly to ensure the security of the elections, even when there was no defined enemy fighting either asymmetric or symmetric warfare in the state; a “government of the people….” will not appoint Conference delegates over and above the head of the same people only for those appointees to go against all of the historical demands of the same people with a recommended creation of additional states which Chief Adebanjo now says are powerless but nevertheless regarded as the “wish of the people”.
When Chief Adebanjo turns around to say that they “are not going to have the unity of the country on what a section of the country wants” it can be assumed, on the one hand, that the forces in reference are those from the geopolitical north, which had now been given what they want via a more centralized country; on the other hand, he may have in mind the Yoruba Nation, where Federalism is the preferred choice of unity which has been jettisoned by the conference, and since both are sections of the country, it is left for the Chief to state clearly which section he had in mind; such that if neither would be the basis for unity, there must then be another basis, another symbol, which can be none other than the current president himself as he will be the only beneficiary of what Chief Adebanjo proposes. In any case, Chief Ayo Adebanjo has, through this manifestation, completely repudiated everything that formed the foundation of his political career.
Which would be why he would unabashedly regard the issue of referendum as a mere “technical issue” on legitimacy, which is tantamount to advocating the acceptability of any form of imposed legitimacy; including either a “Doctrine of necessity” or outright authoritarianism as long as there is an official seal to whatever is proclaimed. Yet, having agreed that a Constitution is a “political matter”, its legitimacy must also obviously be political and as such cannot be reduced to a mere “technical matter”; for the Constitution is the soul of the Nation-State which gives legitimacy to the State based on its acceptance by those whom the State intends to coordinate; it cannot therefore be reduced to a “technical matter” or regarded as simply ratifying the decisions of a conference; for the purpose of a Referendum is for a choice to be made, and doubly so, for an alternative must be presented, which creates room for acceptance or rejection of either.
Thus for Federalism, such must be based on the Federating Units; and the conference recommendations which Chief Adebanjo wants implemented contained provisions for a powerless state constitution which would be produced after the Federation has been consummated making it anti-Federalist. A Federalist Constitution implies a prior Constitution of the Federating Unit which will predetermine what to cede to the Federation. So, after giving the north what they want or rejecting what the Yoruba want as the basis for “unity”, Chief Ayo Adebanjo now sees Nigeria as “one” where, to all intents and purposes, all that matter would be Jonathan’s continuation in office and “anybody who wishes this country to be one must support the President to find solutions and not gang up to say go and bring back our girls. He has the army, he equipped them, you said the equipment is not enough, he is buying more to fight them. You cannot say there is something he ought to do that he has not done. That is the reality of the situation.”
Apparently, Chief Adebanjo’s reality consist of falsely attributing a form of rebellion to the people of Osun such that part of the arms the President bought was taken to the State in order to intimidate voters; for if the president has done everything he was supposed to do, there would not be any need for the militarization of any election while obviously Boko Haram would be a thing of the past; for its mere exploits only show that there is something missing. While accusing the “bringbackourgirls” campaign of not addressing the insurgents, Chief Adebanjo probably forgot that such is implied in the campaign as the need to bring them back applied to the insurgents by the mere denunciation of the kidnapping as well as the president who was presumed to have the wherewithal to enforce it. Thus, both the insurgents and the Presidency were supposed to respond to the demand, albeit in their different ways.
Incidentally, the British “BetterTogether” made a promise to assist in the anti-Boko Haram war and while Jonathan is busy trying to cripple the opposition, his British counterpart tried to keep the opposition from leaving the Union by making more promises of devolution which it hoped would deflect the necessity for independence. The British “BetterTogether” went all out to try to make room to accommodate its opposition while the Nigerian “BetterTogether” sought the opposition’s political emasculation.
Yet, this opposition had also made suggestions as to how Boko Haram could be handled, aside from the fact that the Yoruba Nation made a similar presentation prior to the Jonathan “BetterTogether” Conference wherein a demand for Regionalization of the Armed Forces was made but which was jettisoned by the Yoruba “BetterTogether” before, during and now after the Conference. A Regionalization that would not only ensure economic benefits to the community but would also make visible what Chief Adebanjo called the terrorists’ “invisibility”; for the professionalism that will be a part of this Regionalization would have removed the sea from which the terrorist fish swim.
Rather than consider this as a viable option, all that mattered to them is the continuation in office of the current president, which is why the Yoruba “BetterTogether” wants the “promulgation of the Conference recommendation before the 2015 elections…. Which recommendation consolidated the country”, even when exactly how this consolidation would manifest is not made clear except to simply reiterate its necessity.
To further compound the confusion, he wants Nigeria to “conduct elections and make the new Constitution operative from May 30, 2015.” Now he wants an election under the old Constitution but the elected official will now operate the new Constitution which will be no different from the 1999 experience where the elected officials had no clue as to what the 1999 Constitution contained, with its fraudulent “we the people” preamble and which has allowed various manipulation of the said Constitution to suit the whims of anyone in power as well as introducing a “doctrine of necessity” outside the provisions of the same Constitution in order for Jonathan to become Acting president. Again, if Nigeria is to transit directly into the new “Constitution” however proclaimed, it would mean a negation of all current institutions created by the 1999 Constitution, which can be achieved by a “Doctrine of Necessity” so that the “anti-FederalistBetterTogether” can be sneaked in through the backdoor.
For these people, all they want is just to be seen as embarking on any journey, the destination matters not, which is strange coming from someone who says he is not a “PDP man”. But it suits his purpose for the elections to be shifted in order to accommodate the application of whatever the conference recommended, especially when the PDP has now signified its intention to give a smooth ride to another term for Jonathan. One wonders what proposition Chief Adebanjo would have made were he a “PDP man”.
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin


The racist European conception of the African as inferior thus mandating its civilizing mission into Africa is being confirmed by Goodluck Jonathan of Nigeria who is spending millions of dollars to celebrate the centennial of a selfish, economically-driven British creation called Nigeria while today, September 18, 2014, in the same Britain, the continuation or otherwise of the 300-year old union between the crowns of England and Scotland is being determined by the Scots, who were given the sole task for that determination.
Whatever the outcome of today’s vote, everyone in the United Kingdom is aware that the United Kingdom can never remain the same; for while a Yes vote would automatically demand a new form of relationship with the rump UK; a No vote would bring about the necessary Constitutional changes within Britain itself, where there are now promises of more devolved powers as well as the necessity for a Constitutional Convention which would address all of the concerns of all the Nations within the UK within a Federalist/Regionalist context; such Federalism based on the Nations/Peoples(Scots, Welsh, Cornish, English) even as such promises were an afterthought as a means to deflect a “Yes” vote; if not, such promises would not be predicated upon a “No” vote but would actually be operative in the normal course of political action in Westminster.
Harold Macmillan was well aware of the movements towards self-determination as at the time of his “wind of change” speech when viewed against the backdrop of Ireland’s secession in 1922 and the long time Scottish demands even as he referenced the “wind” only in terms of Britain’s colonial possessions but such wind has now turned full circle, now blowing inside the homeland itself; among the Welsh, Cornish and even the English; with additional rumblings in Britain’s European neighbors of Spain and Belgium.
In all of these, there was a civilized approach by the governments concerned, such that even when the central authority is opposed to secession, as in Spain, it has devolved powers in such a way that the economic decisions of those demanding self-government rest in their geo-political areas of authority, whereas, in Goodluck Jonathan’s Nigeria, all of the above are of no consequence; for, according to them, what Great Britain decreed into existence was the “will of God” and as opposed to Great Britain, Nigeria’s “Better Together” does not give room for autonomy or even devolution as the center retains control over resources.
But this “will of God” they are touting centered on Christianity, which, in this period of world history, was brought into Nigeria in part through the instrumentality of Scottish Missionaries like Hope Waddell and Mary Slessor while members of the Church of Scotland are not now shy about advocating Independence for Scotland and the Church itself has not come out to say that the 1707 parliamentary Union of the Crowns was an act of God and therefore immutable.
Which is why the SW APC must take itself seriously in its articulation and remolding of itself as an agent of social change. Although there are no “Regional” parties in the mold of SNP in Nigeria, the country’s political trajectory has always followed a Regionalist pattern such that the only way a country-wide political platform can be made to subsist is through massive manipulation and rigging of elections or military coups, organized by the forces intent on imposing its will on the Peoples of Nigeria by utilizing the machinery of the central government coupled with the enthronement of what is called “federal character” where positions and powers are dished out to pliant communities.
Yet, Regionalism cannot but be rooted in the historical purpose of each Region because its historical existentialism determined its engagement with colonialism and its State as well as the conduct of the anti-colonial struggle especially when the object of colonialism is the denial of such existentialism. This rootedness in historical purpose ends up in pushing Regionalism to its limits whereby it becomes the only avenue for decolonization, the negation of which creates the perennial crisis for the post-colonial State. In this context, therefore, when the SW APC met in Ibadan and resolved to build APC as a social movement, such building cannot be outside of this historical and existential purpose.
Some may argue that the Yoruba fought against Biafra in order to “keep Nigeria one”. “ooduapathfinder” says keeping “Nigeria one” does not imply unitarism or negation of Regionalism; for Truly Federal countries are also one; just as the con-federal sovereign State of Switzerland is one. It must also be stated that even though there was a declaration of a Biafra as a sovereign state, there was also a disconnect between the declaration and its pursuit; for there was no political or military reason for Biafra’s invasion of either the Mid-West or the West, especially, against the backdrop of the conditions given for the so-called liberation of the West centering on having all political and military decisions taken at Biafra’s convenience and this at a time when the West had concluded arrangements for the withdrawal of Northern soldiers from its territory and the Mid-West already stated its opposition to its territory being a theater of war.
To all intents and purposes therefore, the Nigeria-Biafra War was not a war for self-determination but for the control of the Nigerian post-colonial State, which had been the central focus of the historical and contemporary relationship between the North and the East and exemplified by their various alliances and its attendant conflicts, with the West as the battleground, politically and militarily. Some examples of these are the North and East’s mutual pursuit of unitarism as the substance of the Nigerian post-colonial State; the NPC/NCNC Alliance which denied self-government for the minorities in their Regions but ensured in the West; the underhanded transformation of the 1960 Independence Constitution into the 1963 “Republican” Constitution simply to deny Action Group’s victory at the Privy Council; Ojukwu’s rejection of Decree 8 of 1967, the decree which ensured that no decisions would be made at the center without the concurrence of three out of four military Governors who were also members of its SMC thus making it possible for Nigeria to either be recreated in the image of its Constituents or made null; a similar Alliance was forged in the second republic in order to thwart the West in the name of “nation-building”; the abandonment by the East of “June12” coupled with similar abandonment of the January 2012 Fuel increase strike and the current Jonathanian attempt to terrorize the West into submission.
What is playing out with Jonathan is the attempt at creating a Nigerian one-party State of the PDP under his control and this time, the control will be political instead of military; hence the enthronement of Jonathan surrogates in SW PDP and its allies in Afenifere/Labor Party who are mostly criminals and political opportunists who have bargained away Yoruba Federalist demands for Jonathan’s promised political appointments. Be that as it may, it is encouraging that a significant section of the Igbo are also now rooting for True Federalism, notably the group(s) associated with Prof Ben Nwabueze, which is a deviation from the Biafrans whose major preoccupation, after the war, is to integrate themselves into the Nigerian post-colonial State and possibly take over. Yet, as can be seen from all pursuits of self-determination all over the world, particularly now in Scotland, a defeat in a particular instance does not necessarily culminate in surrendering the quest; unless such quest, ab initio, was not about self-determination.
The lesson from the UK experience is thus not only in its possible break-up, but in the approach: civilization or barbarity; for this approach defines the impermanence of the Nation-State itself where sovereignty rest with the People directly concerned such that even when Spain objects to Catalonia’s Independence, it was not so much centered on the “law” of the State but on what the Spanish Government referred to as the necessity for all of Spain to make such determination, which is being rejected by the Catalans, as of right.
Thus, when the SW APC now wants to be organized as a social movement, taking into consideration the implications of a social movement as an agent of fundamental change and knowing full well that the Nigerian post-colonial State as presently configured cannot drive any change process as its existence can only be an end in itself, the SW APC and indeed the Nigerian APC owe it a duty to ensure the coming into being of Africa into the vortex of self-determination through methodologies where the “creators” of the modern Nation-State address its shortcomings from a civilized point of view while Africa tend to remain in its barbarity, making nonsense of human existence by proclaiming the permanence of what is considered temporal by its creators. So, “ooduapathfinder” says: “Yes”, Way to Go Scotland!!!!!

