New Nigerian Politics » Max Siollun

Have the Igbos been Reintegrated Back Into Nigeria? – By Max Siollun

admin — Thu, 25 Oct 2012 05:08:52 +0000

By Max Siollun | NNP | Oct. 24, 2012 - In an article he wrote for the UK’s Guardian newspaper last week, Nigeria’s acclaimed author Chinua Achebe said that after the Biafra-Nigeria civil war, “Igbos were not and continue not to be reintegrated into Nigeria, one of the main reasons for the country’s continued backwardness.” How true is the claim that Igbos were not reintegrated back into Nigeria after the war?

IGBOS SHUNNED

After the war ended in 1970, life in official and government circles was certainly grim for Igbos. There was an undeclared glass ceiling beyond which Igbos could never hope to rise in the government or military. Many Igbos claimed that they were being unofficially punished for their secession attempt.

Igbos complained bitterly that nearly 40 years after Nigeria’s independence, and 30 years after the civil war, no Igbo had ever been appointed Defence Minister, Minister of Internal Affairs, Chief of Army Staff, Chief of Defence Staff or Inspector-General of Police. It seemed that there was an unwritten consensus to keep Igbos out of prominent positions.

Igbos were punished not only for the civil war, but were punished also for the January 1966 military coup staged mostly by Igbo officers, in which the north’s revered senior political and military leaders were murdered. That seared a permanent distrust of Igbo soldiers into the Nigerian army’s psyche. That distrust was amplified during almost 30 years of military rule, almost all of which were under northern led, or northern dominated military governments.

THINGS IMPROVE UNDER OBASANJO

However things improved for Igbos after Nigeria returned to democracy in 1999. Democracy has been much kinder to the Igbos than military rule was. Ironically it was the much maligned President Olusegun Obasanjo that did most to reintegrate Igbos. He appointed Igbos to head the ministry of finance, Central Bank of Nigeria, and the Director-General of the Nigerian Stock Exchange was also Igbo (Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, Charles Chukwuma Soludo and Ndidi Okereke-Onyuike). Heading these three portfolios virtually left Igbos in control of Nigeria’s economy and monetary policy. That economic dominance remains as today Okonjo-Iweala has returned as Finance Minister, and Bright Okogu is the Director-General of the Budget Office.

In addition, Obasanjo appointed Fabian Osuji, Chinwe Obaji and Obiageli Ezekwesili (all Igbos) in succession as the Minister of Education, and Dora Akunyili as the Director-General of the National Agency for Food and Drug Administration and Control.

Later, Obasanjo broke a taboo by appointing an Igbo: Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi (the son of Nigeria’s first military head of state, Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi) as the Defence Minister. After Obasanjo left office his successor President Yar’Adua appointed Mike Okiro to become the first Igbo Inspector-General of Police in Nigeria’s history. When Okiro retired, he was succeeded by another Igbo – Ogbonnaya Onovo. Yar’Adua also appointed Ojo Maduekwe as the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

President Obasanjo made history by appointing Air Marshal Paul Dike as Nigeria’s first Igbo service chief in 2006, when he appointed Dike as the Chief of Air Staff. Two years later, Dike made history again when President Yar’Adua appointed him Chief of Defence Staff, thereby making Dike the first Igbo Chief of Defence Staff and first Igbo our star General (when Dike was promoted to Air Chief Marshal) in Nigeria’s history. Igbos’ reintegration back into the military was completed in 2010, when President Goodluck Jonathan appointed Lt-General Azubuike Ihejirika as Nigeria’s first ever Igbo Chief of Army Staff. A few days ago, President Jonathan also appointed Vice-Admiral Dele Joseph Ezeoba as the first Igbo Chief of Naval Staff. Two of the three military services (army and navy) are now headed by Igbos.

Additionally seven Igbos have been Senate President (AKA citizen number 3 in Nigeria) for a combined total of 14 years. Azikiwe and Nwafor Orizu held the position from 1960-66, and Evan Enwerem, Chuba Okadigbo, Pius Anyim, Adolphus Wabara, and Ken Nnamani held the position for 8 consecutive years between 1999-2007.

