₦airaland Forum

goldfish80: No kidnaper will demand $1b( I mean one facking billion Ameriacan dollars!!!) I think theres a typo somewere in this post! Maybe †ђξ Op meant N1b, whch is just a chicken change fø̲̣̣я̅ †ђξ finance minister btw.

don't be an intellectual sluggard check the source - no typo

how i wish these kidnappers can demand for good governance and not corrupt currencies.

will update the post once i have additional details. thanks

The Kidnappers that Abducted 82 Years Old Mother Of Finance Minister Prof. Kanene Okonjo at their family home in Ogwashi uku, Delta state, are demanding for a whopping $1 billion ransom.
Majesty, Professor Chukwuka Aninshi Okonjo Agbogidi, the reigning Obi of Ogwashi-Uku kingdom was kidnapped Sunday at about 1:30 pm from the husband’s palace at Ogbe-Ofu quarters in Ogwahi-Uku by eight gunmen who stormed the palace in two Audi cars.

The demand for a $1billion ransom according to source was relayed to the family of the woman this morning.

Its yet to be seen how the family will react to this development, but in a statement made available to elombah.com yesterday, the minister's spokesman Paul Nwabuikwu said; "at this point, it is difficult to say whether those behind this action are the same people who have made threats against the Coordinating Minister in the recent past or other elements with hostile motives. No possibility can be ruled out at this point."

Meanwhile Umu Anioma Foundation Worldwide has demanded the immediate release Of Dr. Okonjo Iweala's Mother. In a statement made available to elombah.com and signed by Prince Charles Anyasi, the National Coordinator / Spokesman, the group said:

"Once again, the image smear on Delta State has been brought to the fore with the unfortunate kidnapping of the aged mother of Nigeria's energetic Finance Minister, Dr. (Mrs.) Ngozi Okonjo Iweala from her home in Ogwashi-Uku a few hours ago. A few months ago, it was the turn of another prominent Anioma family to sweat in search of their mother who was abducted in her farm.

"Nothing can be hurting as the current worldview of Delta State encapsulated in BBC's report of the unwholesome development, stating inter alia: Nigeria is one of the worst countries in the world for kidnapping, where it is a lucrative criminal enterprise worth millions of dollars a year.

"The crime is particularly prevalent in the oil-rich Delta State, although high-profile victims are uncommon.

"The question is; how did we get here? Whether this latest heinous act was orchestrated as a payback for the Finance Minister's principled stand on the current Oil Subsidy imbroglio or as a message to scare innocent indigenes making preparations to be with their kit and kin in this festive season, the perpetrators had better get it clear that, as Daniel Defoe would say, Justice is always violent to the party offending. Yes, the offenders may not feel the violence now, but, before long, they certainly will.

"Umu Anioma Foundation Worldwide wishes to state categorically that a situation where citizens toiling diligently for the society's positive turnaround are being punished by satanic elements can no longer be condoned. We demand the immediate and unconditional release of this old woman.

"As thousands of people get into celebration mood, many travelling to their respective home lands, we call on the security agents to beef up action and assure the public of safety.

"The time to act is now!"

More soon

http://www.elombah.com/index.php/write-for-us/13674-breaking-news-kidnappers-of-okonjo-iweala-s-mother-demand-1-billion-ransom

Whenever, Nigerians want to be dishonest on any issue they resort to circumvolution. In May 1962, when the then Governor of Western Region, Sir Adesoji Aderemi, removed the Premier of the Region from office after receiving sixty-five signatures from members of the House of Assembly stating that they no longer supported the Premier, Samuel Ladoke Akintola, the word, *IF* in the then constitution of Western Region became a very gigantic English vocabulary which neither Nigerian High Court nor Supreme court of Nigeria could interpret. The Constitution had stated that the Governor could remove the Premier from office if he was convinced that the Premier no longer had the support of the majority of Assembly men.

When Akintola challenged the decision of the Governor in the court, both the High Court and the Supreme Court resolved that the word if meant a vote of no confidence only in the floor of the House. At that time the highest court of appeal in Nigeria was Privy Council in London and Adegbenro appealed against the decision of the Supreme Court of Nigeria. Towards the end of 1963 the Privy Council decided that the word *IF* had nothing to do with how the Governor became convinced that the Premier no longer commanded the support of majority member of the House of Assembly and that the signatures were sufficient enough for the Governor to base his decision upon. By the time the Privy Council decision came, the Federal Coalition Government of NCNC (Igbo) and NPC (Hausa) had reinstated Akintola as Premier of the West and Nigeria had become a Republic, which made the Supreme Court of Nigeria the highest Court of Appeal. The Federal Coalition Government of NCNC (Igbo) and NPC (Hausa) ignored the Privy Council ruling on the *IF* interpretation on the ground, as they claim, that it had been overtaken by events. So much energy was dissipated to know what the word *IF* in the constitution meant by Nigeria’s over-educated law men who converted the Nigerian judiciary into cemetery where Justice is buried!!

The circumvolutory Nigerians are not only experts in twisting words they are also very good in twisting facts and figures. Thus, in the 1979 Presidential election in Nigeria, the world was amused with another mathematical way of approximating a decimal point, 12. 6 to a whole number when the Supreme Court of Nigeria decided to approximate two-third of nineteen to twelve and not thirteen! That mathematical fraud was committed so as to avoid second running between the two highest polling Presidential candidates, NPN’s Shehu Shagari and UPN’s Obafemi Awolowo. That was when the Nigerian judiciary descended into fertile soil where injustice is nourished and nurtured to fruition. When Nigerians want to be unjust and defraud, they remember the truth differently.

In her ‘We Remember Differently,’ Chimanmanda Ngozi Adichie, quoted from Chinua Achebe’s recent book, There Was a Country, as follows: Awolowo support for the blockade was ‘driven by an overriding ambition for power for himself in particular and for the advancement of his Yoruba people in general.’ Thereafter, Adichie complained, “I have been startled and saddened by the responses to this excerpt. Many are blindly ethnic, lacking in empathy, and most disturbing of all, lacking in knowledge. Awolowo, as de facto ‘number two man’ on the Nigerian side, was a central architect of the blockade on Biafra side. Without the blockade, the massive starvation in Biafra would not have occurred. These are facts (facts really?).” Is Achebe self not guilty of blind ethnicity when he linked the advancement of Yoruba people to the overriding ambition of Awolowo for power to rule Nigeria? The words, ‘blockade of Biafra’ have been used frivolously to accuse Awolowo of genocide, yet, Adichie and Achebe who are so knowledgeable have not been able to inform their readers about which type of blockade against Biafra he was a central architect to. Was it naval blockade, land blockade or air blockade?

Looking at the geography of Nigeria the Igbo nation is bounded in the South by the Ogoni, Kalabari and Ijaw people; in the East by Ibibio and Cross River People; in the West by the Edo people and in the North by Igala and Idoma. With this geographical reality it can be said that Igbo land is naturally landlocked within Nigeria. Therefore, the question of land blockade did not arise. There was no need to talk of naval blockade either as the sea coast areas occupied by non Igbo tribes had been liberated by the Federal forces by May 1968. In the Igbo heart land itself, Aba, Onitsha and Enugu were securely in the hands of Federal forces by mid-year 1968 and the only airport left in the rebels’ area was Uli Ihiala air strip. So the only possible blockade was by air.

Later in the article, Adichie wrote, “Some have blamed the Biafran starvation on Ojukwu, Biafra’s leader, because he rejected an offer from the Nigerian government to bring in food through a land corridor.” And Adichie justified Ojukwu’s stand with the following reasons, “It was an ungenerous offer, one easy to refuse. A land corridor could also mean advancement of Nigerian troops. Ojukwu preferred airlifts, they were tactically safer, more strategic, and could bring in much-needed arms as well.” Since Uli Ihiala airstrip, the only airfield in the rebel’s enclave was in use up to the end of the war, the blockade which Adichie earlier said, according to her opinion, was inhumane, immoral and unnecessary never existed in reality. No one, except someone who is suffering from hallucination, would interpret the statement of Awolowo that food should not be sent to the opposing soldiers so that they could fight harder, to mean the blockade of Biafra by air. What Ojukwu did in rejecting food to non combatant in his enclave was tantamount not only to hostage taking of Igbo civilians but inciting them to commit collective suicide. The crime of Ojukwu, in that wise, was far more greater than the one committed by Benito Mussolini against the Italian people between 1940 and 1945 but because Igbo people of 1970 were not as civilised as Italians of 1945, Ojukwu was able to march triumphantly on the skeletons of Igbo men, women and children he starved to death when he rejected relief supplies to civilians through a land corridor. Therefore, Adichie is partial and dishonest when she asserted that, “The policy of starving a civilian population into surrender does not merely go against the Geneva Conventions...” Firstly there was no policy of starving the civilian population in the rebel held territory as the offer of land corridor by the Federal government to supply relief materials to civilians according to Geneva Conventions was shown to have been rejected by the heartless rebel leader. Secondly, it is a deliberate misconception of facts to say that the civilian population could be starved to surrender since they bore no weapons. Only soldiers could be starved to surrender and that brings us back again to the simple common sense statement of Awolowo that food should not be sent to the opposing soldiers so that they could fight harder, which those suffering from acquired intelligence deficiency syndrome have interpreted to mean advocating the blockade of Biafra. It is false and untrue for anyone to claim that the Federal Government of Nigeria blockaded Uli Ihiala air strip which was in use throughout the war. If Uli Ihiala air strip had been blockaded, Ojukwu would not have been able to fly out from there when he deserted his soldiers to escape into exile.

I grew up, hearing from adults, versions of Achebe’s words about Awolowo, Adichie wrote. She continued, “He (Awolowo) was the one who prevented an Igbo man from leading the Western House of Assembly in the famous ‘carpet crossing’ incident of 1952. He was the one who betrayed Igbo people when he failed on his alleged promise to follow Biafra’s lead and pull the Western Region out of Nigeria.” Here again Adichie has chosen to look at the history of political developments in Nigeria through the ethnic lenses of Achebe and some adults from her Igbo tribe. Having had her mind poisoned by tribal bigots, Adichie mentioned Awolowo’s name but not the name of the Igbo man he prevented from leading the Western House of Assembly in 1952. She did not tell her readers either who the ‘carpet crossers’ were and how many they were. However, the fact of history is that the election of (actually) 1951 to the Western House of Assembly was contested not only by the NCNC led by Nnamdi Azikiwe and the Action Group Party (AG) led by Obafemi Awolowo but multiples of small parties representing towns and dialects throughout the Region. At the end of the election, AG had a very slight lead over the NCNC. In ‘Selected Speeches of Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe’ titled ZIK, the account of what happened was rendered in this manner, “A few months before the elections the Committee was announced as the Action Group... Then the party with more determination than had ever been shown in Nigerian politics began to publish policy papers and to gain ground throughout the Western Region. When the elections were over it (AG) had won a slender majority over the less-organized mass movement of the NCNC: but in less than forty-eight hours that majority had been strengthened. Comfortably, it (AG) established itself as the Government of the West... (see ZIK, pages326-327).” What swelled the majority of the Action Group was not as a result of any ‘carpet crossing from the NCNC to the AG but the declaration of support by most of the small parties for the AG. Even if he could not be leader of Western House of Assembly, Azikiwe was still a member of the House by virtue of the votes cast for him by Yoruba people despite the fact that he was an Igbo man. And very characteristic of Azikiwe who never loved to be in the opposition, he deserted his electorates in the West and returned to the East to chase out and replace the non Igbo leader of the Eastern House of Assembly, Professor Eyo Ita. Azikiwe’s election victory to the Western house of Assembly in 1951 was a fairy tale and remains so even today. On that ground I challenge Achebe and those Igbo adults referred to by Adichie to publish the results of the elections to the Western House of Assembly in 1951 as related to all the parties that participated in the election. Even if Awolowo as a Yoruba man had on the ground of his ethnic belonging prevented Azikwe, an Igbo man, from leading the Western House of Assembly would he (Awolowo) not have been acting in conformity with Azikwe’s tribal ideology? Let us read what Azikiwe said while addressing the Igbo State Assembly at Aba on Saturday, June 25, 1949, “There are twenty main dialectical regions in the Ibo nation, which can be conveniently departmentalized as Provinces of an Ibo State, to wit: Mbamili in the northwest, Aniocha in the west, Anidinma and Ukwuani in the southeast, Nsuka and Udi in the north, Awgwu, Awka and Onitsha in the centre, Ogbaru in the south, Abakaliki and Afikpo in the northwest, Okigwi, Orlu, Owerri and Mbaise in the east, Ngwa, Bende, Abiriba Ohafia and Etche in the southwest (page 245, Zik – Selected Speeches of Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, 1961).” Then on page 246, Azikiwe said, “The keynote in this address is self determination for the Igbo. Let us establish an Ibo State, based on linguistic and ethnic factors, enabling us to take our place side by side with other linguistic and ethnic groups which make up Nigeria and the Cameroons.”If Azikiwe could establish and lead Ibo State, why should Awolowo not establish and lead a Yoruba State of Western Region?

Through the expression, ‘alleged promise,’ Adichie has already admitted that there was no evidence written or verbal that Awolowo ever promised any Igbo leader to follow Biafra’s lead and pull the Western Region out of Nigeria. Therefore the accusation against Awolowo of having betrayed the Igbo people, in this wise, becomes wicked and superfluous. Apart from this, Awolowo was released from prison, where he had been confined for almost four years by the NCNC/NPC regime, on August 2, 1966. On August 9, 1966, the military leaders agreed that all troops should be relocated to their regions of origin. As there were almost no foot soldiers but few Yoruba officers in the army, Western Region had no troops to be stationed in the West while the North, East and Mid-West had soldiers of their own to man their Region. Thus Western Region was manned by Northern Soldiers until May 25, 1967 when it had managed to recruit some soldiers. With that military situation it is only a fool that would assume or expect Awolowo to have promised any Igbo leader of collaborative pull out of Western Region from Nigeria. Nevertheless, it is on record that at the Western ‘Leaders of Thought’ meeting in Ibadan on May 1, 1967, Awolowo said, “If the Eastern Region is allowed, by acts of omission, or commission, to secede from or opt out of Nigeria... then the Federation should be considered to be at an end, and the Western Region... should also opt out of it.” Awolowo’s statement made a month before Biafra officially pronounced secession from Nigeria can never be interpreted as a promise to Igbo people that if they seceded the Yoruba People would do the same thing. Moreover, Awolowo was not addressing an Igbo congregation but a Yoruba one at Ibadan. At best the statement was directed to the Federal government implying that if it allowed the East to go the West also would go and otherwise the West would stay. Simple logic, Adichie, isn’t it?
Adichie continued on Awolowo, “He was the man who, in the words of my uncle, ‘made Igbo people poor because he never liked us.’ At the end of the war, every Igbo person who had a bank account in Nigeria was given twenty pounds, no matter how much they had in their accounts before the war.” She buttressed this by making reference to a nameless and imaginary Igbo man that worked in a multinational company in Lagos in 1965. The fictitious Igbo man was said to have had thousands of pounds in his bank account before he was forced to leave Lagos suddenly to Biafra but had his bank account reduced to twenty pounds after the war. The banking system in Nigeria in the ‘60’s was not as developed as it is today and in fact many Nigerians (including the Igbo) had their savings under the pillow. Banking institutions in Nigeria at that time were National Bank of Nigeria Limited founded by Dr Akinola Maja and co, The Nigerian Farmers and Commercial bank Limited founded by A.S. O Coker, The Agbon-Magbe Bank Limited founded by M. A. Okupe, The African Continental Bank Limited founded by Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe, Bank of the North owned by the Northern Government, The Barclays Bank and The Bank of British West Africa (both owned by Britain). For understandable reasons most Igbo people patronized the African Continental Bank owned by Azikiwe. It was this bank that Awolowo said he did everything possible to prevent it from going bankrupt during the war because he understood its value to Igbo traders. Was Awolowo’s protection of the African Continental Bank against liquidation an act of hatred for the Igbo people? If Achebe himself had gotten his savings in the bank reduced to twenty pounds after the war would he not have informed Adichie or the rest of the world through his ‘There Was a Country? And if Achebe as a senior executive officer at that time did not have any savings in the bank when he left Lagos for Biafra, what then is the probability that other Igbo people of his rank left money in the bank, in Lagos, while fleeing eastward? Any Igbo man who, claims that he/she had several thousand pounds in any bank before the war, should be able to produce a bank account book or last statements of account from his/her bank for verification after the war. Awolowo had explained that the twenty pounds was a welfare package for people coming out of war since Biafra’s currency was illegal and valueless in Nigeria. Instead of appreciating the socialist nature in Awolowo and the life more abundant to all Nigerians ideology in him, some Igbo reactionaries and chronic fraudsters continued to claim without any verifiable evidence that they had thousands of pounds in the bank before the war but had it reduced to twenty pounds by Awolowo after the war. Once again I challenge Achebe and Adichie to publish the names of all Igbo bank depositors before the war, with verifiable documents from their banks, and we patriotic Nigerians will approach human rights lawyers in Nigeria to help us file cases of illegal confiscation of our fellow citizens’ monies and for the immediate refund of such monies to depositors or their inheritors.

