Tag: Igbos

Identifying the Political Interest of the Igbos of the South-East Geopolitical Zone in Nigeria and Strategies for its Actualisation, By Anyim Pius Anyim

TEXT OF A LECTURE DELIVERED BY SEN. ANYIM PIUS ANYIM AT THE 6TH WORLD IGBO SUMMIT HELD ON THE 18TH DECEMBER 2020 AT GREGORY UNIVERSITY, UTURU, ABIA STATE.

INTRODUCTION
Let me begin by expressing my profound gratitude to the Leadership of
Gregory University and particularly the World Igbo Summit Group and the Igbo Renaissance Centre of the University for the honour of this invitation. I am proud of what this University has come to represent in our collective effort to build a better society in Igbo land and Nigeria as a whole. I understand this is the sixth edition of this lecture series. I also know that very eminent individuals, academics, and leaders have delivered this lecture before me. I want to thank Gregory University for this thoughtful initiative and urge them to sustain it.

I looked at the topic provided by the organisers, for this lecture “Building Cooperation, and viable networks to strengthen the Igbo interest within the Nigerian Federation” and decided to tinker with it. Let me crave the permission of the World Igbo Summit Group to adjust the topic to be “IDENTIFYING THE POLITICAL INTEREST OF THE IGBOS OF THE SOUTH-EAST GEO-POLITICAL ZONE IN NIGERIA AND STRATEGIES FOR ITS ACTUALISATION. Permit me not to give reasons for the adjustment but suffice it to say that the new topic will shape my thoughts to flow directly to the political mood of the moment. I shall, therefore, try not to be academic but practical. I shall also try to be short and direct in making my points and suggestions. Accordingly, I shall attempt my brief discussion of this topic under the following headings.
– Who are the Igbos?
– How are the Igbos of the South-East geo-political zone located
within the Nigerian politics?
– What is the present-day political interest of the Igbos of the SouthEast geo-political zone?
– The quest for the election of a Nigerian President of South-East
extraction and strategies for its actualisation

WHO ARE THE IGBOS?
Igbo land is located in Southeastern Nigeria with a total land area of about 41,000 km². It stretches from the low-lying riverbank of the Niger river comprising of the Aniomas of Delta State through to the Ikweres of River State, cutting the fringes of Cross River and Akwa-Ibom States to the Igbo heartland of Anambra, Imo, Enugu, Abia and my own very Ebonyi State. On the Northern flank, the Igbo nation, shares affinity with a number of other communities e.g. Umezekaoha of Benue State and Eke Avurugo community in Kogi State. The Igbos are one of the largest ethnic groups in Africa and comprised of about thirty-two million people, i.e. about 18% of the Nigerian population.

In his work titled “the Ibos of Nigeria, Ancient Rites, changes and survival”, published on the 1st of July, 1990 by Edwin Mellen, Mr Njoku, John E. Eberegbulam, described the Igbos as immensely proud, dynamic, progressive and ambitious people.

I can describe the Igbos after President Kenedy’s choice description of
America as “a country noted for progress and a nation reputed for strength”. The Igbo nation is no doubt a people latently enterprising, naturally brilliant and so fast in learning, noted for egalitarianism and so treasures their independence of mind, of body and of business. They are of great good conscience and so love justice and equity. Survival flows in their blood and so they are ingenious and creative. They make good of every endeavour, be it in politics, business, academics or science. They are naturally good managers of men and resources. They are tenaciously curious, highly mobile and spirited for progress. They make good business leaders and public administrators. In fact, the spirit of the Igbo man is the spirit of enterprise. They are widely travelled and can be found in every corner of the globe. They are friendly and love strangers.

One can see from the above that the interest of every Igbo man at any time is diverse but paramount among which is the peace and progress of the community he finds himself. However, the focus of our discussion today is the political interest of the Igbos of the South-East geo-political zone.

HOW ARE THE IGBOS OF THE SOUTH-EAST GEO-POLITICAL ZONE
LOCATED WITHIN THE NIGERIAN POLITICS?
The Nigerian nation for political administration is structured into states. There are 36 States in Nigeria, each of which constitutes an independent federating unit, the totality of which makes up the Nigerian Federation. Each State comprises of an administrative capital with component local government administrations and federal constituencies. By virtue of being a federating unit, each State is empowered under the law to make its legislation, budget and expenditures. Above all, each State draws from the Federation Account
following the Federal sharing formula. The central point of emphasis here is that each State is politically autonomous. Accordingly, political rights are exercisable solely based on one’s membership of the State regardless of his or her ethnic nationalities. Consequently, though there are Igbos in Delta, Rivers, Akwa-Ibom, Benue, Kogi and Cross River States, their political rights are exercisable as members of their respective States. Their rights do not extend to any possibility of their representing the Igbos in any other State.

The next political structure is the geo-political structure. Indeed, the zonal structure has not found legal backing, but there is no gainsaying that it has assumed a moral force waiting to be constitutionalised. The zoning principle has found expression in the allocation of political and developmental benefits. The rotation of prime positions among geo-political zones has no doubt become a common practice such that, its breach generates political discontentment. The point to note is that a political benefit accruing to any geo-political zone cannot be satisfied by appointing any person outside of that geo-political zone irrespective of commonality of language or culture. i.e. political office zoned to the South East does not extend to Igbos from a zone outside the South-East geo-political zone.

In all, I assert that ethnic demography is not the same as political geographic boundaries, and so what belongs to the South-East geo-political zone cannot be claimed by any Igbo man outside the South-East geo-political zone.

WHAT IS THE PRESENT-DAY POLITICAL INTEREST OF THE IGBOS?
I have heard many ask, “what is the interest of the Igbos of the South-East geo-political zone?”. Some others will rhetorically ask, “is it secession or the Presidency?”; more recently, restructuring has featured most prominently in the basket.

I have noted above that given the intellectual endowment and versatility of the average Igbo man; his interests are diverse per time. Some have even posited that the Igbos should limit their interest to commercial and entrepreneurial concern; (areas of famed comparative advantage). I make bold to say that no matter the natural endowment of the Igbo man, it does not remove from the fact that man is a political animal. It is also important to note that the concept of nationality and citizenship has elevated the desire of any man to belong to a national entity where he enjoys full rights of citizenship. It is essential to understand that the implication of citizenship to any man is the benefits that flow from it, i.e. right to vote and to be voted for, equality before the law, protection of fundamental rights etc. These rights can be summarised as social, political and economic rights. The benefits of
these rights to the citizens are the central pillars underpinning modern
society and democracy. The denial of these rights or lack of protection when demanded is the bane of every political agitations which may find expression through various responses and approaches.

It is my opinion that the Igbos of the South-East geo-political zone is in
continuous search of a system, or if you like, a polity that guarantees and secures his social, political and economic interest based on equality of citizenship, equity and justice. I make bold to say that the Igbos of the SouthEast geo-political zone can find this in Nigeria. The journey to building an equitable society is usually challenging and rough, but many nations have arrived safely from this journey. It is, therefore, my position that those who posit restructuring have a point but should work harder to secure national consensus to make it possible. Also those who advocate for President of Nigeria of South-East extraction should diligently and boldly pursue it for the time has come, and the time is now. It is, therefore, my considered view that the present-day political interest of the Igbos of the South-East geo-political zone is to attain the Presidency of Nigeria come 2023.

PERSPECTIVES OF THE QUEST FOR PRESIDENT OF NIGERIA OF
SOUTH EAST EXTRACTION AND THE STRATEGIES FOR ITS
ACTUALISATION.
I shall consider the perspectives under three critical questions and provide answers alongside suggested strategies i.e.
– Is President of South-East extraction a right?
– Is President of South-East extraction an entitlement?
– Should President of Nigeria of South-East extraction be a gift?

IS PRESIDENT OF SOUTH-EAST EXTRACTION A RIGHT?
Under the Constitution of Nigeria, every adult of 40 years of age is qualified to be elected to the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Accordingly, there is nothing under the law that disqualifies any Igbo man from aspiring to be President; the challenge is capacity to meet the mandatory requirement of the highest number of votes and spread.

The other angle to this perspective is whether zoning the Presidency to the South-East geo-political zone is a right? Legally, the answer is no, but morally there is a merit in such demand. This expectation, canvases that the federal character principle has assumed a legal backing. Just as the rotation of the Presidency is not captured in the constitution neither is the geo-political zoning arrangement. Still, the fact of the reality of the application of the zonal structure in our national equilibrium has assumed universal moral force that can no longer be ignored nor dispensed with. For such critical national office as the Office of the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria not to be rotated among the zones can only breed discontent and disharmony.