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin


(3) Abacha was the greatest Nigerian head of State:
Pastor Bosun Emmanuel’s basis for this assertion was Abacha’s removal of Dasuki as Sultan of Sokoto and replaced with Maccido. But when Dasuki was initially installed by Babangida, there were widespread protests and riots in Sokoto against Dasuki, which were militarily put down, for the people preferred Maccido. By the time Abacha came to power, aside from the power struggle between him and Babangida, there was an undercurrent of the age-old rivalry and competition between the Kanuri and Fulani, dating from the time of Dan Fodio’s jihad and based on the Kanuri’s insistence on having been Muslims long before the Dan fodio jihad hence cannot be subsumed under his authority. By removing Dasuki, Abacha had one up against Babangida, nothing more, nothing less; so Abacha’s actions were as self-serving as can be and had nothing to do with neutralizing the Fulani.
Besides, Abacha was one of the top military officers that denied M.K.O. Abiola’s mandate aside from the (in)famous “Diya Coup” where he rounded up at least 12 top Yoruba officers, two of whom were Muslims, and all of whom were to be executed. And this is besides the fact that Abacha did not discriminate between Yoruba Christians and Muslims in his murderous rampage against the Yoruba among whom were Muslims like Suliat Adedeji, Kudirat Abiola et al. In what way then would Abacha be considered favorable to the Yoruba such that he would now be promoted as the best and at the same time saying he is looking after Yoruba interest?
(4) APC is an Islamic party like Muslim Brotherhood:
It is written “And you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free”. What then is the truth about this claim? That there is a handshake between the South-West and North-West as far as electoral contests are concerned is neither here nor there lest Pastor Bosun Emmanuel wants the APC to commit political suicide. Goodluck Jonathan uses his presidential powers to embark on handshakes all over Nigeria, including the North-West and trying to corner the South-West by subterfuge and Pastor Emmanuel wants the APC to sit with arms akimbo and watch itself electorally decimated? Yet, Goodluck Jonathan has his SE/SS area in his kitty and now wants SW as well, as if we are incapable of generating our own stance but have to remain condemned into second fiddle. If Jonathan succeeds in neutralizing the APC in the SW, the party would not even have any leg to stand on when it comes to either negotiating or contending for power and the SW would be for Jonathan to play like a ball, having imposed all the known political prostitutes on us. The independence of action which the APC now makes available will no longer be there.
And when he cited the Muslim control of the party apparatus as proof of its Islamization, he did not situate it in its historical context; just as when Afenifere was still relevant, it was accused of being run by the Ijebu “gang of four” by its detractors and even some within the organization. Yet, those Ijebu leaders emerged out of the organization’s historical experience, their Ijebuness being circumstantial.
When, therefore, AD/AC was going through its test of existence, no one raised any alarm as to its leadership; the internal opposition left the party and formed DPA which disappeared after losing the governorship elections only to come back now riding on the coattails of Jonathan. And the AD/AC and DPA contained both Muslims and Christians and the split was not about any professed religion.
Historically, only those prepared to sell out the Yoruba would ally themselves with the center in order to gain political advantage in Yorubaland, as happened with Akintola/Fani-Kayode(Christians) to the Sardauna; Omoboriowo(Christian) to Shagari, the Obasanjo camp(Christians) to the “north” even though some in the Obasanjo camp have now reverted. All of these times, the Central government could only have its way through subterfuge, manipulation, war and threats of war with its attendant resistance.
Furthermore, the following examples provide just a snippet of the atrocities committed by the wielders of PDP power in the SW and who are mostly Christians: the PDP Government of Christian Obasanjo Unconstitutionally withheld Lagos State funds, and was successfully fought by Tinubu, a Muslim; Christian Jonathan, in an attempt to “capture” Yorubaland, employed the services of Muslims like Obanikoro and Adesiyan, disguised as federal ministers, to carry out his nefarious activities as witnessed in the militarization of Ekiti and Osun elections; Christian Jonathan conditioned his support for Christian Jimi Agbaje’s governorship ambition on an Igbo deputy Governor for Lagos when the same Igbo, had, since the anti-colonial era, been saying Lagos is “no man’s land” and the Yoruba has no rights of ownership and still saying so today; Christian Jonathan openly stated that the Yoruba are a minority in Lagos and other Yoruba states and are being led, historically, by rascals; all of these, and many more are not only unjust, unfair and are denigrating, but are also direct opposites of the attributes upon which Pastor Bosun Emmanuel built his promotion of Christian Jonathan.
While he proclaimed Jonathan’s “prophetic destiny” as not being concerned with performance in government but only on fundamental restructuring of Nigeria’s foundation; as ACN, the party wrote Goodlcuk Jonathan, immediately after the 2011 presidential elections, and suggested restructuring into True Federalism. Of course, Jonathan balked and began to move away from the ACN—probably because it was an “Islamic” Party?
Christians in Afenifere fell into the Obasanjo trap which allowed the PDP to hold sway in Yorubaland for 8 years with these achievements, among others: The PDP Governors of Oyo and Osun States were Christians who crippled their jointly-owned University, such that something as simple as having a Vice Chancellor became impossible; yet when the AC/ACN took over in both states, with Muslim Governors, there was an instant solution of which the people in the two states remain the beneficiary till today; when Gbenga Daniel, the Christian PDP Governor of Ogun State ran the State university aground, it took a Muslim Governor in the person of Ibikunle Amosun to revive it; it was the Christian Oyo State Governor, Christopher Akala who demolished Awo’s statue; the current Minister of State for defense as well as its Police Affairs counterpart are Muslims nominated by a Christian; and in the case of Police Affairs, he replaced a Christian from Ekiti State and their records in their brief time in office has been widely reported as to their shenanigans in militarizing elections in Ekiti and Osun States. They are working for Jonathan’s re-election. When the Femi Okuorunmu committee was going around, the APC Governments submitted memos as to True Federalism, while the Christians in the PDP and affiliated organizations and parties like Labor and Afenifere promoted continuation of the status quo, yet this is the Party and its Christian apparatchiks Pastor Bosun Emmanuel wants to promote as the best thing for Lagos and Yorubaland while wanting us to believe that the Conference is part of a prophetic agenda. With “friends” like these, Yorubaland needs no enemies.
It is thus obvious that the issue is not the religion professed by any governor or elected official or personality for that matter, but the “works” which such a person represent in terms of not only promoting Yoruba Existentialism which not only maintained religious tolerance but also served and still serves as a check on misgovernance, even before Christianity and Islam formally became influential in Yorubaland as such existentialism is correlated with justice and fairness as well as social responsibility which made it possible for Yorubaland to be accommodating to non-Yoruba regardless of their professed religions. The attempt at introducing a non-existent religious divide in Yorubaland is therefore unacceptable, regardless of where such an attempt is coming from and when we are talking of Christian revival through evangelism for political power as far as any nation is concerned, it has to be situated within the context of getting out of any form of captivity, otherwise, spiritual and physical evangelism would have no meaning.
For, it is also written that “we prophesy in part…. until that which is perfect has come when what is in part will be done away.” Hence, when it is said that Goodluck Jonathan is walking in a prophetic destiny but his “works” on that journey is its exact opposite, we know that such prophecy is in part, which part is in the necessity for fundamental restructuring and which will continue to be so until it is achieved, at which point it becomes the “perfect to come” with itself becoming an aspect of another part which process goes on until the end of the ages. It is thus up to Goodluck Jonathan to actually walk in it or manipulate it to suit his own purposes; what is certain is that it will be carried out such that any relationships between the Nations will be on voluntary basis. Hence, when there is deliberate manipulation or distortion of prophecy for self-serving purposes a la Goodluck Jonathan, it is mocking God.(concluded)
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin


Afenifere has finally owned up to its fascist propensities when, at its recent meeting, it showcased its leadership now including Jelili Adesiyan and Musiliu Obanikoro, the point-men in the militarization and manipulation of elections in Ekiti and Osun States and coordinators of the deployment of hooded terrorists and mercenaries to lay siege on Yorubaland. This was at the meeting where its response and opposition to INEC’s deployment of more polling centers were addressed. Afenifere regarded this move by INEC as a ploy to rig elections in favor of the North. By this public association, Afenifere is telling us that it has thumped up its noses at Yoruba people telling us it has come to stay as a fascist organization, ready and willing tools in ensuring Yorubaland’s enforced acquiescence to the attempt at subjecting us to a self-neutralizing agenda foreign to our political trajectory.
This meeting commended Goodluck Jonathan for convoking the National Conference and urged him to ensure complete implementation of the Conference resolutions and put in place True Federalism as a system of government in the country. According to the group, “We want the president to ensure that the country practices True Federalism, let him make this as a centenary legacy for which he will be remembered as Nigeria is today remembering Lord Lugard for amalgamation”. It concluded by commending “ Yoruba delegates to the conference led by Chief Olu Falae, saying they were able to adequately present the position of the region at the conference.”
As fascists are wont to do, conscious contradictory statements is their forte; for what the Conference recommended, of which Afenifere played a major part and the True Federalism it is asking Jonathan to ensure are light years apart. There cannot be True Federalism without Resource Control and Derivation just as carving up Nigeria into 54 states and declaring them “federated” is not True Federalism but an enforced union when a non-existing entity is already assumed to be federated with another.
It needs to be reiterated that before the Conference, Afenifere held a meeting in Isara where it was resolved to continue with the current status quo, with minor adjustments. It took another meeting of Yoruba activists in Ibadan to restate True Federalism as the Yoruba Position while during the conference itself, Segun Mimiko, Afenifere’s arrowhead and Ondo State Governor, was busy telling whoever cared to listen that “we should accept whatever it is that the conference offered”.
Chief Falae now being commended, was a signatory to the Calabar “southern summit” communique wherein True Federalism was proposed, but which disappeared as a major outcome of the Conference only for them to turn round and start blaming the North as if this would be the first time the north would so object; especially when the same north had been telling everyone, before the conference and as at the time the “southern summit” was making its case, that it objects to True Federalism, however defined. Making the north the culprit is therefore an afterthought as well as a non-issue.
Chief Osoba was at the Conference where his first statement was on saying that he did not come to the conference as a Yoruba but as a Nigerian and cooperated in de-Federalizing Nigeria only for him to come around at the Afenifere meeting to tout the same Yorubanness and Federalism he had abandoned when it mattered.
These Afenifere leaders were part of the Conference decisions that made provision for INEC as the sole electoral umpire in Nigeria, accepting the removal of State Electoral Commissions and promoted the notion of a pan-Nigerian referendum, which of course would be conducted by the same INEC, when on issues of Federalism, it is only those affected that vote in such a Referendum.
After all of these, the same Afenifere now turns around and asked Jonathan to ensure True Federalism in Nigeria. Obviously, Afenifere sees political one-upmanship in all of its activities, otherwise it would not stoop so low to insult our intelligence by now claiming to promote what it had rejected at the conference while at the same time ensuring the emergence in its leadership those characters who spared no effort in trying to negate whatever electoral choices the Yoruba were to make, riding on the coattails of Goodluck Jonathan.
The Conference and all of Afenifere’s politics were aimed at checkmating Asiwaju Tinubu and his political platform, which made Afenifere enter into an unholy alliance with the Jonathan forces which had also neutralized the Obasanjo faction of the PDP in Yorubaland. Now that the proverbial north is outsmarting them, they want to once again gain reckoning in Yorubaland.
Yet, if their aim as well as Jonathan their sponsor’s aim was really to fight the northern penchant for power, all that Jonathan and his coalition needed to do was to leave the post-2011 political map intact; that is, the ACN would retain its dominance in the West, the CPC would have its own northern base while the faction of APGA that wants to remain outside Jonathan’s orbit would be left to sort itself out. The implication of this is that there would be less necessity for the merger that produced APC, at best we will have a coalition of sorts by 2015 which would make restructuring easier as the “north” would have its political space restricted. In the run up to the 2015 elections, Afenifere now wants to proclaim its relevance in Yorubaland when its fascist outing in 2014 has already sealed its fate as a relevant organization in Yorubaland.
Yoruba and non-Yoruba people in the state of Osun, through their August 9 superlative refusal to be intimidated, showed these Afenifere fascists that all of their official powers were not enough to impose themselves on the Yoruba Nation, and have, through this means, expressed their vote of no confidence on Afenifere and its political trajectory. For, were it not for the resilience of the people and capability of APC leadership, the Osun election would have been very different and these characters now lamenting about possible INEC rigging would have been patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Fascism, which was violently resisted in 1964/65, would have found its way into power in Yorubaland, courtesy of Afenifere.

The people of the State of Osun has shown how to prevent any rigging of elections, and just as the saying goes, eternal vigilance being the price of liberty has made it mandatory for the Yoruba to ensure that Afenifere’s fascism is thrown into the dustbin of history in 2015 elections in Oyo, Lagos and Ogun States which will formally signal the permanent end of that organization, having lost its historical usefulness in turning to its opposite as the perpetrator of fascist politics in Yorubaland. The good people of Osun and the vigilant APC leadership did not have to rely on official diktats or mercenaries in order to beat the rigging machinery put in place by these Afenifere fascists such that were INEC to try to rig future elections in favor of whoever, a template of resistance has already been provided by the Osun example hence “ooduapathfinder” is of the view that Afenifere having lost any claims to leadership in Yorubaland by its negation of True Federalism when it mattered, is no longer relevant in our politics, except as enablers of external aggression and domination.
Thus, when there is talk of unity as a manifestation of Yoruba Civil war experience and the attendant Kiriji armistice, the anniversary of which is coming up on September 23, the Yoruba Nation should be mindful of the fact that unity is not an abstraction; we cannot unite simply because we are Yoruba; we can only unite on the basis of a shared vision on Yorubaland, which is anchored on True Federalism and social democracy and which Afenifere fascists have gone all out to destroy.
The Yoruba Nation must also be mindful of the limitations embedded in the proverbial saying to the effect that many paths may lead to the same destination; for such a saying is dependent on whether we have the same destination in mind or not. Fascism and Social Democracy are two different roads to two different destinations.