Adichie clamoured over the so called *indigenization decree of the early 70’s which she believed to have moved industrial and corporate power from foreign to Nigerian hands thereby making some Nigerians wealthy to the exclusion of Igbo people who could not participate in the exercise because they were just coming out of a war penny-less. If wealth is the reward for industry, creativity, investment and management, there are no real wealthy people in Nigeria. The palatial mansions the so called wealthy Nigerians acquire at home and abroad, the jet aircrafts, the expensive cars and gadgets they buy up are products of Euro-American cum Asian people’s imagination, creativity, energy and high discipline in industrial enterprise. It is either ignorance or self-delusion to claim that Nigerians are in control of industrial and corporate power in Nigeria since 70’s when today they cannot refine oil, generate electricity, mine iron ore and produce steel, produce portable water, build schools, hospitals and roads. The streets in the towns and cities of Nigeria’s wealthy corporate and industrial powers are refuse-clogged and stench-beset. All over the country one finds open gutters running with stagnant water, fetid, brackish and algae infested that have become mosquitoes’ parliament where bills of malaria fever are constantly passed for the citizens. As for indigenization and for a very long time, Nigerians have been bamboozled with inarticulate economic jargons and contradictions invented by foreign exploiters of our country and parroted by Nigerian non-problem solving academics. Indigenization in practice actually empowered foreign companies to select among Nigerians willing Esau who could sell the national birthrights for a pot of pottage. Such Nigerian Esau who did not need to have any capital investment but serve as contract receiver from the government could be found in all tribes of Nigeria. Thus contracts to build schools, hospitals, Industries, revamp agriculture and infrastructures and even oil blocks explorations were awarded to Nigerians in partnership with foreign companies. The contracts were never executed after money for the contracts have been collected and shared. Igbo people, like all other tribes in Nigeria, have been participating in this type of indigenization business in Nigeria since 70’s and that explains why there are as many illegitimate and dubious millionaires and billionaires today among Igbo people as well as among other tribes in Nigeria. Obnoxious and odious leaders cut across all tribes in Nigeria. Adichie and Achebe would appear to have embraced the creed that wealth is the essence of life, no-matter how odious the mode of its accumulation. That is pitiful.
Adichie expressed the view that many Igbo today feel marginalized in Nigeria. On the contrary, I think that the Nigerian masses are alienated and impoverished by the ruling elites from all tribes in Nigeria. It is fraudulent to maintain that individual officials hold their appointments on behalf of their tribes when emoluments and fringe benefits accruing out of the appointments are never submitted to the entire tribe of the office holders for sharing. For instance, it is not the tribe of the Minister of works that matters if all tribes are dying of accidents in pot holes ridden roads.

Regarding the military coup of 15th January 1966, Adichie wrote, ”Many believed it to be an Igbo coup... Except for Adewale Ademoyega, a Yoruba, who has argued that it was not an ethnic coup (d’état). I don’t believe it was.” There has never been any doubt about the patriotic and nationalistic qualities in the persons of Chukwuma Nzeogwu, Emmanuel Ifeajuna and Adewale Ademoyega. They had good intentions in planning the coup and knew quiet well that it had to be bloody. Unfortunately, they were infiltrated by people with tribal inclinations who were not prepared to kill their own tribes’ men, civilians or military. Ademoyega did not need to argue that the coup was not ethnic, just as Adichie did not need to believe it was not, since the tribe of the killers and the killed have been known for a long time. It is only when one allows blind ethnic fanaticism to influence ones sense of judgement that one would start remembering the truth about the coup of January 1966 differently. No matter how one tries to twist the truth, the fact remains that those killed in the first coup (civilians and military officers), except one, were non Igbo and their killers were all Igbo. The beneficiary of the coup was also an Igbo man who led a military government that subsequently emerged. In his book on Nzeogwu published in 1987, Olusegun Obasanjo wrote on page 100 as follows, “All sorts of postulations have been made on the failure of the coup.... but to my mind, the coup was heavily tribally biased in its execution in the South, and that nailed its coffin.” On Major-General Aguyi-Ironsi complicity in the coup, Obasanjo stated, “It was alleged that some of the participants tipped off Major-General Aguyi-Ironsi and that Lieutenant Orji who was detailed to take care of him, saw him on the Carter Bridge and after they exchanged words in their local dialect, Orji had a change of heart... The pattern of casualties (killings) was seen on reflection by well-meaning Nigerians as not only uneven, but also a sudden change in the political equation.” In Captain Ben Gbulie’s book: NIGERIA’S FIVE MAJORS – COUP D’ÉTAT OF 15TH JANUARY 1966, FIRST INSIDE ACCOUNT, there are incontrovertible evidences that some Igbo participants in the coup, for instance, Major Chude Sokei, Lieutenanant Jerome Oguchi, Major Don Okafor, Major John Obienu, and Captain Ogbo Oji, were not willing to shed the blood of their fellow Igbo and moreover they leaked the coup plan to Ironsi their kinsman.

Having denied, without evidence, that the coup of January 1966 was tribally motivated and executed, Adichie lamented, “But the truth that glares above all else is that the thousands of Igbo people murdered in their homes and in the streets had nothing to do with the coup.” Riots in the North against the coup of January 1966 that precipitated the killing of non-Igbo politicians and military officers, and which subsequently propelled Major-General Johnson Thompson Umunakwe Aguyi Ironsi into power, began on the 29th of May 1966. While Northerners were in deep sorrow over the murder of their political leaders and military officers that paved the way for the Igbo Major-General to seize Government power, the Igbo people in the North were actually jubilant over what they regarded as Igbo power which was why they were selling post cards featuring the picture of the dead Premier of the North laying on his back with a crowing cock (Cock was the NCNC party symbol) on his chest. If Achebe could associate the political action of Awolowo with the Yoruba people, why should he understand it differently when Northerners associated Igbo people with Ironsi military seizure of government power and the cold murder of Northern politicians and military officers? When the riots subsided around the middle of June 1966, Ironsi set up a Commission of enquiry with the sole purpose of compensating victims of the riots in the North financially while he kept mute over murderers and the murdered in the January coup. Although the political situation in the North was tense, riot did not break out until after July 29, 1966 coup that toppled Ironsi and escalated when Radio Cotonou in Dahomey (the present day Republic of Benin) relayed the news monitored and re-broadcast by Radio Kaduna that Northerners living in the East had been massacred in thousands. The pogrom perpetrated in the North against the Igbo attracted Wole Soyinka’s anger and protest against Gowon’s regime. For that reason Wole Soyinka was arrested and detained in prison for twenty-two months! Regardless of whose ox is gored Nigerians should learn to be firm, resolute and aware- some in telling the truth and not seeing or remembering the truth differently. Since truth is straight, constant and not bendable it remains a fact that if the five Majors of January 15, 1966, were not infiltrated, betrayed and sabotaged by tribal traitors there would not have been pogrom in the North and there would not have been civil war.

Since Adichie was born after the war, she has to acquire the knowledge of Nigerian civil war either by reading books or listening to those who witnessed it. Unfortunately it would appear she has listened mostly to people like Achebe who remembers history differently from what actually happened. The first air strike in the Nigerian civil war was carried out by Biafra in August 1967 when the Biafran B-26 bomber bombed a market and a Cinema (civilian targets), at Yaba, in Lagos. Ibadan, Kaduna and Kano were later to have a taste of Biafra’s B-26 bomber on civilian targets. Nevertheless, the Federal government concentrated on ground forces and by the middle of 1968, Biafra’s State had become a very small enclave making the moderates (led by Gowon) in the Federal government to believe that it was a question of time before Ojukwu surrendered. In spite of the Federal government’s declaration of air blockade of Biafra, planes were flying in and out of Uli Ihiala air strip at will and convenience without government’s reprisal. Throughout 1968, Carl Gustav Von Rosen, a Swede, was a pilot for the Scandinavian Churches, (NORD CHURCH AID) flying relief materials to Biafra. Suddenly, towards the end of May 1969, Von Rosen flew into Nigeria in a rocket equipped Mini-Counter-Insurgency plane (MINICOIN) and bombed Port Harcourt. That was rapidly followed by the bombing of Benin, Enugu and Ughelli that were in Federal forces’ hands. The eyes of the moderates in the Federal government turned red having been shocked by the fact that they have all along been toying with un-beheaded venomous serpent. Consequently, the Federal government formally banned all unauthorised night flying through Nigeria’s air space. Early in June 1969, a Swedish Red Cross DC-7 was heading towards Uli Ihiala air strip before midnight and the Nigerian Air Force ordered the plane to alter course and land at the Federal held airport in Port Harcourt for inspection before proceeding further. In spite of repeated orders, the pilot of the Swedish Red Cross DC-7 refused to comply, and NAF fired at the DC-7 causing it to explode in the air and killing all its crews. The forest around were littered with debris of weapons from the DC-7. The federal government confirmed later that the DC-7 marked Swedish Red Cross was carrying arms and ammunition and not relief materials to Biafra which explained why the pilot refused to land for inspection at Port Harcourt. The reputation of the International Committee of the Red Cross was damaged and its mandate to co-ordinate relief operation in Nigeria was taken over by the Nigerian Red Cross. In an interview in the London newspaper, Observer of 6 July 1969, Carl Gustav Von Rosen said that at Christmas in Biafra in 1968, “I soon realised that every priest, every doctor, every black and white man in Biafra was praying for arms and ammunitions before food...” The truth that we cannot and should not remember differently in the case narrated above is that Nigeria shot down arms and ammunition smuggling DC-7 air craft disguised as a Swedish Red Cross relief supply plane to Biafra in June 1969. That is a true history, Adichie.

It would appear as if Adichie is convinced that all other tribes in Nigeria are against Igbo people for no just reason other than they are Igbo. Thus she wrote, “Like Achebe, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Lagos was forced to leave. So was the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ibadan because they were Igbo. For Achebe, all this was deeply personal, deeply painful. His house was bombed, his office was destroyed.” To begin with, the Vice-Chancellor of University of Lagos during the second coup of July 29, 1966, was Professor Saburi Biobaku, a Yoruba man while Professor Kenneth Dike, an Igbo man was the Vice-Chancellor of University of Ibadan. If Achebe and Dike were forced to leave Lagos and Ibadan for East after July coup because they were Igbo, the question one must ask is who or what forced them to vacate their place of abode? The military operation in Ibadan which resulted in the abduction of Major-General Ironsi and his host Lt. Colonel Fajuyi was limited and restricted to the military and no civilians were involved. In the absence of any word from Professor Dike himself it will be reasonable to assume that he evacuated himself voluntarily to the East since Dr. Anthony Ukpabi Asika, an Igbo and a senior lecturer at the same University of Ibadan, remained there until he was appointed by the Federal government as the civilian administrator of East Central State after the liberation of Enugu from the secessionists in October 1967. As for Achebe, the feeling of insecurity in Lagos might have partly been due to his background as one of the beneficiaries of the NCNC/NPC coalition government since 1960 up to July 1966 coup and partly because of the role he played in the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation to cast the news in favour of Aguyi-Ironsi against Major Chukwuma Nzeogwu during the January 1966 coup. Truly and factually, it should be remembered that at twelve noon on Saturday 15, 1966, Nzeogwu broadcast over Radio Kaduna in the name of what he called *the Supreme Council of the Revolution of the Nigerian Armed Forces.* At 14:30:00 hours the same day, the Nigerian Broadcasting corporation in Lagos contradicted Nzeogwu that a revolution had not taken place in Nigeria. Therefore Radio Nigeria in Lagos announced, “In the early hours of this morning, 15th January 1966, a dissident section of the Nigerian Army kidnapped the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance and took them to an unknown destination. The General Officer Commanding the Nigeria Army (Ironsi) and the vast majority of the army remained completely loyal to the Federal Government and are already taking appropriate measure to bring the situation under control.” But Ironsi was not loyal to the Federal Government as he eventually seized power through the help of the acting President, Nwafor Orizu, and the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation where Achebe was employed. Achebe must have done something overtly, known to the executors of July 29, 1966 coup, in support of the January 1966 coup which made him fear for reprisal after the revenge coup. Otherwise the execution of the second coup in Lagos was strictly limited to the army, in which the Northern forces confronted the Eastern forces. Adichie has treacherously given false impression to her readers that the people of Lagos and Ibadan (Yoruba People) forced Achebe and Professor Dike to flee to Biafra in 1966. There was no Yoruba uprising, military or civil, against any tribe, including the Igbo in 1966. If Yoruba people were to think like Achebe and his acolytes, they would have blamed all Igbo and Hausa people for the declaration of a state of emergency in the Western Region in May 1962 by the Federal Coalition Government of the NCNC Party led Michael Ihenokura Okpara and the NPC Party led by Ahmadu Bello. The signing into law of all the thirteen emergency Acts by the Governor-General, Benjamin Nnamdi Azikiwe, which facilitated the overthrow of the Action Group government of the Western Region and the imprisonment of the Party leader in 1963, would have been blamed on all Igbo. But when the Yoruba people were reacting against the overthrow of the Action Group and subsequent election theft in what was popularly known as *OPERATION WET EH* that action was directed and limited only to the supporters of Akintola and his NNDP Party. As Yoruba peoples’ adage says, ÀGBÉ NI O DÍJÀ SI’LÉ OWUN NI OJÉ KI OMORÍ ODÓ NA ÌYÁ RÈ NI GBANGBA, literarily translated, ‘It is the fault of the farmer that produces yam if not the pestle will not be hitting the mortar publicly.’ Therefore, the Yoruba people blamed and held Akintola responsible for the political brigandage jointly perpetrated by Ahmadu Bello, Michael Okpara, Nnamdi Azikiwe and Tafawa Balewa in the Western Region. As a result of that way of thinking, the Yoruba refrained from visiting the political crime of Ahmadu Bello, Okpara, Azikiwe and Balewa against the Yoruba people on millions of Igbo and Hausa people living in their midst in the Western Region.