OTHER HISTORICAL POSITIONS

Also, in past governments Igbos held the following key posts: Vice-President (Alex Ekwueme), Speaker of the House of Representatives (Jaja Wachuku and Edwin Ume-Ezeoke), Chief of General Staff (Commodore Ebitu Ukiwe, as deputy to the military head of state), and Chairman of the Federal Civil Service (Professor Kesandu Ogan).

LAND IN ABUJA

Some might argue that the above examples apply only to the public sector. In the private sector, the former Minister of the Federal Capital Territory revealed that nearly 75% of the land in Nigeria’s capital Abuja, is owned by Igbos.

“THE BIG ONE

Objectively, the key prominent portfolio that has eluded Igbos is the presidency. That is the final “big one” that is missing, and the final frontier for Igbos.

http://maxsiollun.wordpress.com/

Boko Haram: Iron Fist in a Velvet Glove – By Max Soillun

admin — Wed, 13 Jun 2012 21:16:09 +0000

By Max Siollun | NNP | June 13, 2012 – Former US President Theodore Roosevelt once famously said that one should “talk softly and carry a big stick”. In dealing with Boko Haram, the Nigerian government has so far chosen to talk softly OR carry a big stick, but has declined to do both simultaneously. The federal government has made conflicting noises, unsure of whether to listen to calls from southern Christians to unleash a military onslaught to crush Boko Haram, or to listen to northerners who urge a cessation or easing of military attacks on Boko Haram, and negotiations with it instead.

Many southerners have called for the government to use a military iron fist to “destroy” Boko Haram. They do not realise that Boko Haram cannot be stopped by force alone (or by talking alone for that matter).

The misadventures of America and Israel in recent times have demonstrated that military force alone cannot end terrorism. Over ten years after America declared “war on terror”, there is now more terrorism than before America’s war. This despite America’s use of drone assassinations, air force bombs, missile attacks, invasion of two countries, intimidation and torture of terrorist suspects. Yet the terror continues. For 45 years the Israelis have tried to batter the Palestinians into submission using the same forceful tactics. Yet that has not removed suicide bombs and drive by machine gun attacks on Israelis by Palestinians.

CASH FOR GUNS ECONOMY

Nigeria’s President Goodluck Jonathan has already called for dialogue with Boko Haram. He cannot be faulted for doing so, but his timing could have been better. He called for talks before extracting any concessions from Boko Haram. He could for example have demanded a truce or suspension of Boko Haram attacks as a precondition to talks.

The British government and Israel both demanded a cessation of terrorist attacks before they agreed to negotiate with the IRA and Palestine Liberation Organization respectively. By offering talks to an organisation that has bombed police headquarters, a United Nations buildings and killed police officers, soldiers and thousands of people, he has appeared weak and too indecisive to some.

It has also sent a message that violence pays, and that there is no consequence for people that take up arms against their government and murder their fellow citizens. Since Niger Delta militants were granted amnesty and cash stipends, Boko Haram might demand the same treatment. This would create a “money for guns” economy in Nigeria and encourage armed groups to kill in expectation of amnesty and cash rewards. Murder and suicide bombing must not be allowed to become a new money making sector in Nigeria’s economy.

WHAT SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT?

Southern Christians stereotype Boko Haram as a bunch of sadistic, savage uneducated killers. However there is evidence that Boko Haram’s ranks also include an articulate and educated cadre that can negotiate with the government. Those who met Boko Haram’s leaders have claimed that some of Boko Haram’s leadership speak English and have university degrees (including their female members).

THE STICK

Although Boko Haram has succeeded in demonstrating its ability to attack and kill with impunity, no one is sure what it wants. Boko Haram draws its ideological inspiration from the 12th century Turkish Islamic scholar named Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah, who died in 1328, while imprisoned in Damascus in Syria.

