There is this report that appeared recently in most online media,
(here I am quoting The Daily Post) that the "defunct(?) militant group,
Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta, MEND, has alleged that the
incarcerated leader of the Indigenous People of Biafra, Nnamdi Kanu, secretly
agreed to denounce the struggle for the actualisation of Biafra despite
claiming otherwise in public." . Really? Was this agreement with MEND or
with Buhari's federal government?
Pray, when does a "defunct" organization become a
"Reliable Source" for an important story such as this? Is MEND
defunct or not? Is MEND an agent or mouthpiece of the federal government with
which Kanu and IPOB are supposedly negotiating, as in talks about talks? Or is
MEND collaborating with IPOB? We may never know until the actual talks
commence.
It is also possible that anyone facing the same predicament as
Nnamdi Kanu will say just about anything to escape from an irrational and
illegal gulag imposed on him by a despot who seems unperturbed that more than
fifty percent of citizens regard him as either perpetrating or condoning
genocide. Any deal that he is deemed to have struck will be as useless as
a confession extracted by a brutal police force at gunpoint. To expect his many
followers, or more correctly co-agitators, to respect that, is quite silly. What
exactly is the ideological significance of such a development? Nothing! Zilch.
The ideological foot soldiers of IPOB and MASSOB are all over the
place. Meanwhile the enemies of the struggle are strenuously hoping to add
Nnamdi Kanu's scalp to their mounting head count, to what end I may never know.
God forbid bad thing! I can imagine the IPOB stalwarts reasoning that Kanu will
readily outlive oldman Buhari, and taking note of the cool wind of change
blowing over some parts of the north already tired of its own home grown
violent militants. Against the grain, many people there, including Atiku
Abubakar, are talking "restructuring." They are coming to terms with
the fact that they have actually no axe to grind with Kanu and his ilk. What
with all the corruption and poverty that they have had to contend with.
Now, let us look at this story from another angle. When it broke
over a fortnight ago, there was one common thread. Almost all the reporters
couldn't help but gloat. As if to say,
"Don't mind that foolish young man. I thought he said that he
wouldn't renounce Biafra. Serves him right! No be him say he wan die for
jail." Etc, etc.
Even commentators who have picked up a quarrel with President
Buhari over a litany of issues bordering on corruption in his own regime,
insecurity and his inability to define an economic road map, have all
conveniently joined in demonizing Nnamdi Kanu. This reminds us of the
observation by Chinua Achebe decades ago that it is only on Ndigbo that most
Nigerians have perfect agreement. Something like The Igbo Question, if I may
say so. However that seems to be unraveling thus scaring the living daylights
out of those currently holding the reins of power.
Keeping Nigeria together, in the unity of Jonah and the whale,
using Ndigbo as an object of scaremongering, has become rather stale. How does
one explain the genocide in Agatuland, Kaduna, Nasarawa, Kogi, Kwarra, Oyo or
Ogun States? What have Ndigbo or Nnamdi Kanu got to do with that? What about
the poverty in the North and the inexplicable starvation in the North-East?
Even if he dies in detention, how does that relieve the poverty in the North?
It is almost turning out to be a case of every man for himself.
Ndigbo gave been straining not to say "We told you so." Crooked or
not, ex-governor Alameseigha and activist Asari Dokubo would probably
have more to say on this than I ever could?
Nobody seems to remember that Kanu has killed nobody, bombed no
government or oil company facilities. Granted that, like the herds of Nigerian
holy cows grazing in Maitama, his group has disrupted vehicular traffic once in
a while, that is supposed to be a minor misdemeanour. The activities of IPOB in
no way deserves the current scorched earth tactics employed by this
administration probably in a bid to deflect attention from its manifold
failings. If indeed IPOB's trenchant and well articulated demand for a
peacefully achieved Biafra, which is gaining traction even outside these
shores, (despite the likes of me still sitting on the fence), is treason, why
then the delay in trying him. . Sounds familiar? No government of Nigeria, in
the past two decades, has dared go through the whole gamut of trying Uwazurike
despite all the posturing to that effect.
