Kastina Residents Protest Foreign Intervention in Chibok Schoolgirls Kidnap

On Thursday, a coalition of civil society
organisations in #Katsina State staged a
peaceful protest rejecting foreign
intervention in the search for the
schoolgirls who were abducted from
Government Secondary School, #Chibok in
#Borno state.
According to #DailyTrust , Bashir Dauda, a
spokesperson for the coalition said, "What
is happening in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan,
Somalia are indications that foreign
countries could not offer any remedy".
Urging President #GoodluckJonathan to
improve his relationship with state
governors from the Boko Haram-prone
areas, Dauda said, “It is a disgrace if the
almighty federal government fails to rescue
the abducted students and others who are
in the captivity of Boko Haram as sex
slaves.

Centenary guests’ encomiums

Tunji Ajibade

The two separate visits were related in a way – the one by foreign leaders to Nigeria for the centenary conference, as well as a latter visit by Jack Straw, the former British Foreign Secretary. Straw met with opposition party leaders when he came mid-March. Meanwhile, the foreign leaders were President Goodluck Jonathan’s august visitors, and some of them would go on to put on display how much the host was their friend. An example was Kenya’s president represented by his Vice-President, William Ruto, who spoke for East Africa. No doubt, from Ruto’s glowing speech, Nigerians saw the result of their leader’s frequent visit to Kenya and the battle he led in 2013 on behalf of that East African country against the insurgency of the International Criminal Court over charges of crime against humanity. Well, the president’s invitation card that brought the 26 foreign leaders to Nigeria’s centenary conference had placed emphasis on the need to discuss, “Human Security, Peace and Development: Agenda for the 21st Century.” In the course of the event however, the visitors said some notable things about Nigeria. Straw also did when he held a meeting with the opposition party leaders.

It’s good to start with the president’s visitors because what they said raises issues. And what the president said at the conference, as well as what he had been saying in some other settings, reminds one of a few things about the conduct of Nigeria’s foreign policy. For instance, in line with ECOWAS position since 2007, President Jonathan had been mentioning the need for West Africa to transform from “ECOWAS of States” into “ECOWAS of the people”. The former approach had always made this writer conclude that the reason Nigerian officials took some strange foreign policy decisions in the manner they did was because the views and feelings of ordinary Nigerians didn’t always inform those decisions, and officials never accounted for their decisions. This gap is deepened by years of rule by men in green khaki uniform, and in any case, except for state officials and organised business, the average Nigerian isn’t aware of ECOWAS provisions designed to make movement across the west coast easier for him. Link this to the fact that elementary issues sway how electorate vote here, unlike the Americans who are known to throw a president out of office because he fails to rescue American hostages in Iran, or handle well the course of a war in Iraq. At the centenary conference though, President Jonathan voiced his conviction that it was time to end the era of “security of States” and replace with “security of the people”, a note that is core to the theme of the conference, and which one hopes will ultimately impact the conduct of Nigeria’s foreign policy. Inclusive security of the people in the face of new challenges was what the visitors were meant to speak about at the conference anyway, but in the process, they stood at attention and threw salutes for Nigeria.

A careful perusal of the comments made by foreign leaders in the course of the conference could turn emotional for any Nigerian that knew the many pains of his nation. For it’s humbling for anyone to hear others speak about his nation that way; they spoke glowingly about a nation with so much potential: “I am struck by Nigerian youths and their vitality”, Mark Simmons, the envoy of the British Prime Minister had said. “It’s evident, sir, that Nigeria enjoys the respect, the admiration, and the hope of the entire continent. Nigeria represents the joy and the hope of the entire continent”, the envoy of the president of the United States of America had added. And African Union’s Chairperson said she was proud of the investment Nigeria had made in its people since independence which “has resulted in Nigeria being an economic powerhouse on the continent.” She didn’t fail to note that Nigeria had the third largest film industry in the world which made it “an important voice in telling the African story”.

There were yet more encomiums: “There’s reason for Nigeria to celebrate. There’s every reason for some of us here to celebrate the greatness of Nigeria.” Sierra Leone’s president said that. He said Nigeria came to the aid of his country when it needed peace and security. “It’s only a great nation that can do that. So we want to use this platform to thank Nigeria for your greatness”, he had added.

He went on to put into perspective what another speaker at the conference had said about Nigeria being a powerhouse for development in Africa: “The responsibility Nigeria carries is that, for every 2 West Africans 1 is a Nigerian; for every 4 Africans 1 is a Nigerian.

That bestows a lot of responsibility on Nigeria. This simply tells us that when Nigeria sneezes, we must catch cold.” To such words, this writer’s typical reaction is: If only those saddled with responsibilities here realise it, put this house in order and portray the nation much in the pattern those visitors pour encomiums.

Now, some of those at the centenary conference were typical in what they said; no, they exhibited their usual tendency in what they chose to say. UK’s envoy for instance was as restrained in his comments as British diplomats are wont to be, muck unlike their African counterparts on that occasion. Simmons hadn’t gone far into his speech when he veered into seeking closer ties between UK, Nigeria and other African nations, a safe lane to follow. So history lane was where he went, a thing that kept both his hosts and other visitors in their ebullient celebratory mood: “Nigeria’s first Prime Minister said at independence in 1960 that Nigeria’s relations with the UK were always as friends. This is as true now as it was 54 years ago,” he had said to a round of affable clapping. Naturally, he expressed his joy about his country’s trade relationship with “Nigeria and our countless educational, sporting and cultural connections. So it’s exciting to recognise, as we stand at the door of a new century for Nigeria, the future that brings with it extraordinary possibilities for the country and for many African nations.”

Among those who hadn’t been so formal and had brought some cheery atmosphere to the conference was Kenya’s Ruto whose speech had been more about praising Nigeria the way one would praise a brother one’s proud to have. Ruto spoke so glowingly that he got President Jonathan to break into a presidential smile and an equally enthusiastic presidential applause. “About half a century ago, a country was born which gives rise to Africa’s most illustrious nation”, Ruto said. And he went on to add that in spite of challenges, Nigeria’s “indefatigable people have exemplified the African spirit… Nigeria is a big country and a big nation. It is also blessed with abundance of talents. Nigeria is the place where proud people dream big dreams…

Over a century of trial and tribulation Nigeria has never failed to inspire Africa. Truly Nigeria is a beautiful home of astounding prodigies. All of us who look up to this nation never cease to thank God for this wonderful gift to Africa”.

And to think President Jonathan hadn’t asked for those praises for Nigeria in his welcome address.  He had essentially said that if AU leaders “stay focused and work together, we can make this 21 century the African century”, and to achieve this, “development must be people-centered, people-driven and focused on human security”.

Nevertheless, the encomiums came freely, pouring from hearts that realised what Nigeria has but which successive leaders here don’t harness, definitely not with the ceaseless looting of the commonwealth, a point Straw also made when he visited. He said Nigeria has one of the highest level of inequalities in the world which shouldn’t be. He said Nigeria is in a sorry state principally because of chronic corruption and lack of transparency among Nigerian administrators and the ruling elite. Then he proffered a solution: The best way to combat corruption is to make transparency core to governance as well as make the judiciary one which metes out penalties to corrupt officials. Straw wasn’t saying what Nigerians never said before, a reason some insisted there was no point having a national conference if two of the main issues that weighed Nigeria down weren’t taken care of – the inadequate punishment for looters, as well as the compromised judicial officers – who don’t realise they’re saddled with responsibilities fit only for gods that mustn’t ever be compromised.

Nigerians will talk their hearts out at the National Conference, of course. But a system that neither tolerates looting nor accommodates a judiciary that messes up issues of law isn’t something conference delegates can debate into existence; rather it’s for those with political will to do something about. And Nigerians expectantly wait for that, much as they do the eventual outcome of the National Conference.

There Will Be No Revolution in Nigeria! - Elomba

Orukotan Ayomikun Samuel wrote: "A nation bed-wetting on a waterbed needs revolution. A nation that cannot give its electorate the dividends of democracy needs revolution, no place for true-federalism. A nation that is rated the 144th most corrupt country and yet still come out to criticize and ignore this statistics needs revolution.

