By Odia Ofeimun
Each time it was discovered that the ship of state was foundering, without compass, and no one seemed to have a handle on how to navigate with a proper goal-orientation, the question, Whither Nigeria?, has been asked as a way of giving expression to where we are as a country, where we are going or where we should be going. Mostly, the issues have emerged from trying to think beyond the scramble by the various nationalities in the country. In a multi-ethnic society, reality tends to be resolved around levels of perception in the practice of governance.
*Odia OfeimunI am interested in how we’ve been fixed by history, and how we’ve always managed to have so many unresolved issues, so embarrassingly many, even now, when the most intense marker of dissension in the Nigerian firmament is the Boko Haram Insurgency in the North-East which has sought many times, unsuccessfully, to declare a Caliphate over parts of the country. Take the other issue around MASSOB (Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra) and the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB). They have raised the Biafran secessionist flag contentiously and ambitiously over what used to be the Eastern Region. Successive Federal Governments have pursued them with punitive measures as if the civil war of 1967-70 did not quite come to an end. Now, look, the clouds are gathering, as fractions of the Yoruba, at home and in the Diaspora, are angling for a secessionist binge of their own, unless, as it is stressed, ethnic nationalities are allowed to become self-governing within the Nigerian Federation.
Let me say that I concede their purpose, but not their angle. At any rate, I think that there is a cautionary note to be registered against the various secessionist pressures which have been heightened, I believe, by the recent upsurge of the Nigerian Fulani from amongst whom there has emanated an invitation to all other Fulani across sub-Saharan Africa to come take over Nigeria as a permanent homeland. Let me be upfront with it that I concede their angle of having a commitment to a homeland, but not to the purpose of withdrawing from a common sense of nationality with other Nigerians. I say this as a backdrop against which I must accommodate what I shall call the Fulani Upsurge.The upsurge has
come down to a question of whether the scramble for Nigeria should be in
piecemeal fashion through armed propaganda or in one fell swoop to displace
those who currently regard themselves as Nigerians. It would seem that the
upsurge, as a strategy, has had a test run in the National Assembly in the
attempt by organic legislators of the Fulani to deploy Nigeria’s Basic Law, the
Nigerian Constitution, as a means of designing or divining a law-governed
approach to have the Fulani domiciled in each of Nigeria’s 776 local
governments. The purpose, as it is being stressed, is to achieve the
formalization of cattle grazing reserves, rural grazing areas, cattle
republics, or cattle routes of which the latter, unfortunately have been so
grandly reminiscent of pre-colonial slave-hunting routes that it has caused
quite some disgust and umbrage. Add to it, the avid pursuit of legal
encirclements of local governments in the test-run of bills at the National
Assembly. Due to the rampage of armed propagandists supported by the Cattle
Breeders Association of Nigeria, the Miyetti Allah Kaital Hore, all of the
protagonists of the cattle breeders, though not necessarily of the same ethnic
stock, have shown enough capacity to contest the state’s monopoly of the means
of violence in such a way that their common occupational drives are generally
assumed as marks of their common identity.
I want to state in this connection
that the Nigerian situation has had quite a boiling pot quality, if not drama,
since the recent informal application of the President of the Republic of Benin
who wants his country to join Nigeria as the 37th state of the Federation. This
application, from another multi-ethnic country, has come as a follow-up to
years of special relationships, nurtured personally by Nigeria’s President
Muhammadu Buhari with Francophone countries – in particular, the Niger
Republic. Whether or not one of the countries is serving as incubator, follow
up, or rehearsal of the special relationship with Nigeria, the matter of
importance is that, from the standpoint of whither Nigeria, of how the country
will fare in the near or distant future, there is a driven pattern of
cohabitation that it demands within the possibility of Nigeria splitting up or
seeking to fuse with neighbouring Francophone African states. Clearly, it is a
step away from the case of Morocco which, incongruously, in my view, wished to
join the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to create a larger
French community of which Nigeria would have to be a member. Suddenly, we are
confronted by the loaded question of how Nigeria, on its own or in
agglomeration, may be governed beyond current skirmishes in the debates over
the restructuring of the Nigerian Federation. Whatever may happen, the core
issue remains how the split or coming together of territories or the hitching
together of cultural geographies within and around Nigeria, can fit into an
agreement between fellow Nigerians not merely on the need to stay together as
one country but on how any form of coming together can be framed and
actualized. This, to be sure, is one of the things it could mean to ask
‘Whither Nigeria’ in the current dispensation.
I grant that, in seeking to ask
and answer the question there are elements of the not so normal, if not a
breakdown of normalcy, a civil war situation, a war without fronts, a strut of
wanton disorder and a general plunge into spoliation and possible self-defeat
in the scenarios that we can picture as part of the Nigerian maelstrom. What
needs to be written into it is how the structure of power in Nigeria offers a
sense of ultimate decision-making where it used to be said that nothing works;
but it is increasingly being argued that anything can happen, especially if it
is bad. To put it this way is to draw attention to how far the country has
travelled, or regressed, since General Muhammadu Buhari took over from
President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015. As it was argued, change was imperative;
and so change needed to happen. Campaign managers were brought from Barrack
Obama’s America to help rephrase the challenge. If, by some mischance, there
was electoral victory for the wrong candidate, it was speculated that hired
armed propagandists from the Sahel’s unfinished civil wars could be cashiered
into the country to unleash mayhem of undefined proportions as a settlement of
accounts.
Later, the public space was
reliably informed that the armed propagandists who were hired for post-election
accounting collected their fees, but refused to return to where they came from
after President Jonathan conceded victory and so did not provide an excuse for
anyone’s blood to be shed. A new moral bypass was therefore allowed for the
armed propagandists to dissolve into sundry schemes of ethnic solidarities that
have since enabled them to stick around in the country. Not to forget: this
happens to be the country where change was slated to happen but no one has been
available as canvasser, claimant or parent of any genuine change. Actually, it
would seem that the question: Whither Nigeria?, at this lecture on the platform
of the Obafemi Awolowo Foundation, is some way of visualizing a country ahead
of us that is eminently saveable in spite of the change that has not taken
place.
Need I say it; for a society to be
saveable, there must be a class of people who are ready to do the job. In this
regard, the Nigerian circumstance has been marked, if not muddied by a certain
leader-centred capacity for manoeuvre which cuts across political party lines
and which has formed a peculiar political culture of its own.. One way to put
it is that no matter how seemingly divergent they may appear, Nigerian
political gladiators are informed by the same political purview in the sense
that they have the same dispositions in goal orientation and party
organization. A flat ideological landscape exists across them which is easiest
explained by the fact that they are mutually interchangeable, outside, and even
within ethnic differences. Since no political grouping is likely to depend on
subscription for its mobilization of political bias, the same form of
capitalist financing is at the root of their nativity and self-assertion.
They engage in similar funding
practices with past political entrepreneurs and business moguls who supply what
political scientists of the Maurice Duverger school of thought describe as
sinews of war. Once near or in power, they have the same schemes of resource
mobilization. They depend on security votes that have been appropriately
sanitized through sheer giraffing in favour of future loot-sharing that by-passes
formalities. In more recent years, the governors have resorted to tax
consultants as a means of beefing up their war chest for electoral purposes to
make sure that political money continues to flow. The pattern was borrowed from
military adventurers in power but it has quickly proliferated from the more
daring venturers of the Fourth Republic until a critical mass of the political
class yielded to it. This has reduced the old bogey of ten percenters or of
higher percentiles in about 23 states in the Federation. At the last count, all
the incumbents steeped in tax consultancy for the purpose of political finance
had to make it a test for the Governors’ Forum.