Achebe has his pains of the civil war that had its origin in the political brigandage of the NCNC/NPC Federal Coalition Government in the Western Region on May 29, 1962, but when viewed from the social structure of extended families and non-availability of social insurance in Nigeria, the pains of many Nigerians, as a result of lost of bread winners, quadruple that of Achebe. On January 17, 1966 when Achebe, as a result of his position at the Nigerian Broadcasting Corporation, was aware of the military and civilian casualties of the army putsch of 15 January 1966, Lieutenant Colonel Victor Adebukunola Banjo was arrested and dumped into prison on the order of Major-General Aguyi Ironsi. His crime was that he had told Ironsi that every military officer from Lt- Colonel above should step down for the Majors to complete their revolution otherwise he warned the General that he was sitting on explosives that could detonate anytime. For being blunt, he was detained in prison at Enugu on a trump up accusation that he wanted to kill Ironsi. After the second coup Ojukwu released him together with some of the Majors that partook in the January 15, 1966 coup. Nothing was heard of him until August 9, 1967, when, in the company of Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna, Phillip Alale and Sam Agbamuche, he led the invasion of the Mid-West. On the same day Banjo broadcast on the Mid-West Radio and he seized the opportunity to deny that he attempted to kill Ironsi in January 1966. He said that the Mid-West would be independent of both Biafra and Nigeria and his next step was to liberate Western Region and Lagos from the control of Northern feudalist. Banjo declared, “I am a Nigerian. I believe in the Nigerian Nation and I am fighting for a Nigeria in which no people will be dominated by any other.” Devastated Ojukwu recalled Banjo to Enugu immediately where he (Banjo) was instructed that after the conquest of Lagos he should not issue any policy statement without approval from Enugu. Before Banjo was sent back to Mid-West, Ojukwu had appointed an Igbo man, Major Albert Okonkwo, as the Governor of the Region to replace Lt. Colonel David Ejoor, an Urhobo man. Around September 20, 1967, the Federal forces had recaptured the entire Mid-West after trouncing the Biafran forces at Ore. Ojukwu had Victor Banjo, Emmanuel Ifeajuna, Phillip Alale and Sam Agbamuche arrested and tried for treason because they did not believe in Biafra but total liberation of Nigeria from feudal reactionaries. On September 25, 1967, the four accused of treason were found guilty and executed in Enugu. The dead cannot have pains but the agonies and pains of families of Ifeajuna, Alale, Agbamuche and in particular Banjo must have been enormous and unquantifiable when compared with Achebe’s experience of the war.

Adichie had been saddened by what she considered to be lack of empathy on the part of people responding to Achebe’s diatribe on Awolowo, yet, there is no known published empathy from Achebe with regards to the military officers that were killed in the 15th January 1966 coup. Writing on the profiles of some of the army officers killed in January 1966, Ben Gbulie, one of the coup plotters wrote about one of the officers killed on page 53 of his *Nigeria’s Five Majors,* “Brigadier Samuel Adesujo Ademulegun was a top Yoruba army officer and Commander of No 1 Brigade. A first-class soldier, immensely talented and versed in military strategy and tactics, he was however, every inch a tribalist, as well as overly ambitious and vindictive.” It is strange that Ademulegun was described as a top Yoruba army officers and not a top Nigerian army officer by an Igbo writer, Captain Ben Gbulie. Because of his Yoruba origin Ademulegun was automatically branded a tribalist by this Igbo writer and it did not matter if he was a first-class soldier, immensely talented and versed in military strategy and tactics, he had to be killed. Thus after midnight on Saturday, 15 January 1966, an Igbo officer Major Tim Onwuatuegwu burst into Brigadier Ademulegun’s bedroom, gunned him down and ripped open the abdomen of his pregnant wife with bullets. In comparison with Ademulegun, Captain Gbulie wrote the profile of Ironsi in this manner, “Major-General Johnson Thompson Umunakwe Aguiyi Ironsi was the General Officer Commanding the Nigerian Army. A hard-drinking, slow-speaking introvert who had risen from the ranks, and had been trained at Eaton Hall and Camberley Staff College, he was however, considered both inept and inefficient – hardly the calibre of officer to command an army. In fact the coup planners considered him unfit to command even a funeral detail.” Yet, Ironsi was not earmarked for killing, why? Gbulie explained on pages 125 – 126 as follows, “But by far the thickest wedge cast between the coup executors and success was the ugly element of treachery that manifested itself in the course of nocturnal operation. To begin with both Major Don Okafor and Captain Ogbo Oji had taken a stand against any step that might embody the killing of Ironsi ...” But Okafor and Oji were at the Ikoyi residence of Brigadier Zakariya Maimalari in the night of the coup with the aim of killing him and even though he was nowhere to be found, Ifeajuna later intercepted and killed him. Just as Ademulegun was murdered because he was a Yoruba, so were the other innocent seven military officers, except one, murdered because they were non-Igbo. These are facts and facts, as Aldous Huxley postulated, do not cease to exist because they are disregarded.

Tribal democracy or Federal Character as practised in Nigeria gives birth to a government in which the ruling elites (politicians, civil servants, armed forces, religious and traditional rulers), merely use their offices to share power and resources of Nigeria while at the same time diverting the allegiance of their tribes’ men to themselves instead of to the country. This is possible because Awolowo’s warning in 1947 that a microscopic literate class should not be allowed to become the exploiters of majority illiterate Nigerians at Independence has not been heeded. Education which is being able to read, write and speak the English language in Nigeria amounts to nothing but ego boosting chauvinism where the educated elites work for self-progress and not collective progress of the tribe, religion or nation. Thus, the masses of illiterates in Nigeria cannot discern the hollowness in the tribal politics played by the likes of Chinua Achebe, a well-read hustler who has shrunk into a glorified light weight opportunist. When Party politics was allowed in 1979 and the soldiers returned to the barracks Achebe joined the Peoples’ Redemption Party, led by Aminu Kano. It did not matter to Achebe that Aminu Kano was from the same North where he (Achebe) professed that thirty-thousand Igbo, starting from May 1966 when Awolowo was still in prison, were massacred in 1966. At that moment and indeed hitherto, Achebe chose to remember history differently, that it was in Kano the home-city of Aminu Kano, a Moslem (or was he a Jihadist?) that Igbo were massacred without the concerned glance of Aminu Kano. For Achebe, ethnicity and religion are weapons of mass deception which he decided to use, though unintelligently, against Awolowo. In 1979 Chukwu Emeka Ojukwu was still in exile in the Republic of Ivory Coast where he fled after failing to de-Nigerianize the Igbo people and severe total links with Nigeria. Surprisingly in 1979, Ojukwu submitted his nomination papers to Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO) on form E. C. 4D in which he declared that he was a citizen of Nigeria and therefore qualified for election to the Nigerian House of Representatives on the Ticket of the Great Nigeria People’s Party ( GNPP)and in Nnewi (Ojukwu’s hometown in Anambra State) Federal Constituency. Although FEDECO rejected his application on the ground that he was dismissed from the Nigerian Army with ignominy in accordance with the provision of section 73 sub-section (1) (9) (ii) of the Electoral decree which disqualifies from contesting elections, any public officer (including military personnel) who had been dismissed from office on any ground, the choice of political party on which he wanted to contest election demonstrated crass opportunism and lack of principle. GNPP was the Party led by Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim, a Northerner and indigene of present day Bornu State. The massacre of Igbo in the North by the Islamic Jihadist which Ojukwu claimed to be the reason for declaring a Sovereign State of Republic of Biafra had vanished or perhaps remembered differently. However, Ojukwu was finally pardoned by President Shehu Shagari (another Jihadist) in 1982, and Ojukwu returned to Nigeria not to join the GNPP but the National Party of Nigeria and of course the ruling party at the centre. He engaged the law chamber of Rotimi Williams and Akintola Williams’ firm of accountant to sort out things about his father’s properties in Lagos and he recovered them without any problem. Until he died, Ojukwu never complained that his father’s bank accounts in Nigeria were reduced to twenty pounds by Awolowo. Another important figure in the political game of always put your mouth where there is food was Nnamdi Azikiwe the person who was alleged to have composed the National Anthem of Biafra in 1967. On the 7th of September 1968 he led a Biafran delegation to Paris to solicit for more weapons and financial assistance but he was unsuccessful in his mission. He seized the opportunity to abandon his delegate in Paris and sneaked into London as a refugee. By mid-August 1969, Azikiwe suddenly showed up at Ikeja Air Port, the present day Murtala Mohamed airport, where he met General Yakubu Gowon who gave him assurances of his personal safety and invited him to come back and tour the Federation. Azikiwe returned to London and called a press conference to express full support for one Nigeria and called upon the Igbos to renounce Ojukwu. Thereafter, Azikiwe returned to Nigeria at the beginning of September 1969 and travelled all over the country to propagate one Nigeria. Towards the end of September 1969, Azikiwe accompanied Gowon to the OAU meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and returned to Lagos to gain access to his properties and most importantly the African Continental Bank in Lagos with branches in Ibadan. Awolowo had not only prevented the liquidation of African Continental Bank but also saw to it that rents collected from Azikiwe’s housing estate at Ikeja, near Lagos were put in escrow for Azikiwe just as he did for other Igbos in similar situation in Lagos and Western Region. Did Azikiwe ever tell Achebe that the worth of his account and accumulated rents from his estates were reduced to mere twenty pounds? Why is Achebe so adamant in peddling malicious fairy tales about Awolowo? A simple answer to the last question is that Achebe and his acolytes are accusing Awolowo of what they would have done if they have been in his position and have experienced what he had undergone in the hands of Azikwe. In the mind of Achebe and companies, Azikiwe did not only sign Emergency Laws that overthrew the government of Action Group in the Western Region, the Party of which Awolowo was the leader, he was even sent to jail. Since Azikiwe was an Igbo, Achebe reasoned, Awolowo ought to avenge the evil deeds of Azikiwe to him on all Igbos. That is the logic of a fairy tale teller which was not real in Awolowo’s socialist world. Azikiwe was the owner of the African Continental Bank where many Igbos had their savings before the war and Azikiwe had repossessed the Bank even before the end of the war. Therefore, Igbo depositors should have turned to Azikwe and not Awolowo to reclaim their deposits in ACB if they had any documents to back up their claims. Is that logical enough, Adichie?

The ruling elites in Nigeria have always behaved as if Nigeria has no history. Yet, it is universally believed that a nation without history is a nation without a past and a nation without a past will neither have present nor future. In accordance with this universal belief, whenever nations are confronted with political and economic problems, history is often consulted not only to look for past identical situations and solutions but to verify if current problems have their origins in past events. But the backward ever and forward never Nigerian rulers hate to be reminded of history which they consider as distraction.

Thus, they swim along the same stream that ended in the drowning of their predecessors in power. If Nigerians have learnt the proper lessons of the events that led to the civil war (1967-1970), today Nigerians will not be regarding one another as settlers and indigenes in the same country. When the military decided in 1979 that the constituency of government leaders should not be military barracks and electorates should not be tanks and machine guns many Nigerians thought a new dawn for political and economic development had emerged. Five political parties were registered for the elections of 1979 which were carried out in four stages, first was Gubernatorial and State House of Assemblies, followed by the House of Representatives, the Senate and finally Presidential. The political parties were: Great Nigeria People’s Party (GNPP), led by Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim; National Party of Nigeria (NPN), led by Alhaji Shehu Shagari; Nigerian People’s Party (NPP), led by Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe; People’s Redemption Party (PRP), led by Alhaji Aminu Kano; Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo. Results to the House of Representatives showed that, the GNPP won a total seat of 43 consisting of 4 in the East and 39 in the North; the NPN won a total of 169 seats consisting of 37 in the East, 121 in the North and 11 in the West and Lagos; NPP won a total seat of 78 consisting of 60 in the East, 16 in the North and 2 in the West and Lagos; PRP won a total seat of 49 only in the North; and NPN won a total seat of 111 consisting of 2 in the East, 13 in the North and 96 in West and Lagos. As for the Senate GNPP won two seats in the East and six in the North; NPN won a total seat of 36 consisting of 6 in the East, 29 in the North and 1 in West and Lagos; NPP won a total seat of 16 consisting of 12 in the East and 4 in the North; PRP won 7 seats all in the North and UPN won 28 seats consisting of 4 in the North and 24 in West and Lagos. In the Presidential election, the following results were officially announced: Alhaji Shehu Shagari, NPN, 5,688,857 votes; Chief Obafemi Awolowo, UPN, 4,916,651 votes; Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, NPP, 2,822,523 votes; Alhaji Aminu Kano, PRP, 1,732,113 votes; and Alhaji Waziri Ibrahim, GNPP, 1,686,489 votes. Thus Alhaji Shehu Shagari of the NPN was declared the winner of the Presidential election whereas his party in the House of Representatives and in the Senate constituted a minority to the combined opposition parties of UPN, PRP, NPP, and GNPP. In a normal world it was a perfect situation where the legislative arm of the Government would play important and responsible role of checking executive recklessness and making good laws for the country, but in Nigeria it was not so. Just as it was in 1959, Nnamdi Azikiwe with his NPP’s 78 members in the House of Representatives and 16 Senators sought alliance with the NPN thereby turning the legislature into an assemble of legislative rogues. The political prostitution of MONEY FOR HAND BACK NA GROUND earned Ume Ezeoke, NPP, the position of speaker of the House of representative. And those who talk about marginalization of Igbos in Nigeria since the civil war should remember not differently that the Vice President of the first civilian Government of Nigeria in 1979 was Alex Ekweme (NPN) while Ume Ezeoke (NPP) was the Speaker of the House of Representative and the President of the Senate was from the Middle-belt. Awolowo was invited by Shehu Shagari to participate in what he termed National Government but the invitation was rejected. However, the pack of Vultures that formed the civilian government in 1979 with the aid of Nnamdi Azikiwe’s Nigerian Peoples’ Party, was later disbanded in December 1983 by yet another military regime that recycled itself into a civilian regime 13 years ago. Whatever kind of regimes Nigeria had had since 1960, Igbo persons (not Igbo people) have strongly been involved in governance and while appraising the actions and inactions of those regimes it is persons in government that should be held responsible and not the tribe they belong to.

When I read Dr Ozodi Thomas Osuji’s False Sense of Victimization in Achebe’s Worldview, I really pitied Chinua Achebe. Dr. Osuji pointed out that Okonkwo, the chief character in Achebe’s Magnus Opus, THINGS FALL APART, had the habit of mercilessly beating his wife at pleasure, he killed his child, Ikemefuna in an effort to seem tough and he persecuted the Osu’s (the Igbo Outcast) indicating that he is a mindless man who had no sympathy for the oppressed of his society. Thus, Dr Osuji diagnosed Okonkwo as a neurotic paranoid person. I see Okonkwo’s characters in “There Was a Country” and my appeal to Chinua Achebe at the age of 82 is that he should stop fomenting tribal hatred among Nigerians.

Jonah you are right - the Nigeria we dream can be achieved and that's why you should bleeping get off the road; your presence impedes the dream.