A nation that can no longer provide security, good roads, social amenities, jobs for its myriad citizens needs revolution. A nation that keeps celebrating mediocrity, criminals, thieves, political hawkers, shenanigans, tomfoolery needs revolution.

Nigerians, we need revolution, we cannot keep doing the same thing the same way and we expect different result. That is outright insanity. Revolution is the only sure solution to Nigeria’s problem. It is the only hope of the masses in this complex country, it is the idea of justice that divides power qualitatively not quantitatively as our constitutionalists do, it is “atheist” in religion and “anarchist” in politics. Anarchist in the sense that it considers power as a passing necessity and atheist in that, it recognizes no religion because it recognizes them all.

Enough by now should be enough. It’s time to experiment with revolution. It’s time to start “stealing from the rich” because it is a sacred and religious act in a revolution environment. It’s time to rewrite our history because revolution is the ecstasy of history. Honestly, it is time; it’s time we ask for a revolutionary change before our children yet unborn calls us fools who lived but has nothing to show for a living but let me also at this juncture highlight the effect a revolutionary change will have on our corrupt nation.

First, there will be wiping away of aristocratic titles and a host of other hangovers that has truncated the nation. 

Second, there will no longer be slavery from any quarter no matter how powerful you are and terrorism will be outdated. 

Third, social vices will be drastically reduced if not totally reduced because our virtues will now be operating on the principle of “the greatest good to the greatest number” which is the greatest humanitarian service to humanity and the story of eating “the national cake” alone will be of zero tolerance. So we stand a huge chance of having a bright future as a nation if only we will embrace a revolutionary change and curse the enemy of our future which is definitely “our today” which can be in human, material or non-materialistic format. Let us spread this message of revolution now; else, we will be prolonging our misery and storing trouble for generations to come".

HOWEVER:

Daniel Akusobi aptly punctured the dreams: "We can hear your weep deep down in your heart over the fate of our country in the hands of PDP and Joe. ( the president )

We can imagine how gloomy you feel the future of Nigeria would be if we continue the way we currently do, in governance. 

You came too close to firing the first bullet in your quest for a here and now change of leadership in Nigeria. 

It is probably the same observations you harbor that made OBJ scream and screamed again on Joe for fear things he started, the good and the bad , fading away in our hands.

Obasanjo had an opportunity of being a revolution agent but may have missed the opportunities for obvious reasons including our system of government- democracy, which naturally would not allow him to play God.

You came too close too to advocating ' to your tents oh Israel " process in your piece with regards to amalgamation process of 100 years ago. 

The British then did what they did for administrative convenience with hope that we shall grow as different people and become one mother, one father, identical triplicates. 100 years later, we have evolved from North / south Nigeria to North, West, East and Delta region Nigeria to a six political zones with each zone claiming ability to be a sovereign nation on itself. The expected identical racial or tribal genome never happened. 

Today, we know British  miscalculated .

My dear, destruction is always easy. In the case of dismembering Nigerian components today, the usual will surely be hectic to achieve.  This time around, destruction will prove as much a huddle as building for the first time.

The North will fight to keep the union. The West will fight to hold on the marriage called Nigeria. Both need the East and the Delta states to survive in Nigeria or as sovereign states.

The East will say, let others try. We tried and failed in the past.

So my brother,  we have nowhere to go with disbanding the components of the nation of Nigeria.

On your call for a revolution: I will wish you a good luck on that too. Remember the mouse and the cat story. In this case, who will bell the cat? The Igbos, no way. Few understood the Igbos when they foresaw today's Nigeria in 1967. You know the rest of the story.

Is it the Yorubas'? Again, recall 1967 to 1970, the story of broken trusts and alignments that were better imagined than consumated. The Igbos will surely back off from any Yoruba led revolution.

The Hausas will not lead any such dreams since it seems the  the Hausas, are dominating the leadership and commerce of the entire nation. I don't see how the Hausas will fight against a system that puts them in almost total control.

Is it the military?  No way about that in Nigeria today. We passed that phase already. No coup plan in Nigeria today will go a minute without being published on the Internet. Our military boys are more comfortable earning money without the hassle of dealing with our national problems outside their barracks. 

Shall we do with Arab spring style revolutions? That again can only work in Arab nations and not in Nigeria. Who in Nigeria can you convince to risk their lives for others in the manner the Arabs would do.

Our Christians do not believe in martyrdom, as such they won't have any incentives to risk death on the streets of Owerri or Abuja.

Our Muslims already have their army -Boko Haram doing some of their dirty  jokes in harassing us to submission.

What option do we have?

1 there will be no revolution of the nature you are calling for.

2 we will rather seek some ethical or moral revolution aimed at developing leaders that are much more less Nigerian than usual. That would mean leaders that will be more human, non selfish, less dubious,  more loving, and progress oriented.

3 ensure we have a strong public advocacy group that can sue the government for any mal-governance, any officer that steals from the public should be sued.

4 repeal the part of the constitution that grants immunity from persecution of   sitting politicians .

5  a more honest judiciary that is fully  independent of the executive.

6  ensure people of suspicious characters, or proven ones never win election again.

Concluding, we have a lot to gain by exercising some patience while we work on training our populace to learn to take their government policy problems to the government instead of their churches. 

The most we can loose is our freedom to do this, venting out our anger on our government by means such as publishing them.

Next presidential election can begin this process. Why don't we begin with that?"

Talking About The Nigerian Revolution By Kola Ibrahim

For some months now, a debate started by an intellectual section of the bourgeois intellectuals, has been raging about the possibility and necessity of a revolution in Nigeria that will change the political state of the country. This call was again echoed by some section of the opposition. The human right community has also joined the campaign for a Nigerian revolution. But it is one thing to argue for a revolution, it is another to do so with sincerity and clear-cur definition about what a revolution means taking into cognisance the political-economic interest of the people raising such issue. The most vital aspect is the role of the labour movement and the level of the consciousness of the labour leadership. The major basis for the call for revolution by a section of the bourgeois class is the concentration of power in the hands of tiny layer of the most conservative section of the capitalist class within the framework of the limited capitalist democracy. The emergence of civil rule in Nigeria has given many capitalist politicians hope of assessing political power through power rotation as witnessed in many advanced and semi–advanced democracies where two (or three party) system operates. Unfortunately, the most conservative section of the ruling class represented by the ruling PDP was able to hold on to power despite its unpopularity for more than eight years. The so-called opposition (the other section of the capitalist ruling class) after losing all hope in all the state structures the electoral system, judiciary, etc, are looking for an opportunity to ride on the crest of mass anger to power.

Firstly, this other section of the ruling class represented by the AD and the ANPP (formerly APP) which held some regional powers at the beginning of this civilian experiment provided a basis for the popularity of the ruling party. The opposition parties which claimed to be progressive, despite the widespread support for their emergence, disappointed the poor masses which brought them to power. In fact most of these opposition parties initiated some of the anti-poor neo-liberal policies later massively implemented by the central ruling government vis-a-vis retrenchment, privatization, attack on workers' union, commercialization, among other neo-liberal policies that deprive thousands of working people, basic living standards. Take for instance in the south-west, most of the state governments that claimed to be social democrats (Awoists) introduced diametrically opposite of what they claim to represent. Rather than create jobs, tens of thousands were axed in Osun, Oyo, Ogun and Lagos among others. Social infrastructures were at their lowest ebb while massive social and industrial investments witnessed during the '60s and '80s in the west were non-existent (even the remaining legacies like Oodua Investment were sapped up and mismanaged). In Osun state under Bisi Akande (now AC National Chairman) over ten thousand jobs were axed with a whole working family (father, mother, and even children) retrenched. Labour movement was attacked. Yet, there is no serious investment in social infrastructures or the economy as education, health etc. were in their worst state while industrial investment were left in the hands of non-existent private sector. In Lagos State under Bola Tinubu, struggles for improved wages and against retrenchment of thousands of workers led to the death of a vibrant worker and retrenchment of labour leaders including Ayodele Akele. In Ogun, Ekiti, Ondo and Oyo States, the same policies were introduced and implemented.