It was embarrassment that made the
Governors to appeal to the reformer’s bracket rather than support evident
criminality. Except that the reforms have not come and cannot happen because
there is no grand electoral law serviceable enough to constrain the
loot-sharing classes. And there is none that is stringent enough to debar the
habits of purchasing elections as it used to happen in the older democracies
before they discovered the law and the mass media as owners of and sticklers
for transparency. What we must say here is that the various extra-statutory
means of political finance have so outclassed the old means of political
corruption that those who came to fight it by bringing change have since
re-defined it. Such that General Muhammadu Buhari, who as a military Head of
state jailed politicians for up to 89 years and more for enriching their political
parties, has been giddily financing his own political parties and projects in
the Fourth Republic without batting an eyelid about the absence of a proper
electoral law that can guide political finance.
Not even Professor Attahiru Jega,
the great socialist and political scientist, as Czar of the Independent
National Electoral Commission could wangle a proper electoral law to ensure
that political money was sanitized beyond ethnic and regional derivatives of
power. What this tells us about Nigerian politics is that the leader-centred
nature of the polity is secured by a formality of toxic economics which
commands distribution channels and ensures a monolithic, or call it, a
‘monocratic’ principle that filters down to all levels in all political organizations.
At the top of it, there is a necessary assurance that those who are not within
the bracket of political access will lose their standing along the principles
of merit and transparent management.
In order therefore to know where
the country could be or go, one has to follow the leader. This needs to be
explained. Under the Fourth Republic but more under President Muhammadu Buhari,
the whole system has been such that the centre of the political party system
has been unable to hold together. Whereas in President Jonathan’s time, it was
his party that abandoned their President in search of regional solidarity, in
the case of President Muhammadu Buhari, he was the one that abandoned his party
in pursuit of an ethnic and personalist agenda.
He has had no formal posit or brokerage that allows for the insertion of alternative ideas or ideals. This means that there is a necessary narrowing down of the system as in virtually all the administrations of the Fourth Republic, so that government stumbles on and runs into contrived accidents and dead ends almost as a rule. The better way to put it is that in a democracy, the political party is supposed to be the means of aggregating, articulating and adjudicating matters of value. But lacking party focus, the scatter–diagrammatic of reading the body language of the leader has been exemplified by absolutely nepotistic surrounds, that do not allow citizens to have objective expectations of civic correctness.
With most
strategic appointments being a haggle over ethnic and regional balance, the
whole system enters a conundrum of amoral familism in which whom you know may
grant trust, but does not ensure the efficacy of structures of government or
party. Especially so, when whom you know does not guarantee that the structures
of government will be allowed to deliver as they were constructed to do. The
fallout of this is that the concept of work, as ise, aiki, olu, as a factor of
goal-orientation, is held radically in abeyance, trashed across the board, so
that charity rather than duty is turned into a code of rectitude, functioning
between a balance of power and a balance of terror.
This is what is playing out on the
Kaduna/Abuja road and across the whole country where those who do not want to
depend endlessly on being mendicants, beggars in the system, resort to
self-help as bandits and kidnappers, as if assured that there will be no
penalty for wrongdoing. In my view, this is an issue at the heart of this
lecture which requires that we all have to enter something of a heart of
darkness to find the answer. Let me put it this way: that there is no mystery
in that heart of darkness. Just that because of the way it is structured much
of what has happened to the country in this dispensation is a function of what
it offers.
To save time, I have chosen to
start by looking at the nerves and vision of the incumbent government from the
most familiar grounding on the platform of the Obafemi Awolowo Foundation: that
is, on the issue of education as the touchstone of national salvation. Not that
I wish to re-theorize what is already well known about Awolowo’s consummate
offer of education as the means by which we could put all the knowledge in the
English language into our indigenous languages and all the knowledge in our
indigenous languages into the English language; and so to universalize them,
and equalize the relationship between the colonizer and the colonized, build
equality and commonality between all the ethnic groups across the country; so
that we may defeat those who think that Nigeria cannot be raised to unity or
coalescence because of regional and ethnic differences.
Following Awolowo, unity is not to
be assumed, but worked at, worked for, to turn what he saw as a mere
geographical expression into a cultural expression. It means sound
deliberation, hard work: knowing that it is not ethnic or linguistic
differences that create division and tribalism but their mismanagement by power
seekers and power holders. Of course, the narrower the pyramid of power, the
more inhumane and inhuman it tends. With restricted access to education, it
becomes more difficult to widen the base of civic commitment to a cohesive
society; or to thinking together, planning together and strategizing for the
emergence of a polity that can serve the dream of an Africa awakening among the
strong of the world.
…And so, it happened that, after
so many decades of governments paying lip service to mass education while
raising opposition to it in practice, it seemed Nigeria was reaching some
plateau of acceptance or understanding when President Umaru Yar’Adua came to
power in 2007. He brought into government a very robust indication that a
speedy education policy for Northern Nigeria was what was needed to free up the
rest of the country. The good part is that President Goodluck Jonathan, as his
successor, followed it up, believing that education of the North was the driven
approach to end the major drawback to educational advancement in the country.
He built 165 almajiri schools, and 27 colleges.
It was meant to be a cross-party,
non-partisan development of education and transformation. President Jonathan
did not just plan to build schools and colleges. With the windfall from oil, he
prepared for an era in which the country could begin to dream of wiping out
illiteracy from the country, building industries and employments that could lay
a basis for a different kind of development. In a country where fifteen million
children of school-going age were lying fallow on the streets, mostly as
almajiri, baited as recruits by sundry terrorists masquerading as clerics of
the Boko Haram variety, what could be more apt than a response intended to ride
terror to a halt through education!
So he created a special military
unit, the Safe School Initiative, endorsed by the United Nations in 2014, for
covert and open protection of schools and colleges in the era of
education-hating Boko Haram. Energy through education was what he thought would
bring up a new generation that would run smart farms and factories and
gradually wipe out the divide between the North and South. Jonathan resolved on
it as part of a quiet preparation for the alleviation of poverty even if it had
to take a whopping reliance on the central treasury to round it all out for the
whole country. But it all turned out wrong.
Once General Buhari removed the
Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and settled down to business, one of the first
things he did was to close down all the educational ventures that had taken
such great expectations to strategize. As if the Federal Government had simply
become an arm of the notorious Boko Haram, haters of schools and kidnappers of
school girls, and blockers of the spread of so-called Western education, all
the grand plans were simply routed and abandoned. Weeds were allowed to claim
and outgrow the venturesomeness that was taking over sloth and planlessness in
education.
In place of what should have been
a campaign for schools and colleges, in the way that Obafemi Awolowo and later
his followers, LK Jakande, Bola Ige, Ambrose Alli, Bisi Onabanjo and Michael
Ajasin had spent years building and campaigning for the free primary and
secondary education schemes, what the people got was a campaign for a different
promise of revolution. Not schools but grazing reserves for cattle; not
colleges but cattle republics, and the search for ancient cattle routes,
forgetting that it took education for India, the Netherlands, Australia, even
next door South Africa to create the revolution in animal husbandry instead of
the ancient form of normadism that manages to produce less than 19 % of
national requirements with the rest of Africa having cows that produce fifteen
litres of milk per cow while our own produce less than two litres. I will
return to this.
