The Ironsi Syndrome

General J.T.U Aguiyi-Ironsi the unintended beneficiary of Majors Ifeajuna and Nzeogwu’s abortive coup of January 15, 1966, took power largely unprepared for its political and administrative implications. Outside the barracks and battle-field, he was out of his elements! Adewale Ademoyega in his book, “Why We Struck” wrote that Nzeogwu and himself quickly christened Ironsi’s a “do-nothing government”, described him as “non-revolutionary and reactionary” and noting that Ironsi’s primary governing strategy was the “ill-conceived notion of placating the Northerners”. His job admittedly wasn’t easy given prevailing circumstances! Max Siollun in “Oil, Politics and Violence: Nigeria’s Military Coup Culture 1966-1976” noted “as the pattern of killings in the January coup emerged, Northern soldiers became increasingly enraged by the murder of their two most senior politicians…and their four most senior soldiers by Igbo officers”. Being Igbo, Ironsi betrayed guilt complex in relations with the North and resorted to appeasement. Siollun documented his dilemma-“if Aguiyi-Ironsi bowed to Northern pressure and immediately tried the Majors, he would face a backlash from Southern officers, many of whom held sensitive military posts. If he went with Southern opinion and released them, he might be faced with a mutiny by Northern soldiers…Aguiyi-Ironsi was caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place…it proved impossible to keep both sides simultaneously content.” Both Lt. Col David Ejoor and “Black Scorpion” Benjamin Adekunle stated they didn’t envy Ironsi’s position! Ironically even though Ironsi’s Supreme Military Council (SMC) eventually scheduled public trial of the mutineers for October 1966, he would be dead and buried before then! Ironsi appointed relatively junior Lt. Colonel Yakubu Gowon as Army Chief of Staff “based on a desire to redress the imbalance caused as a result of the killings of officers of Northern origin” but “however his good intentions were mistaken in certain quarters and he was seen as a weakling who sought to over-appease the Northern elements in the army and by implication, the Northerners in general” (General Phillip Effiong, Ojukwu’s eventual deputy in “Nigeria and Biafra: My Story”) Brigadier Ogundipe had been under the impression that he was summoned back from abroad to head the army and was initially unsure what his responsibilities at the “Supreme Headquarters” were. Effiong says, “in retrospect, it could be argued that this (Gowon’s appointment) was Ironsi’s palpable mistake”. Ironsi also appointed Kam Salem as Police Inspector General and M. D Yusuf as Head of Police Special Branch (Intelligence) placing his entire security in Northern hands!!! Ironsi’s personal orderly and bodyguard and one of his ADCs were also Northerners! In spite of appeasement however, Northern anger rose, rather than ebb! Apart from a desire to see the mutinous officers punished, the North was incensed by two other Ironsi decisions-planned rotation of military governors and battalions, and the infamous Decree 34 which purported to unify the civil services of the regions and federation. Even though all members of the SMC took part in these erroneous decisions, Northern leaders took it as Ironsi’s Igbo conspiracy to enslave the North! According to General Alexander Madiebo, General Officer of the Biafran Army, (“The Nigerian Revolution and the Biafran War”) “the plot to overthrow General Ironsi’s government was slow, deliberate and systematic” and Siollun concurs that “plotting by the Northern officers was carried out almost openly” with Lt. Colonel Murtala Muhammed, then Inspector of Signals and Majors Martin Adamu and Theophilus Danjuma as leaders. Danjuma and Lieutenant Walbe were part of Ironsi’s security detail!!! Madiebo believes that the plot was hatched at Ahmadu Bello University and executed by academics, civil servants, politicians and military officers of Northern origin. Madiebo agrees that Ironsi “aspired to rule successfully by compromise. For this reason, it tried to placate those who sought to destroy it and took no action on various substantiated reports available to it concerning plans to overthrow it” Many senior Northern officers openly called for a coup, particularly Murtala Muhammed and Hassan Katsina. Muhammed openly called Ironsi a “fool” and Katsina declared that when Northerners were ready for their own coup, it would be very “bloody indeed” and conducted in broad daylight! Northern participants at a platoon commanders’ course in Kaduna (including one Lieutenant Abacha!) sent an anonymous letter to Gowon warning senior Northern officers to act or else they would; restiveness of Northern rank and file prompted a security review led by Ogundipe but no pre-emptive action was taken. A meeting of Emirs and Chiefs in June 1966 demanded abrogation of Decree 34 and return to the pre-coup regional status quo; punishment for participants in the January coup; and no investigations must be conducted into the May 1966 riots in which up to 3,000 Southerners were killed. These demands demonstrated that Ironsi’s emboldened adversaries now recognised he could be pushed around without consequences!!! On June 19, 1966, based on very credible reports of an imminent coup, Madiebo rushed to Lagos to inform Ironsi, who responded by inviting Gowon, Kam Salem and MD Yusuf to listen to Madiebo’s account. The three gentlemen naturally denied the report and Madiebo was chastised for rumour-mongering! In Madiebo’s words, “Ironsi had lost his last opportunity to survive by asking the very people who were alleged to be plotting to overthrow him to investigate their plot and report to him”. By July 29, 1966, Ironsi was dead and Gowon succeeded him!!!

Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing

Ethnic Cleansing is “a purposeful policy designed by one ethnic or religious group to remove by violent and terror-inspiring means the civilian population of another ethnic or religious group from certain geographic areas” (Wikipedia). A Committee of Experts on the subject described it as "the planned deliberate removal from a specific territory, persons of a particular ethnic group, by force or intimidation, in order to render that area ethnically homogenous." The literature says ethnic cleansing may be carried out by means of “murder, torture, arbitrary arrest and detention, extra-judicial executions, rape and sexual assaults, confinement of civilian population in ghetto areas, forcible removal, displacement and deportation of civilian population, deliberate military attacks or threats of attacks on civilians and civilian areas, and wanton destruction of property” and declares that “those practices constitute crimes against humanity and can be assimilated to specific war crimes. Furthermore, such acts could also fall within the meaning of the Genocide Convention". Ethnic cleansing is different from genocide, but both exist “in a spectrum of assaults on nations or religio-ethnic groups. Ethnic cleansing is similar to forced deportation or population transfer whereas genocide is the intentional murder of part or all of a particular ethnic, religious, or national group.” According to Wikipedia, "literally and figuratively, ethnic cleansing bleeds into genocide, as mass murder is committed in order to rid the land of a people."!!! The United Nations (UN) defines ethnic cleansing as "rendering an area ethnically homogeneous by using force or intimidation to remove from a given area persons of another ethnic or religious group." Genocide is "the deliberate and systematic destruction, in whole or in part, of an ethnic, racial, religious, or national group”. While ethnic cleansing has been primarily associated with ethnic bloodletting unleashed in the former Yugoslavia between Serbs, Croats and Bosnians, genocide has had wider application-against the Jews, in Rwanda and even in the Yogoslav crisis. Genocide is legally defined in Article 2 of the 1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; [and] forcibly transferring children of the group to another group." The International Criminal Court (ICC) which was created in 2002 now has authority to try people from states that have signed the treaty. Genocide scholars regard the denial of genocide by its perpetrators and collaboration as a consistent pattern throughout history. Finally Crimes against humanity, are defined by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Explanatory Memorandum as "particularly odious offenses in that they constitute a serious attack on human dignity or grave humiliation or a degradation of one or more human beings. They are not isolated or sporadic events, but are part either of a government policy (although the perpetrators need not identify themselves with this policy) or of a wide practice of atrocities tolerated or condoned by a government or a de facto authority. Murder; extermination; torture; rape; political, racial, or religious persecution and other inhumane acts reach the threshold of crimes against humanity only if they are part of a widespread or systematic practice. Isolated inhumane acts of this nature may constitute grave infringements of human rights, or depending on the circumstances, war crimes, but may fall short of falling into the category of crimes under discussion." The point of all these definitions is this-the incidents that are going on in Northern Nigeria, particularly in Barkin Ladi, Riyom and other local governments in Plateau State; in Tafawa Balewa local government of Bauchi State and in parts of Nasarawa and Benue States in Nigeria’s middle-belt appear to have risen to the legal definition of ethnic cleansing, genocide and crimes against humanity!!! There is little disagreement over the facts-some people (lazily described by media and security agencies as “Fulani Herdsmen”, who bear powerful guns and wear bullet-proof vests) are killing large numbers of people of other ethnic and religious groups often in tens and hundreds in what looks definitely like a deliberate attempt to eliminate those ethnic groups from the areas in question. The attacks clearly have the intention of destroying at least in part if not whole those ethnic groups and have involved killing, maiming and raping members of the targeted ethnic groups. The attacks have eroded the dignity and humanity of the victims and may be organised by elements within local, state or federal governments. There is no doubting the fact that various levels of government have till date tolerated and condoned these acts and that these events are not isolated matters, but part of a consistent, deliberate and systematic strategy. The activities of “Boko Haram” which issued a public notice to all Christians and Southerners to leave Northern Nigeria and has taken actions through terror to execute such expulsion also rise to the level of ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. It now remains to call on the UN and the ICC to investigate these events to ascertain whether these grievous activities are truly on-going in Northern Nigeria and to ascertain culpability.