These policy and ideological changes of the so-called Awoists led to their complete rejection by the masses except in Lagos State (being an economic centre) where general hatred for the Obasanjo/PDP central government overshadowed the anti-poor policies of the AD government, coupled with unprecedented use of monetary inducement and political patronage by the Bola Tinubu government (which were repeated in the 2007 elections). It is vital to state that the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies by the so-called progressive opposition is not accidental; it is a reflection of the changing global situation exemplified by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European Stalinist states. During the Cold War period, in an attempt to stave off social revolutions in many countries of Europe, America, Asia and especially Africa, the US and European Imperialism adopted a welfare state which gave the working poor an improved living standard through funding of education, health, full job provision (by the state) among others. This found echo in many African states (especially where the emerging nationalist capitalist class like in Nigeria were not prepared to challenge Imperialism) which led to many pro-welfare politicians and political structures emerging. This explained the existence of welfarist ideology in South-western Nigeria (and even some parts of East and North). This gave unprecedented popularity to the Obafemi Awolowo-led progressive regional government, when counter-posed to the semi-progressive governments in the East and conservative in the North (which was carried over till the second republic).

However, the collapse of the Stalinist states and subsequently the end of the Cold War gave capitalism globally the boldness to roll back the gains of welfare states in order to protect the capitalist profit. This uni-polar state led into the incorporation of the third world into the orbit of international capitalist exploitation through the politics of New World Order and capitalist globalization; and the establishment and strengthening of capitalist trade organizations (WTO, IFC, etc). No country could exist outside this orbit without a social revolution against imperialism. Therefore, many so-called social democrats, because they are not fundamentally against the capitalist system, could not explain the process simply renounce the welfarist states – from Schroeder of Germany to Mitterrand of France, Blair of Britain among others. "Welfarists" in Third World cannot be exceptions. Even many so-called left intellectuals and activists who could not explain what was happening in the Soviet Union – which is result of the absence of democratic management in the Soviet planned economy (that led to massive wastage and mis-direction of priority) coupled with failure of international socialist revolutions, all of which led to final collapse of Soviet Union and Stalinist Eastern Europe – relapsed into human "rightism" or defence of neo-liberal capitalism.

This is the ideological basis of the failure of Awoism and welfarism in south west, which coupled with crass opportunism of the so-called Awoists (who were also looking for cheap wealth) led to their unpopularity and consequent political victory of the conservative central government over the so-called opposition. The arch-conservative was able to sustain its power through massive propaganda, use of brute force, patronage and corruption, among other. The ruling party was able to manipulate all the structures of civilian state to entrench itself in power. It should be noted that the civil structures – the tiers and arms of government, the law and constitution were structured to ensure the survival of the fittest while denying the masses the right to political power. Or how else could one explain the fact that the so-called Nigerian constitution that ask government to provide basic social facilities did not make them enforceable while poor people are denied the right of forming their political party through obnoxious provisions of the constitution. In fact, the process of making and amending the constitution is structured in such a manner in which it is the already strong ruling class (from the military makers of the 1999 constitutions to the "elected" legislature and the executive) that will have the right to do this. All this, coupled with the dual character of the opposition gave the ruling party the encouragement to implement anti-poor policies and privatise public wealth.

But there is limit to the extent to which the ruling party can ride roughshod on the people; there is a limit to how much the masses can bear their scrupulous pro-capitalist, neo-liberal anti-poor economic policies, which has ensured unprecedented wealth for the one percent rich few who have cornered over 80 percent of the nation's wealth, led to their massive rejection in the 2007 elections. It was rejection of these anti-poor policies and a quest for political alternative that made the working poor to vote en mass for the opposition. But this is not to mean that the poor masses were ready to stake their lives for the so-called opposition who represent nothing different from the arch-conservative ruling parties; therefore the votes were only protest votes not a vote of confidence for the opposition parties. This explains why the ruling party emboldened by the lack of viable alternative were able to rig the 2007 elections massively and violently. The opposition members on the other hand, aside the fact the masses were not actively supporting them, are also afraid to even raise the masses to their feet after the rigged elections (when there was a general anger against the rigging) because they fear that such a step can go beyond their wish such that the masses who might have learnt from the anti-military struggles will request for far-reaching demands that can put opposition's interests in jeopardy. How will anybody expect the masses to risk their lives for the Bisi Akande (or Bola Tinubu who stood for the same anti-poor policies when they were in government), Atiku Abubakar (who only became the opposition when his economic and political interests were attacked by his compatriots in PDP) and Muahmmadu Buhari (an unrepentant anti-democrat)?

It is when it is clear that they (the opposition parties) could not get power through the structures of the state that started their call for a revolution. But when they talk about a revolution, they are not calling for a revolution where the masses will have independent power or that will lead to a socio-economic change. They are talking about a revolution that will restore them  back to the vantage position they were able to reach during the June 12 (anti-military) struggles which they can then use to negotiate power. This was how they (along with their so-called revered ethnic leaders) manipulated the June 12 struggles to seek for political power from the military men while the masses were on the street. However, this is not to mean that all those calling for a revolution are doing so for pecuniary and selfish reasons. Some, especially the intellectual section, in a quest to ensure the survival of the capitalist system are calling for a "minimal" revolution that will restore some political changes and give a facade of democratic society. This call for a revolution is a pre-emptive attempt by the rational section of the capitalist class to avoid a social uprising that will end capitalism altogether. But the limit of their perspective is shown in manner in which they advocate a Nigerian revolution – a revolution that will restore democratic system and true federalism.

But the problem the working masses are facing cannot be resolved by federalism. For instance, despite huge amount of money that had accrued to every tier of government for the past one year, no substantial improvement has come the way of the working masses. The one year of the current administrations at all levels has shown that these elements cannot be different from the past. Take education, health, social infrastructure, cost of living, workers' welfare and job creation, there is no basic improvement. Despite the huge resources, only the rich are benefiting as billions are budgeted sustain the profit interests of the big business (most of whom are also in politics) while hundreds of billions are dedicated to the capitalist politicians as salaries and emolument. While the working poor are groaning under increasing cost of living, the best the servant-leader could do is to impose a new regime of electricity tariff on the masses while giving billions for the big business in the name of stimulating non-existent private investment in the electricity sub-sector. It was the same private sector, along with the corrupt political class that looted billions of dollars that would have transformed the deplorable electricity state of the country. Also, a new regime of fuel prices is to be implemented in a couple of weeks when the masses are even finding it difficult to survive on the current rate of fuel prices but this austerity measure is not extended to the business class who are given a whooping N17 billion by the servant-leader Yar'Adua. This is clearly a failure of the neo-colonial, neo-liberal capitalist system and not that of federalism. Of course, the current civilian system is faulty and need a serious reform but these reforms will not translate to better lives for the working masses unless the capitalist economic system is removed. But this is exactly what the capitalist ideologists are avoiding. In fact, the same policies will be implemented if the so-called opposition parties are to be in power today.

It is important however to point out that what the opposition and the bourgeois ideologues are clamouring for should be a traditional demands of the labour movement, which in the Nigerian context is the pole of attraction for the working masses. This is clearly shown in the massive seven general strikes the labour movement led against some anti-poor policies of the Obasanjo government. But, despite these huge potentials, the labour leadership in Nigeria prefers to avoid raising an independent, working class political banner through this, which will serve as a genuine alternative to the rotten politics which the opposition parties are playing. Even, the labour leaders avoided openly embracing a Labour Party formed by some labour activists. Thus an ironic situation now emerged where clearly pro-capitalist politicians (who could not achieve their political agenda in the ruling parties) are now using the Labour Party to seek  political power while Adams Oshiomhole, the erstwhile labour leader contested under a completely pro-capitalist political party, AC. This has led to a situation in which the Labour Party has been hijacked by the capitalist politicians while the state chapters have either become redundant or appendages of various capitalist politicians. The other radical political parties like the National Conscience Party (NCP) and Democratic Alternative (DA), among others are either being hijacked by the right-wing elements or are politically inactive. The overall result of this is that the working masses are denied political structure of their own thus leaving their fate in the hands of various sections of the capitalist political class.