Insightful analyses of Boko Haram’s demands range from a desire to stop teaching Western education and turn Nigerian into an Islamic state, or simply a demand to release their members held by the government and compensation for members killed by the government’s security forces. If their goal is to turn Nigeria into an Islamic state, even Boko Haram members must realise that they do not have the power to achieve that goal.

Both Boko Haram AND the federal government must understand that violence is the means, not the end. If Boko Haram relies on violence alone, they will provoke the federal government into a massive military crackdown with huge civilian casualties. If the government tries to curb Boko Haram using bullets and bombs alone, it will have a guerilla war and suicide bombers on its hands for the next decade.

IRON FIST IN A VELVET GLOVE

The government must put Boko Haram under intense pressure by arresting or eliminating its members, and disincentivising people from joining it by making Boko Haram an employer with low job security and short life expectancy.

After dissuading Boko Haram recruitment, it must then demonstrate to Boko Haram that life would be better for them if they gave up violence and turned to peaceful pursuits.

The government must address the root issues of Boko Haram style violence. The government has not learned lessons from the Maitatsine uprising of the early 1980s. The government appointed Justice Aniagolu commission that investigated the Maitatsine violence concluded that:

“ Because of the very wide gap between the rich and the poor in our society…they were more than prepared to rise against the society at the slightest opportunity. After all, they did not have much to lose…This regrettable social situation in our society ought to be remedied immediately else it will continue to provide the required recruitment potential for disenchanted men like Marwa to rebel against the society.”

In other words, the federal government has not learned any lessons from, or implemented the recommendations of a report that it commissioned 30 years ago. 30 years ago its own commission predicted a repeat of the religious violence, yet the government failed to address its root causes. The failure to learn from the Maitatsine experience is all the more shocking when one analyses the similarities between the Maitatsine and Boko Haram sects. Boko Haram is virtually the second coming of Maitatsine.

Maitatsine’s recorded teachings included that any Muslim who reads any book beside the Koran is a pagan, and the rejection of affluence, western materialism and western technology.

Both the Maitatsine and Boko Haram movements were assisted by the Almajiri wardship system, whereby northern Muslim parents often entrust their young sons to the tutelage of an Islamic teacher, who frequently takes them far from their homes. Such young boys are akin to blank pieces of paper on which positive or destructive instructions may be written.

Many Maitatsine and Boko Haram members were ‘graduates’ of the A lmajiri system. Both groups also recruited members from neighbouring countries such as Niger and Chad. The other uniting factor between their memberships is that most of them were poor, unemployed youths. This mobile cadre of poor, idle, illiterate, disenchanted northern youths have always been a readily available violent mob during the various Sharia riots of the last 12 years, during electoral crises and religious and ethnic clashes.

Now they have graduated into mass casualty terrorism. Membership of a terrorist organisation and murder is not difficult for uneducated and impoverished young men with no jobs, prosperity or future prospects, and with nothing to lose.

The government should also address the elephant in the room: the north is suffering the consequences of not taking to Western as seriously as southerners. Each southern state produces more university graduates and school leavers every year than all 12 northern Sharia states combined. While female literacy in southern states is above 90%, it is below 5% in the north.

This educational polarisation in childhood has translated into economic polarisation in adulthood. The south is becoming increasingly prosperous, developed and developed, while the north heads in the opposite direction and is becoming mired in poverty, disease, religious extremism, unemployment and violence.

The north needs a symbolic development project that young northern men can point to as a sign of a potentially better future. The government should give northern youths something to lose: jobs and homes. Young men are less inclined to kill themselves and lots of others if they have stable jobs, nice houses and families that they will miss.

Max Siollun

maxsiollun.wordpress.com
http://maxsiollun.wordpress.com/my-book/

Is Ojukwu a Hero or Villain?

admin — Tue, 11 Jan 2011 05:26:38 +0000

By Max Siollun, NNP – Jan. 10, 2011 – January is a key month in Nigeria’s history. This January marks the 41st anniversary of the end of the Nigerian civil war, and the 44th anniversary of the Aburi accords – the debate in Aburi in Ghana which nearly pre-empted the war. The pivotal figure in both events is Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu.