It can further be argued that zoning and rotation has acquired a moral force that its continued absence from our constitution is a major lacunae that must be addressed. Pending the ‘constitutionalisation’ of the above, I urge the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to make it a prerequisite for political parties to have explicit provisions on rotation of the Presidency in their constitutions before registration. The PDP was halfway to it by agreeing to a North-South rotation instead of a zone-to-zone rotation. Given the above, the following strategies are recommended:
– All Igbo sons and daughters in any political party should strive to ensure “rotation of Presidency” clause in their party constitutions.
– All Igbos in the National Assembly should seek collaboration with
members from other zones to amend the Electoral Act to accommodate a provision that compels INEC to ensure rotation clause in political parties constitutions as a requirement for registration.

IS PRESIDENT OF SOUTH EAST EXTRACTION AN ENTITLEMENT
I must make bold to say that it is not an entitlement. This is so because,
even if it is zoned, it will still be subject to electioneering processes, as it is still the outcome of the process of election that will make one a President. The right to vote and whom to vote for is a free choice. Electioneering involves mobilisation for votes, campaigning for support and each candidate making an effort to gain the confidence of the electorates nationwide. It must be clear that zoning cannot take away the right of voters to vote freely for candidates of their choice. Accordingly, actualising the quest for a Nigerian President of the South-East extraction cannot be by agitation but by persuasion; not by coercion, but by coalition-building and cooperation; not by alienation, but by alliance. Therefore, I recommend that the various segments of the Igbos of the South-East geo-political zone; the professionals, politicians, activists, business class, youths, students, etc. should constructively and creatively engage their counterparts from other
parts of the country. This engagement will engender confidence and create opportunity for making the necessary compromises to secure their support and votes.

IS PRESIDENT OF SOUTH EAST EXTRACTION A GIFT?
Let me again make bold to say that it can not be a gift. The concept of equal
citizenship means that the nation, its resources and leadership belong to all
Nigerians. The fair application of this equality of rights concept is what
guarantees the cohesion of every society, particularly a multi-ethnic nation like Nigeria. The peace, prosperity and general progress of every country is dependent on how institutions are strengthened to ensure equality before the law. In recognition of the above, it is essential to note that no particular individual or group owns the leadership of the country and so nobody gives it. Many are of the view that power is not given but taken and the only way to win power in a democracy is by persuasion and through the ballot box. Accordingly, we note that in the exercise of the voters right of choice under the law, the voter is protected from coercion. And so, to persuade another
to exercise his right in your favour, you must seek his cooperation and
alliance.
I recommend that in our engagement with other zones and peoples, our tone must reflect negotiation, not antagonism. It must be one of friendship and not disdain or disrespect. It must show our willingness to enter into an enduring and lasting relationship for long term interest of all the parties.

CONCLUSION
I make bold to say that producing a President of Nigeria of South-East
extraction demands a lot of work from every segment of the Igbo nation. I therefore use this platform to call on all and sundry to rise to the occasion. The task is achievable if approached collectively and adequately.

Most importantly, to strengthen the capacity of the Igbos of the South-East geo-political zone to negotiate and ultimately win the Presidency, there is an urgent need for civic and voter education to increase voter turnout. The South-East is currently the zone with the least voter turnout, and this should change. Institutions like the World Igbo Summit should actively promote voter education and civic engagement. Moreso, every Igbo organization and association should arise and promote voter education and civic engagement. I call on each and everyone of us to stand to be counted.

December 19, 2020
Reasons for the jostle for presidency by lgbos in a prickly Nigerian partnership – Magnus Onyibe

.
By Magnus onyibe

The fear of dominance by one ethnic group over another in the Nigerian union has been with us since Lord Frederick Luggard, the representative of the British colonialist, amalgamated the southern and northern protectorates of the British Empire into one entity called Nigeria in 1914, with him as the Governor General.

Over hundred (100) years after and sixty (60) years post- independence from the colonialist, distrust arising from fear of dominance still occupies left, right and centre spaces of the politics and economy of the multiple ethnic groups in our beloved nation, Nigeria.
So much so that after the civil war of 1967 – 1970, the Igbo nation has been having a feeling of being treated by other ethnic groups in the union like a step-child whose future is not so bright.

Notwithstanding all the political mistakes made by some leaders of Igbo extraction, would allowing the tribe that is the third largest ethnic group in Nigeria to produce the next president in 2023 give the Igbos, who occupy the eastern flank of our country a sense of belonging?
Whereas my intention in this intervention is by no means to discourage the Igbos from their quest for one of their own to be Nigerian President in 2023, it is important to amplify the odds stacked against them by taking a deeper look at the presidency rotation calculus between the politicians in the northern and southern parts of Nigeria in critical ways that would reveal that it is more complex than it initially appears to be, especially to the uninitiated.

The underpinning reason for the above assertion is that there are more granular detailed angles to the rotation argument not in the public sphere that may vitiate the Igbo claim that it is their turn. And thats simply because the rotation of the presidency agreement is for it to shift between the north and south, and not between the three major tribes of Hausa/ Fulani, Yoruba and Igbo or three regions of north , east and west which was the original make up of Nigeria at independence in 1960. It is mainly on the premise or ground that the presidency is rotating between the three major ethic groups that the Igbo presidency case can be made. The lgbos may not like the summation that the rotation between Northern , western and eastern regions seized to exist after the military took over governance but that’s the reality.
And at this juncture, a bit of historical background is apropos to put things in context.
Before the 1966 coup , the 1963 constitution which had the underpinning principle of true federalism and autonomy of the three regions was in operation.

But following the first 1966 coup in January which brought in General Johnson Aguiyi Ironsi as the military head of state, the 1963 constitution got abrogated and thus ended the practice of true federalism, while ushering the country into a unitary system via the so-called unification decree no 34 of 24 May , 1966. What the lronsi regime decree did was to lay the foundation for the centralization of government as it facilitated the putting into the exclusive and concurrent lists-some 62 items by some account, controlled by the federal authorities-functions that were hitherto vested in regional governments.

As the January 1966 coup was deemed as an lgbo coup, the counter coup six months after-July 1966 led by northern officers retained and sustained the unitary system with major elements of it incorporated into subsequent constitutions, including the 1979 and 1999 constitutions, foisted on the country by the military that birthed them.

Also let us not forget that in February of 1966, a month after lronsi’s emergence as head of state, army Major, Isaac Adaka Boro made the first secession move when he declared the republic of Niger delta, now famously known as Kaiama declaration which was aimed at freeing up the Niger delta from perceived lgbo stranglehold .

According to recorded history , the secession or insurrection which was an action taken in protest and a bid to escape perceived Igbo dominance of power over the minorities in the region, was quelled after twelve days. And it has gone down in history as the first secession by an ethnic group in Nigeria and the first separatist movement that was rejected and quashed by the federal government.

Remarkably, and historically, it is the pair of General Aguiyi lronsi as Head of state and Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu as governor of East-Central State ( both of whom are of blessed memory) that ordered the quashing of the insurrection by the first ethnic group that sought to separate its self from Nigeria: a mission that was later embarked upon, barely a year after by Ojukwu himself in 1967 when he too declared the state of Biafra in his bid to separate the eastern region from Nigeria. The decision according to historical accounts was underscored and motivated by the mass killing of lgbos in the north and their subsequent exodus back to lgbo land due to the pogrom. Unfortunately, the lgbo secession resulted in the civil war that raged on till 1970 and cost our country massive loss of human and infrastructural resources or capital.
Ironically, a little over five decades after Adaka Boro, an Ijaw man on behalf of Niger delta people in 1966 attempted to decouple or liberate the region from the Nigerian union through secession and then Head of state, General lronsi and governor, Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu quashed the insurrection; an initiative that Ojukwu later copied from Adaka
Boro when he led the lgbos attempt to secede by declaring the east central region of Nigeria, the state of Biafra in 1967, the distrust and attrition still persist.

So essentially, apart from the Ijaw nation that first attempted to secede in February 1966 under the leadership of the indomitable Major Isaac Adaka Boro, an endeavour which was quashed in 12 days, the lgbo nation also attempted to secede in 1967 under the leadership of Col Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu resulting in the civil war that lasted for three years. What is not in the public space is that the northern army officers who staged the counter coup of July of 1966 also wanted to secede. But they were later prevailed upon to demure by an unidentified adviser, whom some historians believe was then British high commissioner.

What this reveals is that while all the other major ethnic nationalities in the Nigerian union have at one time or the other attempted to or has had the intention to secede at one point or the other, only the Yoruba nation is recorded in history (l stand to be corrected) not to have contemplated seceding since the amalgamation of both the northern and southern protectorates in 1914.
And that appears in my view to be a veritable testimony that the Yoruba nation is one of the nationalities that is most committed to one Nigeria, until the current movement for oduduwa state emerged recently.
Disappointingly, today, the lgbos via IPOB and MASSOB are still on the separatist path, albeit without engaging in armed struggles like Adaka Boro or Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu.

