On
May 31st, my good friend Chido Onumah made a public presentation of his book, We Are All Biafrans.
The book is a passionate plea to all Nigerians to work together to ensure that
we stop “sleepwalking to disaster”.
The discussions on the book in the media
were completely overshadowed by former Vice President Atiku Abubakar’s support
for the political restructuring of the country, expressed in the same event.
Chido makes the case that we need to renegotiate but it should not be done
“solely on the basis of ethnic, religious or cultural affinity”.
Biafra, he
argues, is not an “Igbo problem” but a Nigerian one and the way forward is to
build our federalism along civic lines and on the basis of “justice and equal
opportunities for all”. I completely agree with the argument. Nonetheless, the
discourse of marginalisation has permeated Igbo consciousness, just as it is
the case for other Nigerians and the issue of unpacking ethnic narratives is
extremely important.
I
tried to do so in seven articles published in this column on marginalisation as
perceived by Nigerians in the six geopolitical zones between October 29 and
December 17, 2012 and the articles did not raise a ripple. Following the
rekindling of the Biafra question by IPOB and others, I returned to what I
called the Igbo Question on November 30th, 2015 and this time, I got the
bashing of my life.
One
of the issues raised was how can I dare to tell the Igbo story. The famous
blogger, Victoria Ohaeri put it this way: “There are five main reasons why Sir
Jibrin’s (I don’t know when she gave me the knighthood) article warrants a
duteous rewrite, or at best, an outright retraction. First, the growing
tradition and bourgeoning number of outsiders telling the Igbo story, rewriting
their history and shoving down their squinted narratives as legitimate accounts
of Igboism is something to deeply ponder about.
To
be clear, it is the constitutionally enshrined right of every citizen to
proffer proposals for promoting integrated political and economic development
of any part of the country. However, what makes the teeming exercise of this
right questionable is the excessive focus on the Igbo question at the expense
of more burning issues of national significance such as full-blown terrorism in
the North-East, reported mass killings of Nigerian soldiers, the crumbling
economy, disappearing fundamental rights and freedoms, child marriages,
internal displacements and so forth, most of which are occurring outside the
region.”
The irony is that Victoria knows me well and is aware that I have
written on all the issues she mentioned. She simply believes I have no right to
address the Igbo question; I wonder why? Chidi Odinkalu also wrote a diatribe
in which he made false attributions to me creating a straw man that he
thrashed, to which I responded.
The
most surprising bashing I received, however, was from my good friend Professor
Okechukwu Ibeanu, accusing me of a single strand ethnic narrative. Following
his energetic promotion of his response to me on the social media, I was
inundated by attacks and insults for weeks, mainly by Igbo writers angry that I
had insulted them. The problem was that most of them had not read what I wrote;
they simply followed what Ibeanu told them I had said.
He had written that, “In
your Electoral Geography book in which you tried to attribute specific
behavioural attributes to ethno-regional elites. Your book for instance had
said that Igbo political elite is preoccupied with seeking money, are
kidnappers, etc., basically things to that effect.” It was a very unfortunate
statement because he misrepresented the argument in the book.
I had edited the
book in 2005 with Professor Sam Egwu after extensive consultations in all the
geopolitical zones in the country. In the Enugu workshop, stakeholders – civil
society, media, political parties and academics – focused on the matter of the
moment: the kidnapping of a sitting governor, one Chris Ngige, by a godfather
for money. By giving the impression that I was the one accusing Igbos of
seeking money and kidnapping, there was no surprise I was subjected to all
manners of insults.
The
irony is that Ibeanu himself had engaged in his own analysis of the contention
between the Igbos and the Nigerian State. The two of us had edited a book in
2009 entitled “Beyond Resource Violence”. In his chapter in the book, Ibeanu
had argued and I quote that: “The creation of states was designed to alter the
Igbo ethnic boundary by encouraging a number of groups, most of them in the
Niger Delta, who spoke dialects of the Igbo language to abandon pan-Igbo ethnic
identities like Ikwerre, Etche, Ogba and Ndoni. The propaganda of the federal
government at the time was to cast these groups as victims of the hegemony of
Igbos from the “hinterland”. By so doing, the federal government sought to
break the Igbo solidarity and weaken the Biafran secession bid.