What oshobaba is saying is that Sanusi is right on the need to cut cost but that his call for 50% cut in labour is wrong - and I agree wit Oshiomhole

Governor Adams Oshiomhole: Oshiomhole says what Sanusi should have called for was 50 per cent cut in overhead cost and not 50 per cent cut of labour which was a critical factor of production
Gov. Adams Oshiomhole of Edo said on Thursday that the CBN’s Governor, Malam Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, “diagnosis on high rate of public expenditure was right but his prescription was defective.”
Mr. Oshiomhole made the observation in Abuja at the inauguration of the Employees Digital Welfare Scheme (NEDWS) project. He said that he agreed with Sanusi that the structure of public spending was not sustainable and the pattern of spending cannot deliver development. The governor said it was an open secret that 80 per cent of the country’s budget at the federal level was on recurrent expenditure and that only 20 per cent was for capital expenditure. “The fact that 80 per cent go to recurrent is not sustainable. We cannot continue and we now look at the fact that the other 20 per cent is borrowed from the domestic market.’’ He said what Sanusi should have called for was 50 per cent cut in overhead cost and not 50 per cent cut of labour which was a critical factor of production. “Labour is a wealth creator, not just a cost factor, it is a productive factor as capital cannot turn itself around without labour input, even with a digital world; you need labour to press the button.’’ He argued that what constituted the recurrent expenditure was not wage bill of N18,000 being paid to workers but personnel cost which include cost of transportation, especially money being spent on air transportation. “Who are the people who over-subscribe the British Airway Business Class?  They are ministers, civil servants, executive directors, deputy directors and legislators. All of that is what is called personnel cost. “If we all fly like that as we do, if you put all of that together, one trip is more than the annual salary of a public officer. “Let us cut the frequency of travel. Other than the minister of Foreign Affairs, other ministers should minister here; the governors should stay here and govern here. “When we stay here the personnel cost will drop. So, it is not a correct argument that the burden of the economy is the wage bill. “Our wages are still low relative to the cost of living. We are not about the best pay on the continent, when you use dollar as a bench mark and you put other factors into consideration.’’ Mr. Oshiomhole said that part of the reasons why the recurrent expenditure of the country was high was the cost of servicing its debts. He explained that Nigeria was the only country where “government borrows at 12 per cent through bonds. “What that means is that Nigeria already owe at the federal level, about six to seven trillion naira. It requires 12 per cent of that to service domestic debt. “All of that goes into recurrent, but should Sanusi drop the interest rate from 12 per cent to eight per cent, the cost of servicing debt will also drop and then the cost of recurrent expenditure will drop, lets engage him on that. Mr. Oshiomhole disagreed with those who said  Sanusi talks too much “because I think people in high places should talk so that they open the window for us to join the debate, either to generate more confusion or some clarity. “We cannot continue to behave as if all is well, all is not well. So we cannot afford to have grave yard silence.’’ The governor, however, urged the Nigerian Labour Congress to engage Sanusi on what must be done to curb financial recklessness and issues that would better the country’s economy. “We really need a healthy debate on how we can restructure our public financing and put more money where it will have benefits on the lives of the people. NAN

Lets do more than just social anger on this issue. how will a rogue be honored while heroes languish in obscurity. its not a shame yet until we do nothing and that criminal of a he-goat is honored come December 12. this is the contact of NANS - lets picket it with letters showing our disapproval.

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF NIGERIAN STUDENTS
Association Nationale des Etudiants de Nigeria
ID Dennis NANS Secretariat
University of Jos
Jos
Plateau State
234
Nigeria

so cursing the rubbish out of whoever nominated this man - its not a shame yet

support@nans.org.ng
president@nans.org.ng
+234 (0) 8038972477
+234 (0) 7055911890
+234 (0) 8036046134
http://www.nans.org.ng

Lasinoh: I agree with the list.
These are world leaders who have the power to make major differences in front of and BEHIND closed doors.
No one from Africa. . . . ?

I AM SHOCKED!





I lovvvit!!!!

MORE BLESSINGS TO THE WHITE MAN'S LAND FOR CHAMPIONING THE BLACK SKIN AND WOMEN AS HUMANS INSTEAD OF AS THUGS AND BREEDING MACHINES!

who would you have nominated from Africa?

but seriously the FEC is a disgrace to leadership, every time they converge like this they always make a mockery of common sense.

@Afam i don't think this is a waste of resources since FG said its utterly private sector driven - i think this is just high ranking priority misplacement. We need the private sectors in areas that benefits the aspirations of ordinary Nigerians. if people criticize the retardeen nau it will remind us of how one African country built a state to celebrate 50 years. informed policy is on holiday in Nigeria.

kingingkinging: where is GEJ?

his peerless ranking as the world weakest President is in the offing.

By SaharaReporters, New York

The burgeoning profligacy of the President Goodluck Jonathan-led administration was further underlined in Abuja today as the government announced it has given approval for the construction of a new modern city within Abuja for the country to celebrate its centennial.

The approval was given by the Federal Executive Council at its weekly meeting, which was presided over by President Jonathan.
Briefing State House correspondents at the end of the meeting which lasted about eight hours, the Minister of Information, Labaran Maku, said the new city is an entirely private sector driven.

“The new city that has been proposed as part of our centenary celebration is entirely private sector driven, no kobo from government. Let that be very, very clear. This is absolutely private sector driven with private sector investment.”

He said that the government’s only contribution will be to provide land through the FCT and agree on a proper design, following which it will be completely taken over by the private sector.

“The only few government facility that will be there will be an archaic for celebrations,” Maku added, pointing out that the new city might take up to 10 to 15 years to develop.

The city of Abuja, which has been in use for less than 30 years, has attracted a bad reputation as one of the world’s most expensive cities, with current and former top government officials relentlessly and greedily pillaging whatever they wish, no matter its price tag.

As a geo-political entity, Nigeria came into existence in 1914 following the amalgamation of the Northern and Southern protectorates by the British, represented by the then Governor-General of the country, Lord Frederick Lugard.

Still speaking to the correspondents, Mr. Maku blamed the media for Nigeria’s poor image as a corrupt country. Commenting on a new report by Transparency International in which Nigeria is ranked 37th on the global corruption index, Mr. Maku urged the media and the people of the country to help the government to present a better image of the nation to the world.

The Minister did not say when government officials would lead by example or when his government will start combating corruption.

Responding a few months ago to the national clamor for him to declare his assets, President Jonathan answered that he does not give a damn and will never publicly declare his assets

The World's Most Powerful People
ForbesBy David M. Ewalt | Forbes – 19 hours ago

Email
Print

What do the president of the United States, the Pope and the founder of Facebook all have in common? They’re all featured on Forbes’ 2012 ranking of the World’s Most Powerful People—an annual look at the heads of state, financiers, philanthropists and entrepreneurs who truly run the world.

To compile the list, we considered hundreds of candidates from various walks of life all around the globe, and measured their power along four dimensions. First, we asked whether the candidate has power over lots of people. Pope Benedict XVI, ranked #5 on our list, is the spiritual leader of more than a billion Catholics, or about 1/6th of the world’s population. Michael Duke (#17), CEO of Wal-Mart Stores, employs two million people.

Next we assessed the financial resources controlled by each person. Are they relatively large compared to their peers? For heads of state we used GDP, while for CEOs, we looked at measures like their company’s assets and revenues. When candidates have a high personal net worth –like the world’s richest man, Carlos Slim Helu (#11)– we also took that into consideration. In certain instances, like Saudi King Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al Saud, we considered other valuable resources at the candidate’s disposal –like 20% of the world’s known oil reserves.

Then we determined if the candidate is powerful in multiple spheres. There are only 71 slots on our list – one for every 100 million people on the planet – so being powerful in just one area is often not enough. Our picks project their influence in myriad ways: New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg (#16) has power because he’s a politician, because he’s a billionaire, because he’s a media magnate, and because he’s a major philanthropist.

Lastly, we made sure that the candidates actively used their power. Russian autocrat Vladimir Putin (#3) scored points because he so frequently shows his strength — like when he jails protestors.

To calculate the final rankings, ten senior Forbes editors ranked all of our candidates in each of these four dimensions of power, and those individual rankings were averaged into a composite score.

Any ranking of the world’s most powerful people is going to be subjective, so we don’t pretend ours is definitive. It’s meant to be the beginning of a conversation, not the final word. So tell us what you think: Is ex-president Bill Clinton (#50) really more powerful than the current Prime Minister of Russia (#61)? Does someone like the chief of the Internal Federation of Association Football (#69) belong on the list at all? Who did we miss? What did we get wrong? Join the conversation by commenting below.

Top 10

1. Barack Obama

(REUTERS/Larry Downing)President, United States of America
Age: 51

The decisive winner of the 2012 U.S. presidential election on all counts: Obama took the popular vote, the electoral college and 7 out of 7 toss-up states. Now he gets 4 more years to push his agenda past weakened congressional Republicans. Still, he faces major challenges, including an unresolved budget crisis, stubbornly high unemployment and renewed unrest in the Middle East. But Obama remains the commander in chief of the world’s greatest military and head of the sole economic and cultural superpower—literally the leader of the free world.


2. Angela Merkel

(RAINER JENSEN/AFP/Getty Images)Chancellor, Germany
Age: 58

The world’s most powerful woman is the backbone of the 27-member European Union and carries the fate of the euro on her shoulders. Merkel’s hard-line austerity prescription for easing the European debt crisis has been challenged by both hard-hit southern countries and the more affluent north, but it—and she—are still standing. Merkel has served as -chancellor since 2005, but one of her biggest challenges still lies ahead: bolstering her government’s sagging popularity before the 2013 German general election.


3. Vladimir Putin

(AP Photo/RIA Novosti, Alexei Druzhinin, Presidential Press Service)President, Russia
Age: 60

Reelected for a third 6-year term as president in March after a few years swapping posts with Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev, Putin officially regains the power that no one believes he truly gave up. This October the ex-KGB strongman—who controls a nuclear-tipped army, a permanent seat on the UN Security Council and some of the world’s largest oil and gas reserves—turned 60. That’s Russia’s retirement age, but who’s got the nerve to tell him to quit?


4. Bill Gates

(RAVEENDRAN/AFP/GettyImages)Cochair, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation
Age: 57

The world’s second-richest man is worth $65 billion—and that’s after giving away more than $28 billion. Gates’s post-Microsoft mission includes eliminating many infectious and deadly diseases: By his own estimates, that could translate into 8 million lives saved by 2020. But the quintessential activist billionaire doesn’t stop there: Gates continues to persuade his peers to sign the “Giving Pledge,” promising to give away half their wealth or more.

5. Pope Benedict XVI

(REUTERS/Max Rossi)Pope, Roman Catholic Church
Age: 85

How’s this for a job description? According to the doctrine of Papal Supremacy, the Pope enjoys “supreme, full, immediate, and universal power” over the souls of 1.2 billion Catholics around the world. They turn to the Vicar of Christ for the final word on life’s most personal decisions, including birth control, abortion, marriage and euthanasia. As the leader of Vatican City, he’s also a head of state. Of course, the pope faces dissent anyway—recently from “radical feminist” American nuns.


6. Ben Bernanke

(KAREN BLEIER/AFP/GettyImages)Chairman, U.S. Federal Reserve
Age: 59

Big Ben has been on a buying spree: In a third round of quantitative easing, the Fed is now snapping up $40 billion a month of mortgage-backed securities and $45 billion of Treasurys. Result: modest economic recovery and a near-record $2.9 trillion on the Fed’s balance sheet. The American economy’s “adult in the room” recently warned that there is only so much the Fed can do; politicians are the ones with the power to keep us from going over that fiscal cliff.


7. Abdullah bin Abdul Aziz al Saud

(AP Photo)King, Saudi Arabia
Age: 88

The absolute monarch of the desert kingdom controls 20% of the world’s known oil reserves and guards Islam’s holiest cities. The Arab Spring didn’t shake the ruling family’s control of the kingdom, but out-of-control youth unemployment remains a threat. Aging Abdullah lost his second heir apparent in 2 years when his brother, Crown Prince Nayef, died in June; he’s been replaced by another brother, 76-year-old Crown Prince Salman, the former governor of Riyadh.


8. Mario Draghi

(Sean Gallup/Getty Images)President, European Central Bank
Age: 65

With the euro lurching constantly from crisis to crisis, the European Central Bank is more important than ever. As chief banker of the world’s largest -currency area—the euro zone’s collective GDP is now more than $17.4 trillion—Draghi faces the Herculean task of trying to maintain financial unity across 17 countries. But if anyone can wrangle the interests of nations as diverse as Germany and Greece, it might be the man who navigated the minefield of Italian politics so deftly, he earned himself a nickname: “Super Mario.”


9. Xi Jinping

(Feng Li/Getty Images)General Secretary, Communist Party of China
Age: 59

The man who will lead China for the next decade was recently promoted to the Communist Party’s top position; Xi also took over as chairman of the Party’s Central Military Commission, putting him in control of the world’s largest army. His rise to power will be complete in March, when he takes over for Hu Jintao as president and head of state. Xi’s only half of a Chinese power couple: His wife, Peng Liyuan, is a superstar folk singer.


10. David Cameron

(Oli Scarff/Getty Images)Prime Minister, United Kingdom
Age: 46

Two years into office, the Tory PM has gone from being the called the second coming of Margaret Thatcher to standing in the shadow of Europe’s new Iron Lady, Angela Merkel. Cameron has rejected the German Chancellor’s call to increase the EU budget and threatened to veto anything but a spending freeze. At home he faces a sustained economic downturn, a disillusioned electorate and rumblings from his own party over Britain’s future.

HALL OF FAME: for me I will align with the Occupy Nigeria Movement. I share the majority opinion of a Pastor Tunde Bakare for his appetite for truth and brazen doggedness in advocating for better governance but voting for him alone at the expense of many other Nigerians who refuel civil protest in the country to me is unfair. We have people who lost lay down lives so our voice against GEJ's ill subsidy policy could be heard. We have people arrested and beaten for a cause that benefit us all. I salute Pastor Tunde Bakare but I align with occupy nigeria.

HALL OF FAME: PASTORS - Nigerian pastors to me are identities of shame. Displaying gross affluence when your members couldn't afford a meal. Buying private jets worth billion when your members couldn't afford an okada tyre. For never chastening the stupidity of our political looters. I can forgive a man who defraud me in the name of democracy but not a man who defraud me in the name of God.

Fashola is the best governor

[quote author=garri_gangster]I am waiting for DemDem the Retardeen, Eko Ile, DayoKanu and all dose ACN aplogists to come here and announce Ajimobi, Aregbesola and Fayemi as d best governors in Nigeria.[/quote]Is this a comment or a gross display of foolishness - dis is d effect of drinking garrri with skunk

Seriously I think Ojukwu doesn't deserve dis - at least for the sake of the man's integrity they should iron out dis wahala in a more civil manner but I don't expect anything in d contrary - its Karma; civil war in Ojukwu's family

Emeka, first son of late Biafran leader Odumegwu-Ojukwu,  Saturday alleged that the will presented by Barr. Onyekwelu on Friday is fraudulent, saying the lawyer is a private counsel to Ambassador Bianca Ojukwu and not that of his late father. Ojukwu claimed he has a copy of the original will written by his father and not what he

called the "fraud" presented to them as Ojukwu's will.





Odumegwu-Ojukwu

Speaking at his country home in Nnewi, Anambra State, the late Igbo leader's son maintained that his late father's will was altered in favour of his step mother.

His words: “There have been rumours up to yesterday that there is an attempt to read the will and that they intend to make changes in the original will. Well, I have not seen the will that they read. 

“Now there are issues that come to mind. Why were there no members of Ojukwu family when the will was read? They were not invited and they were not told. 

“She was here last Sunday when we removed the mourning cloth and since she knows that the will would be read she would have invited us or even put us on notice.

“Now the lawyer that is supposedly doing all this things is not our father’s lawyer. Mr Onyekwelu is not a lawyer that is known to the family as Ezeigbo’s lawyer. Remember when Ezeigbo was sick the same lawyer went to the press to claim that Ezeigbo was recuperating and that was not true.

"It is still the same lawyer that claimed to have custody of the will. And I told everybody that it was not true and that since my father was flown to England he never lifted an arm or spoken a word until his death finally.

“How can the lawyer claim that he is Ezeigbo's lawyer when he had already taken sides with Bianca and doing the woman’s biddings and why would the will be read in Enugu instead of in Anambra State? You can see all elements of suspicion in the matter."

Ojukwu insisted that the family members have the original copy of Ojukwu’s will and know that what was read was a contradiction.