www.ooduapathfinder.com

By adminadmin



And even when a relationship had to be established, for whatever reasons, between different Nations or Peoples, it must be voluntary, as the example of the covenant with the Gibeonites show( Joshua 9) where they offered themselves virtually to perpetual servitude, but voluntarily, for their own safety. If we are receptive to God’s definition which we ought to, we are expected to show this “light of God through the face of Jesus Christ” and which is exactly what the Scottish, Welsh, Quebecois, Catalans, Basque etc are doing and what the Yoruba had always advocated variously as True Federalism.
When it gets to this stage in Nigeria, the default line is that “God does not want the country to break”, which is seized upon by the terrorists who now want to enforce their notion of the Nation-State on the rest of us while we start running around and praying, seeking God where He had already departed from. Even when the Jews were sometimes carried away into captivity they still dream of their liberation, their Zion, where we have Nehemiah, Daniel, Jael, Esther, and as alluded to above, with Paul, exercising his right as a Roman citizen to plead the cause of our Lord Jesus Christ to which he had been called. And he had to do this to show that this God is the God of all Nations, all peoples.
When it is now said that “God used certain people” to create Nigeria, these same people(Nation States) that “God used” are now breaking up in different ways: the UK/Scotland/Wales; Belgium/Flanders/ Walloons; Spain/Catalonia/Basque and in the case of Quebec, the choice to remain within Canada was strictly theirs. I doubt if Pastor Bosun Emmanuel is telling us that God has no hand in all of these examples but would restrict His hand only to situations like Nigeria’s. Whatever the outcome of these European exercises, the bottom line is that the Nations in these countries(Nation-States) have a choice, have a say in the matter and because of that, they can work out the best terms for their inter-relationships. It is Africa that is not giving or leaving room for the manifestation of God’s will regarding the Nations.
Which is why there is a need to take a second look at Pastor Bosun Emmanuel’s charge on evangelism and revival to raise disciples to stand and ensure justice, fairness and equity in Nigeria without breaking up and without True Federalism.
The basis of his charge can be broadly categorized into four (1) Goodluck Jonathan’s administration is not meant to embark on any developmental purposes but to rebuild the foundation of Nigeria as a prophetic necessity, a process he embarked upon through the National Conference, of which Pastor Bosun Emmanuel was a delegate; (2) that the Zonal reconfiguration of Nigeria into six zones was part of the Islamic agenda; (3)Abacha was the greatest Nigerian head of state;(4)APC is an Islamic party like the Muslim brotherhood which makes it mandatory for Christians to produce the next Governor in Lagos who must not be from APC. It is now necessary to look into the validity of these categories.
(1) Goodluck Jonathan’s Prophetic Destiny:
Aside from saying that the issue about Goodluck Jonathan’s presidency has nothing to do with his performance in office, in terms of making social and economic improvements in the lives of the people, Pastor Bosun Emmanuel says this prophetic destiny involves only Restructuring Nigeria’s foundation and Jonathan’s methodology is through his National Conference, which, by the way, is also a form of performance. So, how has this played out and has its result, so far, got anything to do with Restructuring Nigeria’s foundation? In the run-up to the Conference itself, a committee, headed by Femi Okurounmu went all over the country collecting the views of Nigerians on how they want their country to be structured and governed. Most of the views revolved around True Federalism, based on parliamentary democracy, Zonal/Regional Constituents, Resource Control and representation at the conference based largely on the Nationalities. The “north” was the major odd one out of these demands. By the time the conference modalities came out, absolutely none of these requirements were utilized and at the conference itself, even the Yoruba delegates, of which Pastor Bosun Emmanuel was one, backtracked on such Fundamental restructuring, preferring, instead, a continuation of the status quo where Resource Control, the main foundational issue in Nigeria, was left virtually untouched and passed on to some technical committee to handle. Yet, Pastor Bosun Emmanuel was only concerned with the fact that the Conference itself did not break up as an achievement, as if the purpose of the Conference was about its breaking up or not. So, the question is, if Goodluck Jonathan is walking on a prophetic destiny, it can only follow that such shall be known by the “works”, that is, the results of his chosen method. The “works” as defined by his National Conference, has ended up placing us in more captivity by denying True Federalism, which means Jonathan is not fulfilling his prophetic destiny. For it is written, “God has spoken once, twice I have heard this…. For You render to each according to his work”. When God asks that a fundamental restructuring of the foundation is necessary, that means the current structure is a bondage we have to get out of. But when such a structure is being strengthened, going by the conference resolutions, where “feeding bottle federalism” is reinforced as the order of the day, that can only mean Jonathan’s “works” is not in tune with God’s plan as revealed in that prophecy. Thus, when Pastor Bosun Emmanuel now says the Nigerian Constitution has no mention of Christianity and several mentions of Islam and issues related with Islam, he failed to tell us that Jonathan had a hand in not getting this Constitution changed, first by his nomination of delegates as against the recommended selection/election by the various Nationalities; second by his opening address asking the delegates not to touch what he called “divisive” issues; third by what Tony Nyiam calls a “preconceived agenda”, and many more.
King Rehoboam failed to heed the words of the elders by doing the exact opposite of what they recommended. At the end, in spite of Rehoboam’s back and forth in his relationship with God, his failure to heed the words led to the splitting of that one Nation; followed by their captivity. Goodluck Jonathan’s refusal and its consequences is not for all the Nations inside Nigeria but for his own particular Nation; other Nations have made their own determinations and it is not for Goodluck Jonathan to prevent it, which is what he tried to do with the national Conference.
(2) Reconfiguration of Nigeria into six zones was part of an Islamic Agenda:
This is patently false. The Organization of Islamic Conference no doubt has its own agenda, otherwise, it would not exist as an organization. The OIC was also the basis for Muamar Gaddafi’s call to separate the north and south so the Muslims could have their own country. However, it is historically true that the present six zones, by and large, corresponded with the anti-colonial formulations of the Action Group whose platform consisted of having at least one more Region in each of the then existing Eastern, Western and Northern Regions, making a total of six. These new regions were proposed to be the Middle Belt, Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers and the Mid-West. But the connivance of the Eastern NCNC (largely Christian)and Northern NPC(largely Muslim) made that impossible only allowing the Mid-West just to spite and neutralize the AG and the West(Yoruba). Chief Obafemi Awolowo and his associates further advocated Regions largely based on linguistic and cultural considerations making a total of 18 Regions, all with control of their resources while paying agreed taxes to the center in the form that we now refer to as derivation. All of these were advocated before the OIC began its attempt. It is therefore not true for anyone to ascribe this zonal structure to an Islamic Agenda. If the OIC is to be blamed for trying to exploit its advantage in the power equation, a similar critique must be made of the NCNC/NPC Alliance which denied the Middle Belt and COR of their Regions so that they remained under the control of the NPC(north) and NCNC (East). By the time Jonathan’s Conference took off, the same Regional Structure was advanced by the Yoruba and even other southern delegates; where then did Pastor Bosun Emmanuel get his notion that it was an Islamic agenda? Unless he is telling us that what Chief Awolowo and what the Yoruba had been promoting since 1947 was part of an Islamic agenda.(to be continued)
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com

By adminadmin


Doyin Okupe, Goodluck Jonathan’s media adviser likened himself to Elijah; Major-General Chris Olukolade, the Army spokesman says the Grace of God is sufficient for him even though he is not a politician but an untainted military professional; Pastor Bosun Emmanuel says, among other things, that Goodluck Jonathan is on a prophetic destiny journey. All of these were against the backdrop of gains made by Boko Haram; having upped the ante in the course of military engagement, where, instead of the guerrilla hit and run, it now holds territory, either temporarily or permanently. Meanwhile, the president himself is keeping his cards close to his chest.
Doyin Okupe can be excused as he has a public relations job to do, even if it means taking all of us for a ride; Major-General Chris Olukolade may also be excused in the sense that his public relations job is completely tied to his military duties which may hamper his outings. However, Pastor Bosun Emmanuel cannot be excused, for not only is he free from the encumbrances of the other two, he had gone ahead to promote his views, asking especially Yoruba Christians to evangelize in order to raise disciples to fight the Islamic fundamentalist menace. That all of these people are Yoruba, and professing Christ, is not a coincidence.

According to Pastor Bosun Emmanuel, Nigeria is at war, and the winner of that war would be the portion that is able to neutralize Yorubaland, as if Yorubaland itself has no stake in not only ensuring that the land does not become a war theater, but also win the war on our terms; especially when all the war-mongers are at each others’ throat. These Yoruba, who also profess Christ, already assumed Yorubaland is the prize since we are now supposed to be onlookers whose influence is irrelevant and useful only as an addendum to the others. They are thus one leg of the attempt at neutralizing Yorubaland; the other leg being the “north” however defined. There is no need to waste time on this “north” as it has never hidden its conception of the Nigerian post-colonial State. It is a given. The problem with these people is their pitching their tent with Goodluck Jonathan, both for professional(Okupe/Olukolade) as well as religious(Bosun Emmanuel) reasons.
Hence, when Pastor Bosun Emmanuel gave his talk, centered on the dangers from Islamic fundamentalism for Yorubaland, he did not, at any time, during his message, mention Yoruba existentialism which was responsible for the tolerance of different religious beliefs in the land; rather, his emphasis was on the Christian/Muslim divide anchored on an agenda in pursuit of capturing Yorubaland as the main theater of war for the eventual take-over of Nigeria.
Yes, Nigeria is in a state of war, the question being, what war? For the solution to a problem lies in its precise definition, which Pastor Bosun Emmanuel sees as a lack of knowledge as stated in the Book of Hosea. Hence, he sought to take us through his understanding by cautioning us against Islamic fundamentalism as the major issue confronting us, outside the context of Yoruba existentialism which can only lead to its negation and thus work in favor of any enemy, which may not necessarily be from the Islamists.
When Boko Haram’s terrorism is situated within an Islamic fundamentalism, we often forget that Joseph Kony’s Lord’s Resistance Army, claiming to be Christians, employ tactics no different from Boko Haram’s; just as the Algerian Islamists did when its electoral victory was annulled by the Algerian military in 1990; including child kidnapping, child soldiers, rape, murders etc. Similarly, in the 80s, General Ephraim Rios Mont of Guatemala embarked on state-sponsored terrorism against the citizens of Guatemala, saying it was being done “in the name of God”. And of course the IRA employed similar tactics in its terrorism days.
Terrorism, in all of its manifestation, therefore is a military tool aimed at the particular objective of denying legitimacy to a Government by creating fear among the populace rendering the government powerless as a protector. Whether the perpetrators resort to any form of religion is immaterial even though it helps to make headline news stories and create an emotion-laden response in the citizenry which will also fuel negation of governmental legitimacy.
To combat terrorism therefore, is to take a critical look at the basis of government’s legitimacy upon which it will draw its strength, if it is really legitimate; otherwise, the result would be what we have now where it appears the terrorist are having a field day. The major test of Goodluck Jonathan’s legitimacy came when Residents/citizens of the North East, where Boko Haram is now occupying territories asked to be armed, in order to fight Boko Haram with the government doing nothing about it, shows the fears of the government itself in its own legitimacy, especially when this demand is coming from a Region intent on getting back presidential power; which would fuel some political calculations bordering on territorial control of Nigeria.
This would thus enable Pastor Bosun Emmanuel to say “God does not want Nigeria to break”, which may be a reason for the denial of the right of the citizens being armed and coopted into the war. Since we know that God’s word is sure and He honors His word; Genesis 10 made references as to how the sons of Noah and survivors of the flood were described as being “separated into their lands, everyone according to his language, according to their families, into their nations ”(note that it says “their” Nations)—all the way to God’s promise to Abraham as to making him “A” father of many nations— also note: it did not say “the” father but “A” father of many Nations. So all of these imply an understanding of “their nations” as being specific Language, lands, families etc that characterized them.
Nations have generally been described as “a large aggregate of people united by common descent, history, culture, or language, inhabiting a particular country or territory” while its sovereignty is identified by its form of political State, which can come into being through various means, including conquest, enslavement, voluntary or forced union and which directly affects the composition of itself as a Nation-State whose authority is manifested also in various forms— from authoritarianism to democracy and all in between.
Abraham had a particular role in the existence of the Jews as a Nation—as he was called out to be such A father— which means all of the Nations are also entitled to such benefits especially when God has revealed Himself to gentiles, too. So, there is a correlation between the general meaning and what is recorded in the Bible. But where the problem lie, today, is that we have substituted the “Nation-State” for Nation. A Nation-State is simply the ability of any group of people inside or outside the Nation to impose its authority on the nation. As when Rome imposed its authority on the Jews, making them Roman Citizens but still retaining their Jewish identities characterized by their language/culture/faith etc.as can be seen when Paul was arrested and told the centurion that he was a Roman Citizen. So, through his trials, he identified himself as a citizen of Rome but of a Jewish Nation. And we see that the Roman rulers were interested in pleasing the Jews but were handicapped by their own laws or else, the Jews would have wasted no time in killing Paul, based on their own understanding of their own laws.
Furthermore, when it is written that the Nation/People of Israel were carried away into captivity—this was physical; but being in captivity is not limited to physical dislocation, as we found when Jerusalem was occupied by the Romans; that the Jewish Nation, the children of Israel were held captive even in their own land and capital city. It is therefore possible for a people to remain in their God-given land and still be held captive by forces beyond their control.
And this was what happened in Africa, where not only were Nations/Peoples split up into different countries even while still retaining their God-given lands, but even those who found themselves within the same country were and are subjected to some form of captivity because they are under the control of those whom they had no control over or any influence upon.
In this sense, our notion or understanding of Nation becomes corrupted because we have deviated away from God’s definition and we are only trying to “manage” our captivity, which for Yorubaland, is characterized by attempts at “mainstreaming” instead of flowing into the liberation of God’s grace as a Nation in and of itself. (to be continued)
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin

The subtitle of today’s piece: “The triumph of General Aguiyi-Ironsi” is borrowed from the assessment of the just concluded national conference by Dr. Orobola Fasehun, formerly of Nigeria’s Foreign Service and the United Nations. Dr. Fasehun said among other things in a recent tele-seminar that the national conference has fully resurrected General Johnson Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, despite several chest-beating assessments of the conference in glowing terms by many of the delegates, particularly those from the Yoruba region.

The reference to Ironsi’s resurrection is to remind us of the promulgation of Decree 34 by Ironsi during his six-month tenure as military head of state after the first coup d’etat in 1966. Decree 34 dismantled without apology and pretense the federal structure of the country and installed a unitary system that transformed the country into an assemblage of provinces administered by a strong centre. History tells us that Ironsi had to be killed by his fellow soldiers because he re-created Nigeria in an image that was contrary to its original image at independence in 1960. After Ironsi, the federal structure was resuscitated, only for a few years.

As we have observed on this page several times since 2007, Nigeria’s federalism gradually waned under the leadership or sponsorship of military dictatorships, largely between the creation of the first 12 states out of the four regions and the multiplication of the 12 states to the current 36 states, recently slated for increase by the national conference to 54 states. Not even Ironsi had the courage to create 54 provinces during his suicidal declaration of Nigeria as a country of centre-driven provinces. What the national conference had done by resolving to balkanise the country into 54 states is to ensure that the possibility of using regions as federating units or of even having any state or province economically viable enough to pass for a federating unit is made to disappear from the imagination of Nigerians.

It is hard to explain how this kind of resolution could have come from majority of the delegates considered by many observers to be some of the country’s best. Could it be that the conference lacked thinking economists or economic thinkers? By packaging its failure to make a final pronouncement on resource control and revenue allocation on the ground of lack of technical expertise, the conference honestly owned up to significant intellectual deficiency with respect to issues that called for rigorous thinking. Resolving to break the country into 54 provinces or states suggests that most of the delegates (at least 70%) must have made spiritual and psychological commitment to running an administrative federalism that is sustained and can be sustained only through handouts from the central government. It is also surprising that the conference had enough expertise in the house to determine within the short time available to it which areas or communities should be allocated additional 18 states.

Before any delegates or their supporters begin to congratulate themselves for devolving power from the exclusive list to the states, let us briefly compare the number of functions on the conference’s exclusive list to what exists in the 1999 Constitution put together at the instance of military dictators. There are 68 items on the exclusive list in the 1999 Constitution, with the first being “Accounts of the Government of the Federation, and of offices, courts, and authorities thereof, including audit of those accounts” and the sixty-eighth item being “Any matter incidental or supplementary to any matter mentioned elsewhere in this list.” On the recommendations of the conference, there are now 62 items on the legislative exclusive list. In reality, the central government has not lost any power. Some of the powers in the current constitution have been combined, thus giving the impression that the number of items of the proposed exclusive list is smaller than what obtains in the 1999 Constitution. For example, items 6, 15, and 24 were combined into one item, items 9, 18, 30 and 42 in the current constitution were merged while items 23 and 28 were combined into one item, to give a total of 62 items on the conference’s new exclusive list.

With respect to functions proposed by the conference for the states, there are basically five new additions to the pre-conference concurrent list: police (by states that choose to have such law enforcement agency in addition to the overarching one provided by the central government), railway, prison, public holiday, and creation of local government. This is despite the fact that the conference still endorsed continuation of current allocation of petro-naira to local government as third tier of government. These additions to state powers are already being danced about by several delegates around Yoruba cities, but before the Yoruba get misled, the provision to neutralize the power of states to use these new powers and those on the old concurrent list has been added to each item on the concurrent list. Invocation of the principle of central legislative supremacy: “The National Assembly shall have power to make laws for the Federation or any part thereof with respect” to anything under the sun indicates that no state has any freedom to do anything that is not supported by the central legislative assembly, which has the power to legislate in whichever direction it chooses.