What this suggests is that over 50 years after the civil war, nothing or not much has changed in our country with respect to the fear of dominance by one member or members of the union over the others. What’s sustaining the mutual suspicion?
Keeping in mind that it is under general lronsi’s watch that the repeal of the 1963 constitution that was the bulwark for the practice of true federalism as reflected by regional autonomy was replaced with the unitary system now being agitated against by the southerners and the Niger Deltans in particular; and it is another lgbo leader , ex Vice President Alex Ekwueme that proposed the dividing of Nigeria into six (6) regions, just as it is a quasi lgboman , and southerner, ex president Goodluck Ebele Jonathan that in 2011 reneged on the 1994/1995 gentleman agreement on rotation of presidency between the north and south by contesting and wining the presidency against the spirit and letter of the agreement, which is currently generating suspicion and distrust from the north, it will be easier to see the point being made by those making the case that the lgbos may just be the architects of their own misfortune.

And if the lgbos fail to make it as the no 1 occupant of Aso Rock Villa in 2023, it may be deemed as a sort of poetic justice.
Although one is not trying to ‘beat up’ on the lgbos, but the forgoing truth underscores the argument against the notion that the lgbos have to take their turn in the presidency rotation agreement. Given the above backdrop, and looking at it from a broader prism, the lgbo case would only ordinarily be tenable if the presidency rotation arrangement was between the three major ethnic groups-Hausa/ Fulani, Yoruba and lgbo; and not just the north and south which is really the arrangement reached via the gentleman agreement during the 1994/5 constitutional conference.
That is why as a counter poise to the Igbo quest for the presidency , based on the form and substance of the gentleman agreement reached during the 1994/ 1995 constitutional conference, which the Igbos are basing their claim on, the north can make the case that only two Katsina State men – Umar Yar’Adua (2007 – 2010) and Muhammadu Buhari (2015 – till date) from north-west have or are currently benefiting from the shift of the presidency to the north.

Nobody from the north east or north-central states like Borno, Bauchi, Niger etc have enjoyed the benefit of having their son/ daughter as the first citizen of Nigeria, just the same way that only a south west person, Olusegun Obasanjo has enjoyed the taste of the presidency, when it was the turn of the south which comprises of the Yorubas, lgbos, ljaws, Urhobo, Calabaris, lbibios, Edos, Ikas etc who also are yet to have a taste of the presidency.
Again, for the sake of emphasis, that’s because the rotation agreement is between only two legs, north and south, as opposed to three legs- Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba and lgbo which the negotiators of the presidency rotation partnership at the 1994 /1995 conference cleverly reduced the presidency sharing formula to, and by so doing jettisoned the three legs-Hausa/ Fulani, Yoruba and lgbo tripod that the Nigerian union was based on when the country operated regionalism.

The reality is that the agreement during the 1994/5 constitutional conference was for power to rotate between the northern and southern protectorates that were amalgamated in 1914 by the British colonialists. The north recognizes it as such, but it appears as if the rest of the members of the Nigerian union maybe under the illusion that the agreement was made on the basis of the co-operation between the three major tribes and tongues/the three major ethnic groups-Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba and lgbo which played no significant role in the agreement. Hence the lgbos agitation that it is their turn to produce the president in 2023, on the basis of the gentleman agreement, may be untenable, except on compassionate grounds.
So what was achieved in that 1994/1995 conference is that the United Nigeria partnership that was standing on, or anchored on amalgamation and gradually developed into the tripod of three major ethic groups located in three distinct regions of the north, south since 1960, by omission or commission, got shrunken into an agreement between only two partners – northern and southern protectorates which was the original configuration .
May be the Yorubas and Igbos were not vigilant enough to observe that the north was reverting to the 1914 amalgamation template in the presidency rotation agreement , hence they may currently be feeling bunched together and therefore short-changed.
But it won’t be correct to assume that they entered into the partnership hypnotized or blindfolded. So I, and I guess most Nigerians, are not willing to place the blame on the doorsteps of the military, in the manner that they have been held responsible for foisting the 1999 constitution on the country.

The truth is that the northern negotiators were simply more savvy and adept in the act of negotiations and thus practically pulled the chestnuts out of fire successfully.

There is a reason that the British colonialists at the time they were granting Nigeria independence in 1960 and republic in 1963, modeled Nigeria after their own political system.

The ceding of autonomy to the various regions-northern, western and eastern -as enshrined in the1963 constitution was perhaps based on the United Kingdom experience where autonomy is granted the Scots, Irish, and the Welsh with the English controlling the Westminster in the republic of United Kingdom and Northern lsland. Why did Nigeria jettison the less expensive British parliamentary system, while opting for the very expensive presidential system practiced in the USA and which gives so much power to the president; and compels the dedication of an elephant size of the national budget towards buffeting a bloated and parasitic political class , leaving an ant size for infrastructural development that would benefit the masses, that’s now a scourge afflicting our country ?

Undisputedly, compared to American presidential system , the British Democratic system which is 216 years old and has proven to be very robust and resilient based on the principle of decentralization of governance, lends itself for emulation to Nigeria, especially because it is relatively less expensive to operate. And resistance to centralization is a major element that is driving the BREXIT initiative that is all about divorcing the UK from centralized government which was foisted on it by virtue of its membership of the European Union, EU that compels the control of the 28 nations members Union from its headquarters in Brussels .

Despite the complications and complexities arising from the ambiguities inherent in the presidency rotation agreement , and the odds stacked against the lgbo presidency aspiration, owing to the goal-getting and never-say-die spirit and abilities of the Igbos, nothing is cast in stone, so they can still regain their lost ground if they dexterously and positively woo other partners in the union by turning on their charm offensive in the manner that President Buhari wooed them when he was seeking their support to buoy his quest for presidential mandate which he received in 2015.
My optimistic prognosis of the situation is derived from the strong belief that the lgbos can learn from the experience of the Yorubas and the Hausa/Fulanis that have previously produced presidents of Nigeria. And that is that the process of producing the president of Nigeria never came on a platter of gold to them, but through grit and grime.

Therefore, what needs to be done now, in my opinion is for the Igbos to roll up their sleeves and hone their negotiation skills for the great task of political horse trading which is required for the fight for someone from their stock to be the next number 1 occupant of Aso Rock Villa in 2023.
Another snag that’s not in the front burner but critical is that should the presidential power leave the north for the south, it is not sacrosanct that the baton would be handed over to the Igbos. That is because, the south west, and in particular, the Yoruba ethnic group that held the presidency from 1999 – 2007 through Olusegun Obasanjo before handing over to the north, is still keen on taking over the presidency, a second time, on behalf of the south.

That may simply be because, whereas there should have been a clause on how the presidential power should rotate within the sub sets in the north and south regions, there is none in the 1994/1995 gentleman agreement hashed out during the constitutional conference organized by the late military head of state, General Sanni Abacha.

That’s why despite the wise crack , ‘comets don’t come twice in a life time ‘ the president of Nigeria emerged twice back to back from Katsina State –
And these are Umaru Yar’Adua, 2007 – 2010 and Muhammadu Buhari, 2015-till date.

Perhaps, the Yorubas are looking at replicating in the south, the experience in the north, whereby on the two occasions that power shifted there, the two men that emerged president since the return of multi party democracy 21 years ago hail from Katsina State, in the north-west, with north central and north-east being eluded or excluded on both occasions.

What the scenarios described above reveal is that there is a window of opportunity to be exploited depending on whose lens is used in assessing the gentleman agreement of the presidential power rotation agreement between the north and south. It is that weak point that may be exploited by the Yorubas to justify their attempt to produce the president from the south twice which is a legitimate aspiration .These are the facts that the Igbos need to take a closer look at to see how they can negotiate the treacherous and political landmines-ridden path in their journey to, or struggle to be the next tribe to be calling the shot in Aso Rock Villa.
For clarity, the identified weakness is that whereas the presidential power rotation agreement was between the north and south, provision was not made in the agreement on how it would rotate internally within the north and south where there are sub zones.
And the ongoing constitutional review process by the National Assembly, NASS under the chairmanship of Senator Ovie Omo-Agege, the deputy senate president, offers the best opportunities for our law makers to correct the error and for the Igbos to make their case.
While most, if not all the bumps on the road to Aso Rock Villla for the Igbo nation are surmountable via real politicking, the obvious bogey for them may be their republican nature.

A clear evidence of that is signposted by the spat between Labour Minister, Chris Ngige, governor of Anambra state, Willie Obiano and billionaire businessman, Arthur Eze,who recently publicly squared up against each other after the later led some traditional rulers from Anambra state to the presidency in Abuja for consultations.

Obviously, the politicians and the business man were trying to carve out their own fiefdoms which is reminiscent of how the Europeans carved up Africa in 1884 – 1885 during the Berlin, Germany conference. In a situtation where everyone with resources – financial or political is trying to be king or leader in their small enclaves in the east, how can real progress be made in the lgbo bid for the presidency?
The face-off in the media between one time Anambra state governor, Jim
Nwobodo and ex-aviation minister Mbazulike Amechi , is also a fall out of the struggle for the hearts and minds of the Igbo nation by actual and perceived political and financial musclemen. So also is the current struggle for the soul of Ohanaeze Indigbo , the apex social cultural group of the lgbos where the renowned diplomat , Professor George Obiozor’s choice to the lead the group is being disputed by other contenders who are alleging imposition. That is a clear manifestation of the conventional wisdom “A house divided can not stand”
But unlike the Hausa/Fulani and the Yoruba nations, it has always been a Herculean, if not an impossible task to manage the Igbos in a manner that they would speak with one voice. That is partly why the Ohaneze Ndigbo does not have as much influence in the south east as Arewa does in the north and Afenifere in south west.