“We have the original copy of the will and we know where it is, even if you want to make some changes in the will it should be done before the beneficiaries and seeking their consent. Furthermore, when a will is amended without the presence of the people involved but only the presence of the person who would ultimately benefit  from the changes, then it is a fraud and a charade.”

Reacting to the willing of Ojukwu Transport Limited, Emeka explained that Bianca is currently in court with OTL where she used the names of her two sons to drag the company to court.

“The claim that my father transferred his trustee membership to Bianca is false. First of all, my father Ojukwu was not a trustee. His position in OTL is that of a director not trustee. The position of director cannot be transferred to anybody. Even if it is transferred to me it would not hold. There is a laid down law or procedure for one to become a director in the transport company.

“For you to be director in Ojukwu Transport you must have Ojukwu blood and not through marriage into Ojukwu family. You have to have at least 10 shares. And you have to be voted into directorship by the board of trustees and a woman cannot be a director. Also if you are a public servant you cannot be a director and even if Bianca is a director she has to resign because she is now a public servant by virtue of the fact that she is now an ambassador.

“There was a time my father has to resign as director and later he was reinstated as one when he stopped being a public servant .So there are many reasons why this claim is spurious.

“The person that is claiming that the directorship was bestowed on her is right now in court suing Ojukwu Transport in the name of her two sons. There is a lawsuit right now, and it is in the public domain, where she is using the names of her two sons to sue the company.”

Emeka also confirmed that the mysterious girl that benefited from the will is his father’s daughter, adding that his father Ojukwu had told him about the girl before now.

“My father had earlier told me about the girl in question and told me all that had happened before he died. So she is not a stranger and in the original will she was mentioned by my father.”

A night before the will was read, Ojukwu recalled that he was away to attend a funeral ceremony when his security guards at the gate phoned to report that the Anambra Commissioner for Commerce and Industry, Mr Robert Okonkwo had driven into the compound and carted away Bianca’s property from  Ojukwu’s main house. This, he noted, was a confirmation that Bianca had a premonition that the will would be read the following day and that Ojukwu’s main house would be willed to him as the first son

By Femi Aribisala

Pull Quote: Sooner, rather than later, hell will disappear forever from the English bible.

Jesus says: “It is written in the prophets, ‘and they shall all be taught by God.’” (John 6:45).  However, new believers are not allowed to be taught by God.  They are quickly indoctrinated in churches where the fear of God is often taught by the commandment of men. (Isaiah 29:13).  As a result, they read the scriptures with minds already made up.  They start their walk with Christ with assumptions and presumptions that have nothing to do with the word of God.

A prime example is the bogus Christian concept of hell.  The idea of God torturing sinners in a fiery furnace for eternity is a staple diet in Christendom.  However, it is completely without true biblical foundation.  The concept was developed long after the bible was compiled essentially as a manipulative devise for populating the churches.  It was then extrapolated into the scriptures by bible translators 1600 years later.

The word hell itself had nothing to do originally with a place of torment.  It came from the anglo-saxon words “helle” which means “a hidden place;” and “helan” which means “to cover or conceal.”  Thus, something that covers the head is a “helmet.”  “Helliers” “helled a building” by roofing it. Farmers “put potatoes in hell” by burying them in the ground to preserve them in winter.  This original meaning was then corrupted by Roman Catholics into a place of fiery eternal torture controlled by demons.

Hellish distortions

English bible writers indiscriminately translated four different Hebrew and Greek words as “hell,” even though they have different meanings and refer to different things.  The first is the Hebrew word “sheol,” which simply means a place that is unseen.  Sheol is not exclusively a place of punishment.  Faithful Jacob went to sheol. (Genesis 37:35).  Righteous Job pleaded to go to sheol. (Job 14:13).  David spoke of going to sheol. (Psalm 49:15).  Even Jesus went to sheol. (Psalm 16:10).

“Hades” is the Greek equivalent of sheol that is also confusingly mistranslated as hell in the English bible.  It refers primarily to what is unseen to the natural eye in the grave.  Hades is not a place of eternal torment.  “Abraham’s bosom,” where righteous Lazarus was carried when he died, was in hades. (Luke 16:23).  When Jesus died on the cross, he went to hades. (Acts 2:27-31).  Hades is also used with reference to national judgments.  Jesus said Capernaum would go down into hades; meaning it would be destroyed. (Matthew 11:23).

The Greek word, “tartarus,” is also confusingly mistranslated as “hell” in the English bible.  The word is used in Greek fiction to denote a temporary prison for fallen angels.  It is not applied to human-beings in scripture, and says nothing about the eternal fire and torment commonly associated with the Christian hell. (2 Peter 2:4).

Lastly, the word “Gehenna” is also mistranslated as hell in the English bible.  This is by far the most idiotic mistranslation of all.  Gehenna is actually a valley on the outskirts of Jerusalem which operated as a dump for incinerating refuse.  This means it did not need to be translated at all.  Other areas in the vicinity of Jerusalem, such as Gethsemane and Calvary are not translated.  So why have a different rule for Gehenna?

On eleven occasions when Jesus referred specifically to Gehenna, it was changed in the English bible to hell.  But there is nothing to suggest Gehenna refers to is anything other than the valley outside Jerusalem.  Jesus warned those living in the environs of Jerusalem that, unless they repented, their city would be destroyed imminently with their dead bodies dumped in Gehenna.  That is exactly what happened in AD 70, as the historical record confirms.

Imagine me telling people in Lagos that if they are not careful, they will end up in Kirikiri; a notorious prison island.  Then translators decide to change my “kirikiri” to “hell.”  Would you consider this a faithful translation?  Of course, people who lived far away from Jerusalem probably would not have known what Gehenna was, any more than people in Jerusalem would know about Kirikiri.  But the truth is that Jesus did not threaten any Gentile with the prospect of Gehenna if he did not repent.  Gehenna only has relevance for people living in Jerusalem at a certain time some two thousand years ago.

None of the mistranslated hell passages in the bible say anyone of our day can go to the Christian hell.   None of them says Satan’s domain is hell, according to popular Christian folklore.  Though they speak of men being killed and destroyed in Gehenna, none of them speaks of men being tormented there.  In short, Gehenna is not the Christian hell and should never have been translated as such.

Hell fiction

Nobody in the bible was ever threatened with eternal torment as Christians are today by pastors.  God forgot to mention it to Adam and Eve.  Cain killed his brother Abel, but was not threatened with it. (Genesis 4:11-12).  Sinners were destroyed by the flood without any warning of endless torment.  Nothing was said about it to the sinners of Sodom and Gomorrah and Nineveh.  Nothing was said because the Christian hell does not exist.  It is essentially the product of the evil imagination of men.

Moses threatened the Israelites with every conceivable punishment if they disobeyed God, but completely forgot to mention hell.  No disciple of Jesus preached about it.  Not once is it mentioned in Paul’s thirteen epistles.  There is nothing in the scriptures about fiery ovens, bowls of hot oil or torture racks.  However, such graphic details are readily found in such Christian folklores as Milton’s “Paradise Lost” and Dante’s “Inferno.”  They are also the subject of countless Hollywood horror movies.

If we are tempted to use Jesus’ parable of the rich man and Lazarus as indicative of the existence of hell, let us recall that this took place in hades; a temporal grave.  Jesus says: “The hour is coming in which all who are in the graves will hear His voice and come forth- those who have done good, to the resurrection of life, and those who have done evil, to the resurrection of condemnation.” (John 5:28-29).

Jesus does not indicate how long this resurrection of condemnation will take.  But it cannot be eternal because of scriptures indicating there will be a restitution of all things. (Acts 3:21).  At the end of time, every knee will bow in worship to God. (Isaiah 45:23).  God is love: he is not hate.  It is his mercy, and not his judgment, that endures forever. (Psalm 118:1).  Today’s believers are merely the “first-fruits” of salvation.  In the ages to come, God promises to return and rebuild the tabernacle of David: “so that the rest of mankind may seek the Lord.” (Acts 15:16-17).

Christians should not persist in an illogical faith.  We cannot insist the penalty for sins is eternal damnation, and then say Jesus paid the penalty for our sins.  Jesus did not spend eternity in hades.  He was only there for three days.  Therefore, the growing trend in the more modern translations including King James indicates that sooner, rather than later, hell will disappear forever from the English bible.  Hell will go to hell; which is where it truly belongs.

Someone needs to be sensible enough to head to EFCC or court with these expose but since its as flimsy as GEJ's thought level they will do nothing of such.

OBJ is a ruthless politician, someone you can call "a political warlord". GEJ is a neophyte clueless in developmental policies but he is a smart and intelligent politician whose anticidents shows a man versed in political Behind the scenes. While OBJ knows losing out to GEJ in 2015 will nail his political coffin-GEJ on the other hand knows he has more than his ambition to lose, he would have lost his first political battle and also his "goodluck" might be seen to have deserted him. Its a lose lose situation for the health of the nation anyway cos if OBJ wins the country will endure another imposition of a clueless president in 2015 and the days of Godfatherism will be renewed.on the other hand if GEJ floors the ota farmer Nigeria will have to endure another tasteless four years. God help Nigeria

WHAT’S left of their relationship when a political son takes on his father in public and tries to show he is not what he claims to be after all? Wahala! That appears to me to be the direction things are going with President Goodluck Jonathan’s criticism of former President Olusegun Obasanjo’s handling of the Odi and Zaki Biam episodes in the early months of the latter’s administration.

Nigerians will recall OBJ’s put-down of the Jonathan government’s weak and inept response to the activities of the faceless terrorist group operating in the North as the reason the terrorist group has remained impregnable in its areas of operation.

The statement came in Warri at an event marking the fortieth year calling to pastoral ministry of Pastor Ayo Oritsejafor.

Oritsejafor who is President of the Christian Association of Nigeria has himself come under criticism of late for joining the exclusive league, not just of pastors but Nigerians who own private jets.

With the floodgate of used cars wide open into the country every Nigerian who gets on the road with whatever brand of the foreign jalopies that ply our roads consider themselves a success story.

It’s becoming truly difficult to tell the local pretenders to the crown of success apart from the real inheritors of Solomon’s splendour. Possessing a private jet may be the new way of separating birds from mere butterflies.

But it was at the ceremonies marking Pastor Oritsejafor’s call to God’s work that Obasanjo took on his boy, our President, Jonathan. Jonathan probably smarting from the put-down of his former boss and political godfather and benefactor didn’t have long to wait. He found his chance to reply during the president chat he had just days after the Warri event.

The presidential media chat, as an opportunity for the President to speak on issues directly affecting Nigerians who can call directly into the programme, is a tradition begun by Obasanjo, which might suggest President Jonathan still works under Obasanjo’s shadow, contrary to what his response to the former president’s statement might suggest.

Obasanjo’s claim was that failure to respond, immediately and decisively, allowing the sore of the insurgents’ activities to fester gave the cowardly groups the initiative to power on and take control of the situation of things.

Obasanjo compared Jonathan’s response to his own response during the Odi and Zaki Biam incidents when so-called militants waylaid and killed security personnel sent to keep peace in the two towns.

Obasanjo then had insisted on the community concerned producing his soldiers. When this didn’t happen, he sent in troops who levelled the towns. What actually transpired is now the stuff of legends which cannot be fully verified.

But what many remember about those episodes was the heavy-handed response of the soldiers who went to take control of security in the towns. What needs to be factored into the action of the soldiers that went to theses places then was raw anger on their part and what they must have thought was their duty to avenge the brutal murder of their colleagues who were literally butchered and their bodies put on display in the fashion of a ram meant for ritual sacrifice.

Human rights groups have since condemned the response of the authorities as being excessively harsh.

But what cannot be denied is that the military response was very decisive in showing who was in control- government or the so-called militants. In addition, nobody can accuse Obasanjo of vacillation. He was focussed once he decided on what step to take.

That is more than one can say for President Jonathan when the terrorists in the North regrouped and began their campaign of anarchy about two years ago. What was obvious to everyone then was the feeble, even confused, response ofAbuja.

In spite of suggestions in the media that the President should take action, he remained indecisive. He lacked the will to take the steps that he ought to take- in short he failed to seize the moment and thereby lost momentum to the terrorists. This, for me, is the point Obasanjo was making with his latest comment.

Of course, at the resurgence of the terrorists’ campaign, President Jonathan had just survived the gruelling months of hanging in limbo, time when some people tried to deny him his rightful position as president following the passing of President Yar’Adua.

Shortly after, he won an election that was disputed by Muhammadu Buhari whose supporters went on rampage in different parts of the North.

Clearly, Jonathan was under siege and it was understandable why he didn’t act with the clear-headedness that the times called for, especially against a major opposition that appear to rely on regional support.

However, he lingered too long on his fear. He remained weak and tentative even after he had been re-elected. Nearly two years after the election that brought him to power, Jonathan continues to act like when he was Deputy Governor in Bayelsa.

And in his response to Obasanjo’s criticism, he said the Odi and Zaki-Biam episodes marked low point in governance- government failed in achieving its purpose. Jonathan claimed he saw the corpses of children and old women, not militants when he visited the sacked town.

But does this explain why Jonathan has been blowing hot and cold as to what to do to address terrorist activities in the North? One moment he talks about government’s readiness to talk with the terrorists and the next moment he realises that the terrorists are in fact faceless.

Of course, I see no point in talking to faceless groups of mindless murderers and anarchists without any coherent agenda. Any talk with one today and another criminal group rises tomorrow to claim it’s the authentic faction that needs to be appeased. There is no harm in dialogue but with whom would government hold such talk in the case of the terrorists in the North?

In the recent encounter between HAMAS and the Israelis, there was no doubt about who to hold the talk that brought about the ceasefire with. Who wouldAbujabe talking to here?

As for Jonathan sending Obasanjo a backhander, one hopes he is really ready to be his own man. One law of power says a protégé must try not to outshine the master. I think that applies to a protégé who knows where he is headed.

But for one who blows in the direction of the wind, it may be too early to confront his benefactor. Jonathan has not acted with purpose on the security situation in the North and other parts.

When criticised as Obasanjo just did, the least he could do is to make it openly clear that he is open to suggestions that would help him. Trying to sound clever will not help his case.

This OP needs a brain job- which one is SW thugs?

President Barack Obama is the target of more than 30 potential death threats a day and is being protected by an increasingly over-stretched Secret Service. He is the most threatened President in history. Since the President took office in 2008, the rate of threats against the president has increased 400% cent. Some threats to the

President have been publicized, including the well known alleged plot by white supremacists in Tennessee to rob a gun store, shoot 88 black people, decapitate another 14 and then assassinate the first black president in American history.

Most however, are kept under wraps because the Secret Service fears that revealing details of them would only increase the number of copycat attempts.

According to the U.S. Secret Service agents, their goal is to immediately respond to any direct threat against the president, the first family, the vice president, or visiting heads of state. Agents are then responsible for determining the credibility of the threat.

Each time there is a threat, the Secret Service consults with the Protective Intelligence Division in Washington, D.C., to decide how far an investigation is going to go. If a federal arrest takes place, it will lead to the most serious or extreme of the end results.

Recently, when Anton Caluori, 31, allegedly emailed the FBI on the morning of August 21st to say he would "kill the president," a Secret Service agent was immediately dispatched to his residence. According to the Department of Justice, Caluori was armed with multiple weapons, making his threat not only credible, but viable.

"This case had all the troubling ingredients: threats of violence and explosive devices, multiple weapons with hundreds of rounds and even brandishing of a weapon at law enforcement," said U. S. Attorney Jenny A. Durkan.

Caluori was subsequently arrested and charged in federal court with making a threat against the president and assault of a federal agent. If convicted, he could face up to 25 years in prison. He is scheduled to appear in federal court in Seattle Monday for a detention hearing.