One would have expected a serious labour leadership to build a mass working people's party with a clearly genuine democratic socialist ideas (of public ownership of commanding height of the economy coupled with a democratic control of the economy and the political system by the working and poor people themselves at all levels, which will allow genuine planning based on people's interest). Such a party will stand for massive funding of free, qualitative and functional education, healthcare, job provision (with adequate living wages and pension), cheap, efficient, environmentally-friendly, agricultural system, public works – transport system (road, rail, water and air), public housing, rural development, communication system, potable water system, etc – and energy system (solar, wind, bio-waste, etc), which will rapidly develop the country and improve the living standard of the poor. This will inspire massive interests of not only the working masses but also the youth, students, artisans, peasants, etc. Despite the huge resources to achieve all this, the capitalist ruling class, in the quest for profit will never provide them. This explains why the public take-over and democratic control of the society resources becomes more necessary to ensure the implementation of thee far-reaching programmes. Such a party, through democratic control from the grass roots to the national level, will link its programmes with the day-to-day struggles of the working people (in strikes, rallies, protests, pickets, etc) and thus build a rank-and-file base for the party. It will also be easy to build a political alliance with the left-wing sections of some radical parties. With a massive working people's participation, it will be dangerous for the any ruling party to rig an election won by such a party. At this stage, it is either the capitalist class surrender power peacefully or risks a social uprising. This is the clear path to building a truly Nigerian revolution.

This however does not imply that the road will be smooth or that this process is a special formula that can be adopted in a day and yield result in a year or two. It is a long-term programme meant to inspire a political discussion and debate among the pro-labour activists and labour leaders with a serious working class political plan. There will be setbacks, even schism within such a party (as various trends – ultra-left, right-wing, etc will emerge) while the ruling class will even create moles within such a party. The examples of many countries with workers' parties (which are now more pro-capitalist than even the main capitalist parties – New Labour in Britain, PS in France, PT in Brazil, etc) which have fallen back to capitalism can be cited as a basis to ignore a call for a workers' party. But it is a known fact that most of these ex-workers' parties, while having a mass, working class base, were (are still in some instances) controlled by a pro-capitalist leaders, (with a top-down system) most of whom are only serving as a balancing force for capitalism. With a working class, bottom-top democratic policies of a truly mass workers' party, the main course will still be maintained. But the most of the labour leaders are not even ready for debate on the political role of labour movement.

Even, the industrial policies of these labour leaders are such that they prefer to fight for piece-meal demands of workers while the fundamental issues are left unaddressed. For instance, the same labour leaders that condemn retrenchment are not against privatization and commercialization which are the basis of this retrenchment. The only demand of most labour leaders (either at local, sectoral or national level) is that the labour issues should be addressed whenever any public utility is to be privatised or concessioned. But privatization and commercialization are means to cut cost and provide the big business with huge profit through attack on workers' rights. Even, when labour leaders condemn retrenchment, their ultimate demand is that workers should pay their terminal entitlements, not that they should not be retrenched. In many states and industries, the labour leaders are mostly conduit pipes to force government or managements' anti-worker policies on workers. This set of labour leaders cannot be expected to develop interest in independent working class alternative, unless pushed by the working people. Currently, the central labour unions, despite the attacks on the working masses by the current government, prefer a strategic partnership with the same government. Despite all this treachery of labour leadership, the working and poor masses still follow the labour leadership in any struggle. This is not an endorsement for their treacherous policies, but a product of the evolving mood of the masses.

In conclusion, it is clear that the working masses will again rise and struggle against the anti-poor policies of the Yar'Adua government and its clones in states, and such struggles will again bring the issue of a revolution into focus as they will realise that various section of the capitalist class cannot resolve any of the problems confronting humanity. The Nigerian revolution needed is not the one that will place the power in the hands of another section of the capitalist class, but in the working and poor people of Nigeria who create the wealth but are denied the fruit of their labour. It is the task of the pro-labour and genuinely progressive and pro-democracy activists to start campaigning for a working peoples' political platform. They should campaign that the labour movement should call the summit of labour organizations, pro-labour and pro-democracy organizations, socialists groups, progressive students' movement, etc., where the political issues will be discussed. The problem with the masses is not lack of political understanding but the absence of a genuine leadership. 

 