Whereas the republicanism – Igbo Ewon Eze (lgbos don’t believe in kings) ideological leaning, worked in their favour during British colonialism, as it enabled the easterners to be impervious to herd mentality which the colonialists desired and applied in the north and south west when they met existing kingdoms with vast spheres of influence and capitalized on it, the complexities with the Igboland that has only chiefdoms and a limited sphere of influence proved to be unmanageable by proxy.

Invariably, the philosophy that was advantageous to the lgbos in the colonial era, may be constituting a risk to, or impeding their quest for the presidency of Nigeria in 2023.

Worse still, a common goal and a central leader that is required to drive the initiative is currently lacking,since no one in the region appear to possess the charismatic follower-ship,cult leader-like persona, and magnetism that the late Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu embodied and was the factor used in rallying the lgbos for the civil war of 1967 – 1970.
Let me conclude by referencing a view about the lgbos reportedly attributed to former president, Olusegun Obasanjo, which is that while the worldview of the Hausa/ Fulani may revolve around Kaduna and now Abuja; and the worldview of the Yorubas is around Lagos and abuja , the Igbos view the whole world as their village. The truth is that the Igbos are not only republican in nature, but also very itinerant.
The ubiquitous description of the Igbos attributed to Obasanjo ( which l hope is correct) is reinforced in an essay written by Ikechukwu Amaechi, a former editor of Independent newspaper and publisher of online news platform, ‘The Niche’ who had posited in a piece published 02/09/2020, titled “Ndigbo: Scorned In Nigeria, Making Waves Globally“, that the lgbos who are being treated like outcasts in Nigeria, are getting very well entrenched abroad.

He illustrated his point by referencing Kaycee Madu an lgbo man who has been appointed minister of Justice and solicitor general of the province of Alberta in Canada and Charles Egbu, recently appointed vice chancellor of Leeds City University in the United Kingdom, UK.
That’s not discountenancing the feats achieved by Philip Emeagwali, the Nigerian/American inventor of the world’s fastest computer and Bernard Omalu, another Nigerian/ American medical doctor that discovered Concoction – a medical condition prevalent amongst American Football players, both of whom have lgbo origin.

The kernel of the narrative is that even as the lgbos are being choked or not being allowed to breathe politically in their country of origin, they are thriving offshore.

Undeniably, there is an existential crisis in Nigeria which allowing the lgbos to take their turn in presenting one of their own for the presidency of Nigeria can solve. And for the sake of equity, Nigerian politicians should give that option a chance as they did when they bent the rules to assuage the anger of the Yorubas when they were expressing displeasure over the annulment of June 12, 1993 general elections and rewarded the Yoruba tribe by allowing both Olusegun Obasanjo and Olu Falae, both of whom are Yorubas to be fielded as the only and exclusive presidential candidates for both the PDP and APP in 1999.

I do not share the views of those that are making a case that the Yorubas, leveraging Afenifere, OPC, and National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), put in ‘skin’ including sacrificing irrepressible MKO Abiola and his gallant wife, Kudirat (of blessed memories ) who died in the struggle culminating into the Yorubas clinching the presidency in 1999. Those from that school of thought also argue that until the Hausa/ Fulani also threatened that there would be blood shed – a.k.a blood of baboons will flow on the streets, if they failed to clinch the presidency in 2015, the occupancy of Aso Rock Villa was eluding them.

In the wisdom of those making that case , based on the above assumptions, or premises, the lgbos must go through a similar experience for their ship to birth in Aso Rock villa.

In my view that’s a hypothesis without factual grounding.
In fact, the Igbos already made more than the sacrifice made by both the Yoruba and Hausa/Fulani in 1967 when Biafra was declared and it was quashed after three years of bloodshed and loss of an estimated 3 million lives. Without a doubt, the lgbos in my view have shaken the table hard enough, but they have performed woefully or failed in politicking with similar vigour at the national level. Which is why they have to up their ante in that respect so that the rest of the members of the Nigerian union may be ready to let bygone be bygone and encourage as well support the Igbos in their bid to reintegrate. And they can achieve that by investing concerted efforts in persuading other ethnic groups to also bend the rules for them as was the case with the Yoruba nation in 1999 following MKO and Kudirat Abiola’s sacrificial deaths,and the situation with the Hausa/Fulani in 2015, when then President Goodluck Jonathan avoided bloodshed by conceding defeat before the votes were fully counted.

I applaud and recommend, both the Yoruba and Hausa/Fulani path to presidency that were, or are rooted in politics and politicking which are contrary to the route that had been taken by the lgbos in 1967 and which ended up in the civil war fiasco earlier referenced.
In a nutshell , the democratic option pursued by the Yorubas and Hausa/Fulani should be embraced and adopted by the lgbos in their current quest for the presidency because they have been proven to be effective .
In the interest of all well-meaning Nigerians, who l believe cut across all the geographical zones , allowing the Igbos to produce the next president of Nigeria in 2023, could be a natural cure for the persisting separatist tendencies from the land of the rising sun, as the Igbos like to refer to themselves.

So why can’t the nation deem it or regard Igbo presidency in the manner that they accepted the ‘Doctrine of Necessity’ that was introduced in 2010 when the sudden death of a seating President created a constitutional lacuna that pushed the country to the precipice?
To truly demonstrate the letter and spirit of the mantra after the civil war – no victor; no vanquished- introduced by army General , Yakubu Gowon’s government that defeated the secessionists, the lgbos need such an accommodating gesture from the other ethnic nationalities to keep Nigeria together as one, in the way the founders of our beloved country at independence had envisaged.

And that presupposes a return to the 1963 constitution that particularly facilitated the growth and development of Nigeria and its people as evidenced by the giant strides taken in those days such as Nigeria being the first to broadcast television in color in sub Saharan Africa, and offer free education to all in the south -west through proceeds from cocoa export. In the same vein, under the 1963 constitution, Nigerians were also able to farm and export cotton and groundnut from the north; just as palm oil from the south east as well as rubber from the mid west were also major export commodities in the good old days .

Compare that with the 1999 constitution currently in operation and which shifted most of the services and activities hitherto performed by the regional
governments to the federal embodied by the exclusive and concurrent lists currently hindering state governments from fixing dilapidated infrastructure such as the so called federal roads (president Buhari just refunded some states funds invested in road infrastructures) and also preventing them from investing in autonomous initiatives such as independent electricity power projects , rail lines , state police, etc.
Another draw back of the 1999 constitution is the reliance by all the states on revenue from oil/gas from the Niger Delta, instead of harnessing the resources in their environment for sustenance which the 1963 constitution encouraged . When all the foregoing are taken together, it would be manifestly clear why Nigerians are unanimous in longing for a return to the cost effective parliamentary system or at least the re-enactment of the 1963 constitution that would enable peace and harmony reign in our country once again.
The recent visit of south-west leaders, Bisi Akande, Segun Osoba , Yomi Finnih and Tajudeen Olusi to Aso Rock Villa to advise president Buhari to implement the report of the Nasir el-Rufai led panel on restructuring of our country is quite significant at this point in time that the unity of our country is undergoing a stress test and president Buhari should give the counsel of the ‘four wisemen from the west’ , very serious consideration .
For full disclosure, most of the contents of this article are lifted from a chapter in my new book “ Isma’ila Isa Funtua. A Bridge Builder. Chronicles Of A Political Activist And The Jostle For The Presidency Of Nigeria In 2023”

ONYIBE, an entrepreneur, public policy analyst ,author, development strategist, alumnus of Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy, Tufts university, Massachusetts, USA and a former commissioner in Delta state government, sent this piece from lagos.
To continue with this conversation, pls visit www.magnum.ng

December 2, 2020
Bishop Kukah’s rejoinder to Chidi Amuta’s Column: Of Igbos, 2023 and ‘Politics of Moral Consequence’

Empowered citizens voted for politicians they knew would make them poorer, for liars to clean up politics -Tom Fletcher, The Naked Diplomat.

Dr Chidi Amuta takes the cake for both elegant turn of phrase and sheer depth of thoughtful analysis. I read his recent piece in THISDAY, (also in TheNewsGuru.com), ‘2023: Igbos and the Politics of Moral Consequence’ on a bumpy ride back to Sokoto. The essay is not exactly a foolproof DIY tool kit for the construction of the road to Aso Rock for his Igbo kinsmen. However, it manages to identify some harsh pebbles and nails whose litter have made the journey to the Presidency a Golgothean challenge for the Igbos. Instructively, the essay does not address the issues of why some have crossed with so much ease while the Igbos remain stuck in a frustration of Sisyphean proportions.