Ojukwu is a man that evokes conflicting emotions. To some he is a born leader and a hero. To others he is an ambitious man that tried to break up his country. Where Ojukwu is concerned, no one is a neutral. The conflicting opinions on him are emblematic of his inconsistent personality and history. Ojukwu is an educated man that entered a profession that many Nigerians regarded at the time as a profession for the uneducated. He is a southerner born in the north who fought a three year long war against the north. He is a man who once led an attempt to secede from Nigeria, but later ran for President of Nigeria.

A leader must be judged by what benefits or misfortune he has brought to his people. Has Ojukwu brought anything positive to his people? His record is grim. The “accomplishments” Ojukwu has brought his people include:

•    Leading them in a brutal civil war they had no chance of winning, and which resulted in a million of them dying.
•    Even when it became clear that his people were starving to death in massive numbers, he continued the war which was doomed from the start.
•    He fled and left his people after the war.
•    The civil war caused his people to be stereotyped as disloyal and led to an unwritten discrimination against them.

Yet he is still revered. Ojukwu’s first official involvement in politics came after a group of young army Majors overthrew the democratic government in January 1966. Contrary to what has been written in some quarters, Ojukwu refused to cooperate with the Majors – including Major Nzeogwu. Ojukwu was appointed the Military Governor of the Eastern Region after the coup. This appointment was ironic as he had spent very little of his life in the east. Ojukwu was the most politically active of the four military governors. By mid-1966 the army was imploding and another army coup was staged by northern soldiers during which hundreds of Igbo soldiers (including Ironsi) were killed. A central plank of this coup was the elimination of Ojukwu. The ‘pointman’ who was to execute the coup in the eastern region was a young Lieutenant named Shehu Musa Yar’Adua (the older brother of Nigeria’s former President).

Aburi – Ojukwu’s Finest Hour

After being dragged to the brink of an abyss by two military coups in 1966, and pogroms which followed them, Ojukwu had refused to attend any meetings of the Supreme Military Council until the Ghanaian leader Lt-General Joseph Ankrah brokered a meeting in the neutral territory of Aburi in Ghana in January 1967. This was Ojukwu’s finest hour. Ojukwu prepared thoroughly and came armed with notes and secretaries. He managed to secure an agreement to devolve power from the federal government to the regions. This turned Nigeria into a confederation. In the words of one writer Ojukwu “secured the signatures of the SMC to documents which would have had the effect of turning Nigeria into little more than a customs union”.

The federal government attempted to implement the Aburi agreement in diluted form by enacting a modified Constitution (Suspension and Modification) Decree (Decree 8) which turned Nigeria into a de facto confederation, but which did not incorporate ALL of the agreements reached at Aburi. Federal civil servants argued that to implement all of the Aburi agreements would lead to the dissolution of the federation. Ojukwu declined to accept the initial draft of the Decree and insisted on a full and complete implementation of the Aburi accords.

As the weaker party, could Ojukwu still have showed greater pragmatism to spare further suffering for his people? Even with its flaws, Decree 8 gave him 90% of what he wanted. The U.S. State Department was “impressed by extent to which Decree 8 appears to meet many of East’s fundamental demands for much greater regional autonomy. While recognizing that it stops short of granting everything Ojukwu wants, Dept. considers Decree represents genuine effort by FMG and other Mil Govs to implement Aburi agreements and to retain Nigerian unity in form which least objectionable to East…..Consulate Enugu has reported that some prominent and moderate Easterners may incline toward above view”.