Recent national events are a stark reminder that the Secret Service has to take these threats of death or violence seriously. While the Secret Service says they take every threat against the president seriously, not all will end in arrest. Threats will come our way from high school students, even junior high school students in the way of prank type calls. There are threats on Twitter and on Facebook and other social sites that allow such comments, but they have to look at them all. People need to know that any type of threat against the president is a violation of federal law.

The Secret Service says that many of those who make such threats are mentally ill, and it is the goal of the Secret Service to find them help. It can be "sobering," they said, when agents show up at their door.

According to the Secret Service, the president is the most threatened person in the U.S., regardless of political party.

The President is not made aware of all threats against him, however, because as the Secret Service says, "the sheer number would be overwhelming and, frankly, distracting."

http://www.elombah.com/index.php/latest-news/13462-secret-service-says-the-number-of-threats-against-president-obama-is-overwhelming

When Plato, one of the primary sources of human thought was delineating roles in his hypothetical Republic, he set the limit to Art. Though I do not agree with Plato’s conclusions, there is something intuitive about his premises. Therefore, I think it is interesting to re-visit his arguments in the light of the conversation over Chinua Achebe’s book “There Was A Country” and Adichie Chimamanda’s review of the book in her eulogy of Achebe. Three reference points have defined the book. They are the roles of Nigeria’s first political leaders during our struggle for independence, principally Alhaji Ahmadu Bello, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and Chief Obafemi Awolowo. The second reference point that has defined the conversation around the book is Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s role in the Civil War. The third is Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s role after the Civil War. Having read the book, my reflection on it continues to grow. I will tarry a little before I make a final and categorical judgment. Thus this is not a review of the book but a response to Ms. Adichie Ngozi Chimamanda. In the course of my response, it is inevitable that I will refer to the part of the book Adichie refers to. My reference should not be taken as a full-blown review of Achebe’s book but a response to Adichie.

Both Achebe and Adichie’s comments on the book have generated some controversy. However, I wish to say that I disagree with those, if they exist, who may claim that we should not discuss the civil war. I think we should talk about everything in Nigeria. We must not hold anything back. So Achebe has a right to write his book and say anything and everything. By extension, I believe that Achebe has a right to his views. Consequently, I believe that Adichie also has a right to her views. I will defend Achebe and Adichie’s rights to say anything. By implication, I think those who may want to keep mum about issues have a right to. The right they do not have is to ask others not to discuss.

However, given what Adichie set out to do in her essay, I think Ms. Adichie Chimamanda subverted herself and therefore failed. In other words, given her statements which drew a distinction between the cultural ethnic and political ethnic, she seemed to believe that the cultural ethnic is more socially and morally worthy. But she failed to defend this cultural ethnic but went ahead to embrace the political ethnic. Whether it is an act of omission or commission, the fact that such contradiction ensued from her as a writer is significant. How that happened and its implications are the subject matter of this essay. But the proper point to start is Plato’s critique of art.

Plato, in Book 10 of the Republic, argues that art is imitation or mimetic. Given this nature of the art, Plato believes that art is twice removed from the truth. Based on this double distance of art from truth, Plato argues that art appeals to the irrational part of the human brain. On the basis of these premises, Plato concludes that art can corrupt a person through influencing undesirable emotions and therefore art should be censored. Again, I disagree with Plato’s conclusion but a lot of his premises make sense in the light of Achebe’s book and they are relevant to Adichie’s take on this book and its intersection with Nigerian political reality. Reading Adichie’s essay and the responses to her and the book, one will think that we are back in Plato’s Republic where art has corrupted and influenced undesirable emotions in Nigerians. The seeming truth in Plato can be seen in the way writers themselves tend to see the relationship between their works and reality. Even when they do not say so, they tend to believe that their works are expressions of reality. Nothing can be further from the truth.

This short essay is based on the same excerpt about Awolowo and Nigerian political leaders, which Adichie referred to in her essay. They have become staple foods; we do not need to restate them. It seems to me that like everything Nigerian we are incapable of enunciating rational principles, which will be binding on us universally. It is the lack of such rationality in art that is the basis of the Platonic critique of the art, and it forms the basis of my critique and rejection of most of the obvious and implied conclusions in Adichie’s essay. Given my tentative belief that the backwardness in African societies is gradually approaching a hopelessly genetic and incurable point (I am scared to reach this conclusion, but there does not seem to be an alternative), and given that I believe that the basis of this backwardness is our failure to institute the rational in our lives, I will appeal only to the rational in this essay.

Though Adichie’s essay is primarily a eulogy of Achebe at 82, Adichie makes the following claims. Some of the claims are substantive. Some are the frame for her narration. First, she claims she is remembering and that we remember differently. Second, she claims that her Nigerian education left gaping holes in Nigerian history. Third, she draws a distinction between the cultural ethnic and the political ethnic. She suggests that while the political ethnic is unhelpful, the cultural ethnic is positive. Fourth, on the Civil War, she is “startled and sad” at Nigerians who responded and rejected the Achebe judgment on Awolowo. I will not know if the part of the excerpt she is “sad and startled” about includes Achebe’s position on Nigerian political leaders and other national groups in Nigeria. I will like to quote her words directly: “I have been startled and saddened by the responses to this excerpt. Many are blindingly ethnic, lacking in empathy and, most disturbing of all, lacking in knowledge.” I do not know which of the responses Adichie is referring to between the non-Igbo responses and the Igbo responses. But obviously given the slant in her narration in her essay, which is defined, by her selected examples and judgments, she means the non-Igbo responses. By implication if this were the case, if the non-Igbo responses are guilty as charged by Adichie Chimamanda, it would follow that the Igbo responses are free of her charge. Thus, theoretically speaking, she has a moral obligation (and she does not need to take it) to inform us if the Igbo responses also have the “blindingly ethnic qualities, lacking in empathy and most disturbing or lacking in knowledge…” she ascribes to the non-Igbo responses.

While there is nothing wrong in her being an Igbo irredentist, but given the slant of her essay she has the scholarly and moral obligation to let us know if her own essay is free of the “blindingly ethnic” she accuses her opponents of. Again, she does not need to take this challenge. Fifth, she believes that Awolowo’s position on the blockade is immoral. Sixth, while she believes that Ojukwu should have accepted the land corridor offer of federal government, she believes it is disingenuous to suggest that Ojukwu’s rejection of the offer causes starvation.

Finally, to show the feelings of Igbos to Awolowo she informs us how Igbos see Awolowo. She reports what she claims the “adults” told her about the 1952 Zik’s loss of election in the Western House of assembly and said that the “adults” told her that Igbos believe that Awolowo engineered it. Adichie is a creative writer, and as a creative writer she knows what she is doing in her essay with her examples and the deployment of those examples at the appropriate time. Let me say that there is an old Igbo narrative of Awolowo and the Yorubas( I am NOT saying that ALL Igbos subscribe to this, some do) which Adichie herself points out the “stories” the “adults” told her. Chinua Achebe has creatively re-fashioned that as an industry. I call that the Achebe ‘Awolowo And Yoruba Hate Industry and Religion” Though, Adichie is a more contemporary Igbo writer, her narrative on Awolowo and the old Igbo narrative are the same conceptually and qualitatively. And that is the beginning of the problem with Adichie’s narrative. She managed to put a lot of writer’s style onto it basically to screen off the primary goal. But those melt off under serious analysis.

Adichie fails in her essay because she wanted to defend the cultural ethnic over the political ethnic but sank abysmally back almost immediately to the political ethnic. Adichie’s failure in her essay begins with her ethical relativist frame. First ethical relativism does not pretend to approach truth or objectivity because for the ethical relativist there is no objectivity and truth is relative. For the relativist of whom Adichie is a type at least in her essay, everything is relative including truth and morals.

I am putting it to those who claim there is objectivity in Adichie’s narrative to contend with this claim rationally. Here I am not talking about what Plato calls “the irrational part of the human and undesirable emotions…” or “pepper soup talk”. I am not sure that Adichie will lay claim to being objective in that narrative. But just in case she does, I believe that she fails because at least from her essay she misunderstands what objectivity is all about. Objectivity is not a mere “report” of a so-called “two” sides, as Adichie must have felt she did in her essay. Given her ethical relativist frame and her search for “holes” motif, Adichie is conceptually incapable of “reporting” both sides. It is a settled matter in thought that ethical relativism cannot report both sides.

Therefore to pretend to use an ethical relativist frame to presumably report both sides will lead to intellectual absurdity for you will think you are doing it, yet you are not. We see that not only in Adichie’s essay but in the Achebe book she seems to be reviewing or talking about. In other words, given Adichie’s conceptual frame Adichie cannot be objective. Yet she projects an image of “innocently” reporting what she sees and hears people say thus giving the impression of a commitment to ‘objectivity’. It is that move that shows a basic assault on reason and knowledge, as we know it. Why? It is an obvious contradiction to deploy an ethical relativist frame while pretending to be innocent and reaching for objectivity because we get this voice in her essay “oh as you can see I am reporting both sides… or I am only reporting what people say about X, Y, Z….” More importantly, objectivity has a more serious and respectable career path than the way it is being projected in Adichie’s essay. Objectivity is stating the fact independent of one’s feelings and position, and following the logic of that fact to its logical conclusion even if one is put in an uncomfortable position in the process. Adichie’s ethical relativist frame cannot do this respectable and serious job. Thus conceptually speaking, try as Adichie may, she cannot be objective. Therefore she wrote an excellent eulogy for her hero Achebe, but she could not have been said to have written the truth about the issues she delved into. It is conceptually impossible. This is the basis of the consequences of the intellectual absurdity in her essay.

The second problematic in Adichie’s essay is her search for “holes’. I think it is a kind of writer’s motif. She may be doing this consciously or unconsciously as a writer. But this is a familiar ‘post modernist” search motif, or “journey motif”. But while this so-called ‘journey”, “search” or “hole” motif may be okay as a muse it is known to be philosophically problematic. It is problematic because this sort of motif lays claim to starting on the journey or search for ‘holes” from a tabula rasa. In this so-called “journey” subjects make claims to being innocent, open and ready to take in new ideas. But this is philosophically false for no one is innocent, we are all historically constituted. Adichie is. I am. We all are. Therefore when Adichie “reported” all the things she claims the Igbo people say about Awolowo as if she is not constituted by that, she is raising serious ethical issues about her art because she seems to believe them, yet she wants to pass on the impression that she does not. To give the impression that she does not believe them in the name of a so-called search for ‘holes” some so-called journey motif, is morally problematic. That her “hole” motif is nothing but a way to say what she believes while sounding to be objective can be seen in the sudden drifts she made sometimes in her essay. I will show that presently.

But let me make a brief detour into the so-called 1952 carpet crossing in the Western House of Assembly, which Adichie used in her review of, or talk about Achebe’s book. In Adichie’s review or comments on Achebe’s book, she went straight to the controversial excerpt, treated it and jumped to 1952 and other matters as the “adults” “told” her. The 1952 event and others she mentions will qualify as some of the “holes” in Nigerian history she says are gaping. It is instructive morally that all Adichie’s “holes” are non-Igbo. It is possible she does not have enough time to talk about all the “holes’. But we also need to note this.

Let me begin to call attention to Adichie’s silence in the “gaping holes” she treaded in the book she reviewed or commented on. Achebe has made bold and palpably false assertions about the first set of Nigerian political leaders. Achebe claimed that out of all Nigerian political leaders of the time he was writing about only Igbo leaders wanted Nigerian unity. Achebe said Dr Azikiwe was the only pan Africanist of his time. Adichie read this “hole”, failed to state her view, drifted, and fled to 1952 election to Western House of Assembly. Adichie does not have a burden in this, but Adichie’s sources are crucial and instructive. They are adults. In other words she grew up being told these stories about Awolowo and perhaps Yorubas. When we grow up being told stories, we form a view, we are no longer innocents. Even when we are looking for “gaping holes” we are culturally formed and historically constituted” as we dig for “holes”.

Given the stories Adichie’s heard growing up and her flight to 1952, I am interested in the historical frame and methodology of most Nigerian histories. We must place Achebe’s claim about Nigerian political leaders, Zik etc side by side 1952. Many historians have documented 1952 differently but space will not allow me to repeat each strand of the argument here. But I am rising what might not have been said, at least, which I have not read in the literature of the pre and immediate postcolonial politics in Nigeria. It is one reason I assert that we should talk about every strand of our lives in Nigeria. There are many historiographies-i.e. different methodology to writing history. I will isolate two. One has been used consistently to write Nigerian history. The other is rarely used. The first one is a bourgeois view of history as the solipsistic fortunes of a lone hero. This is the frame that has been used to write Nigerian history. This is the frame we see in Achebe’s book and the frame that has been used to transmit “stories” and “tales’ to Adichie by “adults”. The second is history as the material conditions of the masses of the people. Most Nigerian historians do not use this. I recommend that we use this to interrogate the “ gaping holes” in Nigerian history. If we do this we will focus on the people as the makers of their own history, rather than the individuals. My question therefore is: how did it happen that the masses of Yoruba voters voted against one of their own and for non-Yoruba(s)? Is there anything in the cultures, societies, values, and historical conditions of the people that made this happen? The twin question is: did this act of voting by the masses of the people against one’s own native happen in other parts of Nigeria? Did it happen in Igbo land? If so let us document them. If no, why? I believe the Yoruba and human ethic of voting freely and voting against one’s own native is worthy of being emulated, it is the right thing to do but the critical question is: did it happen in other areas of Nigeria? Did it happen in Igbo land the time it was happening in Yoruba land? Was this reciprocated in other places? If no, why did it not happen? This more or less “Marxist” way of writing history is not new. The following historians use this methodological frame in various ways to write the history of their societies- the Nigerian historian Mahmud Tukur and the American historian Howard Zinn. I recommend it to us all. It will help us examine the extent of inclusion and pluralism in each and all Nigerian societies in a way that will help a more profound “stories” “adults” tell children as they grow. It will help us fill “our gaping holes” in a way that help us see social processes and growth of societies rather than the solipsistic fortunes and “misfortunes” of individuals. We can give more details to this later. But this methodology makes us ask the question: how inclusive and plural was and is each Nigerian society-Yoruba, Igbo, etc. I believe this is the question the “adults” who tell us story may have wanted to ask either consciously or unconsciously which they perhaps do in their own way by using the fortunes and misfortunes of individuals and lone heroes as narrative and story telling devices. But if we base our history and “adult” story telling on the social and cultural processes in societies we will gather social data and fill those “holes” with the features of pluralism and inclusiveness in Nigerian societies (where they exist, to what extent they exist, and where they do not exist, and to what extent they do not exist)-Igbo, Kanuri, Yoruba etc- (all our Nigerian societies,) as our working hypothesis. No doubt listening to tales of adults about “others” and theorizing them also help build a particular type of nation. But just in case we are interested in a great Nigeria, the idea of history from below which make us focus on theorizing the inclusive and plural features of each Nigerian society, harvest them into a basket and use those social features and practices for Nigeria may also be helpful. I reject the bourgeois historiography of Nigerian history because it is the half-truth, a side is never remembered or if it’s remembered it is doctored. When pressed into tales, and “stories” adults tell, the type of the people in Platonic Republic show up. In the Nigerian Republic the victims are our children. I must say that Achebe’s book paradoxically impelled me to begin to look at things this way and ask that we check and gather the plural and inclusive features and practices in all Nigerian societies as we talk and tell “stories” about 1952 and other “stories”.