When I got back to Sokoto, I put a call through to Dr. Amuta to commend him for the essay and say how much I had appreciated his insights. But when I woke up the next morning, a few fresh thoughts came to my mind, suggesting that despite the brilliance of the essay, it had thrown up a few grey areas that required further exploration. Indeed, as I had tried to do in my Convocation Lecture at the Ojukwu University, Awka on 20th March, 2020, the need for a robust conversation about the future of our country is imperative.

Therefore, my intention here is not to respond directly to the issues raised by Dr Amuta by way of a rebuttal because I agree substantially with his summation. What I wish to add is done with the hope that we can create a momentum for an orchestra of voices to shape the future and destiny of a nation that is gradually and inexorably sliding and screeching to a precipice. I have a few insights to buttress that point.

As Secretary of the National Political Reform Conference (NPRC) in 2005, that offered me a front seat and helped me to appreciate the reasons why the politics of this country is devoid of the required content for building a great nation. In the course of the NPRC assignment, I came to appreciate that nothing, absolutely nothing, had changed in content and substance in terms of how, over time, these gatherings have been nothing other than dress rehearsals and platforms to negotiate, barter and trade ambitions for the future. The composition of these Assemblies is often so fractious that it often ends up being a theatre for negotiating centrifugal interests. In the end, it is the national interests that suffer while national cohesion becomes a delayed project.

What we call political parties, those rickety and dilapidated rickshaws we see changing wheels with every election, have always been conceived in the midnight of these so called Assemblies. Meanwhile, groups pledge false loyalties against one another along ethnic, regional and religious lines. This has been our fate right from 1977 through 1988, 1995 and 2013. The result is that the proceedings end up in the valley of the dry bones where they pile on top of their predecessors.

I have gone to this length to illustrate the fact that despite the presence of serious minded intellectuals, their expertise has often been subsumed in the narrow and clannish interests of their ethnic, religious or regional interests. But the old ways can no longer hold and the looming danger that lies before us has to be averted not by threats, but by deliberate planning and thinking. We are facing a new generation of young, bright and future looking men and women for whom the old ways are a serious obstacle. They have their eyes on a future that is not here yet. They have designed ways and means of pulling down the walls of hegemony that have held the future captive and made Nigeria the object of ridicule and obloquy. The youth have enough weapons to destroy this treacherous heist from its very foundation.

Now to come back to Dr. Amuta. He raised the issues of what the country owes the Igbos under the doctrine of moral consequence. He carefully crafted a list of countries from where the rest of Nigeria can learn its lessons in recompense. But I see two problems here. First, Dr. Amuta assumes that his readers really understand the meaning of the doctrine of moral consequence. A definition of this notion would have been of great help so as to help situate his arguments in our context. Although he cites countries such as Australia, Rwanda or South Africa, it is important to understand that when applied to Nigeria, this theory requires conceptual and contextual clarifications.

First, as we know, in politics as in economics or any other aspects of human existence, culture defines, shapes and explains most behaviours. It is important to note that moral consequence as an ethical theory requires a cultural or theological underpinning. A given society has to have some form of common cultural understanding of its laws or ties that bind. All the countries that Dr. Amuta listed have a Christian tradition. It would have been important to site any Muslim country which has applied this theory of moral consequence.

If we place moral conquentialism within the larger ethical template of Utilitarianism, we will have to wrestle with whether we derive our inspiration from Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith, John Stewart Mill or John Rawls. We do not need to get into the arguments but it is important to note that here, we are on a slippery slope because the Nigerian politician is not guided or grounded by any of these deep philosophical postulations. Dem no wan grammar, remember?

The lack of an ethical framework to undergird all spheres of our life is what has led our country to a moral free fall in all areas. We are groaning under the weight of corruption, but this is because Ethics has found no place in our educational systems or public life. Without ethics, we return to the state of nature in its most brutal form. Here, let us pause and spare a thought as to how this problem has been metastasized. As we know, life itself is a long journey of negotiation, consensus building and a struggle to ensure that the strong do not overrun the weak, that the urge to do good outweigh the urge for evil. We are therefore constantly negotiating these choices, seeking the greatest benefit for the greatest number. This comes at a great cost because it depends on human nature and nurture.

Dr Amuta believes that one of the problems that the Igbos face on their way to the Presidency is the fact that, in his words, ‘It is an unwritten and unstated presumption that Nigeria can still not find in its heart to forgive the Igbos for Biafra.’ I find this reading of the situation quite troubling because first, Dr. Amuta does not spell out which Nigeria he is referring to. Okay, may be our brother Chido Onuma overstated it when he said ‘We are all Biafrans now’. Truth be told, there is resonance in that claim. Indeed, I was told by a senior military officer that the late Major General Hassan Usman Katsina called a meeting of retired military officers from the Middle belt to ask why they had become so frustrated and one of the Christian military leaders who actually was of the same generation as Katsina said: ‘Were the civil war to start today, I will be on the side of Biafra!’

Perhaps the Igbos are to blame for not positioning their wind vane properly otherwise, Dr. Amuta will understand that his thesis is seriously flawed. The north unraveled a long time ago and what is left is a scarecrow that still frightens some ignorant people in the south. Evidently, the Igbos and others must cure themselves of their horrifying ignorance of the complex mesh that is northern Nigeria. We hear the ignorance about the north being one and united. Well, ask the Shi’ites, Izala, Tijaniya, the Middle Belt, ask the Nupe, Kanuri, and Hausa what they feel or believe about this north. A survey conducted found that while just 35% of Muslims in northern Nigeria wanted to be identified as Sunni, a whopping 30% just wanted to be Muslim, with no other label. Outsiders have refused to appreciate the mutations of identities within Islam and continue to ignore how most of this affects political choices. If Dr. Amuta and kinsmen do not appreciate this, then they will remain in the rain for much longer by default.

Despite painting the picture of the Igbos as having been sinned against (which is true), Dr. Amuta rather strangely places the burden of redemption on the shoulders of the same people by saying that: ‘The Igbo political elite has to reduce its habitual fears and nervousness of the competing elite of other factions in the country’. How and why should the Igbos do this? After all, they have not invaded anyone’s territory except through their economic presence. They have not destroyed any national assets. So, how is this gratuitous appeasement of other factions supposed to take place? How should the Igbos be charged for the fears and nervousness of other competing elites when they are the ones who should be afraid and nervous after the loss of their war?

I agree that the weaponization of Biafra may have long time consequences but I am slow to accept the conclusion that it is ‘a tactical blunder that will frighten Nigeria.’ We have to place this in context and not moralise it. The average Igbo youth today in his thirties of forties will know that in the last twenty years of our Democracy, every section of the country has gotten its President by some threats of spilling blood. This is not any attempt to glamourize violence, but let us be truthful in the face of the staggering evidence: Odu’a Peoples’ Congress (OPC) in its raw form frightened the rest of the country after June 12th and it took this into the elections of 1999. They can claim they got a Yoruba man for President for what it is worth. The Ijaw Youth can also claim to have frightened the rest of Nigeria by blowing up pipelines before they received their son, President Jonathan as a concession of sorts.

Similarly, elements of Boko Haram in whatever shape or form, the killer men and women running riot in the country and murdering thousands of innocent citizens despite having been paid off, can claim credit to pursing an agenda in which fear is an investment. Threats of blood for monkey and baboon were loud in 2011. The Biafran agitators are a symptom not a disease. The real disease has been spread by the brutal politics of the other segments of Nigeria that inadvertently made violence the commodity of exchange for the Presidency. We can only reverse this ugly scenario if we are honest enough to accept that what we have as politics in Nigeria is blood and banditry by another name!

Dr. Amuta ends his beautiful essay with some troubling recommendations for the Igbos if they want to get the Presidency. First, he encourages the Igbos to adopt a policy of ‘deft foot walk, negotiation with other groups, abandon disturbing pride, arrogance and noisy ebullience for fear that it will unsettle competitors’. He accuses the Igbos of ‘not getting on their knees to seek a favour’, and suggests what he calls ‘pragmatic flexibility’ as the way forward, because, as he concludes: ‘When you go out to seek the lion’s share of what belongs to all, you go in meekness’. Lord God Almighty!

First, Nigeria’s political grounds are a treacherous slippery slope of deceit and subterfuge and so, no amount of deft foot walk will do. You can only negotiate successfully if both of you understand and sign on to the same rules of engagement and agree on outcomes. The current administration is the poster child of this subterfuge and convoluted moral consequence. Those who sank their energy and money into this project have come face to face with the reality that their deft foot walk has led them blinded folded into a darkroom where they are asked to hopelessly chase the black cats of opportunity. Has President Buhari (the lion) shared what belongs to all even with the meek? Last time I checked, the lion hunts alone! The immoral power sharing method of this President has exposed the folly of those who believe that deft foot walk and negotiations are a guarantee for the future of the Igbos. The nation is wounded but I believe in the long run, the President has mortally wounded the north itself.