WINNER TAKES ALL – NIGERIA’S MALAISE

In the “winner takes all” mentality that is so symptomatic of Nigerian politics, Ojukwu unrealistically held out for 100% of his demands and in the end, received 0%. His refusal to be tactically flexible by considering options other than secession, placed him and his people in a worse position than they started in. Rather than turning Nigeria into a confederation (which is what Decree 8 did), Ojukwu’s give no inch stance gave the federal government an opportunity to overrun the Eastern Region, carve the country into several states and concentrate massive powers in the central government. Forty years later many Nigerians now call for the restructuring of Nigeria, and for devolution of power to its regions. The opportunity to achieve this was squandered 45 years ago at Aburi.

Could Ojukwu have achieved his objectives – albeit at a later date, had he been more patient? The old adage is that “the best comes to those who wait”. Could he have accepted confederation in the short-term, then waited patiently until such time that the Eastern Region had enough weapons and infrastructure to sustain a fully independent state in the future?

WAS SECESSION A MISTAKE?

When armed confrontation with the federal government was imminent, Ojukwu knew that the Eastern Region had absolutely no chance of victory in an armed conflict with the federal government. Where did he obtain the confidence to secede nonetheless? It certainly was not from international opinion. Western diplomats warned him that they would not recognize a new state of Biafra. In a telegram from the US Department of State to the US Embassy in Nigeria dated March 24, 1967, the U.S. warned:

“East making serious mistake if it under assumption that international recognition of independent East would be easily obtained; our info clearly to contrary”. This was the consistent US position as far back as July/August 1966. The US had previously noted that “Both US Ambassador Mathews and UKHICOM Cumming-Bruce have made strong representations in opposition to secession of any area of Nigeria. We consider such development would be major political and economic disaster for Nigerian people and severe setback to independent Africa.”

Yet he declared secession, knowing full well that powerful countries would not recognize his new state, and that federal troops would invade immediately after secession. Ojukwu doubtless possessed outstanding leadership and motivational skills which he used admirably to pull his people solidly behind the war effort. However, exactly how did he possibly believe that the Eastern Region (armed only with a few elderly World War 2 era rifles) could succeed against an enemy armed with limitless mortars, machine guns, tanks, armoured personnel carriers, trucks and air force jets. One does not have to be a military strategist to see the folly of this decision.
THE MID-WEST INVASION – A MISTAKE?

Under considerable military pressure from the federal army, in 1967 Ojukwu ordered Biafran soldiers to invade the Mid-West Region as a way to relieve military pressure on Biafra’s land, and to force the federal army onto the defensive. The invasion caught the federal government totally off guard and threatened a stunning military humiliation for it.

However, did the invasion of the Mid-West turn into a public relations disaster? The Military Governor of the Mid-West Lt-Colonel Ejoor had repeatedly stated that due to the multi-ethnic composition of his region, the “Mid-West will not be a battleground”. Ejoor had even refused to let federal troops cross through his territory. Hence it was regarded as neutral demilitarised territory. However the invasion forced Ejoor off the fence he had been sitting on. He fled to Lagos, now firmly opposed to Biafra. Ojukwu had alienated a potential figure of friendly neutrality. The Mid-West was neutral until that invasion and may not have joined the war but for it.

Additionally, the invasion gave the rest of Nigeria the mistaken impression that Biafra’s cause was not only about survival, but also about territorial conquest. It escalated the conflict and gave the federal army a free hand to start using heavy weapons, artillery and punishing air raids. Lt-Col Murtala Muhammed’s 2nd division of the Nigerian army carried out massive reprisals against Igbos and murdered several hundred as punishment.

FLIGHT TO IVORY COAST

During the war, there was a widely held belief (propagated by Ojukwu and other Biafran leaders) that defeat for Biafra would be met by mass genocidal massacres by the federal government. If Ojukwu believed this, then his escape at the end of the war is deplorable. After over a million Igbos were killed (90% of whom were civilians), Ojukwu fled in the last days of the war when his people were at their lowest ebb, despite repeatedly promising throughout the war that he would never leave them to the mercy of the federal troops. If he believed that all his people would be massacred, then his flight to a exile abroad and refusal to stand side by side with them to finish a war he led them into, cannot be applauded.