KOLA IBRAHIM

OBAFEMI AWOLOWO UNIVERSITY (OAU), ILE-IFE, NIGERIA 

Nigeria At Centenary, A Nation Under Bondage? By Tunde Bakare

Posted: Jan, 15 2014, 10:01AM

Tunde Bakare

By Tunde Bakare

Protocols: It was Frank Rooney who said, “Immortality is the genius to move others long after you yourself have stopped moving”.  We gather here today in honour of a man who, though dead, yet still speaks to the conscience of our nation; though his frame has returned to the earth, his name stands tall above the perversity of his generation and though his soul rests on the other side of eternity, his ideals continue to move humanity in the quest for a just and equitable society.
Abdul Ganiyu Oyesola Fawehinmi, Senior Advocate of the Masses, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, the dread of dictators, a thorn in the flesh of oppressors, defender of the poor, the people’s lawyer, known by all simply as "Gani", truly lives on. Gani is remembered today not for the houses he built though he built a few edifices, not for the cars he rode, though he was wealthy enough to afford them, not for his professional attainment though he won quite a few awards including the Bruno Kreisky Price for internationally recognized human rights advocates, the International Bar Association’s Bennard Simon’s Award and, eventually, the highest honour in the Nigerian legal profession - Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) after having been politically denied his due for many years - no, Gani is remembered today, not for any of these, for indeed, many others have attained these heights and won these recognitions; rather, Gani is remembered today for the lives he uniquely touched.
I had the privilege of working directly with him beginning from my days as a law student. Not only did he give me access to law books and reports, he availed me the use of his library in preparation for my examinations. I studied and slept in his library. He sponsored my trip to the United Kingdom for further editing and proof reading of the Nigeria Constitutional Law Reports Vol. 1 in 1981. As a lawyer in his firm, I learnt from his diligence and work ethic, the kind that would tolerate no laziness and for which less driven souls erroneously labeled him a slave driver.  Gani fought like a bulldog; once he was persuaded that a case was worth handling, he would deploy the power of concentration and pursue it to a logical conclusion and he never abandoned his cases. Gani’s passion for justice was legendary and it overrode his need for profit, yet God blessed him with a business acumen that sustained his humanitarian life purpose. He would not refuse cases simply on the basis of the inability of the prospective client to afford legal representation; rather, once he was convinced that justice for the poor was at stake, he would handle such cases pro bono. The rule of law, fundamental human rights, democracy and social justice summed up the profit for which he laboured with boundless energy.
As a human rights activist, Gani was in a class of his own, ready to go solo for what he believed in, many times to the consternation of his colleagues in the struggle.  Gani was in the struggle to spend and be spent for justice. Detained 32 times in 12 jails and various detention centres across the country and brutalized many of those times, he mustered a stoic Boy Scout-like preparedness for the worst case scenario.  With suitcase packed in readiness for the next arrest and fearing not that he could lose his life, he astounded military and civil dictators and truly gained his life when he said,
“History is a totality of events, when you fight on principles … fight to the end. This is my guiding principle. When you fight on the side of the people put everything into it. I fight on principles and would continue to fight on the side of the people. I will die for the people of this country”
As it were, he died for the people of this country when the cumulative effect of years of brutal treatment in jail cells finally told on him as he succumbed to lung cancer. Yet, heroically, even on his death bed, he remained a fighter, not just in his instructing his chambers to pursue to logical conclusion his pending case against the Federal Government but also because he took the failure of our country’s medical system to diagnose his ailment early enough as evidence of the country’s social decay and, as such, expressed a desire that such facilities be made available for the Nigerian people. Therefore, in life and in death, Gani’s mission was the liberation of the people from social, economic and political bondage. This was what he lived for and it was to this cause that he deployed the legal profession in his primary place of assignment - Nigeria, a nation whose frameworks were laid a century ago in an atmosphere of social, economic and political subjugation.  Today, five years after the departure of Chief Gani Fawehinmi and a hundred years after the framework of this country was laid, we are gathered here asking if, despite the labours of Gani Fawehinmi and his contemporaries as well as those of our heroes past that came before, especially those who fought for Nigeria’s independence, this country still remains under bondage - Nigeria at centenary, a nation under bondage?
In addressing the above question, we will first of all examine the concept of nationhood and the making of nations; we will then take a look at the notion of a nation in bondage and dissect the nature of national bondage; thereafter, we will critically examine the evolution of nationhood in the Nigerian context traveling back in time to the events leading to the amalgamation of 1914; applying our analysis to the Nigerian situation, we will seek to answer the question posed by the theme of this lecture - Nigeria at centenary, a nation under bondage? Where such a critical evaluation presents Nigeria at her centenary as an independent nation under bondage, however oxymoronic that may sound, we will seek a practical path to freedom.
The Making of Nations
Without recourse to complex theories of political science, we can deduce the purpose of nations from simple social interactions. Man’s quest for provision, protection, power, promotion, peace and progress is an acknowledgement of his need for something transcendental, something beyond his current grasp, a higher ideal that he cannot pursue alone. “It is not good for man to be alone” is how the Book puts it. As one, there is only so much he can attain and so the institution of family is created. The exponential law in his pursuit of progress is that one can chase a thousand but two can chase ten thousand. As ideals become higher and goals become greater, social interactions naturally become more complex from the family to the community and eventually to the nation, which is a group of complex communities bound together by the common pursuit of progress. The shared ideal to which this group aspires becomes embodied in the culture of the group. That ideal may find expression in such concepts as “liberté, egalité, fraternité” as in the French case or "Democracy and Separation of Powers" as in the American case. The need for an orderly pursuit of progress necessitates the organization of the group into units such that a structure evolves. The common ideal for which the group strives is manifest in the provision of public goods that are served through institutions; but the working of these institutions must be guided by predictable norms in order to guarantee stability, hence the existence of laws that reflect that ideal to which they strive at which point that ideal takes the form of a constitution, whether written or unwritten. For the culture to be preserved, for the structure to be accurately delineated, for institutions to function properly and for the constitution to be enforced against possible deviant behaviour, government is necessary, hence the group finds able persons from among themselves upon whom they confer authority and power to act on their behalf as provided for by the constitution. This framework is known as the State.
The State is defined as a legal entity possessing sovereignty and comprised of a well-defined territory, a population, a government that has effective control over the given territory, and the capacity to enter into relations with other States. It is the vehicle in which the nation embarks on the pursuit of a higher ideal. Hence, like the human trinity, a nation is a corporate spiritual entity which has a soul defined by the ideal to which the nation aspires while the State is the bodily framework in which the nation exists.
Hence, nations are formed and their geographical boundaries determined within States to the end that men may seek higher aspirations until they find the utmost aspiration of humanity and by so doing, maximize their individual and corporate potential in fulfillment of purpose.
Between Homogeneity and Heterogeneity in the Making of Nations
By the Merriam-Webster Unabridged Dictionary, the word “nation” originates from the Middle English word nacioun, which was derived from the Anglo-French word naciun, which, itself, originated from the Latin word natio, meaning “birth” and whose root word is nasci which means “to be born” or “that which has been born”. This suggests that descent is critical in the traditional understanding of the concept of nationhood. Hence, a nation is traditionally defined as a group of people who share a common descent, history, language and culture. This definition, which centres on ethnic commonality, raises a critical question, is homogeneity a precondition for nationhood?
A nation, in the traditional sense, is a tightly knit group which shares a common culture without necessarily existing as a sovereign entity. Consequently, one may refer to the Yoruba nation, the Igbo nation, the Hausa nation, the Tiv nation, the Urhobo nation, the Ijaw nation and so on – these are peoples predominant in certain geographical areas sharing a common descent, history language and culture, but sometimes lacking the structural, institutional, constitutional and governmental frameworks of a State.
However, when a nation in the traditional sense, exists as a self-governing polity within a defined territory, that is, when a homogenous group of people with common descent, history, language and culture exists as a sovereign State, it is referred to as a nation-state. Examples include Japan, Germany, France, Egypt, Albania, Armenia, Bangladesh, and South Korea, among others. These are homogenous countries where the majority of the population (over 99%) is derived from a common ethnicity and in some cases has a common creed or religion.
The idea that homogeneity is the criteria for nationhood would seem logical. Two cannot work together except they agree, how much more when a nation comprising much more than two is in question.  In essence, unity is a factor for nationhood; like the story of the old man who made his bellicose sons attempt to break a bundle of broom unsuccessfully, the creed is “united we stand, divided we fall” and like the Book puts it, a house divided against itself cannot stand. In this line of reasoning, events in history would suggest that homogeneity could foster the needed unity and, consequently, facilitate the forging of a common spirit whether for revolutionary or for developmental purposes. Revolutionary cases in point are the Israeli exodus from Egypt, the French Revolution, Germany in the two World Wars and the creation of the modern Jewish State in 1948 despite severe Arabian opposition. In the Nigerian civil war, the Biafran insurrection was sustained for three years despite their comparative military disadvantage perhaps owing to the power of unity fuelled by ethnic nationalism. While some of these actual or attempted revolutions were fuelled or sustained by a sense of ethnic nationalism, the mere absence of strong ethnic or religious divisions may have forestalled a precipitated truncation of the movement in others. In the Israeli exodus from Egypt, it is noteworthy that the presence of mixed multitudes at some point constituted an obstacle to the movement.
In terms of development, the economies of Israel, Japan, China, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore may well have been propped by the fact that in each of these countries, developmental strategies were fuelled by a certain pervading and unifying philosophy which had much to do with the homogeneous culture of the respective people.
Nevertheless, the reality is, whereas homogeneity could create a sense of nationalism, it does not necessarily translate into enduring unity, else, how can one account for civil conflicts among homogenous States? Egypt, though an example of an ethnically homogenous State, has been in turbulence since the Arab spring.
Therefore, beyond ethnic, cultural, religious and other primordial manifestations of homogeneity, unity can be found in a people’s pursuit of a higher ideal. Many modern States are heterogeneous, comprising ethnically and sometimes religiously diverse populations. Some countries have been able to build stable polities despite their heterogeneity. These States are often unified by a common ideal that transcends ethnic nationalism. Switzerland, which is one of the most politically stable and economically developed countries in the world, though heterogeneous in language, has a unifying national identity.
This is particularly true of the United States of America. In more than two hundred years, the United States has made significant progress at harnessing the strength of its heterogeneous population towards the making of a great nation. The United States is described as a “nation-state”, an appellation traditionally reserved for States with single ethnic nationalities. This is due to the pervading ideal described as the American culture or the American Dream. This Dream is expressed in the potency of the American federal system of government. It is reflected in the preeminence of the principle of “state of residence” over “state of origin” in identity determination as seen, for instance, in the simultaneous election of the Rockefeller brothers as the respective governors of New York and Arkansas in 1967 and that of the Bush brothers in Texas and Florida in 1998. Perhaps, its greatest expression so far has been the election of President Barrack Obama, an American of Kenyan descent as President of the United States of America. That the United States is arguably the most powerful country in the word today indicates that nations that are bound together by common ideals are stronger than nations that are knit together by mere ethnic nationalism or religion. It becomes more potent if this ideal is based on the God-ordained destiny of the given nation.
Therefore, a nation in the context in which we aspire to use it may be described as a group or groups of people knit together by a common ideal and propelled by a common sense of destiny, inhabiting a well defined territory organized as a legal entity known as the State, and possessing sovereignty which they confer in trust on the government of their choice.
The Nature of National Bondage
Literally, the word bondage is the state of being a slave. It is the state of subjection to a force, power or influence. Figuratively, it is a state of being constrained by circumstances or obligations. Having established that a nation is a group of people in a common progressive journey towards a common destiny, it becomes clear that when a nation as a collective entity is constrained by forces of whatever kind, internal or external, from the attainment of the ideal to which it aspires, that nation is in some form of bondage. In such a state of existence, unable to attain its ideal, it loses its identity; in relation to other nations it loses its power and, in relation to its constituent groups it loses cohesion until things fall apart and the centre cannot hold.
Therefore, national bondage may be external, when a nation is subjugated by another, as in colonization when the nation lacks the framework of State in the legal sense, or occupation when a nation or territory is invaded, conquered and controlled by another. In colonization, the colony lacks sovereignty or self-government as well as the ability to enter into relations with other territories. Such a nation is denied external self-determination. Its resources are appropriated by the colonialist and revenue suffers capital flight. Investment in the colony is only to the extent that such investments serve the interests of the colonialist.
National bondage could be internal, when the cultural, structural, institutional, constitutional and governmental frameworks of State begin to hinder, rather than serve the fulfillment of the national, subnational or individual potential. At that point, the frameworks of State become oppressive and counter-productive much like an auto-immune disease. For a heterogeneous nation, the presence of a national ideal suggests that the various groups have found their respective interests in the conglomeration of their individual aspirations and that these aspirations are better served by a union. This coming together of sub-nationalities should enhance, facilitate and catalyze, not limit or hinder the realization of the constituent destinies. Therefore, there is element of bondage when individuals or sub-national groups within the State are constrained from their potential by the national entity.
The concept of nationhood suggests that the citizens have surrendered their individual sovereignty to the State through a social contract that guarantees the provision of public goods. The individual citizen finds in the State an avenue to meet his/her need for provision, protection, peace, power, promotion and progress within acceptable norms that will ensure that the rights of other individuals are not trampled upon. These are manifest in the social, economic and political functions of the State, the basic of these being the provision of social amenities. When the institution of State lacks the capacity or the political will to provide these public goods then the nation housed in that framework of State is in bondage.
The Cycle of Bondage
In 1943, an American industrialist, H.W. Prentis identified a sequence comprised of ten stages that nations pass through in what he referred to as the historical cycle of nations. These are bondage, spiritual faith, great courage, liberty, abundance, selfishness, complacency, apathy, dependence and bondage. In this cycle, nations are said to move:

• From bondage to spiritual faith
• From spiritual faith to great courage
• From courage to liberty
• From liberty to abundance
• From abundance to selfishness
• From selfishness to complacency
• From complacency to apathy
• From apathy to dependence
• From dependence back into bondage

To understand this cycle of national bondage, the biblical story of Israel is the locus classicus. Israel, a nation covenanted to a higher ideal, was held captive in Egypt for four hundred years. They suffered cruel bondage manifest in their social, economic and political existence. Family life was attacked as their oppressors sought to decimate the population; economically, labour conditions were made unbearable even though they could not access the fruit of their excruciating labour; politically, they had no self-government. After 400 years, a deliverer arose in the person of Moses who initially sought to attain the freedom of his people through violence. The wrath of the Egyptian king made him a fugitive until he had an encounter that awakened him to the destiny of his nation. That encounter stirred in him spiritual faith and, consequently, great courage which he transferred to his people as he spearheaded the liberation of his nation. In that condition of liberty, he laid the cultural, structural, institutional, constitutional and governmental blueprint for the prosperity and abundance of the nation in line with the national ideal into which Israel had been covenanted. However, with passage of time, the nation slipped into selfishness as every man did what he liked. Selfishness gave rise to complacency as the nation ceased to pursue its full potential, and from complacency to apathy as the people became indifferent to the national ideal. At that point, the nation would lose its identity and turn to other nations for meaning. Then a deliverer would arise to liberate the people and lead them to prosperity until the nation went full cycle back to bondage.
Having laid this conceptual background, we will seek to answer the question, Nigeria at centenary, a nation under bondage? However, let us take a look at the making of nationhood in the Nigerian context as we search for a Nigerian nation.
The Amalgamation of 1914
Prior to the coming of the British, the territories that inhabited the geographical area around the River Niger existed as separate, self-governing geopolitical entities with unique cultures, administrative structures, institutions, laws and government. At the point of colonization, there was the Sokoto Caliphate with its federation of Emirates including Hausa city-states and the Middle-Belt territories down to Ilorin all subjugated by jihad and conquest; the Bornu Empire with its vassal states also subjugated by conquest; the warring Yoruba kingdoms of Ife, Owu, Ibadan, Ijaye, Egba, Ijebu, and Remo; the Benin Kingdom; the delta settlements such as Itshekiri, Opobo, Bonny and Brass; numerous Igbo towns and villages and many other small territories. At the Berlin conference in 1885, the Europeans sat down to apportion among themselves territories in which they had demonstrated interests and presence. The Nigerian territories were apportioned to the British. Through intrigues, the threat of force and the actual use of force, the British annexed these territories and set out to amalgamate them for organizational efficiency.
The amalgamation was a progressive political unification of these colonial territories to form the Colony and Protectorate of Nigeria. It began in 1883 when the Oil Rivers Protectorate was united with surrounding territories to form the Niger Coast Protectorate. Then, in 1897, after the Benin massacre, the Benin Kingdom was merged with the Niger Coast Protectorate to form the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. In 1906, the Colony of Lagos was combined with the Southern Protectorate to form the Colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria.
While the southern territories were being merged, the United African Company (UAC) - which became the National African Company (NAC) and later, the Royal Niger Company through the granting of a royal charter - had already established northern Nigeria as a sphere of British influence. After the Berlin Conference, the British Crown took over these territories from the Royal Niger Company reportedly at the cost of 865,000 pounds. When Lord Frederick Lugard hoisted the Union Jack in Lokoja in 1900, the people of northern Nigeria did not understand that Britain had, by that act, claimed sovereignty over the area. The British, through Lugard, then set out to enforce this claim by military offensive until 1905 when the Protectorate of Northern Nigeria was firmly under British control. Eventually, on the first of January 1914, a hundred years ago, the Northern and Southern Protectorates were amalgamated to form the framework of a united Nigeria.
It is very important to note that what the British amalgamated back then was the administration of the North and the South and that it was solely for the economic benefits of the British government because it was not the policy of the colonialists to use their own tax payers' money to run the protectorates.
Besides this point, Major Lugard as he then was, who arrived Nigeria about 1894, was not originally employed by the British government. He was employed by companies, first by East Indian Company, thereafter by the Royal East African Company and finally by the Royal Niger Company. It was from the Royal Niger Company that he got transferred to the British government. Since then and till now, the interest of the Europeans in Africa and that of the British especially in Nigeria had and has remained mainly economic.
It may also interest every learned colleague here present that inspite of all the "centenary celebration" touting by the government, the January 1, 1914 date relates only to the Amalgamation of the Administrations of the North and the South. The amalgamation of the judiciary did not take place until 1916 when the Supreme, Provincial and Native Courts Ordinances of Northern Nigeria were amended and made applicable to the whole country, while the legislative amalgamation of Nigeria came only in 1947.
The Nature of Colonial Rule
To the British, the area around the Niger was a business enterprise and the people a labour force to be deployed in this enterprise. This is why some historians have argued that the abolition of slave trade was merely for economic reasons as it was considered more efficient to exploit Africans in their own territories. This commercial premise for the concept of an amalgamated Nigerian geopolitical entity determined the priorities of the colonial government. Consequently, although the British government established local government administration, overseas trade and some level of industrialization, its concept of Nigeria as an instrument of British imperial interests determined its priorities such that its policies were aimed at serving the British economy as against developing the budding nation. From its political system of indirect rule to its economic projects including the establishment of communication infrastructure, shipping and railway, the credit facilities and the agricultural policy, which emphasized the production of cash crops as against food crops, most of its policies were targeted at strengthening the British economy. More devastating was the educational policy which focused on raising administrators and clerical officers for the colonial government rather than on training technical experts for national development. Even more devastating was the deliberate de-emphasis on Western education in the North by the Frederick Lugard-led colonial administration in order to maintain British control and maximize economic gains for Britain. These were clear manifestations of bondage.
Nevertheless, it is needful to debunk arguments that the pre-colonial entities would have been better off without the amalgamation. The shortsightedness of that argument lies in its failure to realize that many of Nigeria’s pre-colonial peoples were in some form of bondage as at the time they were colonized. In many cases, the people lived in feudal systems that subjected them to aristocratic domination. Many territories were vassal states subject to and paying tribute to larger territories. For instance, the Sokoto Caliphate was the result of the subjugation of the Hausa city-states and the northern and middle-belt minorities. Territories that were not under the Caliphate dominion were subject to the Borno Empire. The Benin kingdom held sway over vassal territories in the mid-west and delta area. With the fall of the Old Oyo Empire, Ibadan came close to dominating the entire Yoruba land which was enmeshed in civil wars. Only in Igbo land did many of the territories exist as small republican entities. In the absence of the amalgamation, annexation and occupation was inevitable. In such a political and economic environment, many pre-colonial territories were actually in bondage and could not have fulfilled their group aspirations.
Furthermore, with the trend of globalization which began to peak in the 20th century, the social, economic and political states of the pre-colonial Nigerian territories could not match up with the demands of civilization. For these territories to transit into an inevitable globalizing world, they needed to team up around a common ideal in line with their God-ordained destiny.  Colonization served to facilitate that coming together even though the instruments of facilitation – the British - misconceived the divine purpose.
From Bondage to Liberty
