By Nnamdi Okosieme
Before I address the issue above
fully, let me a few points clear.
1. I do not think much of Nnamdi Kanu; I am not a fan of
his; I do not agree with his methods but concede he is entitled to seek a
better life for himself and his people.
I also think we would have been spared all his drama, shenanigans and tantrums if our president had not been heedless enough to arrest him instead of finding a more workable approach to tackle the challenge he presents.
I also think we would have been spared all his drama, shenanigans and tantrums if our president had not been heedless enough to arrest him instead of finding a more workable approach to tackle the challenge he presents.
*Nnamdi Kanu |
2. I believe that those who call for tinkering with
Nigeria as it is presently constituted not only have every right to do so but
are indeed right for there is a lot that is wrong with this country. That
tinkering can come either by way of geopolitical restructuring or
constitutional amendment or whatever works best. But tinkering? Certainly!
3. I believe that it is wrong to threaten to lop off someone's head or disembowel him simply because he does not subscribe to your
views. In that regard, Kanu and others threatening people with death are way
off the mark and dead wrong. In the main, rather than advance their cause, it actually
diminishes it.
Now, to the issue above. Hate speech is decidedly
abhorrent for if left unchecked engenders violence and spawns genocide in the
end. When Hitler was threatening Jews and pigeon-holing them, the rest of the
world went about their business unperturbed. Europe and America which
had the political and military might to intervene looked the other way until
the chickens came home to roost.
Between 2010 and 2015 leading figures from the northern
part of this country including no less an individual than our current
president, spoke and acted in ways that suggested that the unity of this
country did not matter. We had leading clerics and university dons including a
former Vice Chancellor of a leading university in this country, who spoke
carelessly with utter disregard to the effect that their comments would have on
the rest of the country. One man in particular, Prof. Ango Abdullahi, the
former Vice Chancellor of Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), carried on as if he
had divine mandate to cause disaffection among Nigerians. Even today, he has
not repented of his folly and was one of the first individuals to endorse the ‘quit
the north or die order’ handed the Igbo by an Arewa group.
As Abdullahi and his ilk were firing salvos from the
north in the build up to 2015, their like-minded brothers in the Niger Delta
were matching "fire for fire".
In between, Kanu, was stoking embers from London
with his vitriol.
At the time this was all happening, Nigerians were too
engrossed with politicking. 2015 was the summum
bonum to which everything, the unity, peace and corporate existence of Nigeria
must be sacrificed. We got our 2015 but we also got left with a fractured
country, a country riven across ethnic and religious fault lines.
Yes, hate speech is bad but if a professor and former
administrator of a university revels in it, why should an upstart looking to
polish his image and aggrandize himself at the expense of millions of his
mainly uninformed followers, also not make it his favourite past time? Why
won’t he when leaders in the east have for years abdicated their responsibility
of speaking up for their people, providing for them and guiding them? There was
a gaping void, a yawning vacuum and Kanu settled nicely into it.
And for those of us now getting our hackles up at the
flowering of hate speech in our country, one way of addressing it is by raising
our heads up from the sand. We must quit playing the ostrich and address the
issues, which have engendered it.
The question then arises: is it wrong or out of place
for a group of people to agitate for better treatment within a union they find
themselves in? Even if to all intents and purposes, their demands may be
considered a bit outlandish or presented in a way that offends the
sensibilities of others, is outright denial of their right to so aspire the
best response?
Today, it is Kanu and his IPOB that are considered
villains. Two decades ago, it was Ken Saro Wiwa and his MOSOP that were deemed
the bad guys. For daring to challenge an unjust and oppressive system that
denied his people room for flowering of their talent and enjoyment of natural
resources freely given to them by their creator, Saro Wiwa was murdered by the
Nigerian state.
At the time, many save a few in the media and the human
rights community considered Saro Wiwa a trouble maker of sorts. They did not
align themselves with his vision, which though particular to his people, was
actually pan Nigerian in scope in the sense that success for the Ogoni would
have opened the way for a more humane and responsible treatment of other
smaller tribes. But Saro Wiwa was killed and the momentum halted until
heedless, swashbuckling and gun-toting youths burst out of the Delta seething
with anger and wreaking havoc.
Today, the east is stirring and Nigeria is
responding the same way it has always responded-by living in denial and hoping
that by demonizing the agitators, murdering some and clamping others in
detention, the problem would go away.
Kanu may be an opportunist cashing in on an opening
presenting itself; he may be a misguided hothead fomenting trouble and
upsetting the fragile peace existing between Ndigbo and the rest of the tribes but can we all say in clear
conscience that Nigeria is
one blissful El Dorado
where everyone is getting his due? And does Kanu not have followers in their
numbers who have totally and completely for good or ill, keyed into his vision?
What is to happen to these people? They will all be thrown into jail?
We must find answers to these question and quickly too!
*Nnamdi Okosieme is a Nigerian journalist and writer
No comments:
Post a Comment