Today, an industry that supplies
only 19 percent of Nigeria’s annual cattle needs is really not being considered
in terms of triplication of its output within the shortest time possible. That
is sad. While the civilized solution requires herdsmen to build ranches, some
people, it would appear, are wishing for Nigeria, which has “19 million cows or
thereabouts”, to apply methods and approaches that would fit Brazil, a country
of similar human population size, with about 305 million cows over a land area
nine times larger than ours. Obviously, with so much less land to play with
than Brazil, and even if we had more, it ought in fact to be neater thinking
about ranching instead of punishing the cows over wide distances. The snag is
that in Nigeria misusing the cows has been accepted as tradition. So
adversarially are they treated over unfair distances that, in spite of the
presumed love of the cows, they produce so much less milk than all cattle
rearers across the world. Audu Ogbe, as Minister of Agriculture, lamented that
our cows produce one litre of milk per day compared to 15 litres per cow in
Kenya, Botswana, Uganda and South Africa, and fifty litres per cow in much of
Europe. Reduced by maltreatment to inferior specie, our cows are not even
calving enough to meet demands ranging from 6,000 cows every day in Lagos state
and about 70 to 80 thousand cows per day across the country. A truly serious
country, confronted by the realities would first impose a ranching code without
wasting time, and ensure that the ranches are in the areas in which the
ranchers have cultural empathy in order to avoid the violence which, in the
Nigerian situation, can be blamed on the state’s complicity.
Arguably, this may well be done
from the humungous size of Northern Nigeria, three times larger than the south
and less densely populated; except that the champions of the influx do not
appear to be really looking for a cohesive Fulani cultural geography. They
appear to be wishing to take the country either in one fell swoop or through a
scattering of seeds as in the case of the proverbial sower, zeroing in upon
truly green and juicy lands, such as forest reserves, which were actually
planted and replanted for generations by local farmers through deliberate
efforts to reverse logging propensities from colonial times.
During the recent Senate hearings
of Chief Security men being appointed as ambassadors, there were testimonies to
the effect that 1000 forest reserves across the country have been overrun by
random migrants. It was an admission of culpability on the part of the security
men who could allow parts of the country to be taken over and ranked as
ungoverned spaces.(A very unhealthy term where there are local governments). It
suggests that forest guards, who themselves have been abandoned, simply learnt
to abandon the ship of duty to an indeterminate authority thus allowing a
virtual invitation to any group of bandits and brigands from outer space to mount
a takeover of Nigerian forests while security chiefs would write the
post-mortems.
Of course, to change all this
required a rethinking of animal husbandry as serious business. Beyond being
just a way of life for segments of society, it called for turning the industry
into a grand affair such as have taken so many countries upwards and up in
development while Nigeria continued to wallow in the ordure of cows that the
protagonists of the herdsmen dreamt for in grandiose terms that could never
work whether from the grassroots of genuine educational advancement or in the
highfalutin terms that amounted to running fast to remain on the same spot. We
may well recall in this connection the gargantuan sums spent on building River
Basin Authorities across the Sahelian North which were soon abandoned, left to
founder, to the annoyance of Niger Delta militants who saw oil boom being
treated as mere largesse to be wasted on cattle projects.. After the river
basin authorities, came the grand plans for Rural Grazing Areas, rugas, and
cattle republics. They were supposed to be grand cities of Dubai proportions
built with oil money; with little thought for animal husbandry while herdsmen
were, as always, considered in terms of nomads engaged in open grazing in the
belittling ways of treating them as not being modern enough to handle cattle
ranches.
Interestingly, herdsmen were being
seen by their protagonists merely as users of sticks who needed to be upgraded
to users of Kalashnikovs, with an army of them to be unleashed from across the
borders ostensibly to stand up to rustlers but more and more to seek lands
exclusively for herdsmen already in quite a millenarian struggle for grazing
reserves. Modern cities with state of the arts facilities were being considered
for the herdsmen but fixated along formulaic ways of thinking of ancient
herdsmen in open grazing. The passion with which these were being pursued, not
for educating the whole society but building special towns and cities for open
grazers in exclusive locales, was a cancerous vogue. It turned people off.
Assumedly, they would not have to turn other people’s farms into grazing
fields.
But it was all out in the zeal
with which bills were being pursued in parliament to realize the rural grazing
areas, rugas, cities for herdsmen who were considered in apartheid formulaic
terms; cities exclusively for Fulani herdsmen to be distanced from other
Nigerians. It turned out that they were organizing herdsmen’s sororities to
support open grazing of cattle, preparing the way for rugas under the auspices
of the Cattle Breeders Asociation, the Miyetti Allah Kaotal Hore. Their
ambition was to create Fulani conurbations across the country that would be
hospitable to open grazing and defending herdsmen who were grazing down crops
by farmers usually of a different ethnic stock.
They were asking farmer-folks
across the Middle-Belt to choose between their lives or their lands, seeking to
turn armed propaganda for open grazing into government policy, which became
obvious when national security chiefs and presidential spokespersons began to
admonish local farmers being harassed and quitted from their homesteads and
farmsteads to show empathy to herdsmen who were merely seeking grazing lands
for their cattle. The offside of this is that irrespective of the haggle over
the activities of the herdsmen as proved by the raiding and destruction of
farmlands, there were takeovers of villages and towns that were being swiftly
renamed to blanch them out of history, while the inhabitants were being driven
into refugee camps as if they were just another front of Boko Haram victims
from the North-East. The proof, if any was needed, is that 2.8 million refugees
were swiftly in refugee camps, stylishly described as internally displaced
persons, who were not being allowed to return to their homes. Surely, anyone
seeking to know where Nigeria was heading would be doing veracity a service by
considering that Nigeria had become a country where up to three million people
were in refugee camps for internally displaced persons, outside a declared
civil war.
In effect, it simply happened that
the great issues and uproars of our times began to centre on herdsmen
mass-migrating as ethnic fractions of the Fulani from Mauritania, Mali, Niger
and Chad, and from other parts of Africa. All of them were apparently following
invitations to join in the scramble for lands that were not usually identified
with the Fulani in Nigeria. Or to put it in the strident terms of the social
media, the Fulani in Nigeria were inviting the Fulani all over Africa to come
to Nigeria to take over the country with armed propaganda. Since they could
find no means of achieving their purposes within the Nigerian lawmaking
process, they were presumably resorting to armed propaganda which was occasioning
a great increase in the clashes between herders and farmers across the country.
Whether or not this was in pursuit
of the protocols of the African Union and the Economic Community of West
African States (ECOWAS) on free movement of people, it happened to have
implications for life in Nigeria that was bound to shake the whole country to
its foundations. It became the determinant of every other purpose of
government. In essence, Nigerian herdsmen have been across many states in the
manner that Boko Haram terrorists have been doing across the northeastern
states for a decade as armed propagandists occupying lands beyond the cultural
geographies with which the Fulani in Nigeria are usually identified. Like Boko
Haram, who have been officially described as ´technically defeated´, they were
always returning to be more virulent than the last time they were sighted.
Several communities were being
over-ridden and renamed to blacken them out of history. Whole geopolitical
zones, the nation’s bread basket, were threatened with imminent famine as a
result of the virtual demobilization of and massacre of farm folks. From within
and outside Nigeria, Fulani youths, who should be truly benefitting from a
Marshall Aid to give them education and skills that could remove them from
harrowing poverty, were being dragooned in their hundreds of thousands, in
trailer loads from the North and dumped into forests and virtual urban jungles
in the South. They are being made to suffer horrid indignities so that they too
would learn to inflict grosser indignities on others! Assuredly, these are the
grand and subaltern narratives of our times in the face of governments that are
openly asking indigenous farmer-folks in the Middle Belt and across the country
to be hospitable to strangers who have been confronting them, ordinary
peasants, with Kalashnikovs (AK47 riffles).