Despite ample references to the Basic Laws of Germany by the conference, there is very little evidence that the conference borrows good models from the concept of sharing power and governance in the context of Germany’s combination of ethnic and territorial federalism, just as there is no such evidence with respect to the practice of territorial federalism in the United States. Just as the framers of the 1999 Constitution intended, a country of 36 (planning to morph into 54) mini states that beg for handouts from the central government cannot be given substantial powers that are not to be regulated or checked by an overbearing central government that has control over resource mobilization and allocation. Having resolved to increase the number of provinces a la Ironsi from 36 to 54, it would certainly not make sense for the conference to fail to add the principle of federal legislative supremacy to every item on the concurrent list. Without doubt, some position papers sent by groups of Yoruba professionals that called for just two forms of power: exclusive and residual lists must have been thrown into the trash can before commencement of negotiations at the conference.

Even if the national assembly, the only institution that can transform the resolutions of the conference to constitutional provisions (with the conference having already dismissed the option of a referendum and barring the invocation of Nigeria’s latest code word for decree, Doctrine of Necessity), accepts the resolutions of the conference hook, line, and sinker, Nigeria will remain as far from federalism as it was before the latest of its national conferences. In other words, it is not yet Uhuru for apostles of federalism and advocates of a sovereign national conference. In all, the recently concluded national conference has not been a waste of time, as many of its critics would like citizens to believe. On the whole, the delegates have thrown substantial light on what needs to be done to improve governance in a polity designed for administrative federalism. But the conference has clearly shown the nation what not to do, if it is to fulfill the desire of many of its citizens and nationalities to create a functional and sustainable federal system of government.(To be continued)

Ropo Sekoni

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin



Pastor Tunde Bakare’s response to militarization of Ekiti/Osun State’s elections centered on referencing it as “federal presence”, saying, in spite of this intimidating “federal presence”, things still went on peacefully and that even though he had heard the word “militarization” used, he does not necessarily subscribe to it; his reason being that the “police are called peace officers and they were there to keep the peace.”
Yet, he failed to say that the president and vice president had, at one time or another, in the run up to the elections, openly stated that they are waging war in both states; how then can the forces under their control be assumed to be keeping the peace? In thus trying to whitewash the Jonathan regime’s activities; the pastor denied the presence of official soldiers, masked mercenaries and hooded terrorists in official military gears, shooting into the air at will; and by describing the situation as “federal presence”, the pastor is telling us that INEC is not a Federal establishment and that only the hooded and masked armed services (police, army, SSS etc) constitute “federal presence”; when, by definition, any official federal representative constitutes federal presence, including the Police, over which a State Governor has no powers of control such that even if the entire “Federal presence” was limited to the police, there was no need to deploy additional police officers from outside the state, especially when the existing police formation had been keeping the peace before the election.
Unless the Pastor is telling us that there exists another “federal” police formation which is useful only during the time of elections and which we all know is not the case. So, for the federal Government to deploy police forces from outside the state to come and “keep the peace” must mean there is an undercurrent to the deployment and shooting into the air by these “police officers” was not a way to “keep the peace” but simply to intimidate. What Pastor Bakare’s “federal presence” is therefore telling us is to resign ourselves to the mercy of the State.
This State, through its armed services, and upon which his solution rests, is the epitome of violence in the society in general and in elections in particular. Not only is its origin in such violence, in contemporary times, we have witnessed the utilization of these armed services in the same electoral malpractice that Pastor Bakare invoked as a justification. From the 1962/65 absolute rigging on behalf of the NPC/NCNC/NNDP Alliance to the 1983 “moon-slide” led by the then IGP Sunday Adewusi, a Yoruba; the Obasanjo “do or die” electoralism; the “June 12” issues and now where the Minister of Police Affairs as well as the Minister of State for Defense are Yoruba politicians, recommended by the PDP Governorship aspirant and appointed by Jonathan and therefore definitively interested in the outcome of these elections, and whose standard operating procedure consisted, in an increasingly violent manner, harassing and haranguing only members of the opposition who, in order to defend their own political space, had to embark on massive mobilization and encouragement of their own supporters, for effective resistance.
This absolute reliance on the State as the ultimate solution, in contradistinction to the resistance by the people, is why Pastor Bakare would consider himself a “nation builder”; yet the nation(s) already exist as seen in the Yoruba, Igbo, Kanuri, Ijaw and all other Nations that constitute Nigeria. To be a “nation builder” therefore, is to build on what already exists and not pursue its negation; but what the Pastor is building is not the already existing nation but the post-colonial State Apparatus, where its enforcement adjuncts in all forms of the armed services become the fulcrum of its operations.
And this stems from confusing “nation” with “country”; for even the US that is usually used as the exemplar of “nation-building”, the US did not and is not building a “nation” but a State largely based on WASP existentialism where all of the immigrants were and are still being absorbed without losing their national/cultural origins hence the formal and informal recognition of the hyphenated American, in spite of the seeming blurring of the lines between the nation and the State.
For the post-colonial State, however, this attempt at blurring always expresses itself in the struggle among and between the existing Nations which is usually reduced to “inter-ethnic/tribal clashes” or “tribalism” which the State attempts to mediate, when actually, it is a conflict for the control of the same State apparatus, without which any of the Nations caught in the trappings of the post-colonial State would feel lost, which is why the attempt is always at some form of State control of the Nations.
In relation to the post-colonial State apparatus, therefore, we had been experimenting with its form as a matter of natural right, as a given, even as the existentialism of none of the Nations comprising the country influenced or impacted on the character of the State Apparatus. In cases where this appears to be so, in the so-called Local Government administration for example, which is largely based on “northern” understanding of Local government, it was also subsumed under the prerogatives of the post-colonial State as a form of control over the Nations and which made it impossible for any of its “reforms” to be fruitful.
The colonial power’s superiority of force enabled it to impose its form of State on the colony—a form which is now exploding in its face all over the formerly colonized world today; including its own European backyard
It is the same “superiority of force” that any dominant or potentially dominant Nation in the colony would rely upon in order to ensure its dominance over others; hence, when the ”north” exercised this prerogative pre-and post-independence, the Obasanjo attempt at neutralizing it through the retirement of all politically exposed military officers, who were largely from the “north” in order to create a “nation-neutral” State only enabled the infusion of the armed services with more “southerners”, even as it was accompanied by the attempt to neutralize all of the national centers of political power by substituting them with this form of State structure and it was only a matter of time that a section of the south, with an eye to its own superiority, would seize the opportunity to try to ensure its own dominance.
Hence, under Goodluck Jonathan, the Ijaw found its opportunity which it is now using to try to achieve its dominance in Nigeria; in spite of Ijaw’s often proclaimed right to self-determination; for the strengthening of the post-colonial State is a negation of self-determination. To be a “nation builder” in the post-colonial sense is therefore to be an enabler of the post-colonial State apparatus where such apparatus become substituted for the “nation” and which is why it appears so easy for anyone in power to “personalize” such powers via subsuming all State functions into the holder’s imperatives. Which was what Pastor Bakare promoted by whitewashing the Jonathan militarization shenanigans in Edo/Ekiti/Osun as “federal presence”.
So, if promoting the post-colonial State is not “nation building” what then is? Minimized as Federalism, it translates into the development of the Nation/Nationality to its fullest potential for the only way the substitution of the State apparatus for the nation would be possible is through the extermination/subjugation of the Nation in favor of the State apparatus which will create its own internal crisis thus engendering underdevelopment and which is why “civil wars” are rampant in Africa; thereby making Africa a land of raw material suppliers and consumers of finished products, even where there are no wars; hence all efforts at “development” are geared towards “institutions of State” alien to the country itself and whose essential services consist of regulating its relationships with the “mother country” and its allies.
Which is why there are demands for True Federalism as the path towards the restoration of the “nation” which again is the essence of nation-building but which the Jonathan National conference, of which Pastor Bakare was a delegate, has now rejected in favor of strengthening the post-colonial State, which the Pastor called “moving on”, which breeds the question, moving to where?
In Europe, demands for independence of nations within the former colonial powers are based on the rejection of the form of State created by the powers, where, even in instances which can be classified as monolingual as in the UK, the expected new Scottish State structure is being challenged to be defined by its social democratic essence, a major factor in the quest for independence, as opposed to the “Tory” foundation of the British Establishment expressed in its State structure and manifesting as the totality of its conservative economic, social and political policies.
In the Middle East, the response to the threat posed by the jihadists has ensured a further examination of the post-colonial State which also informs on the West’s responses in terms of its not simply sending ground troops but focused on strengthening the Peoples/Nations doing the fighting; such peoples not necessarily being the post-colonial State apparatchiks but ensconced in their own National milieu, either as Sunni, Shia, Kurd, Alawite etc.
In Nigeria’s own backyard in the North-East, where Boko Haram seems to operate with impunity, the “Nation/People” have severally taken up the challenge to confront Boko Haram, even when the armed State functionaries flee; the latest being the demonstration of over 12,000 people asking to be engaged for their own defense. Incidentally, this was, and still is, the Yoruba position on defense, which clearly promotes the Regionalization of the Armed Forces. This is what Pastor Bakare is moving away from by moving on to the Jonathanian post-colonial State solution, which is balking at a self-determination fueled self-defense.
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin

First published on June 28, 2013; republished on June 10, 2014 and is being republished today in the light of the recent revelations made by Stephen Davis, the Jonathan-appointed negotiator with Boko Haram, who revealed that Gen Ihejirika and Ali Modu Sheriff are major sponsors of Boko Haram. Part of the revelations include these sponsors’ identification of potential and actual targets; which also proves that the militarization of elections and Gen Ihejirika’s replacement with Gen Minimah, an Ijaw like the president, were not coincidental.



A PRESIDENT’S SECRET PUTSCH PLAN UNCOVERED—- JANUARY 15,1966 ALL OVER AGAIN?
Even as Nigeria’s next Presidential election is billed for early 2015, frantic preparations are being made by various political forces to upend each other, as at now, which, on the surface, points to a preparation for democratic contest in progress. Forces loyal to the incumbent President Jonathan are strategizing in a most determined manner. Jonathan’s men seem no longer ready to take hostages in the build-up to the great political contest ahead, as witnessed and being witnessed in the on-going face-off within the Nigerian Governors Forum. Big political office-holders within and outside the president’s political party who refuse to fall in line behind him are already haring their balls on fire. On the other side of the contest is an evolving rain-bow coalition of all manner of adversaries unified by a common desire to oust the ruling party one of whose leaders once boasted would rule the country for another sixty years.
This coalition is rainbow indeed for it not only brings together unlikely allies and what some call “strange-bed fellows from the North West, the North East and the ever dissenting Yoruba southwest”, strategic talks are already going on between coalition leaders and influential persons and forces even within the ruling party. The political atmosphere is suffused with the promises of an exciting drama of democratic contest, come 2015. However this promise may be blown up in smoke if the PLAN B of the President and his most loyal and trusted aides come to fruition shortly before or after the 2015 elections.
The President’s calculations and strategies rest on a fear that his ambition to be returned to office at the next polls seems certain to go up in flames. A source deep inside Aso Rock (Nigeria’s Powerful Presidential Palace) has revealed that the President’s men are desperately resorting to the ethnic card by uniting the Igbo people of South-East behind him to strengthen his limited support base among his Ijaw kinsmen in the Oil producing Niger Delta Region. He also hopes to gather some considerable support from the minorities of Northern Nigeria who dread a return to political power by the Fulani one of whose members is pressing ahead to be fielded by the rainbow coalition opposition for the Presidential election.
The sources in Aso-Rock and the headquarters of the Nigeria military establishment are not in doubt that the surest source of hope and confidence for the President and his men is the fact that Nigeria’s most senior officer-General Ihejirika is a willing tool in his dark plot to retain power at all cost. To ensure success the army chief’s strategic office is reportedly being used (albeit) subtly and discreetly to position loyalists of the President in suitable operational commands.
The million-dollar question now is when they will strike as the general crisis of power and legitimacy confronting the ruling party and its No1 office holder is getting more insoluble by the day. The putsch, if its masterminds succeed, is targeted at removing from circulation (whatever that may mean in biological terms) what they call professional agitators and rebellious politicians of the Yoruba South-West Nigeria. These targets have been identified as the major source of headache to President Jonathan and his “do or die” bid to return to power come 2015.
Another set of likely targets and victims are prominent politicians of the North West and North East Zones of the country who have been most vociferous in their demand for a return to power after a long period of life in the wintry weather of exclusion from the country’s No 1 political office.
This calculation, sources say, is based on Jonathan’s perception of a possible disruption of his South South base and the putsch is one way of checkmating that possibility. When asked what this has got to do with the South West, our sources insisted that he expected the SW, especially the ACN, to kow-tow to him; failure of which he decided to “punish” the zone by withdrawing or denying the zone of any entitlement that is officially due to it. Examples of these are rampant, principal of which are the removal of Yoruba bureaucrats who are replaced by the Igbo and lately, there was an international fund earmarked for Nigeria which was shared by the South South, South East and Middle Belt–to the exclusion of the South West. While the ACN South West refused and continues to refuse to kow-tow to Jonathan, another force in the zone, the Yoruba Unity Forum, is squarely mired in all of Jonathan’s strategic moves. One question is whether the Unity Forum will have to courage to resist Jonathan.
Observers of the Nigeria Political scene will clearly recall the problem that the inter-ethnic contradiction of Nigeria has always been posing to Social Justice, Democracy and Good Governance in the country. This contradiction which many in the country always refer to as the UNRESOLVED NATIONAL QUESTION has always been given a short-shrift by hegemonic power blocs in control of the central government. President Jonathan is not any different from the rest. Rather than confront this long standing contradiction by facilitating a genuine Constitutional Conference of all Nationalities and stakeholders in order to usher in a proper federal union, he appears to be obsessed with his personal desire to retain his Presidential office even in the face of an increasing likelihood of defeat at the next polls.
Will history repeat itself?
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin

Chief Olu Falae is the latest Afenifere chieftain promoting the recommendations of Jonathan’s National Conference as if Afenifere has taken it upon itself to “sell” such scandalous recommendations; while the Yoruba Unity Forum, which had earlier been in the forefront of establishing a working relationship with the South-South led by Edwin Clark is taking the back seat, at least, for now although whatever justifications they will promote would not be any different from those Afenifere is already carrying out, with the probable exception of what Tinubu said or did not say upon which Chief Olu Falae’s marketing is anchored. And the more they come out to sell their Conference federalist absurdity, the more ridiculous their reasons are. So, leaving Tinubu alone, it is necessary take a look into what these marketers are selling.
These Afenifere people constitute that section of Yoruba political tendency that had hitherto pretended to be steadfast advocates of True Federalism who have now turned absolutely in the opposite direction that even a Chief S.L Akintola would feel completely comfortable with, having now being justified by his erstwhile adversaries who are now falling over themselves to negate all that we have struggled for since the era of anti-colonial struggles. Thus, these people may need to apologize to the original “mainstreamers”; for what they failed to achieve through electoral manipulation since 1962, these erstwhile adversaries have managed to achieve via Jonathan Conference. Or at least they are trying to.
And these Afenifere would claim to be the “closest” to Chief Awolowo, whose Federalist propositions are also now the subject of interest in many parts of the world, having himself situated his Federalism within the international context of his own time. But this Afenifere mantra is now encapsulated in what Chief Falae said, when responding to whether the Yoruba, by demanding Regionalism, would be accused of trying to leave Nigeria, an age-long accusation, by the way.
He said the Yoruba have nowhere to go, that they have sacrificed a lot for Nigeria etc etc. Yet, everyone knows that “leaving Nigeria”, by any nationality, is a metaphorical expression hence the issue of “where are we going to” is neither here nor there as the nationality would stay where it is without being part of Nigeria.
Even if it is agreed, as Chief Falae says, that Jonathan “never approached me or anybody to give him a third term”; it is quite possible for someone to promote an idea, consciously or unconsciously, solicited or not with such an idea taking on a life of its own, such as when Chief Olu Falae tried to distance himself from SAP when SAP took on a life of its own; some of the consequences of which Nigeria is still battling with today.
So, aside from the fact that Chief Falae could possibly not have known about others; he would know, judging by the introduction and implementation of SAP, that an individual can set into motion a process which may go beyond the individual, which would account for Jonathan PDP’s desperation to “capture” the South West so it can give him complete political control of the south which will enable him to pursue any agenda that catches his fancy.
If we are then to believe Chief Falae on Jonathan not approaching him for a third term agenda; Chief Falae’s actions certainly lend credence to the moves. So, what then are these actions?
Limiting these to the conference recommendations, these are some of the achievements enumerated by the chief: “States can now create employment and develop their own states. Each state can have its own constitution, its own police force, can have its own prison service, can create its own local governments and in addition, in the economic domain, solid minerals that had been the exclusive preserve of the federal government since independence, have now been brought to the concurrent list”.
So now, in 2014, Chief Falae is touting, as an achievement, states having their own constitutions when 50 years ago, each of the Regions had their own Constitutions as a direct result of anti-colonial efforts and based on their social, cultural and economic priorities and these Constitutions were not dependent on the Independence or Republican Constitutions—qualities which are all absent in this new found Jonathanian constitutionalism; for these Jonathanian “state Constitutions” would lack the essential ingredient of Constitutionalism which is its economic foundation; for a Constitution is not simply a set of articles or legal codes, but the reflection of socio-economic and political relationships which such a Constitution seeks to mediate. Thus, when this economic basis is truncated via the denial of Resource Control, the foundation of such a constitution reduces it to only a set of regulations, just so a predetermined end would be achieved by its mere existence. Which makes Chief Falae’s achievement to be what the Yoruba would call “gba je n’simi”; a sort of kiddie candy pacification.
Besides, states are already creating employment and developing their own states. Chief Falae was one of Mimiko’s supporters and promoters in Ondo State and one of his reasons was that Mimko was developing Ondo State. If that was true, certainly Mimiko was doing all of that without a National Conference or State Constitution, or even Resource Control and derivation. So, what has now changed such that a national Conference is now needed for development? Unless the Chief is telling us that there is more than meets the eye on this Jonathan conference, or he was merely “playing politics” with his endorsement of Mimiko.
And to play the religious card, Chief Falae had to bring in his Christianity, as if his being a Christian affords him the capability of absolute knowledge of everything by saying “no one was trying to influence anyone”; yet his introduction of religion into the discourse, even without being asked, tallied completely with how Jonathan has introduced same into national discourse which means, even without a direct relationship as alluded to earlier, the inter-connectedness of their position is telling. Thus, when he said “the president left us to do our work”; it is the same president whom Tony Nyiam, a conference delegate appointed by the Presidency and who was also a member of the Femi Okurounmu-led consultative committee openly referred to, saying “no one would set up such a conference without a pre-conceived agenda” and the way these Yoruba leaders are going about it simply proves that they are the president’s puppets while he remains the master puppeteer; for he would have no reason to interfere when his “men” are available.
Chief Falae was economical with the truth when he stated that the Yoruba did not achieve Regionalism because “there was opposition from all over Nigeria”. Everyone knows the position of the North as far as restructuring of Nigeria is concerned. To now come around, after the conference, to blame the same North for failure to achieve Regionalism is to take us for fools. Besides, Chief Falae was a co-convener and a signatory to the communique of the “Southern Alliance” Conference, held in Calabar shortly before the commencement of the Conference where Regionalism was the top choice. Where then did he get the idea that there was “opposition all over Nigeria” and then cited the same “South” among such “opposition”? It is therefore not true for Chief Falae to say that “overwhelming majority was against Regionalism”. What is true is that these people have sold out completely and they should have no place in Yoruba political trajectory except to be recognized as Jonathan foot soldiers.
Chief Falae would then tout these “achievements” as constituting constitute 75% of “what they wanted”, which can only mean they obviously consider 75% of inferiority as being preferable to 25% of substance.
The reason why Nigeria’s Constitutions are always obeyed in the breach is because they are simply “pieces of paper”; for such Constitutions, including the 1963 Republican and Second Republic Constitutions, were not organic to the society that produced them. They were mere amendments and addendums to what other societies have produced; often manipulated to satisfy certain subjective criteria; whereas the constitutions they copied from were borne out of organic interactions within those societies and which makes all the difference in their citizens’ approach to the document.
Because this “new” constitution is alienated from the society in which it is to operate, all what can happen and is happening in Nigeria is that no one feels an intimate relationship with the document such that it elicits an atmosphere of awe and respect. Rather, what we have is an atmosphere of manipulation which is why they are always so bulky such that it appears the documents are produced for babies.
And as has become customary for these Afenifere leaders, Chief Olu Falae brings up the issue of referendum, and once again, it will be emphasized and repeated, Nigeria does not have a credible census, thus a credible referendum is impossible. Besides, even if it is agreed that States are the Federating Units, it can only follow that each state must have its own referendum as a potential Federating Unit and not a reverse, single pan-Nigerian referendum as being canvassed by these Afenifere people, for Nigeria cannot be its own Federating Unit; otherwise this exercise would be the civilian equivalent of the military’s creation of states and declaring them as “Federating Units” while also emphasizing the unitary nature of the Nation-State by pretending to be “Federal” which the military had always held us to ransom with. Having each state-as-a-federating-unit will allow such states to agree or disagree on their “federation” where the Conference recommendations may constitute the “terms of union” which may or may not be rejected. Otherwise, such a referendum is only aimed at promoting a political agenda having nothing to do with Restructuring or Federalism.
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin


Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele turned living history, with living witnesses, on its head, when she declared that Bola Ahmed Tinubu, “contrary to what everybody was thinking, was not financing NADECO because he did not have any money when he became Governor”. NADECO existed long before Tinubu became Governor, so ordinarily his not having money when he became governor ought to have nothing to do with financing NADECO especially when Tinubu had never claimed to be NADECO’s sole financier. But there are living witnesses to the fact that he was a major financier. This is what happens when a group like Afenifere wants to cut its nose in order to spite its face. Fortunately, it is its nose and not the Yoruba nose.
Which is why she would be making spurious claims both on the past and present and in the end, contradict herself, where, for example, she claimed, on the one hand, Tinubu had people who backed him to become Governor(as if no one backed her own push), that “most of us(them) had spent all of our money in the struggle and therefore didn’t have money to fight for elections and that it was those who had the wherewithal that were selected”—when she had just stated that Tinubu also had no money; so how come he was selected and she was not?
Furthermore, that they all left AD and had to go elsewhere, using Tinubu as the excuse by his “taking over” the AD to the detriment of the founders, show their severe limitations; for, as founders, “elsewhere” was another opportunity which was squandered by their being absorbed into an existing formation, particularly a formation that had also neutralized its own founders in Yorubaland which then enabled their own claim to leadership.
For Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele, the electorate is now to be blamed for the monetization of elections as if the electorate determines the parameters for electioneering when they are actually victims of it. For monetization of elections is a form of rigging which emanates from an unpopular attempt at seizing political power. Usually, since the 60’s, the unpopular UPP/NNDP/NPN had sought to gain power though this methodology, proving false the claim that rigging is possible only where the party is popular, whereas the attempt at rigging itself is an admission of unpopularity.
In an attempt to take Yorubaland into an alliance with the center, a similar scenario is playing itself out where the PDP of which Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele is now embedded tried to leave no stone unturned in its attempt at capturing Yorubaland which led her to deny militarization of elections, saying she saw no military personnel near any polling booth while watching her TV , yet INEC itself said over 100 members of its own staff were illegally detained by the same military that Buckor-Akerele did not see on TV.
“Law and order” presupposes that law enforcers must, ab initio, obey certain rules and regulations of behavior in their conduct. When such enforcers violate their own rules, their function is no longer about “law and order” but intimidation and that was what happened in Ekiti and Osun.
Further justification of this attempt saw Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele absolving Goodluck Jonathan from current problems bedeviling Nigeria, saying these problems were there before Jonathan became President without admitting that Jonathan need not compound them; for the only reason Jonathan would want to be president was to ensure those existing problems were resolved while blocking possibilities of others coming up.
However when these problems are aggravated and compounded by his presence in office, he becomes the problem and not his predecessors. It is an insult on our intelligence if his failure is now laid at the doorstep of his predecessors in office, which Bucknor-Akerele is now doing.
And if Jonathan’s solution, according to Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele, is in the changes supposedly made though his conference, the question will be exactly what those changes are, aside from the fact that it took him almost six years in office before calling for such conference. Hence, for the conference’s solutions now ascribed to Jonathan which include the increase in the number of states to 54 with an unchanged allocation where the states rely on the center for their existence, having no control over their resources; state policing where any state that can finance it can set one up—such financing based on the same allocations and control by the center; merging of states after being divided up which raises the question of the division in the first instance, when all that would have been required is to allow the current states to merge or retain the zones as federating units and determine the parameters to take care of the minorities in each zone; the centralization of all elections in a supposedly federal set-up, where a local government cannot organize its own elections even when such a local government is directly created by the State Government; and many more.
If, therefore, as Bucknor-Akerele says, the “Northern leaders do not want any change in Nigeria” and with the Conference resolutions above, definitely Jonathan and his PDP also do not want any change. And if we accept the need for a new Constitution, it follows that such requirement would have been determined, ab initio; for the NASS has its own constitutional amendment already in place and the conference decisions can only be tabled alongside it as an addendum or at best, an alternative.
However, for those of us who are of the view that the Conference has not provided a solution, there exists an opening: the Jonathan conference was held without a formal, NASS backing; hence nothing stops any nationality from having its own conference without such formal NASS backing. And if NASS will consider Jonathan’s Conference resolutions, it must also consider any other resolution submitted to it by other parties. NASS cannot reject such other resolution while considering Jonathan’s, unless NASS is telling us that we, the people, do not matter, in which case, it will be up to the Nationality to pursue the issue beyond NASS.
Taking that route will resolve the issue of who decides on a new Constitution. Jonathan’s Conference was not a Constitution-making body even as it may have the option of presenting what it considers to be a new Constitution; hence the only arbiter would be a Referendum by the Constituents. Because Nigeria does not have a reliable census and because the states (new and old) are part of the current zonal structure, any referendum would have to be based on the zones and conducted by the zones. It is only when all the zones have agreed to re-form Nigeria that a pan-Nigerian Constitutional Referendum would be acceptable and that will be after the Constituents have decided what their concept of Nigeria is.
A pre-existing Nigeria, which needs a surgical operation for survival cannot at the same time be the foundation for the new Nigeria. Thus, we have to go back to the drawing board, that is, the amalgamation of the different peoples and what such had cost us. The various peoples know themselves and they are the only ones capable of determining how a new relationship with others can endure and under what conditions. A referendum on and in Nigeria is a referendum for, or against amalgamation and its current consequences.
For the umpteenth time, Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele is telling us that the report of the Conference should be” spelt out, translated, published in the newspapers, announce, televise and hold discussion sessions everywhere”, she forgot to add that even before the Conference, these were carried out through similar means, where the people had already decided what they wanted—these decisions did not form part of the modalities for the Conference, as stated by Femi Okurounmu who midwifed these sessions neither were they part of the Conference deliberations itself. So, the fact that these sessions, in whatever format, took place does not imply their acceptability, which means the only acceptable format is for each of the zones to formally declare its wants and needs through their own referendum which will make it impossible for anyone else to have them shortchanged.
Whitewashing Goodluck Jonathan by excusing him on the Boko Haram insurgency and anchoring it on a need for “careful planning”, Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele ignored the expose by the Australian negotiator, Stephen Davis, to whom Jonathan gave all logistical support, that Jonathan could not claim ignorance of Boko Haram’s strategy and tactics and that these Boko Haram’s fighters’ convoys are usually visible while on their way to their missions and he could not understand why they were not usually attacked at such moments whilst also mentioning Lt Gen Ihejirika, the former Chief Of Army Staff and former Governor of Borno State, Ali Modu Sheriff as Boko Haram’s backers, even as Jonathan had admitted, while Ihejirika was the COAS, that Boko Haram is in his government.
If then, as Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele says, Jonathan cannot simply rush in and rescue the abducted girls, he, at least, could ensure that his government is not compromised. By Jonathan’s own admission, not only is his government compromised, but also Andrew Azazi, the NSA who initially blew the whistle on Boko Haram politics inside the PDP was unceremoniously neutralized via a helicopter crash. And Andrew Azazi should know, being a member of the inner caucus. To all intents and purposes, therefore, Jonathan’s government is neck deep in the Boko Haram insurgency which would be why he is unable to do anything about it aside from the fact that it serves his own political purposes.
And so, as the chief security officer and commander-in-chief, if his officers under him could not come up with a good plan to “ensure the security and rescue of the girls”, as Kofoworola Bucknor-Akerele would want us to believe, those officials would have no business continuing being in government, for by saying they could not come up with any credible or reasonable plans means that other plans that could be utilized are out there or Jonathan himself has a superior plan in mind and there must be a process in place where such a superior plan is to be executed. So far, there is no indication that this is taking place. Unless he has agreed with both Generals Babangida and Obasanjo, who, as former presidents and Commanders-in-Chief, have recently declared their readiness to don their uniforms again, so as to assist in resolving the security issue. The question then will be whether both generals would have to obey their new Commander-in-Chief or Jonathan would have to make way for them to assume the title themselves as a joint responsibility, even as Goodluck Jonathan is now blaming General Babangida of deliberate underdevelopment of the military in favor of “regime protection”.
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin



Professor Bolaji Akinyemi’s testimony on Goodluck Jonathan’s Conference, of which he was the Deputy Chairman, rested on his idea that “there is nothing called true federalism; that each federal system is designed to address the peculiarities of the country, which, according to him, is why the Canadian Federalism is different from the Swiss one; the American is different from the French. Germany runs a federal structure, with each having its own peculiarity”. He ended by patting the Conference on the back saying they “reversed what looked like not just a trend, the rush towards a unification that started in 1966 and that then built up over the next 50 years, into a more structured federalism.”
The different forms of Federalism mentioned by Professor Akinyemi have a common denominator, the Constituent, defined by its socio-cultural parameters, without which they will not be Federal, hence true, whatever their form— and these are not “feeding bottle federalism”, as stated by Nigeria’s Deputy Senate President, where the Constituents are not only defined by the center, they exist at its mercy. For Professor Akinyemi, there “is” a Nigerian “federal state” from which certain issues were taken from the federal government and sent back to the states. But these states did not give away anything in the first instance; they were not even borne out of the free will of its residents; they were created by military fiat and made to submit to military diktat, hence it is false for Professor Akinyemi to now allude to that situation as a form of “giving back” to the states what they never gave away.
In the countries listed by Professor Akinyemi, the issue of the Constituent was settled as the foundation for their Federalism such that what he now calls “peculiarities” of those societies are simply the characteristics of the Constituent; where, in the US, it was the original colonies, as the Constituents, becoming States after independence with their socio-cultural attributes intact , which settled for a form of territorial Federalism; in Germany, the Constituents were the Ethno-National Germanic peoples in their natural geo-political boundaries while the Canadian Constituent is a combination of former British and French colonies whereas for France, “Federalism” was not a movement for a particular political solution but an object of definition for the resistance, coming especially from the provinces against Paris, where Jacobinism held sway. At no time was “federalism” in France a function of the nature of its Republic. Switzerland, we all know, is as much Ethno-National as it was territorial.
In all of these instances, the issue of the Federating, Constituent Unit was not treated as simply a matter of administrative convenience based on an existing structure; for their Federalism is a negation of that structure, which turned an American colony into an independent State with its own relationship with other former colonies through what is now recognized as Federal, which was why the preamble to the US Constitution started by looking forward to a “more perfect union”, thus making Federalism a process of rebirth, not only of the Nation State, but of its cultural essence in order to engender the coming into being of the Constituents and which can also be seen from all of the examples given by Professor Akinyemi; hence he cannot therefore ascribe a peculiarity to any of these outside the context of their Constituents’ pursuit in order to apply some form of peculiarity to Nigeria.
Up until 1966, each of the initial three regions were essentially based on the ethno-cultural and natural characteristics with control over their resources, with the possibilities of creating more Regions as initially envisaged before being truncated by military fiat and continued as such. So, if there were to be any peculiarities in Nigeria, it would be in strengthening that Federal system by ensuring the smaller minorities their autonomy without touching the derivation principle and this was not done by the Conference.
In any case, this “giving back” was also what the UK did to Scotland and Wales when it devolved powers to them and the UK is not Federal. So, taking powers away from the center and giving it to the states is not Federalism but at best devolution and in devolution, what is given can also be taken away by the giver. Federalism is the exact opposite where such powers are voluntarily surrendered by the Federators who must exist before a Federation comes into being and where any peculiarities may now influence the form.
So, saying that “taking some powers from the Federal government to the states, immunity, separation of office of Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, having a functional navy, issues of employment, youth, state Constitutions after the existence of the Federation, etc are all derivatives of Nigeria’s Federalism is to turn the concept on its head.
All of these issues are actually functions of the social, political and or economic philosophy that may be propounded and pursued by any government in power for its own sustenance or for the sustenance of the Nation State which may or may not have anything to do with its structure, be it Federalism or Unitarism. In Nigeria, the immunity clause was introduced by the military regime to protect itself and which was found useful by successive civilian administrations, as such it has nothing to do with Federalism but more with accountability and transparency which even unitary States like the UK pursue since it is vital to its economic health.
In the Truly Federal first republic, Federalism was based on the fact that each of the Constituents had control over its resources such that their various governments can pursue economic objectives according to its own situation because it is in control of its resources, hence an AG government in the West could devise ways to maximize production and income from Cocoa world market and use its proceeds for whatever it considered a matter of high priority like either labor wages or education; a process which was neutralized during the military Federalism of Babangida, just as the same Babangida Federal administration created the office of the Director-General as a replacement for Permanent Secretary, without a Conference and it was still under Nigeria’s “federalism”.
Even if it is argued that states could play similar roles as Constituents in Professor Akinyemi’s Federation, the essential point, control of resources by the Constituent, is missing; so in his type of “Federalism” without this fundamental fact, a “return to the independence constitution” is impossible and the Conference’s 600 resolutions become mere administrative intendments.
In the world today, Ethno-National Federalism is in the forefront of political discourse in the Middle East, the UK to Spain to Asia to South Sudan, as a solution the contradictions of the modern Nation State as it applies to the crises facing them; yet we have, in Nigeria, an attempt to veer away from such a global phenomenon more-so when it is very apparent that the National Question is the basis for all of the conflicts in the country, and fifty years from now, when the issue would have been globally settled, Nigeria will then try to come out of its own self-inflicted “dark ages” after wasting generations of her most productive persons.
Professor Akinyemi glorifies the return to the “old national anthem” because, according to him, it reflects demilitarization. But this old anthem was about “tribes”—if in 2014, ethno-nationalities in Nigeria, some whose population are bigger than many countries in Europe that initially defined us as “tribes” are still considered as “tribes”—what is the jubilation about?
Glorifying “tribes” in 2014 by such a conference and regarding it as demilitarization is to sentence us to further militarization for that was exactly how colonial militarization constructed us. Yes, the military is the primary agent for de-federalizing Nigeria which starts from the nature of the Nation State that came into being through the militarization process—which we all know as the scrapping of the Regions and replaced by the states while taking away their ownership and control of their resources and banking it at the Center. When the 12 states were created in 1967, it followed largely the Regional pattern earlier advocated by the AG and subsequently after the war, derivation was done away with and the military assumed absolute control over the resources, which formed the basis for what we now have as “feeding bottle” federalism.
If therefore, we are to federalize, the foundation of such de-federalization must be rebuilt. It is not possible to simply tamper with such foundation in a cosmetic manner and pat ourselves on the back as having achieved federalization; otherwise what we are being told is that we are incapable of such redefinition in the context of our historical experience and existentialism but can only remain at the level of emotion which was what colonialism proposed and popularized by Senghor’s negritude; which essentially says the African is ruled by emotion and not reason.
Which would be why Professor Akinyemi would rail against what Cameroon is “doing to us” proposing that we should be more assertive and not apologetic when, at this critical juncture in world history, peoples of other lands are re-discovering their essence, so much so that the UK that carved us out is unraveling under our noses and where there are now calls for Federalism of the various Nations(not tribes) in the UK in the event of a No vote in the Scottish referendum on September 18 and here we have a congregation of Nigerians supposedly working out modalities for Nigeria’s greatness and all what they could come up with is the admiration and preference for the old national anthem as if things happening in other parts of the world are immaterial and we are expected to thank Goodluck Jonathan for that.
Rather than Professor Akinyemi decry the neighbors’ attitude, such a conference ought to have been the basis for advancing True Federalism on the African Continent rather than berating one country or the other as to what it is or is not doing to us; for at the foundation of every crisis in Africa is the problem associated with the National Question vis-à-vis the Nation State, one way or the other; and to demilitarize in Nigeria is to decolonize by changing the nature of the colonially-inspired Nation State which had been Africa’s albatross. Even if this seems too far out for other African countries, a template would have been created which can be utilized later-at least a contribution to the search for peaceful co-existence in Africa would have been made.

Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin



In an interview published on Monday, August 25, 2014 by the Nigerian Tribune, Afenifere Elder, Sir Olaniwun Ajayi made some intriguing points, some of which require further interrogation. He was asked about the allegation of AD giving “choice offices” to people Afenifere elders did not “know”. His response was that it was true that they did not “know” many of those people given “choice offices” which was against their practice as such decisions are supposed to be made based on their “knowledge of the person” where such a person is recognized for his/her service.
Since “knowing” someone is a reflection of the person’s “service”, its particular context becomes imperative, which context may or may not flow from a previous experience; hence the fact that an Adefarati was “known in those days” did not mean that in these days, others cannot be “known”; for both times do not exist pari passu and sometimes they can even exist outside each others’ frameworks; which would mean that being “known” is very subjective and may be prone to errors of fundamental and historical magnitude.

Being “known”, therefore can only be expressed through their works in reference to the challenges posed at particular times within the context of the general pursuit as each historical juncture will necessarily produce its own actors, because the quest is a continuum until it is achieved as a particular goal which will immediately create a new set of contradictions requiring a new set of interactive parameters; unless Afenifere Elders want to sentence us into a frozen time-space where everything worthy is judged and defined by a particular, subjective, experience.
From here is but a short step towards opportunism where the ego of the leader(s)/Elder(s) will be promoted in such a manner that successive leaders would have to emerge from the ego massagers who would then substitute themselves as the “organization” thus inherently limiting the ability of the actual organization to relate with emerging realities which may even be more complex than what had hitherto been experienced. This was what brought about the “personality cult” syndrome of the one-party states, largely communist, and in some cases in Africa, but which relied on such “knowing”, having passed the “loyalty” test.
All of these had to do with the substitution of a philosophy for the organization, where the philosophy becomes the organization and the organization becomes an end in itself, hence a presumed loyalty to the organization—which is now referred to as “knowing” will be enough to gain acceptability; similar to the experience of the erstwhile Communist one-party states where their communist state apparatus supposedly embody the communist philosophy. Yet, different persons could subscribe to the same or similar philosophy without being members of the same organization pursuing that philosophy; unlike when it was deemed possible for different philosophies to co-exist in Afenifere, even when it has claimed to be a socio-cultural organization pursuing a particular interest, that is, it is not a political party, which is normally a grouping of different, sometimes contradictory interests, which made the organization become palatable to the PDP.

Which was why Sir Olaniwun Ajayi would respond to the question as to the reasons for Bola Tinubu’s conflict with Alhaji Dawodu by saying Alhaji Dawodu was a loyal party man since the AG days who accepted whatever decisions the party asked of him and Bola Tinubu wanted to remove such a man as party chairman, even after he, Sir Olaniwun Ajayi went, three times, to “beg” Tinubu to leave Alhaji Dawodu alone. When pressed further on any particular reason for Bola Tinubu’s insistence, he said there was “no reason”.
It is surprising that a political fight of such magnitude would be fought for “no reason” and that Sir Olaniwun Ajayi would leave his house, on three different occasions, to go and “beg” Tinubu; all for “no reason”? Be that as it may, the Afenifere Elders have made their choice to fight Tinubu to the finish, and they should be able to live with its consequences, part of which is already playing out in Afenifere’s subservience to an external force bent on capturing Yorubaland.
Afenifere Elders’ inability to realize this led it to jump from one political experience to another and without a firm root anywhere, unlike its much-vaunted links with the Action Group which makes one to wonder why it was and still is impossible for the products of the AG to create and maintain a political party in that mold, even within present circumstances, instead of what they now do via transitioning from one party to the other.
Sir Olaniwun Ajayi was a prominent actor in the DPA which went into oblivion after its 2007 defeat in Lagos State. Its candidate, Jimi Agbaje, was and is “known” having served Afenifere substantially. The question then is, why, since 2007, has the DPA failed to root itself, even if only in Yorubaland and even if only as a counter to Bola Tinubu? And then the Elders’ migration into “supporting” Gbenga Daniel in his PDP days all the way to the Labor Party and the “son” in Jimi Agbaje now back in the PDP; in all of these, it was not a question of the DPA retaining its core and entering into any form of working relationship or alliance or merger. The DPA simply folded up and acquiesced in the replacement of its supposed original aims with its alignment with a center that has bastardized Federalism. Yet, the Bola Tinubu they are fighting, and who was not “known” retained his AD/AC/ACN/APC core, with any necessary transformation through working relationships, mergers, alliances etc till date.
The defining issue between the two, as they both claim their origins in the AG, would be the quest for True Federalism, which was AG’s prime concern. To all intents and purposes, when Goodluck Jonathan was to begin his Conference, the ACN Governors in Yorubaland made formal proposals as to what they mean by True Federalism, which included the core issues of Parliamentary System, Regionalism, Derivation, all of which constitute the core of Federalism and without which Federalism cannot be said to exist.