On the Civil War, in Achebe’s book we are told the story: Chief Obafemi Awolowo did nothing to prevent the war. Chief Obafemi Awolowo tricked Igbos to go to war because he saw them as an obstacle and he wanted to promote the Yorubas. Though Adichie managed to mildly say that she did not think Awolowo did that to promote Yorubas, we are left with a lot of things unsaid. Again, we cannot be selective in our moral choices. To be is to be unethical. The first condition of being ethical is moral consistency and going the whole hog. That way you remember all. Adichie did not do this in her essay because of the way she decided to remember which she has a right to. But she suddenly remembered what the Igbo adults told her that Awolowo tricked the Igbos to go to war.

But the argument is solid and unimpeachable that Chief Obafemi Awolowo could not have tricked anyone to go to war. The facts show it. The conceptual framework of his assertion validates the claim that Chief Awolowo could not have tricked anyone to go to war. It is a solid argument no one can refute or rebut rationally. None. You run into serious logical, conceptual and moral problem when you try to refute this. That Adichie mentioned that she did not think Awolowo acted as Federal Minister of Finance to promote Yorubas and failed to remember to let us know her position on the obvious myth and wickedness that Awolowo tricked Igbos to go to war is significant. It is also significant the source from which we hear Adichie talks about this-the “stories’ her adults told her. If her task is the civil war, the way it has been falsely framed to claim that Awolowo gave a promise to the Igbos is equally important. If we want a debate on this particular issue, we will have it. I have tested the substance and conceptual frame of Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s assertion in academic conferences to both Nigerian and non-Nigerian audiences. This is one reason I said perhaps the problem of the black person is genetic for one is shocked at the failure of even so called Professors, so-called educated people, to see a basic argument anyone in an elementary reasoning class will see. I am being very frank here for such failure is sickening and frightening.

Given the substance and frame of Awolowo’s assertion, no rational participant in such conferences I referred to held him responsible for giving a promise, for there was no promise both substantively, logically and conceptually. I challenge others to do the same-i.e. take Awolowo’s assertion, remove all references to historical personae, present it to a more rational audience and ask them to make their judgment. I am not talking about remembering a sad, bad and tragic emotional event differently, which is a legitimate enterprise and practice. I am talking about an audience who has the moral, intellectual and emotional privilege of distancing themselves from the event and arriving at what I call the cold rational and objective truth. I am talking about those who may have the ethical privilege of a veil of ignorance, or who avail themselves of such, and which allows them to arrive at an objective and truthful conclusions. I maintain this position because in the said conferences I performed an experiment in presenting the case. I removed all historical names. I presented the substance and frame of Awolowo’s assertion. Each time I did this, the verdict is that there was no promissory note in Chief Obafemi Awolwo’s statement that could be claimed by anyone for it was NOT a promissory note. Such verdict is backed with rational arguments, and not personal biases or ‘stories” “adults” tell, and children hear, for none knew the personae involved. Ojukwu knew his onions. He ought to know that there was no promissory note in Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s assertion. If Ojikwu spanned the assertion like the Biafra radio and propaganda machine, as led by Achebe, spanned Chief Awolowo’s last meeting with Ojukwu then the Biafra leadership should take moral responsibility for their unethical spin. It is immoral for the remnant of that leadership as symbolized in Achebe to fail to take responsibility for their spin and passed it on to Awolowo and use it to build the now fabled Achebe “Awolowo and Yoruba Hate Industry and Religion” that now has minstrels, parishioners, workers, online writers, journalists etc in it.

The continuation of the view that Chief Obafemi Awolowo gave a promissory note shows the poverty of our education and the poverty of theory, and lack of depth among some Nigerians. And it is sad. Whoever is familiar with Awolowo’s books know the amount of rational time that would have gone to each claim he makes in his books. Reading his books makes you feel you are reading the classical thoughts of philosophical ancients for each claim is argued out systematically and backed with well stated premises. They are not “tales” or “stories” “adults” tell and “children” “listen” to. They are always serious issues of his and our time. I just think people should read serious books beyond “stories” as Plato cautions. Thus, the maligning of Awolowo that he gave a promissory note to the Igbos on the basis of his assertion is basic poor thinking at the minimum and an assault on knowledge and reason. It explains why nothing rational or systematic in thought ever comes out of governance and public discourse in Nigeria for those who peddle this obviously pedestrian view often manage to be in government sometimes, and are also commentators on public issues in the public square. If those who hold this view are scholars, I am surprised what they teach students in the classrooms. Unfortunately, Adichie managed to speak to this maligning of Chief Awolowo in her essay through what the “adults” told her. That drift was loud. Why? It seems obvious in a subtle sense. Adichie took a position on the way she wants to remember. But this gap only shows that it is a partial way to remember which she has a right to.

Now coming to the factual thing that continues to surprise some of us. Because I had never ever thought this way, until this Achebe narrative that Awolowo killed Igbos to promote Yorubas. It is shocking to me. Given Achebe’s frame, by implication Achebe has told us that the Igbos naturally see Yorubas as rivals because these are people, according to Achebe, who Awolowo had helped to take “Igbo positions”. This is a self-delusion of the most horrible and horrific type. This is not only socially and intellectually dangerous, it is an extremely immoral and unethical position from Achebe. But what did Adichie say? She said she did not believe it was a calculated grab for power. And that is all that is needed! I said to myself: “Thanks Ms. Adichie Chimamanda, Good Job Great Job”.

In my original culture, it is argued that one does not count children for their parents. It is an ethics that is deployed to negate human alienation. Hence, the average Yoruba who is steeped in Yoruba thought often balks at comparing people, lives and humans. They are reluctant to do it because they think that to quantify human lives is to reduce the moral worth of human nature. This is what Wole Soyinka himself calls the commitment to the moral irreducible. It is the moral universal in Yoruba thought which beckons on humans not to differentiate and segregate people. This allows the Yoruba to practice an ethics of inclusion. With due respect, as an African I consciously and doggedly belong to this ethical school. I struggle to practice it in my daily life. Sometimes I fail, sometimes I succeed, and hence I will NOT quantify human lives. This is very personal and sober for me. It is immoral to compare one human life to the other. That is the moral in me the source of which is African Yoruba thought. Therefore even when Adichie’s claim that people respond to Achebe’s book without empathy is morally flawed because she failed badly to speak to the totality of lives that were lost in the civil war, I will stop there. Empathy is a human and moral universal that ought to be applied universally. It is unethical to be selective in its application. I just hope that Ms. Adichie Chimamanda knows what this means. In moral deference to lives that were lost on both sides and in deference to the African Yoruba moral irreducible in all human natures that calls on all humans to treat every life as qualitatively and morally indistinguishable I will like to keep shut here for purely ethical reasons. But it is tragic and unfortunate that Ms. Adichie Chimamanda makes such statement.

Adichie comments on Awolowo’s role in the civil war. She gives reasons and concludes that Awolowo’s position is immoral. Since this conversation started she is the first Igbo writer that will acknowledge the federal government food road plan and its rejection by Biafra. But as she acknowledged this, she also moderated her assertion, which is not morally okay. I have the following questions, which raise questions about our ethics and our morals. Why did it take the Igbo online writers on this issue, of which Adichie is a prominent member, this long before they acknowledge a basic fact? Why did this come only after the publication of an American memo on the war (by PREMIUM TIMES) and a resignation letter by one of Biafra’s former propagandist, Mr. Goldstein? Why did Adichie claim that it is disingenuous to claim that Biafra’s rejection of the Federal government’s food road corridor has any connection with the starvation of the masses of the Igbo people in the war front? Chinua Achebe was one of the architects of the Biafra war and its propaganda. The rejection of the food road corridor by Biafra was a Biafra position. Why did Adichie not follow through the involvement and moral responsibility of Chinua Achebe in that position? I want to assert that I acknowledge the struggle Adichie put into moderating the unethical consequences of Biafra rejection of the food road policy option of the Federal Government. Also, I am wondering why Adichie had to literally conceal Chinua Achebe, one of the architects of Biafra propaganda, from view in her treatment of Biafra rejection of food road corridor option, when that rejection was a propaganda material. Any discerning reader will see through Adichie’s qualifications, moderations and deft footwork when she got to “gaping holes” in Nigerian history. When Adichie got into that ‘hole”, peeped and looked, she must have been surprised at what she saw. I guess she was scared. She could not name what she saw. But what she saw has a name-it is pathological, sick, evil and intensely unethical for Ojukwu and Achebe to have made the survival of Biafra project prior to the raging starvation of the masses of Igbo. I challenge anyone to rationally set forth the qualitative difference between what Ojukwu and Achebe did and what Sadam Hussein and Ghadafi did using human beings as shields during the Iraqi and Libyan wars.

For reason of clarification and argument, let us note that Awolowo is a Nigerian and Yoruba culturally. He is not Igbo. Ojukwu and Achebe are Nigerians and culturally Igbos. It is common sense that they ought to be closer to the suffering Igbo masses than Awolowo who is not Igbo. Ojukwu and Achebe failed that simple moral test of the affinity of basic kinship, love and kindness for one’s people over the crude politics of sustaining the Biafra project. It is unkind and evil for Achebe and Ojukwu to have put the survival of the Biafra project over the basic feelings, and life threatening conditions of fellow Igbos. Adichie is welcome to deploy all tools to moderate this evil and guilt, but I challenge anyone to use basic reason and rational principles to fault my conclusion. But a moral question hangs: why couldn’t Ms. Adichie Chimamanda name what she saw in the “gaping holes” on the food road corridor? Why did she hide Achebe from the rejection of that food road corridor? Why the silence?

Why did it take this long for Igbo online writers to acknowledge a basic truth? Let us assume that everything written about this by Adichie and other Igbo writers on Awolowo’s role is correct, let us assume that Awolowo is and was the “devil incarnate”, let us assume that Awolowo is and was the very “symbol of Satan”. The question is if Awolowo took responsibility for his own alleged “satanic” “devilish”, “evil” “power grabbing” “Yoruba promoting” action in Ms. Adichie Chimamanda “gaping holes”, why can’t Achebe and Ojukwu take responsibility for their own actions in the same Ms. Adichie Chimamanda “gaping holes”? Is it no longer the truth that what is good for the goose is also good for the gander? Does Adichie want to turn this moral universal on its head and negate it? The minimum that is required for human morality is that one takes responsibility for one’s action. Ojukwu and Achebe did not do that. Adichie compounded that immorality by drifting off and failing to name what she saw in the “holes when she needed to speak to help her fellow Igbos. She is free not to name what she saw. But she cannot say that is moral. Using humans as shield to raise emotional uproar and for propaganda effect is evil and it is a sick act. Our judgment of it has to be CATEGORICAL AND NOT RELATIVIST as Adichie does.

Thus to fail like many of the Igbo commentators on this issue, including Chinua Achebe, to see Ojukwu and Achebe’s immorality completely undercuts anything called ethics. It is immoral. The case against Chinua Achebe on this is worse. He knew and he did not tell the truth. It is not good morally and we should say so. At 82, and for a presumed teacher, it is an immoral act on Achebe’s part to know this and fail to tell the truth. On Adichie’s part, it is obvious how in her essay she manages to gloss over that important fact. I know people may want to call it “objectivity”. But ethical relativism, Adichie’s frame, can never conceptually generate objectivity. It is just not possible if we are talking about serious knowledge and not some pepper soup, clinging of wine glasses and intellectually lazy talk. And Adichie’s “objectivity” that drifts away from truth and fact (which she chooses not to remember) in a covert and stealthy manner is dangerous intellectually. But however, Adichie is consistent in the way she wanted to remember and gloss over truths she did not want to remember but which she had no alternative but to mention because she will be reminded. No one should gloss over the emotional issues she etches in her essay. But beyond the narrative are the facts and knowledge. Her gloss over the fact that Ojukwu and Achebe ought to accept the food road corridor to save lives is consistent for she moderated that immorality and culpability on the part of Ojukwu with other claims and completely screened Achebe the architect off. I do not think it is moral for Adichie to moderate Ojukwu ‘s immoral act and literally hide Achebe from Achebe’s opportunism and intense immorality. But Adichie has to do that because the Igbo narrative must always turn around and come back to Awolowo as the “guilty” person even when given Adichie ‘s more contemporary presence she gives the impression that she wants to distance herself from the older Igbo narrative. At the end of her narrative it turns out to be a mere writer’s ploy for she turns round to embrace warmly and faithfully the political ethnic she wants to critique. But she could not distance herself because she does not rise above her own caution that we ought not to use the political ethnic. She surreptitiously goes back to the old Igbo narrative via the “stories” adults tell and “children” listen to, while paying pious remarks but-“Awolowo has to be guilty” even when she admits in the face of cold facts that Biafra leadership rejected what could have saved lives. In other words, Adichie fails her own test. She could not have succeeded. There is a serious ethical problem in such inconsistency.

I have deliberately ignored how Achebe carried his “Awolowo and Yoruba Hate Industry and Religion” to the 1979 election when Achebe gloated over Awolowo’s loss of election through the Twelve Two Third case. There are living witnesses to Chinua Achebe gloat for that for it is well documented. But his gloat is not the issue for he has a right to a political viewpoint. Hypothetically, suppose we can prove that Awolowo was the better candidate for Nigeria in that election, the gloat of a “teacher” like Achebe over Awolowo’s loss sealed the lack of the ethical in Achebe, which a writer like Adichie will like to gloss over. It means Achebe will sacrifice anything to pull down Nigeria based on his “Awolowo and Yoruba Hate Industry and Religion ”, and he does not care. I am inclined to be coldly rational in my thought and I agree that Achebe ought not to care based on the immorality and logic of his “Awolowo and Yoruba Hate Industry and Religion”. But for Adichie to gloss over that huge Achebe “Awolowo and Yoruba Hate Industry and Religion” which has worshippers, workers and acolytes in it and fail to remember says a lot of things. It is instructive. It raises serious question for the ethics of writing. I do not think Adichie should allow her craft to be guzzled by such sickening ethical problem by reconciling with what she starts out to subvert the way she does it. That happened because of the intellectual and moral danger of Adichie’s ethical relativism. The problem may be the art of narration, and being an Igbo writer at heart is one thing, the cold world of the logic of facts is another. She wanted to follow the latter but she ended on the lane of the former. Her move and the responses to her move is a reminder of Platonic caution on art. It is tragic and possibly inevitable. It is a bad way to remember if we want a Nigeria. But it is an excellent way to remember if we do not want Nigeria, if we want to inter it. Though, I do not think that we should finally inter Nigeria yet, both are welcome literary and political enterprises all Nigerians should be allowed to consider peacefully and openly. It will help our democracy. It will deepen it.

I guess neutral has a new definition known only to Afam4eva...lol

inurmind: Posts like this always make me wonder if there will ever be a ''nation'' called nigeria.

they are Igbos while the rest of us are Nigerians

C.Adichie in this piece just want to be Igbo - its Igbo to support the war and blame Awolowo for Ojukwu's imprudent resolve to war. Nothing new in the piece just the same broad "day-lie" retailed to the Igbos of old and inherited by the Adichies of this new day. With myriad effusive documents exhumed by C.Achebe's memoir one would have expected C.Adichie to draw insights from them and be not just Igbo but human. She retailed the inherited lies she devoured and distance herself from documents which are candid witness of the war. I respect this piece as a literary show-off. I respect the piece as C.Adichie's opinion. I respect her right to remember differently. The only problem I ve with this piece is the laziness of C.Adichie or should I say the deliberate laziness of C.Adichie which makes this piece an excerpt from C.Achebe's memoir. The future is privilege to have some candid documents that will make the lie of the past to be JUST LIE

Chimamanda Adichie and Chinua Achebe are two characters in the pen world that I not only look up to but also worship. Adichie "inherited memories" of the war being born in the 1970s while Achebe was a Biafran actuality. Both are familiar with letters. Both are welded by blood and merged by a faithful defiant annal that is devoted to reality. Both are mortals and corporeity comes with its fragility. Both are a product of misplaced blame. They are both "children of anger". They are both custodian of the pain of losing a war. They are married by skewed account of history. The resolve for historical payback fused them firmly. They are Igbos and the rest of us are Nigerians. They are our sins. They both share the chalice of sainthood. They are both Aburi enthusiast. They are the pain of the past. They are both Awolowo's guilt. Both of them are Igbos because Ojukwu is right. And we are Yorubas because Awolowo is wrong. They are Chinua Achebe and Chimamanda Adichie - "there was the truth"

I have met Chinua Achebe only three times. The first, at the National Arts Club in Manhattan, I joined the admiring circle around him. A gentle-faced man in a wheelchair.