Secondly,
state creation was meant to get other ethnic minorities of the Eastern region,
such as the Ijaw, Ogoni and Efik to cast their lot with the federal government
in the war. This move sought to build on already existing ill feelings towards
the Igbo.” Ibeanu concludes this argument on the note that “the decision of
Shell-BP to pay royalties to the federal side and not the Biafran side” decided
the outcome of the civil war. It is interesting that Ohaeri and Ibeanu believe
that they are entitled to analyse Igbo ethnic identity issues, but I am not.
If
we are all Biafrans, then we must all have the right to discuss widespread
perceptions among virtually all Nigerian groups that they are marginalised and
they seek redress in the new Nigerian.
Of course ethnicity is not the only
issue. Precisely for that reason, in my article on the Igbo Question, I raised
issues about the history of the civil war, economic transformation and growing
inequality among the Igbo, the sociological fault line that had developed
between the wealthy and disenfranchised youth and partisan political tactics
within the zone. To dismiss all these as single strand narrative simply because
it comes from a non-Igbo is not the way to go.
Historically,
the fears of domination of one region over the others played a central role in
convincing Nigerian politicians of the necessity of a federal solution. The
First Republic however operated essentially as equilibrium of regional
tyrannies and was characterised by the domination of each region by a majority
ethnic group and the repression of regional minorities. The relative autonomy
enjoyed by the regions was eroded during three decades of military rule and the
creation of states from two regions to thirty-six states, which should have
addressed the domination issue. It has not.
The steady rise of ethno-regional
tensions and conflicts has continued unabated. The reason for this has been the
supplanting of the federal tradition with the rise of a Jacobin unitary state.
The erosion of multiple poles of political power that have existed in Nigeria
by military dictators and subsequently by an all-powerful presidency has
exacerbated the spectre of the fear of domination in the country.
The
Nigerian state is no longer seen as a neutral arbiter. Negotiation and conflict
resolution mechanisms have broken down and ethno-regional political actors have
been taking maximalist positions and treating compromise with disdain. Each
bloc believes it has the worst deal in the country. It is for this reason that
marginalisation, defined, as the outcome of domination, is the most favoured
word used by the Nigerian elite to describe their perceived political reality
and above all to seek for more access to the national cake.
By
examining these narratives, it is possible to show that the same arguments can
be made for all groups. I have the right to talk about all Nigerian groups and
will continue to do so. Yes Chido, we are all Biafrans and let’s continue to
discuss what we think we are.
Muhammad
Ali: the Greatest
THE
GREATEST, Muhammad Ali transited to the other side on June 4th. He was the
greatest boxer, indeed sports person of the century; but that was not why he
was the greatest. He was one of the greatest poets and entertainers of the
century but that was not why he was the greatest. He was one of the most
committed advocates for civil rights and racial equality but that was not why
he was the greatest.
He
was the greatest because he taught oppressed Blacks and all oppressed
minorities to develop and articulate their voice on the basis of self-esteem.
He showed the world that with voice you could struggle and succeed in rolling
back oppression, creating access to opportunities and advancing humanity. RIP
Muhammad Ali, the GREATEST for all you did for us, we will continue to use the
voice you gave us to continue to struggle to transform oppressed minorities
into battle hardened fighters for rights.
Dr. Jibrin Ibrahim is a Senior
Fellow at the Centre for Democracy and Development, Abuja.
ITREALMS ... everything news digitally!
%20Taxation%20ethics,%20revenue%20neutrality%20&%20campaign%20finance%20paradox%20by%20Remmy%20Nweke%20-%20Telecoms%20Clinic@ITREALMS.jpg)