It was in Sir Olaniwun Ajayi’s house in Isara that Segun Mimiko led the charge against all of the above by proposing “states as Federating Units” and not touching Resource Control, as it were; and we are now being told to accept the increase in states to 54 without their corresponding control of resources as Federalism. Afenifere as an organization reinforced this aspect which even ran counter to what the AG proposed and acted upon and which led to the conspiracy against it. And when Sir Olaniwun Ajayi withdrew from the Conference, it took Afenifere a long time to have Sir Ajayi’s suggested replacement in the person of Supo Sonibare to attend. Supo Sonibare came into the Conference on the day it was folding up. He came to “grace” the conclusion, after the hair had been barbed in his absence.
When therefore, Sir Olaniwun Ajayi castigates the APC alongside the PDP without giving us the benefit of an alternative—for it is not enough to state what we are against, we must be able to state what we are for—it was a reflection of the limitations of the choices of the Elders, especially their not being able to, so far, create an alternative but have only subsumed themselves under the center which would be why these parties are compared with the AG without telling us how a Party like the AG would come into being, especially when all of their “knowns” are now in the PDP , which amounts to wanting a breathing space for the PDP, which would be why it had to be placed alongside APC for condemnation.
Yet, everyone in Nigeria, including the PDP President knows that the Party is “not it” otherwise it will not be going around militarizing everything in sight; hence the APC had to be corralled in as equally responsible. But the APC is not in charge of the Federal Government, so it cannot be held responsible for the irresponsibility of that Federal Government, it cannot be held responsible for the looming military helplessness in confronting terrorism; it cannot be held responsible for the missing billions from NNPC; it cannot be held responsible for the invasion of Yorubaland by armed and masked terrorists aided and abetted by the PDP—and the list could go on.
And if they want to reduce the issue to their being both corrupt, we have instances where a Democratic Governor in the State of Illinois, US was convicted for corruption while the erstwhile Republican Governor of the State of Virginia, US is also facing similar charges. Would it then be correct to then say there is no difference between the Democrats and Republicans because their Governors are adjudged to be corrupt?
Yet, in the Yoruba States under APC Governments, the difference between them and previous PDP regimes is very clear so much so that some of the PDP Governors that previously ran those states have come to realize their mistakes and left that party and did not contend with the APC; while those PDP members who wanted to contest the political space with APC are doing so via a process of enforcement which shows their culpability in the deliberate underdevelopment of the Region. On what basis then, is it to be concluded that “both” APC and PDP are “the same”? Making APC a “partner” in PDP’s crimes is an attempt at whitewashing both the crime and the criminal.
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com

By adminadmin



Segun Mimiko’s formal return to his erstwhile PDP brings to full realization Bertolt Brecht’s statement on “the solution” to wit “…Would it not be easier in that case for the government to dissolve the people and elect another”? For how will the people be dissolved, aside from massive crackdown as witnessed in Hitler’s Berlin, China’s Tienanmen or Egypt’s Rabaa Square massacres, if not by utilizing armed and hooded mercenaries to intimidate the same people in order to impose a preferred candidate on them; militarization of election so much so that the states were inundated with the presence of massive military personnel armed to the teeth; members of the opposition hounded and clamped into jail for the duration of the election; a generalized state of fear created just so the candidate would have a “smooth” ride to victory; all of these outside constitutional provisions where even the centrally controlled electoral agency, INEC found its voice and condemned the militarization of the election. All of these, and more, are today’s manifestations of the Center’s modus operandi at corralling all opposition in the country, and especially the Yoruba Nation, into its vortex. If Afenifere could be an enabler of all of the above when it is not yet in power in the center, what it will do when it gets such power is better left to the imagination.
But what has Segun Mimiko got to do with all of these?
Unconfirmed reports say that Segun Mimiko has been promised at least the VP slot when Jonathan eventually “decides” not to run; a promise which was the basis for his returning to the PDP. It was thus not surprising that Segun Mimiko was the point-man for what has now become the recommendations of Jonathan’s Conference. It was in Isara that Segun Mimiko first flew the kite of continuing with the current system with some modifications based on the current states as “federating units”. This had been the fundamental decision that was taken at the conference to scuttle True Federalism; for once these states are assumed to be the “federating units”, there will be no need to change from the “feeding bottle federalism” to Resource Control and Derivation, for the current states exist only because of these allocations.
Furthermore, when we are told these states, now increased to 54 could merge, the sinister motive behind the move becomes obvious, especially when these states will still depend on allocations. The necessity for their being broken up is not self-evident in the first instance, for the current states could merge and then, within themselves, decide what administrative parameters is best for them. But now,some of the newly created states would have their loyalty and allegiance to Abuja and would hence resist any merger; which is a possibility for a State like Ondo, which is an oil producing State and had, under Segun Mimiko, determined that other Yoruba are “foreigners” and would thus have no business with such foreigners likely to partake in its oil wealth. It will thus be possible for an Ondo State to retain the benefits of being an oil producing state without being hamstrung by other Yoruba States in the event of a merger.
Segun Mimiko is the de facto Afenifere leader supposed to use the Labor Party to usher in a “third force” to liberate Yorubaland from the assumed grip of the PDP and APC, both of which we are told, are not different; without saying that if there is no difference, there would be no need for a choice. Having now gone over to the PDP, that makes Afenifere a PDP platform; for there is no longer any pretense as to its “non-partisanship” since all of its leaders are already in the PDP, where its absorption of Chief Olu Falae’s SDP is only a matter of time.
Taking the Action Group as its source, what we now know as Afenifere came into our consciousness during the Abacha days, when quite a few former members of the AG came together to deliberate on a platform in order to engage the military such that by the time a name was to be chosen for the organization, Chief Bola Ige suggested “Afeniferere”(to distinguish it from the earlier Afenifere) but was over-ruled and Afenifere was chosen instead. Chief Bola Ige’s foresightedness came into play when the military retreated and enabled an electoral process, hence Afenifere saw itself as AG’s natural successor, whereas it omitted a major aspect of such transition, which was that the AG was not simply a transmutation of the Egbe Omo Oduduwa but was completely separate, even with a level of cooperation which enabled the then Ooni and Alake to play significant roles in the Government of the Western Region.
The Egbe Omo Oduduwa had defined itself in its Constitution as an essential agent of Yoruba Nationalism and proponent of a Federal Nigeria within the context of the then anti-colonial struggles. As it was not a political party and the anti-colonial struggles, at a certain point, had to be fought under party banners, the Egbe did not simply transform into a political party as most of its members teamed up and formed the AG as the political party of decolonization. Those who did not, remained members of the Egbe before the Egbe itself slowly became moribund. And of course, in order to sell the AG to the people, a Yoruba definition had to be found for it. That definition was Egbe Afenifere. Afenifere thus was never an organization but its philosophical/ideological description.
Thus, the Egbe was anti-colonial in outlook and in practice was in support of the Government run by the Action Group; even when the AG was being persecuted by the then emerging Akintola faction ably supported by the NPC/NCNC Alliance; the Egbe stood its ground. It did not collapse itself into the emerging alliance.
Can Yorubaland, today, say the same thing for Afenifere, now collapsed into the PDP? What we experienced in the States of Ekiti and Osun elections, supported by Afenifere as a political necessity had the imprimatur of the methodologies historically employed by the Center in enforcing its choices on the rest of the country; hence, the alliance between the NCNC(East) and the NPC(North) in the first republic which saw to the illegal and unconstitutional declaration of the State of Emergency in the Western Region all in order to neutralize the AG aside from the collaboration between the two that saw to the creation of the Mid-West out of the Western Region without the simultaneous creation of the Calabar-Ogoja-Rivers Region out of the Eastern Region and the Middle Belt Region out of the North, which, had this been actualized, would have negated the then unfolding scenario that led to the Nigeria-Biafra war.
From this, alone, it was clear that all what the coalition wanted was to neutralize the Political party(AG) that was the champion of the creation of Regions and therefore, freedom and justice, for the minorities and the rest of the country.
In the second republic, the same alliance played out, where, even with the war-time creation of states for the minorities, the centralized political leadership ended up with the NPN-successor to the NPC and the NPP-successor to the NCNC, again forming an alliance to perpetuate themselves in power and orchestrated the 1983 “moon-slide” which was the backdrop for the attempt to create a movement of opposition forces, especially in the North and West, with sprinklings from the East, slowly leading to a possible uprising and which the military checkmated in its December 31, 1983 coup.
In the “third republic” midwifed by the military, the fact that its presidential election was won by a Yoruba from the South West, by the same person, who, in 1983 had been told in no uncertain terms that the “presidency is not for sale”, led to the same military truncating his election, now known as “June 12”; this time, reportedly led by a Middle Belt Officer who is now the Senate president and who also played a key role in the emergence of Goodluck Jonathan as Acting President with a curious “Doctrine of Necessity” whose contents are still shrouded in secrecy.
Yet, in these times, when there was an attempt at rectifying these negation of justice and Federalism, the Jonathan regime wasted no time in trying to subdue them via various illegal and unconstitutional actions in Rivers State and the lackadaisical approach to Boko Haram terrorism in the North East which was also the frontline for the emerging uprising against the NPN in the second republic, a component of which was coordinated in Kano by Abubakar Rimi, the Kano which Goodluck Jonathan attempted to throw into crisis on the issue of Ado Bayero’s succession, topped with the attempted “dissolution of the people” as witnessed in Ekiti and Osun States. To all intents and purposes, therefore, all attempts at addressing injustice in Nigeria had always been frustrated by the same central forces Afenifere is now aligned with.
That the Federalism which was the essence of Egbe Omo Oduduwa and Egbe Afenifere(AG) became neutralized by this current Afenifere with its acceptance of Jonathan’s concept of “federalism” both at the pre-Conference stage as well as the conference itself now transitioning into electoral politics, where the essential element of Federalism, derivation, was neutralized and replaced with inconsequentials anchored on “states as Federating units” and its icing on the cake being a new “pressure group” under an Ondo State Commissioner, Afenifere has not only overturned our historical paradigms but has turned itself into the agent of reaction in Yorubaland with Ondo State as its frontline. It was in Owo, now in Ondo State, that the AG(Egbe Afenifere) was proclaimed in April 1951. Will Yoruba people allow its light to be turned into darkness in the same Ondo State, courtesy Segun Mimiko, today?
Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com

By adminadmin



Jimi Agbaje, the former Afenifere Treasurer and now a potential Lagos State PDP Governorship candidate got more than what he bargained for when he visited Goodluck Jonathan to seek his support for his candidacy. As the major condition for such support, Goodluck Jonathan simply told him to pick an Igbo as his deputy. Jimi Agbaje’s response was that he will “think” about it. But while he’s doing his thinking, it is also appropriate for us to do our own thinking.
Of course, there is nothing wrong in having anyone from anywhere aspiring to be anything. But we also know that aspirations do not exist in a vacuum; they necessarily represent certain interests and when the environment in which such interest operate is not conducive to the free and fullest expression of the inherent attributes of the inhabitants, it will not be enough to simply advocate the necessity for such expression but the underlying factors that make its negation possible must be addressed. So, this is not about any form of chauvinism but the reality of our existence which cannot be denied as historical facts. And yes, facts can be used for any purpose, negative or positive, but since these categories are not in themselves neutral, it can only follow that they are useful only in circumstances of their context. What then is the context of an Igbo deputy Governor for Lagos as demanded by Goodluck Jonathan?
When the Igbo claim that their population in Lagos is 43% of the population, the question is, what census was carried out in order to arrive at such figures? When Goodluck Jonathan, in 2011, openly stated that the Yoruba are a minority in all the Yoruba States, on what basis was that statement made? Since there is no verifiable basis for such claims, it can only follow that there is an underlying motive for such.
Since the beginnings of the anti-colonial struggles, the Igbo have always claimed that Lagos is a “no man’s land” in spite of oral and written historical records to the contrary; till today, the Igbo still claim that the AG “rigged” Azikiwe out of the 1951 Western Regional elections, in spite of the evidence to the contrary; the Igbo blame Awo for all sorts of things during the Nigeria-Biafra War, in spite of evidence to the contrary; hence, to all intents and purposes, there is an animus by the Igbo against the Yoruba which center on our different interpretations of Nationalism and Decolonization; where the Igbo had initially pursued a unitarist agenda based on a denial of the multi-cultural nature of the colony.
Meanwhile Awo had already understudied the decolonization process in other parts of the world and came up with Federalism as the solution for a multi-cultural and multi-lingual country and which was one of the reasons for the NCNC/NPC gang-up against him and by extension, the Yoruba Western Region. The gang-up was possible because both the North and the East were aspirants as successors of British rule based on a Unitarian philosophy which was opposed by the AG.
Fast forward to the present, all of the above, now culminating in the demand for an Igbo deputy Governor as a precondition for supporting one of his foot soldiers is the context in which the political reality of aspiration is being played out; especially when the foot-soldiers have already sold out by acceding to Jonathan’s rejection of the Ethno-Nationalities as the Federating Units. By a stroke of the pen, the Ethno-Nationality is wiped out, which falls in line with the earlier non-recognition of the nationality in Azikiwe’s anti-colonialism.
Yet, it was the AG and Awo that caused the setting up of the Willink Commission to look into the question of minorities in Nigeria based on an insistence on creating their own Regions. When the same AG was in power in the Western Region, its policies were not limited to only Yoruba as beneficiaries but to all residents which made many non-Yoruba migrate to Yorubaland in order to benefit from its free education policies. When Lateef Jakande was governor under the UPN, similar experiences were recorded. They were able to do this simply because it was part of their social democratic philosophy via the instrumentality of the Egbe Omo Oduduwa and based on the core values of Yoruba existentialism which had been in existence for ages and which allowed for the tolerant attitude of the Yoruba to non-Yoruba peoples in their midst, such that even in the midst of the Nigerian-Biafran War, the Igbo who left the West returned to find their properties intact and in many cases, Yoruba collected rents on their behalf and returned such rents to the returning Igbo owners.
Thus, when some of us were shouting from the rooftops about Jonathan’s attempt at dominating and colonizing Yorubaland, we were called all sorts of names. Jonathan’s foot-soldiers in Yorubaland, to be found in Afenifere, Segun Mimiko, Gbenga Daniel and sundry organizations told whoever cared to listen that Goodluck Jonathan is the solution for Yorubaland, which, according to them, was why he flagged off the repair of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway; why he appointed a Yoruba retired general as his chief of staff and why they all followed Goodluck Jonathan in his National Conference jamboree against all reason.
These foot-soldiers aided Jonathan in following the script written by the colonial authorities in denying Ilorin and Offa as part of Yorubaland by making them submit to a plebiscite whose results would have to be approved by the pre-independence Constitutional Conference where the Northern delegates even refused to have such a plebiscite before independence thus making us lose those provinces to the North. This Jonathan’s Conference relied on similar modalities, where, of all the states it agreed to create, only the Yoruba in Kwara and Kogi States were singled out to participate in a plebiscite in order to determine where they want to belong and whose results would now be subject to approval by a Jonathan controlled National Assembly, if he would have his way of imposing himself on the country.
These foot-soldiers even excoriated Asiwaju Tinubu based on his early opposition to the kangaroo Conference. And all of this against the backdrop of the electoral machinations embarked upon by Goodluck Jonathan in his attempt at “capturing” Yorubaland and make us submissive to his whims via the resort to militarization of the elections as a mechanism to effectuate his grand designs and these Yoruba foot-soldiers wasted no time in justifying this fascist program as a necessary adjunct to democracy even to the point of saying they prefer Ijaw domination over Fulani domination.
All of the above are the results of the nature of Nigeria’s Federalism, which when brought up is always considered a settled issue, so much so that the natural boundaries of indigeneity is denied. And when Jonathan started on his National Conference journey, these Yoruba foot-soldiers were in the forefront of complete assimilation into his agenda, including, especially the definition of a Federating Unit where they promoted the notion that the States, as presently administratively configured should be the “federating unit” contrary to historical experiences as well as the socio-cultural implications of such a decision.
It is no rocket science to know that a replacement of a culture by an administrative set-up is a sure fire way of neutralizing such a culture. Taking the issue of Language as a determinant of development as an example, Yoruba Language cannot be a language of Instruction in a Yoruba State whose indigeneity has been denied. As “advanced” as Europe is, one of the major issues driving the Catalan Independence efforts (and the Flemish) is the issue of Language. The discussion on immigration in the Scottish Independence debate is based on the recognition of Scottish indigeneity through which it can formulate its relations with non-Scots who wish to reside in Scotland for whatever purpose. And if it is OK for Scotland and England to discuss issues on immigration why is it not OK for us, who were “created” by them?
Whether Goodluck Jonathan succeeds with Jimi Agbaje or not, it is very obvious that Jonathan’s PDP and his foot-soldiers are up to no good for Yorubaland and hence must be placed in the dust-heap of history where they belong. The question of a “choice” between the Fulani or the Igbo/Ijaw is neither here nor there for Yorubaland does not need to make such a choice. All we need to do is to ensure that our region Remains under our own political control, which, in this instance is the APC through which it will be possible for us to once more promote our quest for autonomy.
There are two advantages to this. First, it will allow the APC itself to navigate its way in the pan-Nigerian environment where a possible Southern APC candidate can be canvassed to oppose Jonathan. Secondly, if that is not achievable, we will still have our own political space where we can mount a defense against any shenanigans from the center.
Not all the proponents of Scottish Independence are in love with the SNP but the SNP’s electoral success as the majority party in Scottish Parliament made it possible to advance Scottish Independence to where it is today. Same thing goes for the Catalans where both Artur Mas CiU and the left wing ERC combined to lift up the Independence movement even with obstacles created by the Spanish parliament. In our own case, neither the PDP nor the SDP/UPN/LP and sundry platforms are in any way concerned about our autonomy for they are actually Jonathan’s foot-soldiers in the land and they have confirmed such. The only Party we have is the APC and we should let these foot-soldiers know that there is no vacancy for them in Yorubaland; for political control of one’s region is as important as the drive for autonomy itself. The issue is thus not what we feel about SW APC but the historical imperative of maintaining our political space for further pursuit of our autonomy as a sine qua non for our full decolonization and development.