By the way, they are called armed
propagandists here, because they demand ´your land or your life!´, an
advertisement of their core goal, turning Nigeria into a country that luxuriates
in arrant self-abuse while the security men who should be protecting the
citizens are giving the impression that they were merely moon-lighting. The
harder part is that the Federal Government of Nigeria, under a leadership that
is notionally Fulani, has appeared rankly incapable and so technically
overwhelmed that no solution it has provided has been up to scratch in meeting
the challenges.
The nepotistic surrounds of
government at the Federal levels and the consequent difficulty of having a
rational non-ascriptive discussion of civic competence, has compounded the
problems. Understandably, the local populations across the country, feeling
unprotected and betrayed, have accountably lost faith in the national security
apparatus. They view all the security forces, all of them under determinate,
parochial, ethnic leadership, as being easily and constantly overtaken by
virtual hoodlums who perpetrate mayhem. Hoodlums, so called, are pumping
general distrust into the public space with forms of impunity daring all
communities to set up their own home grown security arrangements.
In the Middle-Belt, North-East,
North-West, South-East, South-West and the Niger Delta – communities and zones
are having to seek self-help away from national security organizations. In
order to fend off constitutional constraints and restraints, the self-help
approaches have been taking the form of basically semi-formal or makeshift
formations such as the seemingly unending ding-dong at the Boko Haram war
fronts. In Borno and Yobe states, the state governments had to set up what are
called Civilian Joint Task forces, CJTF, in order to feel safer. More recently
they have been toying with the idea of hiring foreign mercenaries to relieve
federal agents of intermittent attacks on the governors entourage. In Kano
State, lacking faith in the Federal Police system, the Governor has relied on
the Sharia oriented police, Hisbah, which has been very quickly copied by other
Sharia compliant states. Sundry such organizations have been set up right down
to local government levels in 23 of Nigeria’s 36 states. They have entertaining
names like “Yan Kasai” Local Vigilantes in Zamfara State, “Yan Banga” in
Sokoto, “Anumi” in Taraba, Kaduna State Vigilance Service, BOYES. Bornu Youth
volunteers under JTF, Neighbourhood Watch Group in Ebonyi State, and
Neighbourhood Safety Corps Agency in Rivers state. The widespread and elective
nature of these security organizations, outside Federal charge, have not roused
the Federal Government to a positive thresh of policy.
Not to forget that Federal
quandary has been advertised with the formation of Special Anti-Robbery Squad
(SARS) which has contributed a negative perception to the rating of the
Nigerian security system by being adept at corruption and extra-judicial
killings. The agitation by the EndSARS Movement, mounted from state to state,
but mostly in Lagos State, for the Special Anti-Robbery Squad to be banned, has
gone beyond uproar to threats of regime change. This, it seems, is what has
made federal umbrage to assume proverbial counter-insurgency features like
seeking out the leaders of the avowedly leaderless movement for arrests,
torture and seizure of bank accounts. In effect, instead of abiding by the
intermittent agreements and official announcements of the ban on SARS, the
Federal Government has been rather more adept at showing how inauspicious SARS
has been in the annals of security undertakings in the country. It is not
surprising that the mounting campaigns to EndSARS engendered quite a resounding
Movement that seems to be unending.
By the way, the search for
solutions beyond such Federal interventions was seriously highlighted when the
six Governors of the six South-West states of Lagos, Ogun, Oyo, Osun, Ondo, and
Ekiti, announced the creation of the Western Nigeria Security Network, which
they called Operation Amotekun, the Leopard. It was patently anti-climactic to
see the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice of the Federation, Shehu
Malami, describing it as illegal. Many people had thought that the South-West
Governors were merely following the motions of the common Nigerian practice,
made famous by the Nigerian Army, of giving fearsome names to security
operations or security units as in the case of Black Scorpion, Crocodile smile,
Operation Puff Adder, and Operation Python Dance. Such naming of security
outfits by state governments tended to indicate seriousness while assuring the
public of a change of focus from mere dithering by officialdom. It had already
become such a raucously distinguished way of pursuing security business that it
would have been almost out of character for the six Governors to have started
on a different footing.
So, on the surface, the six
Governors were doing what all Governors tended to do. Except that there were marked
differences in that this happened to be a cross-party laager by Governors of
six different states angling to secure the Yoruba cultural geography. The six
were ceremoniously hosted in the city of Ibadan outside the formal Nigeria
police and general security aegis. Recall that this was the city where Nigeria
has had so many or some would say, too many firsts.
Apart from the first All Nigeria
Conference that opened the way to constitutional Conferences in 1950, the city
was where a sitting Premier lost an election for fighting for the first
compulsory free education and free health services, and where the first
skyscraper was built, and the first political emergency was declared in
independent Nigeria in 1962. Who can forget innovations like the first television
house in Africa and the Liberty stadium. Ibadan was the capital of a region
that had scored quite a remarkable success in opposing all the un-progressive
governments in Nigeria´s history. This was the city into which the current
Attorney-General of the Federation, Shehu Malami, decided to throw a hammer by
declaring a concertedly designed security formation as illegal.
Interestingly, he was not trying
to resolve or manage issues surrounding the distrust of the parochialized
federal security agencies. He did not seem to be unduly worried by the logic of
the self-help outfits provoked by the discovery of several cells of armed
propagandists in many parts of the country. More than 1,300 cells of the
dreaded herdsmen – reputedly the fourth most terroristic group in the world –
had been found in the old western Nigeria with a fifth of that number in the
old Midwest state. Bandits and kidnappers had tortured, extorted and humiliated
a respected presidential candidate, Chief Olu Falae, roughed up traditional
rulers, killed a high profile personality like Mrs Olakunri, daughter of Chief
Reuben Fasoranti, the Afenifere leader. Kidnapping, torture, rape and extortion
of high and low profile personages, across the zones had become the norm. Even
among incurable pacifists, it was bounding to a provocation. It surely
warranted some self-defence option to spell any traction. The takeaway, for all
concerned, is that the situation had become too brazenly frequent to be treated
as mere happenstance. Not that Federal security was unavailing; it was simply
ineffectual. Sundry provincial security outfits, without official federal
endorsement, but enjoying more trust and commitment across the country, were
seen to be out-performing the regular security behemoths. It left too much room
for wondering what could be done to return to status quo ante bellum. Surely,
the preliminary conclusion was inescapable, or let us say, it was simply
mandated by the facts: that this was indeed the TIME OF THE LEOPARD, Amotekun,
almost in the way that under Apartheid in South Africa, Alex la Guma´s title
talked about TIME OF THE BUTCHERBIRD.
The core issue here is that the
attempt by the Attorney-General of the Federation to illegalize the Western
Nigeria Security Network, touched the heart of the Nigerian dilemma in a manner
that made it an obvious struggle between the centre and its peripheries in the
Federation. At a time when the constituent units across the country were
literally seeking an opportunity for revolt, and in addition to the constant
needling and irruption by pro-secessionist Indigenous Peoples of Biafra, IPOB,
which was soon threatening to set up its own Amotekun-type organization, as it
soon did with Eastern States Security Network, the centre seemed determined to
exercise a very obtuse display of power. Nothing could be more ill-advised than
twiddling the tail of the Amotekun in the South-West, knowing that it would be
tailor made for an uproar that would be replicated across the country.