When Dr Amuta charges the Igbos with ‘pride, arrogance, noisy ebullience’ and suggests that they should fear the consequences of unsettling their competitors, he is, in my view, asking them to lie on their own sword helped by their competitors. To compound his case, Dr. Amuta suggests that the Igbos ‘get on their knees to seek a favour’ and then engage in pragmatic flexibility. However, he does not offer us examples of the rewards that have come to those who engaged in previous knee bending, fawning, obsequious or pragmatic flexibility in the past. I will like to see the list of those so rewarded, no matter how short it may be.

In conclusion, the task of rescuing Nigeria falls on the elite of Nigeria who must raise the bar for elitism in its capacity to redeem and rescue a people by imposing a new civilisation. African Democracy remains prostrate because it has still not freed itself from the clutches of both British colonialism and local feudalisms. The quality of men and women at the helm of affairs cannot rescue this county from its current state of decay and looming decomposition. The future does not lie on which region, religion or tribe will produce the next President. This is the legacy of the feudalists and hegemonists across the country and only a careful elite prescription can understand where the world is going.

The Igbos must reconnect with their Yoruba and other educated elite, replace the corrosive politics of ethnicity with the quality of mind that knows how to channel diversity to greater and higher goals. Tribal politics will continue to produce the toxic ingredients of death and destruction that has engulfed us. Contrary to what Dr. Amuta seems to suggest, I am convinced that the Igbos are the most politically advantaged: they have the ubiquitous presence and human and economic resources more than anyone. And, rather than seeing this as an incubus, I see it as an asset. If we elevate politics to a noble art of intellectuals setting goals and developing a vision for the larger society, we can then create the conditions for everyone to thrive no matter where they may be. Tribal politics have destroyed Nigeria and we must destroy its temple so as to free ourselves. Until that happens, the moral consequences of our politics will continue to be chaotic and violent. Nigeria will remain in the hands of violent and evil men, men of darkness already circling around the country and ready to lead us into darkness. Their footsteps are already on our doorsteps. We must find our black goat before darkness engulfs us.

• Kukah is Bishop of the Catholic Diocese of Sokoto

2023: Igbos and the Politics of Moral Consequence

By Dr. Chidi Amuta

National history has a moral arc. It bends perennially in the direction of justice no matter how long it takes. This truism is my response to the three dominant positions on the desirable geo-political location of the Nigerian presidency in 2023. The first is the repeated general political advisory by my friend Nasir El-Rufai, Governor of Kaduna State, that the next president should not come from the northern zones of the country. The second is the ambiguous view of Mr. Mamman Daura, President Buhari’s nephew, that subsequent presidents after Mr. Buhari should be chosen on the basis of ‘merit’, whatever that means. The third is the entitlement preference of the South Eastern political and cultural elite that the next president should emanate from their zone.
Ordinarily, discourse on succession preferences in a democracy ought to be determined by two factors: pressing issues of national concern; or leading political figures in the contending parties and their stand in relation to important national issues. Succession should not be determined by either directions on a compass or some other primordial consideration. But this is Nigeria. It is a nation conceived in compromise, nurtured in aggressive geo ethnic competition and sustained by hegemonic blackmail and systemic injustices.
The agitation for a shift of the locus of presidential power to the South East is however rooted in the general history of nations. No nation is an immaculate conception. Nearly every national history is an undulating pageant of glorious moments and inevitable episodes of brutish savagery and intense sadness. Nations come into being and progress sometimes by willfully or inadvertently hurting sections of their populace. Communal clashes, ethnic conflicts, civil wars, slavery, genocide, pogroms, insurgency, foolish mass killings and reprisals thereof are part of national history. When the hour of sadness passes, a nation so afflicted incurs moral debts to those sections of the community that have been hurt.
Subsequent social peace and political order in a nation as a community of feelings is often dependent on how the moral arc bends in relation to healing the injuries of the past. The mere passage of time is never enough to heal the moral wounds that lie buried in the hearts of injured precincts of a nation. As a strategy of national survival, nations with past injuries have had to confront the moral consequences of their past through conscious management of the political process. Such managed political process implies a recalibration of the moral compass of the nation. It is politics in the service of the higher meaning of democracy when democratic outcomes redress injustices. This is the essence of the politics of moral consequence. Its ultimate aim is to avert the dire consequences of a nation sustained on systemic injustice.
Nigeria is neither the first nor the last nation to come face to face with the ugly face of its past. In 2008, the United States of America rose in democratic unison to right the systemic historic wrong of its racist past by electing Barak Hussein Obama as its first black president. Similarly, by the first half of 1994, the very survival of the Rwandan nation was threatened by the injustice of the genocide against the Tutsis minority. It was a Tutsi army officer that crossed the border from Uganda, leading the forces that ended the anarchy. By 2000, that gallant soldier, Paul Kagame, was elected President of a reconciled Rwanda. His subsequent re-elections have led to the reconciliation, peace and prosperity that have become the hallmarks of modern Rwanda.
The South African story is too familiar. Yet, it was the recognition by the white apartheid regime that only true majoritarian democracy would restore harmony, peace and order to end decades of violent revolt. That realization and the conscious political actions that followed led to the enthronement of a free and democratic South Africa. Nelson Mandela became the president of a multi racial South Africa. The rest is history.
Australia too has had to confront and assuage a ghost from its past. There was a prolonged unease about injustices against Australian Aborigines, especially the forced removal of indigenous children (‘the Stolen Generations’) as well as centuries of discrimination and neglect by the state. In 2008, then Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, summoned the moral courage to apologise to the injured. On 13th February, 2008, parliament passed a historic resolution mandating an open apology to the Aboriginal population. Hear the words: “We apologize for the laws and policies of successive…governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians…, (For all these), we say sorry”
Similar recourse to national piety, regret and compassion is not strange to Nigeria. In a sense, the Nigerian nation is an example of the merits of national reconciliation and magnanimity. Our civil war ended without major physical reprisals against the ex -Biafrans. In the wake of the annulment of the June 12, 1992 presidential elections presumptively won by M.K.O Abiola, the Yorubas of the South West felt injured by the Nigerian military state. The nation came to a virtual stop. Social and political order were abridged. In a hastily revamped political transition project in 1998, the political system was consciously managed to field two Yoruba candidates, Olu Falae and Olusegun Obasanjo. The latter became president. A sense of justice was restored. Peace and order returned to the nation.
Late president Umaru Yar’dua was a man of unusual commitment and impeccable patriotism. He inherited a Nigeria that was wracked by fierce militancy by youth of the Niger Delta against environmental and economic injustices. The nation was virtually at war with itself. The survival of the economy was severely threatened. President Yar’dua adopted a combination of military suppression and the olive branch of the Amnesty Programme. When Yar’dua died mid stream in his tenure, the political system ensured his succession by Goodluck Jonathan, a son of the troubled Niger Delta. Jonathan consummated the Yar’dua peace plan. Today, peace and quiet has returned to the region. The peoples of the Niger Delta no longer feel excluded from national leadership.
When in December 1983 Major General Buhari led a military coup that toppled the democratically elected government of late Shehu Shagari, the nation welcomed a self proclaimed messiah. He ruled with an iron fist and wore a sad face. He wanted to instill discipline and curb corruption. Many politicians were jailed for several life times. Some citizens were executed for excusable misdemeanors. The state degenerated into a rogue terror squad that even staged a daring kidnap in the streets of London. Buhari flogged us with horsewhips for minor traffic infractions or as we queued for common grocery. Truthful journalists and honest judges were punished with long jail terms for doing their jobs. It was a relieved nation that welcomed Mr. Buhari’s toppling by his more humane colleagues in uniform. Buhari was briefly detained and later released.
He went into political wilderness. Later, he insistently sought employment by vying to return to power as a democratic convert. In the lead on to the 2015 elections, the Nigerian nation unanimously granted Mr. Buhari political amnesty to contest as a free repentant citizen. Today, he is a second term elected president, cleansed of his past sins against us. Today’s Buhari presidency is therefore a product of our unusual national generosity, forgiveness and gracious magnanimity.
Fifty years after the end of our civil war, the estrangement of the people of the South East from the mainstream of national political life is a national embarrassment. The marginalization is not just about infrastructure neglect. The landscape of the region still bears the tragic marks of war and desolation. A sense of real belonging in a nation is not reducible to highways, bridges and railway lines. It is not about token periodic appointments of citizens from the South East into federal offices to fulfill cosmetic constitutional requirements. That can be assumed by even the most plastic definition of citizenship.
There is a deeper and more essential sense of alienation of the Igbos from the heart of Nigeria. It is the unwritten and unstated presumption that Nigeria can still not find it in its heart to forgive the Igbos for Biafra. On the part of the Igbos, a dangerous psychological alienation has taken root. The youth now feel that there is some sin committed by their elders that has alienated them from fully realizing the fruits of their Nigerian citizenship. For these people, there seems to be an invisible iron ceiling to their political and economic aspirations. It is beginning to look like an original sin, something that has become integral to the communal psychology of national life.
Here lies the source of the resurgence of Biafra and other secessionist pressures in the region. These pressures are growing into a global torrent of agitations with a consistent message especially in the diaspora where the Igbo have massively fled in pursuit of self actualization. Among those arms of the national elite that have any conscience left, the systemic exclusion of the Igbo from the leadership equation in Nigeria has almost become a directive principle of an unscripted political code of conduct.
Of course the politics of leadership supremacy in a multi ethnic nation state is competitive. The competition is made more fierce by the scramble for the allocation of scarce resources in a political economy that emphasizes entitlement over productivity. In that competitive framework, the immediate tasks for the Igbo political elite are many in the quest for pre eminence. The Igbo political elite has to reduce the habitual fears and nervousness of the competing political elite of other factions in the country. They need to assure the rest of Nigeria that entrusting them with presidential power will enhance the prospects of better governance and more productive leadership. Internally, the Igbo political elite must strike a consensus to avoid presenting Nigeria with multiple candidates. In a region where the political landscape is now dominated by all manner of scoundrels, the matter of a fit and proper candidate for responsible, modern and informed national leadership becomes paramount.
In cultural terms, it is a question of “who shall we send and who will run our errand as the best possible ambassador to a feast at the national arena?” A good number of the political upstarts, miscreants and glorified illiterates thrown up by the present arrangements must self isolate and excuse themselves from the race for 2023 if indeed the option of a South East presidential candidate become real.
Identity politics in a multinational state requires deft footwork. The most important ingredient for the Igbo to embark on this journey is first a willingness to negotiate with competing national elites and factions. As instinctive business people, deal making ought to be a major asset of the igbo. But there is a disturbing pride, arrogance and noisy ebullience in the Igbo character that can unsettle competitors. The Igbo hardly get on their knees to seek a favour. But negotiating for the Nigerian presidency will require a mixture of self assurance and pragmatic flexibility. When you go out to seek the lion’s share of what belongs to all, you go in meekness.
To move from subordination to pre-eminence, a sense of realism is required. The Igbo now have a unique demographic limitation. The majority of the Igbo population do not live in the homeland. They form part of the voter population of the rest of the country. Being the single most dispersed ethnic group in the country, Igbos vote wherever they live in accordance with their economic and other interests. Diaspora voting is in Igbo interest. There may be more Igbo professionals based in Houston, Texas than in Lagos! The registered voter population in the five South Eastern states put together could be less than that of any two states in other less mobile parts of the country.
Owing to a relatively higher degree of economic enlightenment among the Igbo population, the average Igbo family size has been shrinking in the last two decades. Pervasive Catholicism and high educational goals means that family sizes are down to an average of 5 (husband, wife and a maximum of three offspring). Divorce rate is low while high achievement motivation and age grade competition means that marriages are delayed in anticipation of economic fulfillment.
The current political strategies among the South East political elite remain somewhat unwise. The sustained weaponization of Biafra may be strategically convenient. But using it to gain political concessions is a serious tactical blunder. You cannot frighten Nigeria with the force of mobs armed only with nostalgia except your preference is for mass suicide. It has led the Nigerian state to do the predictable: brand the Biafran agitation a terrorist movement and proceed to shoot, teargas and arrest innocent young men and women. Only Amnesty International has an idea of the fatalities from the pro-Biafra agitations in the last five years. The more the new breed Biafrans frighten people, the more the rest of Nigeria becomes jittery about the prospect of Igbo political ascendancy.
The alternative of a well articulated and principled civil disobedience pressure movement has not been explored. We are yet to see a platform of South East professional and enlightened elements with a reasoned agenda for an alternative Nigeria. An agitation for a mere geo political power shift devoid of real content may be a gratuitous insult and a futile drama.
We should however rise above sentimental and moralistic simplification. The dark forces that propel Nigeria’s bad political culture are not about to retire. Nor are the merchants of hate going on recess soon. Politics is mostly amoral and is by no means a love affair. The merchants of habitual vote rigging and demographic engineering will strive to vitiate the aims of the politics of moral merit.
The proposition for an Igbo president is likely to be the most consequential subject in the 2023 election year. If it comes about, there will be consequences for Nigeria and the Igbos. If not, the consequences will be even more dire. If the proposition fails, Nigeria will carry the moral burden of continuing as a nation sustained on systemic injustice. For the Igbo, the challenge of the future will be that of being who they are but living in a nation that regards them perpetually as the ‘other’ Nigerians. But the long term Igbo interest will not be resolved by having one of their own as a tenant of Aso Rock Villa for 8 years. In the long run, the best way the Igbo can attain self actualization is to lose themselves in the Nigerian market place. In the process, they will eventually realize their best potentials as a formidable force in the context of a more diverse, inclusive, free market Nigeria.