Only those who are lawyers, can fully imagine an Uwazurike perhaps
acting as his own defence counsel in court, in a trial that will attract the
whole world. Nigeria would have been in the dock, not Uwazurike. All those
issues that the winners of the last civil war, (or the Nigeria-Biafra War if
you like), claim to be settled, would have been judicially reopened as opposed
to the dithering in the National Assembly. Every issue would become fair game.
If it was only a matter of one man's life, the federal forces of coercion would
have found a way to eliminate Uwazurike and or Kanu. They haven't done so,
because they cannot predict the future. The do not know for sure how Ndigbo
will react. By doing so, they may unwittingly recruit for the cause, the
technical and intellectual minds of Igboland who have as yet not taken sides.
The current multi-pronged violent agitation in the Niger Delta and
the North-East should be more than enough on anyone's plate. Nigeria survived
the last war because a large segment of the Niger Deltans did not support the
Biafran initiative but more importantly actively undermined it. Will Nigeria
survive if Ndigbo as much as provide active support for the Niger Delta
agitation, much less a full blown civil war? The leadership of the current
Federal Government administration cannot be so stupid not to understand this.
With its current challenges, it can hardly deliver on any of its campaign
promises. To go fishing for more troubles, to deliberately open up another full
front, would be the height of irresponsibility. Nigeria cannot afford that.
Nigeria will not survive that.
The federal government should as a matter of urgency quit
dithering, release Nnamdi Kanu and proceed with negotiations with ALL
aggrieved segments of the Nigerian society. We must always bear in mind that
Kanu is not IPOB. Negotiations are bound to be a laborious and time consuming
exercise. So, we better start right now.
Commentators over the past forthnight have tended to regard with
glee the very idea of negotiation, especially the variant that comes with the
purported renunciation of Biafra by Mr Kanu, as an act of surrender. Every
dispute, irrespective of the eventual outcome, is brought to a conclusion with
some sort of negotiations. American troops in South Vietnam did not just
leave, but had to negotiate some sort of orderly withdrawal after their initial
rout. Even if the Federal Government military forces are ordered out of
Igboland today, there must be negotiations for an orderly withdraw to reduce if
not eliminate the tendency for reprisal attacks on the withdrawing columns by
angry vigilante groups. If on the other hand the idea is to defuse or absorb
the anger of disenchanted Igbo youth in IPOB/MASSOB by rehabilitation along the
lines of similar efforts in the Niger Delta or the Boko-Haram infested
North-East, then negotiations must proceed on a broad front. My effort here has
been to debunk the insinuation by enemies of Nnamdi Kanu that there is
something sinister or untoward about negotiations. It is not a bad word any
day. It is the way to go.
Finally I stress that I find it very depressing that people, who
have never stood up for anything noble in their lives, would find time to
vilify those who have, even when the activism is gearing towards addressing
issues which they themselves lack the courage to confront in public. I have
years ago written about "The Nigerian Elite and Revolution" where I
decried the cheap tendency to rave and rant in front of the television and the
wife, without the courage to repeat the same sentiments outside the safe
confines of the home. Excuse me!
Writer Nkem Ossai complained two decades ago that some activists
from the south routinely tear out pages from The Aburi Accord and swear by
them, while deliberately avoiding naming the source. So as to avoid appearing
to support the Igbo or is it Ojukwu's view point? For goodness sake Ojukwu was
only one contributor to that historic document. All this is changing, but
rather slowly. Only the truth will set us free. I have been vindicated by
observers like Chief Solomon Asemota, The Guardian editor Abraham Ogbodo and
Generals of the victorious Nigerian Army, Godwin Alabi-Isama and Alani
Akinrinade among many others.
To all the late comers, I say a rousing "Good Morning."
No comments:
Post a Comment