Ojukwu was and remains an iconic leader for his people. However, did his decisions cause them more harm than good? Was Ojukwu a hero or a disastrous strategist?

http://maxsiollun.wordpress.com/

http://twitter.com/#!/maxsiollun

NIGERIANS: Please Stop Recycling

admin — Fri, 24 Dec 2010 07:26:27 +0000

By Max Siollun – NNP- Dec 24, 2010 – I do not wish to appear politically incorrect or to be a person that does not care about the environment or planet Earth that we all share. However I am pleading with all Nigerians to stop recycling. That’s right , I said it: STOP recycling

OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLES

Before I get “flamed” for being so uncaring about the environment, please let me explain.….

Those of you that live in the UK, would you have taken the last elections seriously if Margaret Thatcher had come out of retirement to challenge Gordon Brown as Prime Minister? What if the Labour Party had chosen Neil Kinnock as its new leader instead of Ed Milliband?

Those of you in America, what would you say if the Democrats had chosen Jimmy Carter as their presidential candidate instead of Barack Obama? Sounds preposterous doesn’t it? Yet no matter how absurd it sounds, this is what Nigeria has been continually doing since independence in 1960. At every electoral and leadership cycle, Nigeria repeatedly turns to past leaders from decades back.

The candidates who have so far declared their intention to contest the presidency in next year’s presidential election include two retired Generals, who ruled the country for nearly a decade between them, and who first entered Nigerian government in 1975. Although there is a case for experience, there has to be a sensible limit somewhere. When these men first entered Nigerian politics, Gerald Ford was President of the U.S., Johnny Nash and the Bay City Rollers were dominating music, and most of you reading this article had not even been born. Does that put things into perspective?

FEELS LIKE 1984 AGAIN

As for the “northern consensus candidate”….those of you with long memories should think back….way back to 26 years ago. Remember the “53 suitcases” scandal involving the Emir of Gwandu in 1984? Well, do you remember who the customs officer in charge of the Murtala Muhammed airport in Lagos was? Better still, can you remember who the Head of State was at the time of this scandal? ….

However, it would be unfair of me to single out this 2011 candidate group. They are not the only recycled Nigerian leaders in waiting. To understand how much Nigeria has been stuck in the past, and has been lumbered with essentially the same leadership since the 1960s, consider the following sobering fact. The late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (who took office in 1997) was the first Nigerian leader who was not directly involved in the 1966 crisis and the ensuing civil war (even then – his older brother was directly involved in the crisis). It took Nigeria four decades to find a leader from a new generation.

Every single one of Nigeria’s prior leaders had links to, and was directly involved in politics since the 1960s. General Gowon was of course Nigeria’s war time leader. His successors Generals Muhammed, Obasanjo, Buhari, Babangida, Abacha and Abubakar were either involved in the July 1966 coup, or fought in the civil war that followed it. Apart from the fact that Obasanjo returned to rule Nigerian again 20 years after his first reign, even President Shagari was a minister in the cabinet of Nigeria’s first Prime Minister Abubakar Tafawa Balewa.

People keep wondering why Nigeria seems to keep coming full circle and seems to be perpetually stuck with the same problems. Is it because the leaders tasked with eliminating those problems have essentially been the same for the past 40+ years?

NIGERIAN ELECTIONS – FAME CONTESTS?

We can blame the leaders all we want, but this constant resort to old leaders also exposes the lack of political sophistication in the Nigerian electorate and political process. Parties choose “big names” from the past who are well known because Nigerian politics has not evolved beyond a glorified fame contest. People like Gani Fawehinmi and Nuhu Ribadu are popular among youths and educated liberals. However they could never win elections barring a miracle because they do not “belong” to the establishment political circles that the old leaders belong to.

Back during General Babangida’s ill fated 1990s transition programme, General Obasanjo (on learning of General Gowon’s intent to run again for the presidency) sarcastically asked ““What did he forget in the State House that he is going back for?”

We might also ask the same question of the current incumbents….

maxsiollun@yahoo.com
http://maxsiollun.wordpress.com/