September 4, 2020
2023: Igbos and the Politics of Moral Consequence – Chidi Amuta

By Chidi Amuta

National history has a moral arc. It bends perennially in the direction of justice no matter how long it takes. This truism is my response to the three dominant positions on the desirable geopolitical location of the Nigerian presidency in 2023. The first is the repeated general political advisory by my friend Nasir El-Rufai, Governor of Kaduna State, that the next president should not come from the northern zones of the country.

The second is the ambiguous view of Mr. Mamman Daura, President Buhari’s nephew, that subsequent presidents after Mr. Buhari should be chosen on the basis of ‘merit’, whatever that means. The third is the entitlement preference of the South Eastern political and cultural elite that the next president should emanate from their zone.

Ordinarily, discourse on succession preferences in a democracy ought to be determined by two factors: pressing issues of national concern; or leading political figures in the contending parties and their stand in relation to important national issues. Succession should not be determined by either direction on a compass or some other primordial consideration. But this is Nigeria. It is a nation conceived in compromise, nurtured in aggressive geo ethnic competition and sustained by hegemonic blackmail and systemic injustices.

The agitation for a shift of the locus of presidential power to the South East is however rooted in the general history of nations. No nation is an immaculate conception. Nearly every national history is an undulating pageant of glorious moments and inevitable episodes of brutish savagery and intense sadness. Nations come into being and progress sometimes by willfully or inadvertently hurting sections of their populace. Communal clashes, ethnic conflicts, civil wars, slavery, genocide, pogroms, insurgency, foolish mass killings and reprisals thereof are part of national history. When the hour of sadness passes, a nation so afflicted incurs moral debts to those sections of the community that have been hurt.

Subsequent social peace and political order in a nation as a community of feelings is often dependent on how the moral arc bends in relation to healing the injuries of the past. The mere passage of time is never enough to heal the moral wounds that lie buried in the hearts of injured precincts of a nation. As a strategy of national survival, nations with past injuries have had to confront the moral consequences of their past through conscious management of the political process. Such managed political process implies a recalibration of the moral compass of the nation. It is politics in the service of the higher meaning of democracy when democratic outcomes redress injustices. This is the essence of the politics of moral consequence. Its ultimate aim is to avert the dire consequences of a nation sustained on systemic injustice.

Nigeria is neither the first nor the last nation to come face to face with the ugly face of its past. In 2008, the United States of America rose in democratic unison to right the systemic historic wrong of its racist past by electing Barak Hussein Obama as its first black president. Similarly, by the first half of 1994, the very survival of the Rwandan nation was threatened by the injustice of the genocide against the Tutsis minority. It was a Tutsi army officer that crossed the border from Uganda, leading the forces that ended the anarchy. By 2000, that gallant soldier, Paul Kagame, was elected President of a reconciled Rwanda. His subsequent re-elections have led to the reconciliation, peace and prosperity that have become the hallmarks of modern Rwanda.

The South African story is too familiar. Yet, it was the recognition by the white apartheid regime that only true majoritarian democracy would restore harmony, peace and order to end decades of violent revolt. That realization and the conscious political actions that followed led to the enthronement of a free and democratic South Africa. Nelson Mandela became the president of a multi racial South Africa. The rest is history.

Australia too has had to confront and assuage a ghost from its past. There was a prolonged unease about injustices against Australian Aborigines, especially the forced removal of indigenous children (‘the Stolen Generations’) as well as centuries of discrimination and neglect by the state. In 2008, then Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, summoned the moral courage to apologise to the injured. On 13th February, 2008, parliament passed a historic resolution mandating an open apology to the Aboriginal population. Hear the words: “We apologize for the laws and policies of successive…governments that have inflicted profound grief, suffering and loss on these our fellow Australians…, (For all these), we say sorry”

August 23, 2020
2023: Igbos want presidency, not Biafra – Ohaneze

The Apex Igbo socio-cultural organisation Ohanaeze Ndigbo has stated it is only interested in the 2023 presidency and not pursuit of sovereign State by any group in the zone.

The group maintained that it is a right to the Southeast zone, not a privilege to get the presidency in 2023.