Like the case of Moses in messianic mission, early opposition to colonial rule came in the form of armed resistance. These were however quashed by the British. Violent resistance continued especially in Igboland even after the last town, Nsukka was conquered in 1910. These spontaneous reactions to oppression could not produce freedom. However, the seed of liberty was sown 1920 with the rise of the nationalist fervour as some educated Africans encountered the Nigerian ideal and began to find an identity for themselves not along their ethnic origins but as Nigerians. It is important that we take note of this because it marked the beginning of the conception of a true Nigerian nation. In a sense, their encounter with this concept of “Nigerian-ness” produced in the hearts of founding fathers some level of spiritual faith as they progressively began to see Nigeria no longer as a mere geographical expression but as a potentially great nation destined to spearhead the total liberation of Africa, which was itself destined to become the greatest civilization in the world. These emerging patriots, in remarkable demonstration of faith, called those things that were not as though they already were.
Spiritual faith produced in them great courage as they organized movements on which platforms they audaciously challenged the oppressive policies of the British. They challenged the oppressors in print and through sit-ins; they challenged them in strikes and in boycotts; they challenged them on the streets and in the legislative councils. It was with great courage that the patriots moved the motion for independence; it was with great courage that they meandered through ethnic and sectional potholes as they sat on the negotiation table; it was with great courage that they kept on the fight until an acceptable constitutional framework for democratic governance was produced. Eventually, great courage produced liberty when independence was attained on October 1 1960 to the admiration of the world. “Though tribes and tongues may differ, in brotherhood we stand… to build a nation where no one is oppressed” was the ideal to which the new nation aspired.
From Liberty Back to Bondage
The framework of the democratic Nigerian State at independence was hinged on true federalism in acknowledgement of the fact that ours is a nation comprised of many national sub-entities.  The new Nigerian state was structured along regional federating units that allowed each region to pursue its ideals and developmental aspirations at its own pace within a Nigerian national ideal. Each region had its own constitution; each region had its own coat of arms; each region possessed residual constitutional powers such that matters that were not within the national jurisdiction fell within regional legislative powers. Unlike the 1999 constitution which has 68 items on the exclusive list, the independence constitution had 44 items exclusive to the federal government meaning that compared to the federal government, the federating units had sufficient space within the framework of the Nigerian State to pursue their individual destinies. They had internal self-determination which produced regional competitive development.  From the groundnut pyramids in the north to the cocoa and rubber plantations in the west and the oil palm plantations in the east, liberty had produced abundance.
However, within a short while, abundance translated to selfishness as politicians became consumed with occupying the neocolonial space in class distinction; but to sustain the class differences they resorted to corrupt and ostentatious living while living conditions became increasingly difficult for the people. Politicians fanned the embers of ethnic and regional divisions to consolidate their power bases and by so doing gave up the pursuit of a Nigerian ideal thereby halting the evolution of a true Nigerian nation. Development was no longer the motivation for public service. Complacency had set in.  Election rigging and politically motivated violence held sway in the west as the best and brightest were crowded out of the system. In the east, elections were boycotted as apathy set in. In the pretext of maintaining law and order, the federal government trampled on the liberty of the Western Region by making a precipitate declaration of state of emergency and bringing the military into the system. To quell election violence in parts of the country, soldiers were deployed to monitor elections. By these actions, the politicians had shown themselves unable to govern and had demonstrated dependence on the military. Apathy had produced dependence. Eventually, convinced that the politicians had failed the nation, on January 15 1966, exactly 48 years ago, the military struck and the nation was back in bondage. Subsequently, on May 24 1966, the framework of the Nigerian State was destroyed when General Aguiyi Ironsi through Decree No. 34 abolished the regions. That day saw the death of the budding Nigerian nation. It was not long after that that the different nations which had been held together by the evolving Nigerian nation began to demand secession, beginning with the north when the Murtala Mohammed led counter-coup plotters advocated a northern break-away which would have been but for the persuasion of the likes of Yakubu Gowon.  Eventually, with the east insisting on secession, the Nigerian Civil War was the inevitable result. Whereas, historians say that it takes 200 years for nations to go full cycle in the sequence of national bondage, it took Nigeria just six years.
That cycle of bondage continued in rapid frequency from regime to regime. As Nigerians suffered excruciating bondage, a supposed messianic set of coup plotters, with faith in their capacity to change the system would demonstrate great courage by overthrowing the existing government and promising liberty. In most cases, the citizens would rejoice at the so called dawn of liberty. The administration would make few changes, execute few projects which would produce some semblance of abundance and thereafter slip into selfishness looting the polity in most cases. With officials engrossed in corrupt enrichment, government's focus would shift from developmental or transitional programmes and complacency would set in. The Nigerian people would then become apathetic resigning themselves to the situation waiting for the next set of messiahs – demonstrating their inability to take their destinies in their hands - a despicable state of dependence.  This state of internal oppression also returned Nigeria to extreme dependence on her erstwhile colonial masters and their allies in the form of the structural adjustment programme of the International Monetary Fund (IMF) that came with excruciating conditions which eroded Nigeria’s social infrastructure. At the same time, Nigeria’s debt to the Paris club of international creditors mounted exponentially while her wealth was brazenly looted and kept in foreign accounts in some of these countries by their internal collaborators in an oppressive international order. In essence, Nigeria was back in bondage, not only to internal forces but also to external forces.
It is noteworthy, however, that as this cycle of bondage unfolded, liberators like the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi rose up to challenge the military and press for return to democratic governance. These liberators, having encountered the Nigerian ideal could not stand injustice no matter what part of the country the victim was from. Therefore, where politicians and the military had failed, Nigeria’s civil rights activists became her new set of nationalists reviving the Nigerian ideal of liberty and brotherhood. They had faith that a new nation was possible. This faith produced great courage. With great courage, they fought against military oppression; with great courage they defended democracy when free and fair elections were annulled and heroes of democracy were thrown into jail; with great courage, they demanded a return to democratic governance. Eventually, the liberation struggle succeeded and returned the nation to civil rule. Although MKO Abiola, the hero of democracy had died in custody, it seemed that liberty had been achieved when Olusegun Obasanjo was brought out of prison to become president. The land rejoiced despite the foreboding signs; despite the awkward framework of State bequeathed to the fourth republic by the military including a fake federal structure, moribund state institutions, a militarily engineered constitution laying false claims to the appellation, “We the People” and a government that was poised to serve self and to take corruption to new heights, the people embraced the mere semblance of liberty.
As usual in the cycle, the dawn of a new era as it were came with the promise of abundance. And, truly, aided by the improved international image as well as the inclusion of internationally reputed technocrats in the administration in addition to soaring international oil prices, Nigeria’s return to civil rule brought some macro-economic gains such as the increase in foreign reserves and the buy-back of Nigeria’s debt to the Paris club. Liberty, manifest in civil rule, had produced some sort of abundance. This atmosphere of abundance provided the breeding ground for personal aggrandizement as politicians, from the presidency to the state and local governments, helped themselves to the nation's resources and became the targets of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). Then, complacency set in as General Obasanjo, satisfied with his supposed achievements, which however did not reflect significantly in the living condition of the average Nigerian, sought to perpetuate himself in power and so unleashed the machinery of state against perceived enemies among the political class. Media was censured, outspoken critics were targeted and juridical decisions were subjected to executive interpretations. Meanwhile, Obasanjo himself raised the mountain of corruption to an unimaginable peak. As apathy set in among the electorate, General Obasanjo, indignant that he could not foist a third-term agenda on Nigeria, imposed a sick president on the nation through a fraudulent election, I beg your pardon, selection, overseen by Professor Maurice Iwu.