Leye Ige

www.ooduapathfinder.com


One of the decisions of the Jonathan National Conference, which is patently anti-Federalist and a denial of one of the major achievements of the Western Region(the Yoruba Nation), is on the need for what the Conference calls “self-funding regional institutions” in order to encourage developmental efforts among cooperating states.
In the Western Region, the Action Group government created the Western Nigeria Development Corporation, which, among other things, was responsible for the industrial and economic development of the Region through the mechanism of the various industrial and residential estates as well as other economic entities. It was also directly involved in human development via the provision of educational scholarships.
When the Region was turned into Western State, as the successor entity to the Western Region, the WNDC continued its historical mission and when the State was further carved up into the three States of Oyo, Ogun and Ondo, as successor entities, the then Secretary to the Government of Western State, the late Mr.C.S.O. Akande led others to set up a holding company known as “Oodua Holdings” in order to prevent the outright collapse of the institution as such was what the then military administration in Nigeria favored. That holding company is what we now know as Oodua Investments Ltd, with all of the Yoruba successor States as shareholders.
Some of its companies went into the doldrums, especially when Nigeria’s economic policies came under the hammer of the Structural Adjustment Program, which among others, saw to the demise of the Marketing Boards, which was loudly hailed as an important element of economic liberalization but which in the end turned out to be an avenue to economic suicide via making local production unattractive and untenable because of the proliferation of imported substitutes thereby turning a formerly productive sector into an absolute consumer of imported, finished goods which also led to our political and cultural strangulation. In spite of these, some of the ventures retained their viability while some that went under are now being resuscitated by the current APC Governments in Yorubaland.
This brief excursion is to let us know that what the Jonathan Conference decided upon is nothing new as it already existed in a very functional form in Yorubaland, in spite of efforts to destroy it or take it over by interests sympathetic to the Center.
The WNDC concept was part of a political paradigm that saw to the combined and even development of a Region just emerging from colonial underdevelopment and midwifed by the Action Group as its core demand for decolonization. Whereas the Jonathan Conference denied this core political necessity in its approval of further balkanization of the Region via creation of more states which are no longer successor entities of the Western Region and giving us a sop in the form of any form of cooperation between and among the states and which cooperation is dependent upon an approval of the National Assembly.
A “self-funding economic agency” without its political basis is a non-starter, a priori; and a denial of economic self-actualization for an economic platform in a center of antagonistic political configuration is a panacea for economic failure.
When the Yoruba delegates now accept this as an “achievement”, questions are bound to arise if the negation of our past in its totality is the requirement for such achievement; for it can be said that such an issue ought not even be debated in the first instance; especially when even the Yoruba States are also currently collaborating on non-commercial economic integration via the Development Agenda for Western Nigeria and the states in the South-South Zone are already pursuing similar collaboration. By rejecting the Zones(which are the real successor entities of the former Regions) as the minimum definition of a Federating Unit and replacing it with “states”, the Jonathan Conference has denied those examples their right of self-fulfillment.
Therefore, whether “self-funding” or not, this is an area Yorubaland has gone beyond and it is a major setback for the Region if we have to submit ourselves to some scrutiny by a National Assembly controlled by Goodluck Jonathan’s political platform, especially when such an Assembly and platform have both been unable to create similar entities for the economic development of the entire country or parts of it.
Besides all of these is the fact that such an economic paradigm does not depend on contiguity of participating states and if it does, the National Assembly may as well make it a nullity as any of the States, especially when they are considered as the “Federating Units” can collaborate on any “self-funding” activity as the projected outcome will not necessarily have a cultural inference but will depend solely on its economic benefits. Thus, such collaboration does not depend on physical location as it could be financial which then reduces its socio-cultural value to the financial partner as such financial investments could be undertaken anywhere on the planet without its necessarily being a function of “regional cooperation”, self-funding or not.
Yet cultural renaissance is a fundamental function of decolonization which the current Nation State has so far proved incapable of resolving. Which is why the “modern Nation State” as conceived by the colonial and imperial powers are now falling apart all over the world, with its attendant loss of human lives mostly in countries without a colonizing background but with a “civilized” methodology in those with such background as evidenced by Scotland, Catalonia and Belgium. In the Middle East and North Africa today, what the imperial powers influenced, manifesting as the “Arab Spring” has either led to the crumbling of the Nation State in countries like Libya, Yemen or complete militarization in Egypt, Algeria and the threat of same in Tunisia. And the crumbling of similar Nation States being experienced in Iraq and Syria only to be replaced with an emerging Islamist structure is also tied to the denial of this cultural necessity.
To all intents and purposes, these Nation States embarked on some form of “self-funding” economic ventures even if it is conceded that they acted as sovereign entities, unlike what is being proposed in Nigeria. The issue is that Nigeria’s proposition is aimed at enthroning the same type of Nation State paradigm that is crumbling all over the place such that the minimum requirement for solid and peaceful solution in these countries always revert back to some form of Cultural Federalism in consonance with their specific realities; which is what is being advocated for and in all of these countries with the crumbling Nation States.
Thus, the Jonathan Conference already assumed the singularity of the geo-political space called Nigeria and all of its solutions to its problems are relegated to maintaining that singularity while turning issues of Federalism into an administrative convenience even when it is obvious that the problem is exactly in that singularity.
By acceding to this ridiculous solution, the Yoruba delegates fail to contextualize the Nigerian problem within the global context whereas that was the driving force of the Egbe Omo Oduduwa and later the Action Group in formulating its responses to the then emerging anti-colonial battles.
Chief Obafemi Awolowo drew extensively on the global parameters in arriving at the Federalist option when the anti-colonial struggle was at its peak, globally; and now, when a similar situation presents itself, Yoruba delegates to the Jonathan Conference relegated this global imperative into nothingness by allowing other forces in Nigeria to dictate what it should or should not accept thus limiting Yoruba capacity to take both the Yoruba Nation as well as the entire country itself out of the cul-de-sac of the crumbling Nation State anchored on mere reinforcement of the failing State and individual political permutations centered on what Jonathan is able or unable to achieve in his political quest for dominance.
Taking all of these into consideration with the elections in Ekiti and Osun states, it becomes glaring why a Jonathan would be so audacious to try to force his way into reckoning in Yorubaland when he had already captured what he thought were the leaders of the land, both outright fascists as well their enablers claiming Awo as their political foundation.
Having surrendered to Jonathan, there is no way they can situate themselves within the necessary paradigm of negating the Nation State as conceived by the colonial powers hence their admonition for us to accept what we can at the Conference, which was the position canvassed by Segun Mimiko of Ondo state and the Afenifere group. Apparently, “accepting what we can” is actually surrendering what we have. The Yoruba Nation cannot and will not allow these political renegades to lead us into their perdition.

www.ooduapathfinder.com

The aftermath of the Ekiti and Osun elections have brought out the full manifestation of Yoruba fascists hiding behind the mask of Yoruba autonomy and nationalism. This manifestation is predicated on the fascists’ approval of any methodology by the central government to wrest political control of Yorubaland from our current leaders in the APC, with Asiwaju Tinubu in the forefront. Among the major political actors in Nigeria, Asiwaju Tinubu was the first to query Goodluck Jonathan’s intentions as far as his National Conference is concerned. In 2011, the ACN submitted a memo to Jonathan on Restructuring after which Jonathan began to distance himself from the party and began to woo the totally reactionary political elements in Yorubaland in order to enthrone them on us as his preferred de facto leaders.
Goodluck Jonathan’s methodology consists of utilizing the Nigerian State’s military apparatus to effectuate his grand design. The Yoruba fascists latch on to this methodology since their political fortunes have nosedived and have become politically irrelevant on their own which is why they have not been able to create a political party of their own to fight their political battles, hence have to ride on the back of whoever is in power in the center.
The problem Yorubaland has with the center is in the fact that Yoruba political aspirations have been clearly defined by its social democratic essence, which, since the dawn of anti-colonial struggles, have pitted us against the center and such center had always tried to neutralize any political formation that we create to maintain our political choices through what we now refer to as “rigging”, which is actually the only way the center can have its way.
This has happened in all elections organized by the Center and when the Western Regional Government attempted to utilize similar methods in 1965, the result was the descent of Nigeria itself into unnecessary chaos. Similar scenarios manifested in subsequent elections, where, by 1983, the massive rigging employed by the central government almost led to a revolutionary, mass action, in collaboration with the alliance of opposition parties that would have overthrown the then NPN government, a situation which was saved by military intervention.
This December 1983 military intervention created the template for complete military domination of Nigeria’s politics, such that, now, the same military is being touted as the only guarantee against “rigging” or manipulation of elections. And this is what the Yoruba fascists are touting; totally oblivious of the fact that what the military is supposed to guarantee is precisely its own preference—central control of not only the West but all of Nigeria; the difference being that the West has refused to tow the center’s political choices hence it is at the receiving end of the center’s machinations.
Thus, when these fascists insist on the necessity of using the military for the security of elections, what they are saying, in effect, is that we, as a people should surrender our settled political preferences for whatever is imposed by the center. But they have forgotten that the people are able to withstand any threat of terror personified by the military as had been shown over and over again.
In Edo State, the opposition party won in spite of militarizing the electoral process. The party won, not because of the presence of the military, but in spite of it; for, prior to the election itself, Goodluck Jonathan, as he is wont to do, visited the state to campaign for his party, but the highly revered Oba of Benin shunned him in a very public manner, thus sending a message to the people that Goodluck Jonathan’s party and its candidate is not wanted. That is an expression of leadership which emboldened the people to defy any intimidation tactics of the military and trooped out to endorse their own choice.
In Ekiti State, the leadership limited its electoralism to its manifest and provable achievements in office, thinking that such, alone, is enough to withstand the coming onslaught, even when Goodluck Jonathan was in the State to threaten and blackmail the state into submission. The presence of the military witnessed massive harassment and intimidation of opposition political leaders where even the governor was told in no uncertain terms that he has no authority on the security forces on ground. Because the methodology of rigging had passed from outright ballot snatching and all other 19th century tactics, the Ekiti people were unprepared for the high-tech tactics accompanied by massive intimidation that was at play.
Having learnt its lessons, the opposition leadership made adjustments to its tactics and placed the entire electoral process in the hands of the people with the leaders playing their roles, such that by the time of the Osun election, the people were undeterred, having made known who their preference was, thus making the military tactics null.
What all of these show is that peoples’ power as a way to resist rigging must be an a-priori determination and not an issue to be left hanging; for the fascists rely on the formal structure of the central government where the military sees itself as obeying whatever command is issued to it by its own relevant authority, even when, at one time, its commander, Salihu Ibrahim once called it an army of “anything goes”. And he was right, in the sense that no one can claim ignorance of the motivations of a central government in trying to muscle the opposition out of political reckoning, especially when accompanied by the arrest and harassment of only members of the opposition.
In all of these, it is the military that will suffer continuous denting of its image as a protective force not to be respected, especially once its myth as the defender of the sovereign territory is shattered through peoples’ resistance to its being used as a completely biased electoral empire.
Such denting of image, already an experiential fact among Nigerians, is now being transferred to the anti-Boko Haram engagement where even international agencies and foreign governments have derided the military as an inconsequential participant in the effort based on not only lack of equipment, of which there is no reason; but also the military’s strategic lapses such that even the wives of those to be deployed have begun openly resisting such deployments plus the ease with which Boko Haram is not only able to embark on its bombing campaigns but now transitioned into seizing and holding territories.
When these Yoruba fascists now depend on this military for the security of its electoral choices, questions are bound to be raised as to the fascists’ real intentions for Yorubaland. Of course, because they are fascists, their intentions cannot be noble and this can be seen in the choice of their candidates as well as their justifications for the abuse of presidential powers.
Having seen the cul-de-sac which has been their lot so far, they are now trying to rebuild by recruiting those they consider as having the required, reasonable name recognition to fight the remaining electoral battles for the land. Thus the attempt to foist acceptance of militarization as a necessary adjunct to the electoral process which is a direct insult on not only our sensibilities but also on our capacity to regulate out political lives without coercion.
The quest for the control of the center has its basis on central control of resources, which was the major aim of military intervention in Nigeria’s politics and which led to the breakup of Nigeria into powerless state administrations which is now being increased from 36 to 54. As long as the center controls the revenue, so long will it be necessary for it to manipulate elections in its own favor; hence any structural change in Nigeria must revert back to what obtained pre-January 1966 with adjustments made to satisfy some areas that require such.
This, coupled with the Jonathan Conference’s acceptance of having only one central electoral commission for the entire country show clearly the fascists template for electoral control; for a single electoral commission is not only a negation of Federalism, it also gives an open check for manipulation by the central government intent on dominating the entire country.
And when this is viewed against the backdrop of the fact that the military, as an institution, with its control flowing from one faction to another, has been responsible for the negation of Nigeria’s Federalism; making such military the custodian of democratic electoral choices is tantamount to handing over the entire country to whoever is in control of the military at any point in time, which will end up making the fight for the center more dangerous and more vicious. And the Yoruba fascists would have been prime movers of this existential, Federalist anomaly. But only if we allow them to.