So it happened that, because the demand for a
state police had been too haughtily slammed down by Federal illegalizers, the
resistance to Amotekun was simply seen as proof of bad business. A federal
government, failing every attempt to maintain security of lives and property,
not just in one state but across the country, was truly in such bad business
that it could not seek to be a candidate for the sympathy of the truly
beleaguered populace across the country. It had become so embarrassing because
national security had been left for far too long to Governors, so called Chief
Security Officers of their states, who lacked formal control of security forces
to match the name-calling.
The state governments were paying
far too much for the maintenance of police outfits that were supposed to be the
responsibility of the Federal Government. Only self respect prevented either
side from admitting it as a case of Governors being forced to pay protection
money to Federal agencies. The unvarnished truth is that there would actually
have been no law and order to talk about in the states but for the payments
that the state governments continued to make for running the federal police
system. Even with the virtual trade union of state Governors to pursue it, the
protests against Federal incapacity never managed to hit the bulls eye of
federal attention. That is, until the Amotekun episode came along.
The insertion of the Leopard
turned out too bitter a pill for minders of Federal agencies to swallow. It was
not only that it implied formalized parleying between six states that were more
or less ethnically homogenous but that, for Federal illegalizers, it meant that
the states would be making their own laws to govern the security outfits.
Meaning that: the rest of the country would have to face the novelty of a common
security agenda for six out of 36 states. It meant the focus of national
security would have to shift to issues such as community policing of a
different kind; in a more robust system needing weapons that had so far been
disallowed.
In the face of herdsmen and other
terrorists gravely armed with Kalashnikovs, and driving farmers from their
homesteads and farmsteads in the midst of a threatening famine across the
country, it was quite a test of nerves. Especially so for ordinary citizens
against whom roads were being closed by terrorists and bandits collecting
harvest-time illegal taxation, and being forced to pay humongous, Godless
ransoms for the kidnapped, in addition to the rape of wives and daughters in
the presence of husbands and parents. The increasing frequency of such
occurrences was making it quite a joke to hear of official security projects
such as the building of the volunteer community policing mooted by the
Inspector General of Police, which was not supposed to pay salaries to any
cadre.
No expertise was needed to see it
as shadow-boxing with crime, if not a trading in trivia. Anxiety was bound to
mount if six out of 36 states were seeking to have enabling laws to formalize
an Amotekun, a catch of leopards with a conjoint agenda. More so if many more
regions in the country were already determined to embark on their own
Amotekuns. It was big deal, amounting to bringing homogenous cultural
geographies or nationalities together in a country that had for so long
criminalized ethnicity .
In spite of, or because of it, the
negotiated reduction of the scale of Amotekun to individual states, without a
common command across the states, was being contemplated at the Federal level
to reduce the scale of the anxiety. It was bad enough that Amotekun-type proposals
were being considered beyond the Yoruba South-West. All such proposals as it
turned out, wished to cover ethnic or geo-cultural geographies or
nationalities, or a combination of them, beyond individual states. As in the
South-West, so in the Middle-Belt, the South-East, South-South and even the
North-West: if terrorists and bandits were moving from one zone of the country
to the other to perform their practiced mayhem, it called for a security outfit
with a wider coverage beyond individual states to meet their challenge.
The worm in the ointment, and an
evident source of worry for federal agencies, was that the bandits and
terrorists were also moving as ethnic bastions against homelands belonging to
other ethnic groups. It began to make so much difference when kidnappers,
raising ransom money from federal and state agencies began to make enough money
from Federal Government and state agencies to remain in business. Any reduction
of the Amotekun/leopards to one state while bandits and terrorists were seeking
to cover wider ethnic geographies would not suffice as security outfits go. Too
obviously, a reduction of Amotekun in scale to individual states would appear
like a deliberate effort to reduce their effectiveness.
In which case, the real problem
for the illegalizers in charge of Federal apparatuses had to be, not only how
to prevent the state governments from acceding to a state police system, but to
address the question of the ineffectuality of the Federal charge across the
region-wide zone slated for the Amotekun. Specifically, what has truly rankled
is that the Amotekun was named for the Yoruba cultural geography, quite
ambitiously covering the cultural geographies of a more or less homogenous
Yoruba nationality and daring to be an example that other regions and zones
could follow. Whether as a mere insignia, mascot or totem, this explained why
its opponents assumed that it was merely a phase of ethnic distancing with an
agenda that is a prelude to a secessionist move by Yoruba people. Quite a plausible
scenario, except that many people found it intriguing that the attempted
illegalizing of the Amotekun as a means of stemming a feared disintegration of
the country, did not address the core rationale of fighting the insecurity
which yielded the problems in the first case. Although the Governors who set it
up had not fully fleshed it out, the idea of a Western Nigeria Security Network
that could fill the gaps that had been left yawning by the Federal government
remained something that needed to be invented since it did not yet exist.
How else put an end to the sheer
atavism and rampant threats to lives and property by terrorists, kidnappers,
homeland-seeking nomads, and their armed propagandists! A federal government
unable or unwilling to perform the requisite security curbs but wishing to
liquidate the self-defence mechanism created by any state was bound to be seen
as an irrational and irresponsible collaborator with the enemies of peace and
security. Besides, too many Nigerians were increasingly convinced that the
terrorists were enjoying discernible official backing.
How would the TIME OF THE LEOPARD
be turned into a state of shared self-respect between the centre and the
peripheries, with a strategy for over-coming terrorists, bandits, kidnappers
and ransom hunters, which opposed self-defence and made no allowance for
protecting the peasants, farmer-folks and random sufferers who were being
hemmed with Kalashnikovs, and driven off their farmlands and turned into
refugees? At a time when it was being ritually proved that state after state
had many of the terrorists using hardware – guns and ammunition – derived from
the armouries of Federal military and police agencies, it no longer seemed to
be an issue of ethnic profiling of the Fulani as bandits and kidnappers. It had
become too commonplace. Once official investigations began to match postings in
the security services and nepotism in military and police postings to evident
misdeeds across the country, it was beyond mere insinuation. It was being proved
to the point where the Federal Government, in accordance with its nepotistic
and atavistic disposition, made it quite evident as a case of turning a blind
eye to impunity and mayhem.
By implication, the post-bellum
negotiations with the bandits and armed propagandists were becoming more and
more a matter of finding face-saving accommodation for culpable federal
agencies that were increasingly under assault by communities resisting
terrorist armies of occupation touting and firing Federal Kalashnikovs. The ugly
prospects of positional warfare between terrorists using Federal guns to hold
down normal Federal security operatives was embarrassing. It was a most uncivil
strategy of federal self-containment.
Before the Covid-19 lockdowns took
place in 2020, as “divine interventions’’, with the imminence of confrontation
– in the Niger Delta and in the Middle-Belt and particularly in the South-East,
it seemed there were skirmishes being deliberately organized to provide
rationales for security engagements by federal operatives in a clear pointer to
a civil war. This factor was being loudly proclaimed in the media by former
Head of State, Olusegun Obasanjo and his former Defence Chief, T.Y Danjuma, who
were drumming it up to ever higher decibels, concerning the imminence of civil
war.
Having seen service in the Congo
in the sixties and in the Nigerian Civil War into the seventies and having had
enough military standing, to help quell civil strife, managing peace missions
across Africa, they were in a position to engage in definitive and credible
scare-mongering either to wake up a population sleepwalking into a major
conflagration or conscientizing the sponsors of armed propaganda, banditry, and
homeland-seeking terrorism to imagine the consequences of a war without fronts.
Whilst Obasanjo has been warning about the apparent inevitability of war,
General Danjuma has been openly calling on fellow Nigerians to organize against
becoming victims of the herdsmen and bandits. In a way, their tack has amounted
to asking peasants with cutlasses and hoes to stand up to armed propagandists
with Kalashnikovs.
