APC’s Recent Congresses: Omen Of Impending Calamity

By Godwin Etakibuebu

At the last count, eight states of the federation have drawn up parallel Executives to counter what some people called “authentic Executives” of the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC, during the recently concluded congresses. One of the most unbelievable states where this happened is Lagos. That some people, albeit members of the APC in Lagos State, could challenge the supremacy of the de-facto Jagaban of the South-West politics would remain one of the wonders of modern Nigerian political history.

 

Emergence of the parallel Executives in the eight states came with re-introduction of politics of blood-spilling into the Nigerian polity and this is the most unfortunate dimension of the APC debacle. These eight  states of Lagos, Oyo, Ondo, Zamfara, Enugu, Ebonyi, Kwara and Delta, where parallel Executives emerged saw violence. A few people died in some of these states while in others, it was a day of bloodbath; like the case in Ondo State, where notable citizens were grossly humiliated as most of them were stripped naked. This is without mentioning Imo State where Rochas Okorocha, the APC governor, was completely demystified and dethroned by the  machinery of the APC itself.

Nigeria’s Unity Is Negotiable, Mr. President

By Godwin Etakibuebu

A few days ago, President Muhammadu Buhari was quoted as telling a group of agitators from the Niger Delta region of the country that “Nigeria’s unity is not negotiable”. He went further by pulling from a former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, most popular quote while the Nigeria/Biafra war lasted to buttress his point. That quote said: “to keep Nigeria one is a task that must be done”. 

I want to convince myself that the President meant this “clarion” call of “non-negotiable of the Nigerian nation’s unity” for the attention of all militant groups or agitators in the country. This is necessary because what is good for the goose of the Niger Delta geo-political region of Nigeria is even better for other and all geo-political zones of the country. Of course, this slogan of “Nigeria’s Unity not negotiable” is not new; it is an age-long and over-used phrase by most political leaders in Nigeria. Proof at hand is that this slogan has failed the test of time.

It is time for us therefore to go to the other side of the current bargain of “non-negotiable” in finding solution to the peculiar and perilous challenge that may likely put Nigeria asunder sooner than expected by exploring the benefits of “negotiating the unity” of this geographical enterprise called Nigeria. First and foremost, there was no country by the name Nigeria until 1914 when the amalgamation took place under the watchful eyes of Lord Lugard. He happily adopted the name ‘Nigeria’, a loudly pronounced thought of that British journalist, Dame Flora Louise Shaw [1852 – 1929], who later became Lady Lugard – the adoption itself was negotiated.

 In a well-researched lecture given very recently [2013] by one seasoned and old British Scholar in the Nigerian House, London, under the chairmanship of Dalhatu Sarki Tafida, then Nigerian High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, the revelation on the reason for the 1914 amalgamation by the British Empire was laid on the table. I was there at the lecture just by co-incidence of events. The two separate protectorates of both south and north coming together in 1914 was “based on the economic consideration of running the protectorate of the north which could not pay its bill”, according to the scholar/researcher, adding that “while the south protectorate was economically self-sufficient, the north protectorate was not”. It is in the face of this reality that the decision was taken by the Home Office to fuse both north and south protectorates together “so that the ‘unified’ country would be self-sufficient economically.

We, the people of this “area of the Niger”, as opined by Lady Lugard, were “negotiated” into a nebulously packaged unity by powers and influences out-side, even the continent of Africa, purely for the economic exigency of the British. I want to submit therefore, that a clarion call for the survival of this fraudulent unity that is operational in Nigeria presently should be negotiation-based, by the Nigerian people. Any opposition to this is begging for rapturous disaster. Let us pull from one major historical event of the past to be surer of the most likely profitable route, in enduring national survival, which we need to follow in this matter. 

Buhari’s Loyalty: To His Fulani Kinsmen (Herdsmen) Or To Nigeria?

By Godwin Etakibuebu
President Muhammadu Buhari's broadcast to the nation on May 29, 2016, a day dedicated to the celebration of democracy in Nigeria, once again brought to the front burner the question of where Mr President’s loyalty lies between the Nigerian Nation and the dreaded Fulani Herdsmen terrorising the whole country.

*President Buhari and Emir Sanusi of Kano

On that day, Mr President spoke to Nigerians, ditto the whole world, as he broadcast live to the whole globe through satellite about the challenges facing his one-year administration and how he was tackling them. He brought Nigerians up to date on the war against Boko Haram. He touched on the new threats to our economic survival by the renewed militancy in the Niger Delta and told us how his government would deal with the Niger Delta Avengers. But surprisingly the President was silent about the most notorious Fulani Herdsmen’s activities, in a broadcast that went for almost an hour. Yet, the criminality of these Herdsmen is most likely to wipe the name of Nigeria out of the world map in the not-too-distant future if care is not taken.

Many people around the world who listened to that broadcast would not understand why Mr. President would chose to keep silent at a time of tyranny of the Fulani Herdsmen. Questions and more questions would arise from the president’s action. Is he afraid of the Fulani Herdsmen? Is he deliberately refusing to speak against their nefarious activities because of tribal affiliation? Is his silence his own way of encouraging the domination of the Fulani oligarchy to subdue the whole country? Or is this the quickest means of taking Islamic religion across the Sahara desert of the North to the coast of the Atlantic Ocean of the South? Even above all, the most famous question is who are these Fulani Herdsmen?

Permit me to submit that these are not the Fulani Herdsmen who have been around with us in this country for the past one hundred years. I grew up in my village with good knowledge of those sweet and friendly Fulani men with their sticks over their shoulders and enjoying the hospitalities of their host communities. They never carried any dane gun, which every local hunter of those days possessed. They had with them only daggers, bow and arrows. No cutlasses and no swords.

They were at peace with every one and everyone was at peace with them. But today, the story is different as this new generation of Fulani Herdsmen are expert in both the usage and functionality of AK 47: a very sophisticated military weapon that is most deployed in every modern war because of its light flexibility, accuracy and rapidity in operation. This is what they carry about these days. Where did they get it from and who trained them to be so efficient in its usage?