“Good evening, sir. I’m Chimamanda Adichie,” I said, and he replied, mildly, “I thought you were running away from me.”

I mumbled, nervous, grateful for the crush of people around us. I had been running away from him. After my first novel was published, I received an email from his son. My dad has just read your novel and liked it very much. He wants you to call him at this number. I read it over and over, breathless with excitement. But I never called. A few years later, my editor sent Achebe a manuscript of my second novel. She did not tell me, because she wanted to shield me from the possibility of disappointment. One afternoon, she called. “Chimamanda, are you sitting down? I have wonderful news.” She read me the blurb Achebe had just sent her. We do not usually associate wisdom with beginners, but here is a new writer endowed with the gift of ancient storytellers. Adichie knows what is at stake, and what to do about it. She is fearless or she would not have taken on the intimidating horror of Nigeria’s civil war. Adichie came almost fully made. Afterwards, I held on to the phone and wept. I have memorized those words. In my mind, they glimmer still, the validation of a writer whose work had validated me.

I grew up writing imitative stories. Of characters eating food I had never seen and having conversations I had never heard. They might have been good or bad, those stories, but they were emotionally false, they were not mine. Then came a glorious awakening: Chinua Achebe’s fiction. Here were familiar characters who felt true; here was language that captured my two worlds; here was a writer writing not what he felt he should write but what he wanted to write. His work was free of anxiety, wore its own skin effortlessly. It emboldened me, not to find my voice, but to speak in the voice I already had. And so, when that e-mail came from his son, I knew, overly-thrilled as I was, that I would not call. His work had done more than enough. In an odd way, I was so awed, so grateful, that I did not want to meet him. I wanted some distance between my literary hero and me.

Chinua Achebe and I have never had a proper conversation. The second time I saw him, at a luncheon in his honor hosted by the British House of Lords, I sat across from him and avoided his eye. (“Chinua Achebe is the only person I have seen you shy with,” a friend said). The third, at a New York event celebrating fifty years of THINGS FALL APART, we crowded around him backstage, Edwidge Danticat and I, Ha Jin and Toni Morrison, Colum McCann and Chris Abani. We seemed, magically, bound together in a warm web, all of us affected by his work. Achebe looked pleased, but also vaguely puzzled by all the attention. He spoke softly, the volume of his entire being turned to ‘low.’ I wanted to tell him how much I admired his integrity, his speaking out about the disastrous leadership in my home state of Anambra, but I did not. Before I went on stage, he told me, “Jisie ike.” I wondered if he fully grasped, if indeed it was possible to, how much his work meant to so many.

History and civics, as school subjects, function not merely to teach facts but to transmit more subtle things, like pride and dignity. My Nigerian education taught me much, but left gaping holes. I had not been taught to imagine my pre-colonial past with any accuracy, or pride, or complexity. And so Achebe’s work, for me, transcended literature. It became personal. ARROW OF GOD, my favorite, was not just about the British government’s creation of warrant chiefs and the linked destinies of two men, it became the life my grandfather might have lived. THINGS FALL APART is the African novel most read – and arguably most loved – by Africans, a novel published when ‘African novel’ meant European accounts of ‘native’ life. Achebe was an unapologetic member of the generation of African writers who were ‘writing back,’ challenging the stock Western images of their homeland, but his work was not burdened by its intent. It is much-loved not because Achebe wrote back, but because he wrote back well. His work was wise, humorous, human. For many Africans, THINGS FALL APART remains a gesture of returned dignity, a literary and an emotional experience; Mandela called Achebe the writer in whose presence the prison walls came down.


Achebe’s most recent book, his long-awaited memoir of the Nigerian-Biafra war, is both sad and angry, a book by a writer looking back and mourning Nigeria’s failures. I wish THERE WAS A COUNTRY had been better edited and more rigorously detailed in its account of the war. But these flaws do not make it any less seminal: an account of the most important event in Nigeria’s history by Nigeria’s most important storyteller.

An excerpt from the book has ignited great controversy among Nigerians. In it, Achebe, indignant about the millions of people who starved to death in Biafra, holds Obafemi Awolowo, Nigerian Finance Minister during the war, responsible for the policy of blockading Biafra. He quote’s Awolowo’s own words on the blockade – ‘all is fair in war and starvation is one of the weapons of war. I don’t see why we should feed our enemies fat in order for them to fight harder’ and then argues that Awolowo’s support of the blockade was ‘driven by an overriding ambition for power for himself in particular and for the advancement of his Yoruba people in general.’

I have been startled and saddened by the responses to this excerpt. Many are

blindingly ethnic, lacking in empathy and, most disturbing of all, lacking in knowledge. We can argue about how we interpret the facts of our shared history, but we cannot, surely, argue about the facts themselves. Awolowo, as de facto ‘number two man’ on the Nigerian side, was a central architect of the blockade on Biafra. During and after the war, Awolowo publicly defended the blockade. Without the blockade, the massive starvation in Biafra would not have occurred. These are the facts.

Some Nigerians, in responding to Achebe, have argued that the blockade was fair, as all is fair in war. The blockade was, in my opinion, inhumane and immoral. And it was unnecessary – Nigeria would have won anyway, it was the much-better-armed side in a war that Wole Soyinka called a shabby unequal conflict. The policy of starving a civilian population into surrender does not merely go against the Geneva conventions, but in this case, a war between siblings, people who were formerly fellow country men and women now suddenly on opposite sides, it seems more chilling. All is not fair in war. Especially not in a fratricidal war. But I do not believe the blockade was a calculated power grab by Awolowo for himself and his ethnic group; I think of it, instead, as one of the many dehumanizing acts that war, by its nature, brings about.

Awolowo was undoubtedly a great political leader. He was also – rare for Nigerian leaders – a great intellectual. No Nigerian leader has, arguably, articulated a political vision as people-centered as Awolowo’s. For Nigerians from the west, he was the architect of free primary education, of progressive ideas. But for Nigerians from the east, he was a different man. I grew up hearing, from adults, versions of Achebe’s words about Awolowo. He was the man who prevented an Igbo man from leading the Western House of Assembly in the famous ‘carpet crossing’ incident of 1952. He was the man who betrayed Igbo people when he failed on his alleged promise to follow Biafra’s lead and pull the Western region out of Nigeria. He was the man who, in the words of my uncle, “made Igbo people poor because he never liked us.”

At the end of the war, every Igbo person who had a bank account in Nigeria was given twenty pounds, no matter how much they had in their accounts before the war. I have always thought this a livid injustice. I know a man who worked in a multinational company in 1965. He was, like Achebe, one of the many Igbo who just could not believe that their lives were in danger in Lagos and so he fled in a hurry, at the last minute, leaving thousands of pounds in his account. After the war, his account had twenty pounds. To many Igbo, this policy was uncommonly punitive, and went against the idea of ‘no victor, no vanquished.’ Then came the indigenization decree, which moved industrial and corporate power from foreign to Nigerian hands. It made many Nigerians wealthy; much of the great wealth in Nigeria today has its roots in this decree. But the Igbo could not participate; they were broke.

I do not agree, as Achebe writes, that one of the main reasons for Nigeria’s present backwardness is the failure to fully reintegrate the Igbo. I think Nigeria would be just as backward even if the Igbo had been fully integrated – institutional and leadership failures run across all ethnic lines. But the larger point Achebe makes is true, which is that the Igbo presence in Nigerian positions of power has been much reduced since the war. Before the war, many of Nigeria’s positions of power were occupied by Igbo people, in the military, politics, academia, business. Perhaps because the Igbo were very receptive to Western education, often at the expense of their own traditions, and had both a striving individualism and a communal ethic. This led to what, in history books, is often called a ‘fear of Igbo domination’ in the rest of Nigeria. The Igbo themselves were insensitive to this resentment, the bombast and brashness that is part of Igbo culture only exacerbated it. And so leading Igbo families entered the war as Nigeria’s privileged elite but emerged from it penniless, stripped and bitter.

Today, ‘marginalization’ is a popular word in Igboland. Many Igbo feel marginalized in Nigeria, a feeling based partly on experience and partly on the psychology of a defeated people. (Another consequence of this psychology, perhaps, is the loss of the communal ethic of the Igbo, much resented sixty years ago. It is almost non-existent today, or as my cousin eloquently put it: Igbo people don’t even send each other.)

Some responses to Achebe have had a ‘blame the victim’ undertone, suggesting that Biafrians started the war and therefore deserved what they got. But Biafrians did not ‘start the war.’ Nobody with a basic knowledge of the facts can make that case.

Biafrian secession was inevitable, after the federal government’s failure to implement the agreements reached at Aburi, itself prompted by the massacre of Igbo in the North. The cause of the massacres was arguably the first coup of 1966. Many believed it to be an ‘Igbo’ coup, which was not an unreasonable belief, Nigeria was already mired in ethnic resentments, the premiers of the West and North were murdered while the Eastern premier was not, and the coup plotters were Igbo. Except for Adewale Ademoyega, a Yoruba, who has argued that it was not an ethnic coup. I don’t believe it was. It seems, from most accounts, to have been an idealistic and poorly-planned nationalist exercise aimed at ridding Nigeria of a corrupt government. It was, also, horrendously, inexcusably violent. I wish the coup had never happened. I wish the premiers and other casualties had been arrested and imprisoned, rather than murdered. But the truth that glares above all else is that the thousands of Igbo people murdered in their homes and in the streets had nothing to do with the coup.

Some have blamed the Biafrian starvation on Ojukwu, Biafra’s leader, because he rejected an offer from the Nigerian government to bring in food through a land corridor. It was an ungenerous offer, one easy to refuse. A land corridor could also mean advancement of Nigerian troops. Ojukwu preferred airlifts, they were tactically safer, more strategic, and he could bring in much-needed arms as well. Ojukwu should have accepted the land offer, shabby as it was. Innocent lives would have been saved. I wish he had not insisted on a ceasefire, a condition which the Nigerian side would never have agreed to. But it is disingenuous to claim that Ojukwu’s rejection of this offer caused the starvation. Many Biafrians had already starved to death. And, more crucially, the Nigerian government had shown little regard for Biafra’s civilian population; it had, for a while, banned international relief agencies from importing food. Nigerian planes bombed markets and targeted hospitals in Biafra, and had even shot down an International Red Cross plane.

Ordinary Biafrians were steeped in distrust of the Nigerian side. They felt safe eating food flown in from Sao Tome, but many believed that food brought from Nigeria would be poisoned, just as they believed that, if the war ended in defeat, there would be mass killings of Igbo people. The Biafrian propaganda machine further drummed this in. But, before the propaganda, something else had sown the seed of hateful fear: the 1966 mass murders of Igbo in the North. The scars left were deep and abiding. Had the federal government not been unwilling or incapable of protecting their lives and property, Igbo people would not have so massively supported secession and intellectuals, like Achebe, would not have joined in the war effort.

I have always admired Ojukwu, especially for his early idealism, the choices he made as a young man to escape the shadow of his father’s great wealth, to serve his country. In Biafra, he was a flawed leader, his paranoia and inability to trust those close to him clouded his judgments about the execution of the war, but he was also a man of principle who spoke up forcefully about the preservation of the lives of Igbo people when the federal government seemed indifferent. He was, for many Igbo, a Churchillian figure, a hero who inspired them, whose oratory moved them to action and made them feel valued, especially in the early months of the war.

Other responses to Achebe have dismissed the war as something that happened ‘long ago.’ But some of the people who played major roles are alive today. We must confront our history, if only to begin to understand how we came to be where we are today. The Americans are still hashing out details of their civil war that ended in 1865; the Spanish have only just started, seventy years after theirs ended. Of course, discussing a history as contested and contentious as the Nigeria-Biafra war will not always be pleasant. But it is necessary. An Igbo saying goes: If a child does not ask what killed his father, that same thing will kill him.

What many of the responses to Achebe make clear, above all else, is that we remember differently. For some, Biafra is history, a series of events in a book, fodder for argument and analysis. For others, it is a loved one killed in a market bombing, it is hunger as a near-constant companion, it is the death of certainty. The war was fought on Biafrian soil. There are buildings in my hometown with bullet holes; as a child, playing outside, I would sometimes come across bits of rusty ammunition left behind from the war. My generation was born after 1970, but we know of property lost, of relatives who never ‘returned’ from the North, of shadows that hung heavily over family stories. We inherited memory. And we have the privilege of distance that Achebe does not have.

Achebe is a war survivor. He was a member of the generation of Nigerians who were supposed to lead a new nation, inchoate but full of optimism. It shocked him, how quickly Nigerian fell apart. In THERE WAS A COUNTRY he sounds unbelieving, still, about the federal government’s indifference while Igbo people were being massacred in Northern Nigeria in 1966. But shock-worthy events did not only happen in the North. Achebe himself was forced to leave Lagos, a place he had called home for many years, because his life was no longer safe. His crime was being Igbo. A Yoruba acquaintance once told me a story of how he was nearly lynched in Lagos at the height of the tensions before the war; he was light-skinned, and a small mob in a market assumed him to be ‘Igbo Yellow’ and attacked him. The Vice-Chancellor of the University of Lagos was forced to leave. So was the Vice-Chancellor of the University of Ibadan. Because they were Igbo. For Achebe, all this was deeply personal, deeply painful. His house was bombed, his office was destroyed. He escaped death a few times. His best friend died in battle. To expect a dispassionate account from him is a remarkable failure of empathy. I wish more of the responses had acknowledged, a real acknowledgement and not merely a dismissive preface, the deep scars that experiences like Achebe’s must have left behind.

Ethnicity has become, in Nigeria, more political than cultural, less about philosophy and customs and values and more about which bank is a Yoruba or Hausa or Igbo bank, which political office is held by which ethnicity, which revered leader must be turned into a flawless saint. We cannot deny ethnicity. It matters. But our ethnic and national identities should not be spoken of as though they were mutually exclusive; I am as much Igbo as I am Nigerian. I have hope in the future of Nigeria, mostly because we have not yet made a real, conscious effort to begin creating a nation (We could start, for example, by not merely teaching Maths and English in primary schools, but also teaching idealism and citizenship.)

For some non-Igbo, confronting facts of the war is uncomfortable, even inconvenient. But we must hear one another’s stories. It is even more imperative for a subject like Biafra which, because of our different experiences, we remember differently. Biafrian minorities were distrusted by the Igbo majority, and some were unfairly attacked, blamed for being saboteurs. Nigerian minorities, particularly in the midwest, suffered at the hands of both Biafrian and Nigerian soldiers. ‘Abandoned property’ cases remain unresolved today in Port Harcourt, a city whose Igbo names were changed after the war, creating “Rumu” from “Umu.” Nigerian soldiers carried out a horrendous massacre in Asaba, murdering the males in a town which is today still alive with painful memories. Some Igbo families are still waiting, half-hoping, that a lost son, a lost daughter, will come home. All of these stories can sit alongside one another. The Nigerian stage is big enough. Chinua Achebe has told his story. This week, he turns 82. Long may he live.


http://premiumtimesng.com/arts-entertainment/108378-chinua-achebe-at-82-we-remember-differently-by-chimamanda-ngozi-adichie.html