The two old war horses, to be
brutally frank, have been ruefully conceding the significance of ethnic
consciousness in national affairs or regretting the critical roles they had
played in over five decades of lulling sundry ethnic groups in the country to
accept ethnic exceptionalism of the Fulani activists whom they had joined in
sowing the patriotic fiction that there was no tribalism in the Nigerian army.
Even though this particular army was recruited on the basis of ethno-regional
quotas which managed also to have had coup de tats that were riddled with
charges of regional and tribal return matches, they were still trusting in the
efficacy of urging the sponsors of the terrorists to ship their rag-tag army of
mayhem and disruption back to wherever they had shipped them from. Or they were
merely accepting their helplessness at an impending conflagration that, once
ignited, could have the corrosive implication of not stopping with the defeat
of one side or the other but escalate uncontrollably without fronts.
I should add that until the recent
Fulani Upsurge which came with armed propagandists in pursuit of grazing
reserves, rural grazing areas, Rugas, ancient cattle routes, and the take-over
of federal government security departments across the country, it was not
assumed as a serious matter by the potential victims which included the
Generals. Those who failed to see that this was Armageddon gloating and yawning
in their faces have since learnt to grasp the issues along happenings in the
Presidency of General Muhammadu Buhari, whom I would not have remembered to
call a Fulani, but for his cosy relationships with the rise of Fulani
organizations like the Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, the Cattle Breeders
Association of Nigeria.
This organization now has had a
high enough profile to be negotiating ransoms on behalf of Federal negotiators
in kidnapping episodes. They have provided a way of understanding Nigeria in
terms of a scramble for homelands: this being an ethnic group that had appeared
not to be so exercised by land hunger but recently wizened up to it. Indeed,
the Fulani upsurge that had been quite self-repressed has become so volatile to
the point where it has begun to enjoy negative comparison with Odu’a People’s
Congress, OPC, which President Obasanjo asked the police to shoot at sight
while he was in office. Just in case they were found causing trouble under the
presumption that they were members of his ethnic group and therefore free to
over-step their bounds.
Unlike Obasanjo, Buhari has done a
lopsided embrace of his own ethnic group. As distinct from Obasanjo’s seeming
over-criminalization of the Yoruba in order to keep them reined in, Buhari’s
over-identification with his ethnic group is generally considered a spur to
misconduct by his cultural siblings . This is being traced from the days after
his retirement from the army when, as patron of Miyetti Allah, he went to Lam
Adesina, Oyo State Governor, to claim, as it turned out, wrongly, that your
people are killing my Fulani people.
Although such a frontal
negotiation was what nation-building called for in the making of a multi-ethnic
state, it was only just dawning on all that putting all wares on the table
without duplicity also called for a high sense of veracity which was lacking in
the instance. Not doing this right, and making it seems as if he was just doing
ethnic profiling, wrong-footed the proper minding of his well known position as
a strait-laced , no-nonsense fighter from a tribalism-free army. It was such
that, today, it is with great dexterity, almost self-immolating creativity,
that all wronged Nigerians, oppressed minorities and disadvantaged majorities
have managed to stress their rights as citizens in spite of his claim after his
election as President that he was for everybody and nobody. What has made it so
brashly grating in recent times is that many of the Fulani are cross-border
migrants asserting rights that they need to be properly naturalized in the Nigerian
setting.
This is especially so as the new
influx of people are apparently no longer having to be accommodated under
generalized Arewa or Northern Nigerian auspices. It happens that those who were
always accepted as citizens now wish for something higher than citizenship.
They want to be indigenes before they are citizens with certified homelands to
which they can bring whoever they fancy from other African countries. The snag
is that the purely ethnic dimensions of their demands happen to be coming at a
time when the country is being led by a President who, although notionally
Fulani, has exposed an agenda that, by its own reckoning, reeks of pure land
hunger that alienates even the neighbourhood Hausa, some of whom would rather
be bandits than accept the role of non-citizens.
For that matter, it is as if the
leaders of the Fulani upsurge are telling other Nigerians that a new
dispensation was afoot to which they are not being asked to make a contribution
but have to bow down to. More or less, this is an invitation to a scuffle as
one can recall from the argument of Professor Jubril Aminu, a member of
successive Federal executive councils under the military, who actually argued
early in the upsurge, that there should be no surprise that the Fulani have upgraded
from sticks to Kalashnikovs because all other nationalities, as with the Niger
Delta militants, are upgrading. It shows how ethnic envy is part of the game
that is going on, but one that a smart national leadership could handle. What
is not clear is how truly differently those regarded as ethnic freedom fighters
by Sheik Ahmad Gumi are to be taken.
Obviously it spells a hidden
response to armed propagandists from Mali, Niger, Sierra Leone, and the Central
African Republic in a way that shows sensitivity to the changed circumstances
in the Sahelian North between once supposed regional siblings. The question is:
where do they stand in the accustomed ethnic commitments which emphasize Fulani
issues over Hausa concerns that have not had proper airing for decades? This
has been quite the issue with so-called bandits, who appear like inexperienced
coalition builders, answering to being ethnic freedom fighters (as heard from
Sheik Gumi who has not been consistent in his attributions or articulation of
demands). What it says is that inter-bandit activities can explain activities
of the various groups even more than the supposedly great issues about the
impact of climate change on the herdsmen who are mass migrating.
Surely, this requires those with
communal memory to think of the manner that horse-riding slave hunters in the
pre and immediate colonial period, rode roughshod over many Nigerian
communities in the Middle-Belt. It made it such poor taste recently and a
source of uproar when Governor Simon Lalong of Plateau State was heard
describing what was clearly a wish as the actuality by implying that farmers in
his state were having to carry AK 47s to their farms in order to feel safe. It
was loose talk as many in his state told him. What cannot be denied is that, as
in that ugly past, there has always been the troubling awareness that many of
the Fulani today are not Nigerians.
Many speak French and are not even
so good at Fulfude. In their perpetration of violence, aimed at displacing
Nigerians from indigenous homelands that they have occupied for eons, the
herdsmen, bandits, and kidnappers, have managed to win a place for themselves
as the lords of the bushes. This has been authoritatively stressed by Governor
Aminu Masari of Katsina State, to the effect that it is almost like a coming of
age rite for many a youngster, to take over the forests as a test of honour for
dealing with the overfed cities. Indeed, they are being primed to have no
empathy in their dealings with people whom they do not regard as their own.
Many of them are evidently aggrieved gunmen who were failed by earlier hirers,
now in government, who have not met their pre-election bills. More interesting,
if not substantive, are the rationales being given by and for the herders
concerning why they are on the rampage.
The givens are the drying up of
Lake Chad and sundry rivers at a rate nearing 90 percent to explain the evident
bad behaviour of the lot. Such large rationales explain why the migrants and
herdsmen may well always wish to be, or have people, in power who can speak for
them and do big projects for them. Clearly, confronted by the changing climatic
conditions, the herders are seeking ever better salvage operations such as the
building of the old river basin authorities across the Nigerian Sahel in the
seventies. No one can properly claim that it was not the failure of those
ventures, and the poor planning by the governments, that prepared the way for
today’s drift . But most of the white elephant projects, because they failed,
deserve to be seen from the angle of their parochial and self seeking angles by
governments less interested in solving the problems of the herders than scoring
geo-political points at the revenue allocation tables. They have made for a
ceaseless wish for relationship between people in power and the herdsmen.