Apathy gave rise once again to bondage as power hijackers took advantage of President Yaradua’s ailment to seize the institution of state. For a space of two months the nation was without a president and Nigerians were taken for a ride by a bunch of opportunists in and around the presidency. Budgets were signed, monies were disbursed in flagrant violation of the constitution and the law was used to shield criminals; cries by the Nigerian people for sanity were rebuffed by the hijackers. This phase of bondage overlapped with complacency as civil rights activist had for too long sheathed their swords and beat their spears into pruning hooks since the return to civil rule. It was at this time that Save Nigeria Group was born out of spiritual faith as a convergence of civil rights groups and leaders. It took faith to make the decision to march on Abuja. Faith turned to great courage as civil rights leaders and Nigerians from the six geopolitical zones placed a demand on the National Assembly to act in accordance with the constitution. Eventually, the voice of the people prevailed in the so-called doctrine of necessity.
That was four years ago. The question on your minds at this time would be, “what stage of the cycle are we now at?” The fact, however, is that, looking back at 2010 to examine what stage we are in at this point would be a shortsighted retrospection. Though the people prevailed in 2010, full liberty was not attained. Genuine liberty was not attained in 1999 either, not with a culture of corruption, impunity and sectional interest that pervades every sector and every level of the social cadre; not with a pseudo-federal structure that constrains the birth and development of true nationhood and the capacity of the constituents to develop at their respective paces; not with institutions that serve the interest of a privileged few who have cornered the resources of our country; not with a constitution that was forced on the people by the military and which gives fundamental human rights with one hand and takes them away with the other; not with a judiciary that will set free perpetrators of multibillion naira theft and send pepper and onion thieves to jail; not with legislatures that consume the greater percentage of the country’s  recurrent expenditure, making laws that have no bearing on the welfare of the people and defending positions like child marriage that perpetuate socio-economic bondage; not with executive governments that have continued the culture of plunder, looting the treasury through various schemes from the security votes of state governors to fuel subsidy by the federal government and perpetuating themselves in power through fraudulent electoral procedures by which they have perfected the act of undetectable rigging. No! It is not yet uhuru!
Time will fail me to tell of the decay to which citizens are subjected across sectors; how that Nigeria has constantly fallen in educational standards in the Mo Ibrahim Index of Governance since 2006 or that Nigeria ranks 183rd out of 215 countries by literacy rate, or that 10.5 million Nigerian children are not enrolled in school; or that no Nigerian university is ranked among the top 50 in Africa or that Nigerian students spend 5-8 years studying for four year courses because strikes and school closures are factored in.
There is not enough time to talk about the economy, how that, despite the GDP growth rate of over 7% and a reported influx of foreign investments, 62% of Nigerians still live in poverty, 100 million Nigerians are destitute as the gap between the rich and the poor widens with 1% of the country’s population controlling 80% of the country’s oil wealth.
If I had sufficient time, I would tell you how the failing health sector has worsened the standard of living of the average Nigerian with majority of our hospitals in deplorable conditions and our health workers on strike every now and then while our leaders contribute to our country's reported loss of 80 billion naira annually to foreign medical trips.
If time were sufficient to talk about security, I would talk about how that since 2010 over 400 bombs have exploded in Nigeria with lives and limbs lost, property destroyed and families devastated. Yes, little gains have been made but this framework of State cannot keep pace with the aspirations of the Nigerian in us. The jacket just does not fit. This is not the nation our founding fathers envisioned; this is not the nation that liberators like Gani suffered and died for; this is not the nation of our dreams; this is not the embodiment of our aspirations, the ideal for which we strive as a people.
The Way Forward
To move forward from this national quagmire, we must go back in order to go forward and we must approach the task on all fronts.
First, we must return to the cesspool in which the young Nigerian nation was dumped with the bath water on the 24th of May 1966. We must reach out for her, retrieve what is left of her, wash her clean and nurture her back to life. This we must do by returning to the dialogue table to restructure. Like I have said on previous occasions, we must get set to rebuild and restore; we must retrieve what is remaining of the pillars of our founding fathers and we must restructure and reconstruct; we must rebuild from wall to wall, from gate to gate; from community to community; from city to city; and from region to region until the whole nation is restored to its former and even greater glory. That is why we welcome the idea of a constitutional conference and insist that the modalities be genuinely people-driven.
Like our founding fathers when they embarked on constitutional dialogues on the road to independence, on the dialogue table, we must have the courage to confront our fears, doubts and concerns about the Nigeria question, sweeping nothing under the carpet, yet we must be ready to make intelligent compromises. As we do so, we must not forget that sovereignty lies with the people, not with politicians many of whom did not even win elections. Therefore, we must find creative mechanisms to bring all the sub-nationalities together to negotiate the destiny of our nation in such a manner that smoothly and peacefully transports us from the current system to a true people’s constitution that has genuine claims to the phrase, “We The People”. Such a constitution must guarantee social and economic rights as well as civil and political rights without derogating these rights through backdoor provisions. We must embark on people-driven restructuring, cautiously guided by the realization that a system that makes peaceful change impossible makes violent change inevitable and that a constitution that will not bend will break.
Secondly, while stakeholders and genuine representatives of the people gear up for the dialogue table, there must be a movement of  fellow Nigerians, young and old, male and female, at home and abroad, with patriotic zeal burning in their hearts, committed to finding a true Nigerian ideal and ensuring that the dialogue is conducted as prescribed by the people and that its outcome represents the genuine aspirations of the people. These Nigerians must take advantage of every medium, from social media to community gatherings and from conventional media to town hall meetings, to discuss the issues intelligently and to mount pressure on the government to respect the aspirations of the people. As Dr. Martin Luther King (Jr.) said when he stood before the American nation at the Lincoln Memorial in 1963, one hundred years after the Emancipation Proclamation was signed by Abraham Lincoln, “this is no time to engage in the luxury of cooling off or to take the tranquilizing drug of gradualism. Now is the time to make real the promises of democracy”. Therefore, we must not put the cart before the horse by placing emphasis on 2015. If we do not do the needful in 2014, there may be no 2015, but if we dedicate ourselves to restructuring our nation at this opportune time, the outcome will be the emergence of credible leadership that will ensure a Nigeria that works. Therefore as we mark the centenary, genuine patriots must take up this challenge of national rebirth and become statesmen whose shoulders the younger generation of Nigerians can mount to catch a glimpse of the Nigerian dream.
It is instructive that the term, “nation” is derived from the Latin word natio, meaning,  “birth”.  True nationhood is conceived with divine input and delivered through human instruments. Such human stakeholders must begin to accept the promptings of destiny and not ignore the paradoxical birth pangs that come with it, for those birth pangs indicate that the gestation period has climaxed and that now is the time to take our destiny in our hands.
People often ask, “now that Gani is no longer here, who will step into his shoes?” My response to that has always been that eagles do not flock. You only see one at a time. Therefore Gani’s shoes will forever remain his; nobody can step into them because they are uniquely his.  Yet, every Nigerian, at home and abroad must become a stakeholder, throwing off the cloak of complacency and apathy, and contributing in his or her unique way to the making of a nation where, though tribes and tongues differ, the people will rise in brotherhood to build a great nation where no one is oppressed and whose banner is without stain.
It is possible!
It is doable!
We can do it!
We should do it!
We must do it!
Thank you, God bless you and God bless our nation Nigeria. And may Gani's legacy live forever.

Pastor Tunde Bakare,
Serving Overseer,
The Latter Rain Assembly,
Lagos, Nigeria
            &
The Convener,
Save Nigeria Group.
Being Text Of Speech Delivered By Pastor Tunde Bakare At The 10th Late Chief Gani Fawehinmi's Annual Lecture
By The Nigerian Bar Association (NBA), Ikeja Branch
On The 15th Of January 2014
At The Airport Hotel, Ikeja.