Ohaneze spoke Tuesday in Awka, Anambra State through its President in Anambra State, Chief Damian Okeke -Ogene, while briefing reporters after the group’s meeting

He said the leadership of Ohaneze has not mandated anyone or group to pursue actualisation of the Sovereign State of Biafra but Presidency of Igbo extraction.

He said that some youths within the territory that make up the defunct Biafra Republic were restive and had made case for Biafra’s restoration because of the gross marginalisation of the zone.

According to Okeke –Ogene: “We are pursuing Igbo president because the executive of Ohanaeze led by Nnia Nwodo has the mandate of Ndigbo to negotiate the Igbo position in Nigeria.

“He wasn’t given a mandate for the Sovereign State of Biafra. That’s why we are saying, give us what is due for us and Nigeria’s president of Igbo extraction is what we are looking for.

“The other aspect of IPOB is because our children seem to find out that Nigerians are not ready to give us what we want; we the elders.

“They are now saying that if you’re not going to answer my father, I am going to tell my father that I am going to be myself.

“They are two different things. Let me tell you, it is coming to a point that Igbo presidency is becoming a right; no more privilege because it is only the South East that has never tasted the presidency and we have been voting for everybody.

“So, the younger ones are agitating that Nigerians are not ready to answer us.

“If they are sure that Nigerians are going to answer us, I believe that they will calm down. Nigeria is for all of us.”

He vowed Ndigbo would not relent until 2023 presidency is achieved.

August 11, 2020
Archbishop of Owerri raises alarm: They want to wipe out Igbos in Nigeria

The Archbishop of Owerri Ecclesiastical Province, His Grace, Most Reverend Anthony Obinna has raised the alarm over alleged plans by herdsmen from the Northern part of Nigerian to wipe out Igbos across the country.

The Archbishop in a letter sighted by TheNewsGuru.com (TNG) dated Monday, 1 June titled ‘Defend our home and lands’ and addressed to Governor Hope Uzodinma of Imo State, urged immediate action to stop alleged mass killings of the Igbos in their home states and other places in Nigeria.

According to the Bishop, ‘In the midst of the fear, panic and anxiety caused by the coronavirus [COVID-19] pandemic, it is unfortunate, sad and very distressing that our people are being subjected to vicious threats and acts of invasion, massacre and sack from herdsmen from the Northern part of Nigeria…’

Read full letter below:

June 2, 2020
Decide what you want, Biafra or 2023 Presidency, ACF tells Igbos

Nigeria’s Igbo ethnic group in the five states constituting the South East zone, has been asked to make a choice between having Biafra Republic or Nigerian presidency in 2023.

In a trending commentary, Anthony Sani, secretary-general of the influential Northern Nigeria Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) asked the Igbo to make the choice, saying the rest of Nigerians would be too scared to entrust the Igbo with the presidency in 2023 if “they are seen to also be agitating for secession from the federation”

Sani was reacting to a debate stirred by an interview granted by Malam Isa Funtua, a member of the Buhari inner circle to Arise TV. Funtua advised the Igbo to stop politics of exclusion and reach out to other ethnic blocs.

“If the Igbo want to be President, then they must belong. If you don’t belong, then you can’t be the President,” Funtua said.

Weighing in on the controversy, Sani described the Igbo as suffering from “superiority and inferiority complexes” simultaneously, accusing them of playing both victim and also having a sense of entitlement.

Read Sani’s intervention:

“When I read a letter by one Frederick Nwabufo on page 18 of The Nation newspaper under the caption “Isa Funtua, Igbo and 2023 presidency” in which the author berated Isa Funtua of being an arrogant man who suffers from a sense of entitlement, I wonder the wisdom,” Sani said.

“As far as I am concerned, it is Igbo who is obsessed with a sense of entitlement by their insistence that it is their turn to produce the president in a country which boasts of over 250 ethnic nationalities. Igbos suffer from both superiority and inferiority complexes.

“At one point, they tout their superiority by claiming to be over and above any other nationality in Nigeria because they are better at the use of their superior commercial acumen for trade.

“At another, they play the victim by crying of marginalization the most. Power in a multi-party democracy is never secured through threats and intimidation, nor is it obtained by jeremiads out of pity.

“This is because democracy is a contest of ideas and reason and is never a bullfight.

“Igbos cannot agitate for separation and hanker for president by still expecting the country would not be scared of voting them for the presidency.

“Igbos may wish to recall that Senator McCain lost the elections because he had [Mrs Palin] who was governor of the state of Alaska. This was also because her husband was accused of attending a meeting of separatists who wish the state of Alaska to leave [the] USA and join Russia.

“I do not see how somebody from Scotland, Catalan, Quebec, Aceh or Xinjiang could dream of being voted president of their countries. Reason: Such a person would most likely play Gorbachev.

“So when Isa Funtua says Igbo should belong, he meant “belong to where the majority [is]”. That is to say, Igbo must develop their winning game plan by reaching out to build bridges and break barriers.

“The North does not comprise the caliphate alone but is very diverse. In fact, the caliphate today is not ruled by the ruling party.”

January 11, 2020
2023: Why other tribes must allow Igbos succeed Buhari – Anglican Bishops

The Igbo will not have a better chance for a shot at the Presidency than in 2023, Anglican Bishops in Anambra State, Emma Obiorah and Henry Okeke, said on Thursday.

According to them, only an Igbo presidency will unite the country.

They spoke on the sidelines of the Christo Feast 2019 celebration at the Life of Faith Gospel Assembly Ministries in Oyi.

Okeke, the Bishop of Mbammili in Anambra West Local Government Area, believes a President from the Southeast will bring “balance to the country”.

He said: “The country needs that balance for its unity. The Southeast is neglected. Give the people a chance.

“Yes, nobody is perfect, but there are people more gifted than others who can lead this country and make its citizens happy.

“If Ndigbo gets the presidency in 2023, there will be a balance, which has been lacking in Nigeria.

“There has not been peace; no unity among the people and insecurity everywhere. This country needs equity and fairness.

“For the country to survive, we need every tribe; we need equity and it is the turn of an Igboman to be the President.”

For Bishop Obiorah, the Igbo should be given a chance in 2023 when President Muhammadu Buhari’s second term ends.

“The impression some people have created against Ndigbo is bad. God loves Igbo the way He loves others. Igbo have the gift to fix this country again”

“I’m not against any government or tribe, but let’s live for one another.

“I’m appealing to the Federal Government and the leading political parties to work on giving Igbo the 2023 presidency for the sake of unity,” he said.

December 27, 2019
Igbos cannot make presidency alone in 2023 – Okorocha

Rochas Okorocha, the Imo West Senator has declared that the South East alone can’t make themselves President in 2023.

The Senator disclosed this while addressing newsmen. on Wednesday, in Abuja.

Okorocha reiterated that the southeast needs the support of the North and other geopolitical regions to achieve its aim of producing Nigeria’s president in 2023. He stated that Nigeria needs a president who would continue with the efforts of uniting the country, create jobs and also guarantee security.

He said: “The Igbo alone cannot make themselves the president. The quicker they come together and start shoring up support from the North and other parts of the region the better it is to realise the dream.

“I know we shall come up to that point one day when who becomes the president would not be based on tribe or religion. For as long we keep promoting tribal and religious sentiments, we are not getting it right.”

The immediate past governor of Imo State insisted that ethnicity or religion should have no basis in politics as poverty knows no tribe or religion.

Okorocha stated that power must be given to anyone who has the vision irrespective of where he comes from “because tribe cannot put food on the table of the common man or guarantee security.”

“As you observe, the politics of today, everybody looks up to the North because it has a large chunk of vote to determine who becomes the president of Nigeria. One good thing I know of the North, especially the Islamic world, is that a good Muslim is a man of conscience who believes in equity, justice, and unity.

“That is the only hope for anybody who wants to contest from the southern region. The North can say for equity and not showing tribal and religious differences, that the North, having served as president, let someone else from the South be the next president,” he added.

December 5, 2019
RUGA: Igbos won’t succumb to Arewa’s 30-day ultimatum – IPOB

The Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) on Wednesday said South eastern states would not succumb to the demand for land for implementation of Ruga settlement programme.
The group said it was ready for face the youth wing of Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) after the expiration of its 30- day ultimatum.
In a statement by the Media and Publicity Secretary, Emma Powerful, IPOB insisted on supporting ranching business but in their private lands, not through forcing people to release their ancestral land to anybody.
The group advised the federal government and those behind the plan to retrace their steps before it turned uncontrollable and claim more innocent lives.
The statement partly reads: “IPOB is a peaceful movement and must remain so but cannot allow anybody to trample on us by forcing our people to release their ancestral land to them.
“We are aware that cattle business remains personal business in Nigeria and cannot change today.
“The community’s ancestral lands are gifts from the God, handed over to us to dwell, on which must not be taken over under any guise by the government or Fulani.
“We challenge Fulani Islamists terrorists including their Arewa youths to do their worst after the expiration of the so-called 30 days ultimatum as was widely reported in every national and international media.
“We are anxiously and eagerly waiting for them in whatever shape they may want it.”

July 17, 2019