Indeed, after the white elephants
like the river basin dams, the next gambit was to insist that every local
government in Nigeria should reserve grazing lands for Fulani herders. As if
they had just conquered a country and were exacting reparations, they were
demanding futuristic industries and sky scraper cities, to be built only for
the herders with monies derived from zones far from cattle colonies. The same
old economic cabbage of the River Basin Authorities! They lacked concern for
the rest of the country that would supposedly supply the resources for
establishing the rugas. The declared goals had little to do with the welfare of
the herders. The actual concerns were more for taking over lands that belonged
to other ethnic groups. Unfortunately, so much poor planning and execution were
associated with the efforts, and too many ethnic political projects mangled
their execution.
There were hardly any proper
calculus of any positive implications for the national economy. Rather than
being based on concrete knowledge about animal husbandry around the world, as
in countries like Australia, India, UK, the United States and as next door in
South Africa, where cattle herding has been turned into mega industries, the
purpose seemed to be merely to launch a parochial economy of sorts, closed
against other ethnic groups from whom the resources, including land and
capital, were supposed to be derived. A country like China, already quite
advanced in producing factory-made beef and dairy products that won’t require
herding of cattle at all, was already far ahead and advanced. You would have
expected a looking forward to anticipate those whose technology was already
making our best efforts redundant. But the projected paradise for herders in
Nigeria was being conceived in terms of enclave economies in an apartheid state
with Fulanis distanced from other Nigerians. Like setting out to build a very
unhappy country, they appeared to be seeking to hold Nigerians to ransom by
destroying all other industries.
In effect, if saving and advancing
cattle business was the purpose of the various reform agendas and schemes,
there was no sign of it. There were no meaningful plans to protect or increase
green acres across the country. As it is well known, cattle rearing across the
world is destructive of green pastures, not only due to cattle grazing but the
high rate of biochemical emissions that it involves. You would have expected
that those who would have to depend on green acres in future would make special
efforts to remedy the adverse implications of their trade. On the contrary,
rather than plant trees, the herdsmen and their promoters have kept attacking
forest resources. They were so adept at taking over, with guns, the forests
that farmers across the country were importuned to plant through well planned
forest reserve policies.
Their purpose seemed to be to
reduce all forests to Sahelian dimensions. Instead of planting more trees, it
was as if they were determined to kill off the farmers who by the nature of
their occupations were obliged to remedy deforestation as part of their normal
preoccupations. If anyone was looking for the reduction of Africa to a dry
desiccation for which governments would continue to seek foreign aid to pursue
re-forestation, this was what their regime of animal husbandry was rooting for.
What they were perpetrating around us was the opposite of what was needed.
In effect, the travails being
experienced by animal husbandry, although deserving every empathy, have to be
seen as direct derivatives of the misuse of resources, the resultant of dire
mismanagement across the Sahel, which is being visited on other parts of the
country and continent. Properly speaking, this argues that much of the
insecurity being experienced by herders is less a result of climate change than
the sorry practices of those things we must be obliged to associate with those
supporting the herders for the wrong reasons. It follows that all those who
have empathy for the herders ought to begin by considering what must be done to
educate them, raise their skills beyond the millennia-old practices that are
threatening to force their occupation into extinction; while they are busy into
a permanent destructive engagement with neighbours and other farmers.
Impliedly, unless there are
counter movements that can halt the millennial degradation arising from the
coveting of richer pastures to graze them down to utter desiccation, we need to
take the many programmes for the herdsmen from the standpoint of open grazing
as a clear movement towards biocide. Pure and simple. They ought immediately to
attract serious minded activists of climate change to seek to stave off the
impending disaster that it fore-gathers. Indeed, according to the testimonies
of the security chiefs at the Senate hearings just noted, there is an end-times
scenario that it foretells which should be a worry to all. It should worry all
that there are those who have been seeing the biocidal trends as a process of
regional shifting cultivation, according to which one part of the subcontinent
is relieved of the curse of desertification by simply overcoming the richer
pastures in other parts.
We need to show, and continue to
show, how the march of the herdsmen into the bad habits of deforestation and
de-greening constitute attacks on the environment. It should challenge all of
us to consider ways of correction in favour of an alternative tack to turn vast
Sahelian lands into arable green acres rather than watch the turning of the
best part of the lands in Africa into deserts as a service to the herdsmen’s
rampage. It does need to be made clear that we are in the teeth of an
undeclared war on green acres, an assault on the human factors across the
continent and, to that extent , in a mounting displacement of commitment to the
ECOWAS treaty and the protocols on free movement of persons in sub-Saharan
Africa.
Therefore, for the sake of the
herders and for the rest of us, there is a need to seek a bigger sense of
tradition, such as building economies of scale in dairy industries with
spinoffs ensured, as we should long have gone for, as in India, the United States
and Brazil. We are not in their league. Those countries are not merely our
competitors, they are out-competing us in every sense. And, we don’t have a
chance of matching them without embarking on refresher engagements for herders,
as we should have been doing from long ago by seeking to make them literate, to
help them into living in contiguity, in a corner of their own where they have
cultural empathy, enabling them to learn more in a language of their choice,
engaging their own leaders to be truly in tune with world trends in animal
husbandry. I mean: as an industry and as a country, we cannot afford to keep
our people backward and then go on blaming them for acting backward.
As for seeing the use of
Kalashnikovs by herders as a factor in our nation building efforts, how can
that be seen as an upgrading and not a degrading? What if every ethnic group,
especially those dispossessed by herdsmen, decided also to buy guns and
constitute raiding squads to do unto others what has been done to them? It
would amount to efforts to dissolve Africa’s most populous state with virtual
mfecanes, anarchies and traumas, not too dissimilar to what Africa experienced
during the era of the slave-hunting wars that literally despoiled our continent
and prepared the way for colonialism. This seems to be what some people are
still asking for in the tradition of those who, once upon a time, out of pure
ignorance, wished for Nigeria to be dismembered along religious lines:
North/South, to set in place another millennial waste, robbing Nigeria/Africa
of a chance of genuine developmental pursuits, by fighting internecine wars of
possession and dispossession while other continents, virtually done readying to
move to another planet, are on their way.
It is too grim a prospect. To
think of it, the grisly reality of herdsmen actually overrunning farmlands,
effecting a massacre, or simply threatening whole communities and regions with
famine! This is what it means to talk about the failure of the African state.
Trying not to acknowledge this as a failure, as if it makes our Federal
security apparatus to look good, has heightened what is being generally
regarded as the 21st century scramble for Nigeria. It is really what has made
it obvious, eye-poppingly obvious, that we are offering ourselves bad medicine
with very good intentions.
What remains for me to add is
that, as the armed propagandists move from one part of the country to the
other, with ethnic siblings from neighbouring African countries who are all
acting with a sense of siblinghood that runs deep, we should not forget that
they have attracted to themselves rogue despoilers, not necessarily of the same
ethnic stock but muzzling in to have their own swipe of the roiling scramble
for the most populous and, some would say, the richest African country. The
eclectic nature of their attacks on others spell pictures of randomness that
have made their progress appear uncoordinated and unfocused.
Often, however, it seems so only
if one ignores the loud existence of the Cattle Breeders Association of
Nigeria, Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore, which has drawn much attention to the
collective claims of the herdsmen. They happen to have attracted listening ears
right up to the highest quarters of governmental power with diligence that has
been proved by the spectacle of national security chiefs who, unwilling or
unable to end the violence that continues to erupt, have been admonishing the
victims, across Nigeria, to be considerate to herdsmen whose cattle have been
destroying farm crops in their search for grazing lands, cattle republics and
new homelands. The more up-market support for them has been maintained by
Governors like Yari of Zamfara State and Governor Bala Mohammed of Bauchi State
and several less particularizable sponsors. Governor Bala Mohammed in
particular has been heard and seen making a case not only for the herdsmen to
be accepted as citizens or indigenes of Nigeria but for the Federal Government
to make budgetary allocations to cover their interests; irrespective of which
countries they may hail from. The Thursday Homily column in DAILY SUN on December 26 2019 was
obliged to quote the Governor as answering a question by Chamberlain Usoh of
Channels Television on the propriety of the Federal Government mandatorily
securing and building dedicated settlements across the country for the Fulani,
even those from outside NIGERIA.
He replied: “How do you know which
Fulani is Nigerian and which is not”.. He added: “we are already accommodating
them.” …. How… “Do you delineate and really know who is not a Fulani man from
Nigeria. They are all Nigerians. Their identity, their citizenship is Nigerian.
Even though we (Fulani) have relations all over the world, all over Africa,
they are presumably Nigerians”. This is really what it means to say that the
Fulani have the ears of people in government or that the Federal Government has
been overwhelmed by their primordial relationships. When a Government denies
the validity of borders, it leaves no space for statistical presumptions. It
makes the ruling echelon to appear either to be gloating in ignorance or
deliberately seeking to contrive such ignorance. But when a Governor goes out
on a limb to defend the right of herdsmen to carry and use Kalashnikovs, as
many of them have done, it opens a dimension of distrust and mistrust in the
society that they live in. This has implications for the general security of
the whole society.
It gets truly painful at the
level, and in the case of the President of the Republic, General Muhammadu
Buhari, a long time patron of the herdsmen, who has had his ear openly corked
in their tow in public view. It gets worrisome because it is not clear how much
genuine professional support is being given to the herders. From the early days
of his retirement as a soldier, as already noted, he has continued to
demonstrate so much empathy for them, and in a manner that has raised his
overarching shadow against prosecuting the herdsmen for carrying arms or using
same for purposes that are brazenly nefarious. Perhaps, more of a proof of the savvy
of the herdsmen, as one might call it is that even with news reports of armed
take-over of villages in several local governments across the country, the
Herdsmen’s Revolt would appear to have been given a virtual warrant in the
proclamation that he, General Buhari, made at the ASWAN Forum in Egypt in
December 2019. The proclamation granting visa on arrival to all Africans coming
to Nigeria from January 2020 is not truly of professional significance. The
strategic implications of the proclamation were stretched by the Minister of
Foreign affairs and International Cooperation of the Federal Republic of
Somalia, Ambassador Ahmed Awad who tweeted from the ASWAN Forum, thus:
“ I wish to profoundly commend
President @mBuhari of Nigeria who just announced at the ASWAN Forum complete
visa exemption for all Africans. Starting January 2020 Africans will be able to
arrive Nigeria without visas. It is such an exemplary decision. Thanks, your
excellency”.
Of course, we all do know that all
the Fulani in Africa have not been rushing and barging into Nigeria to take
advantage of the declaration. But there has been enough traffic to cause
consternation. Simply, the Fulani that are Nigerians are making a case for
attracting siblings from outside. The unspoken part is whether the potential
absorption of the Fulani from neighbouring countries into the Nigerian fold is
a decision of Nigeria as a country or of the President. The distinction
matters. It has left many Nigerians wondering whether what it means for the
genuine business of animal husbandry. Is it to keep them locked in merely
antediluvian forms and to spread the improvident ways of herding merely to
spread an old tradition without improving it?
And, if the ASWAN Declaration is
meant to have a wider implication for all Africans who do not need to be
herders to be given any attention, the question that arises is: will the
Yoruba, the Efik, the Kanuri, the Bariba, and the Hausa who are citizens of
neighbouring states, according to the format of the Berlin conference of 1885,
also now have the same privileges that the Fulani from other countries are now
to enjoy? As Nigeria is a country with quite a pan-African population, this is
tantamount to wondering if all Africans, including the Yoruba and Edo/Benin
siblings among the Ga of Ghana, may migrate to Nigeria, if they so wish. This
is not a laughable proposition. Although not all Africans would consider it an
improvement of their status to be re-calibrated as Nigerians, it does matter
that the proposal is on the table whether or not the influx of migrants is a
trickle or a flood. The concern for them as human beings in a human situation
needs to be made obvious. Especially so as there should be interest in the
migrants beyond using them as ethno-political football.
The point is that the ASWAN
Declaration has been made and it is in the public domain. Wittingly or
unwittingly, moving the Fulani into Nigeria from their present domiciles from
across Africa has the implied dissolution of protocols that once prevented
Africans from crossing the borders as they pleased into or out of existing
African states. If a blanket movement of the people is to be allowed as a
matter of principle, as per the intention of General Buhari´s visa-on-arrival,
or no-visa policy, it should have a meaning for the people beyond the
implication of achieving dissolution of many African states as we know them.
The subtext is that since many
Fulani in Nigeria speak Hausa and may not speak Fulfude, the Hausa in Diaspora
who are already, to that extent, being importuned into the thought-world of the
Hausa speaking areas of Nigeria, will also have to be part of the influx which
in any case is already part of everyday reality. How do they fit in? I ask
because it connotes an urgency that, with the ASWAN proclamation in tow, some
siblings from across the borders could turn into a virtual demand to be weighed
along one of two strategic implications. Either a strategic takeover of parts
of Nigeria by neighbouring countries or the sequestering of parts of neighbouring
countries to turn them into part of the Nigerian maelstrom, this is the sense
in which we must understand the, still, half-baked proposals that are doing the
rounds, such as the proposal by the President of the Republic of Benin for a
union of his country and Nigeria.
It may well fall into the ethnic
calculus of some Nigerians who are strategizing how to bring cultural siblings
into the scramble for Nigeria. The idea of the Republic of Niger, trooping the
colours in favour of such a new map of subtropical Africa is being touted. To
many on both sides of the border, the issue is not just about the complication
of cultural siblings seeking union across Africa’s international borders and
encountering unresolved problems of indigenes and strangers just as they were
created by imperialism during the scramble for Africa. The heart of it is that
people who have an ethnic rationale for seeking fusion or coalescence are
invoking cultural contiguities as necessary determinants of political maps.
In a country asking to be renewed,
there are issues of cross-border voting behaviour asking for representation.
But this would be inserting ethnic and cultural nationality issues of their own
that would heighten the fervour with which Nigerian Federalism would be
discussed and ultimately re-strategized to account for the here and nowness of
the issues.
As well, there are counterfactual
issues of what could have happened if President Buhari had managed to overcome
South African opposition at the ASWAN Forum, and had become the to giving the
prize to one who was closing borders against neighbours while seeking to chair
free movements across the continent. What does that say about an ordered form
of free movement of peoples in a country and a continent of so many internal
divisions in the context of the need to boost African integration, continental
trade, and tourism in these days of African Continental Free Trade Area?
Momentous and earth-shaking issues! It should make natives wonder why the
no-visa policy was dropped upon the table without due public education or
requisite planning to avoid bewilderment and consternation in so many quarters.
It could prove the point that this is the way the elephant moves because it has
no wings. Meaning that: that there is something amiss for citizens on both
sides of the divide who should be concerned about the millions of
Nigerians/Africans who, already facing enormous security issues from unrelieved
influx of migrants across porous borders, have always needed to protect their
ethnic homelands from brazen undeclared shooting wars.
We who are about to discuss
restructuring, we salute you.
*Odia Ofeimum is a poet, playwright, scholar and public intellectual
No comments:
Post a Comment