The Columnist's Vision

It is appropriate once in a while for any individual, firm, organisation (or even nation!) to re-examine its purpose, essence and mission and ask itself basic and essential questions – Why am I here? What am I trying to achieve? Is it worth it? What will I define as success? Why did I (we) embark on this enterprise or set up this business or organisation? Are our original goals still worth pursuing? Is there a need for a change or adaptation in mission, structure, direction, strategy or goals? Last week I asked myself such fundamental questions in relation to this column and I concluded that it would be worthwhile sharing the column’s vision of Nigeria with my readers. Perhaps an insight into what drives the column would help our audience appreciate more deeply the perspectives, values, preferences and inclinations of the columnist. I have a very clear definition of the kind of Nigeria I would love to see – “a nation of free, enlightened and equal citizens; living in an open, democratic, non-sectarian and progressive society; defined by economic development, social equity, federalism, constitutionalism and the rule of law; and in which all citizens are free and enabled to fulfil their lawful human, socio-economic, political and spiritual potential”. A deconstruction of that statement will reveal four distinct elements: • A nation of free, enlightened and equal citizens • An open, democratic, non-sectarian and progressive society • Economic development, social equity, federalism, constitutionalism and the rule of law, and • Freedom and enablement for citizens to fulfil human, socio-economic, political and spiritual potential. I can also share the reasoning and implications of each of these elements. 1. A nation of free, enlightened and equal citizens: This implies the existence of a fairly robust democracy and fully entrenched fundamental human rights, especially freedom of expression and the media. Citizens must be educated and enlightened and society must be a modern, thinking one. The vision does not permit of ethnic, religious or political hegemony and citizens must be equal and free in every respect. In Nigeria, this element clearly implies strong federal structures (or even con-federal arrangements) and all citizens must be fully free to express their cultural, religious, educational, economic and political aspirations and ideals. 2. An open, democratic, non-sectarian and progressive society: Such a society must have free, independent, ethical and credible media; free elections and freedom of electoral choice; absence of political hegemony or oligarchy; it forbids military rule, and frowns on exclusive ruling cliques and cabals, rule by religious priests, Islamic Mullahs or traditional secret societies, and cannot permit of a society organised on the basis of ethnicity, religion, communal ties or sectarian divisions, or one in which power is based on violence, intimidation or coercion. My ideal society will be focused on progress and development, and not anchored on a pre-modern mindset. 3. Economic development, social equity, federalism, constitutionalism and the rule of law: Given Nigeria’s current economic conditions, this would imply comprehensive structural economic reforms and diversification of the economy; sustained investments in quality public education and healthcare, rapid rural development and enhanced urban infrastructure and transportation, as well as social welfare, employment generation and the alleviation of poverty; abolition of corruption and abuse of power and increased public transparency and accountability would be imperative; it would require a private sector-driven economy, free enterprise and entrepreneurship; protection of private capital and property rights; effective regulation and prevention of market monopolies; and rapid but inclusive economic growth and human development. It would require political and constitutional reforms to strengthen Nigerian federalism, constitutionalism and the rule of law; and would abhor all forms of unconstitutional rule – military, oligarchy, religious, monarchical, fascist, totalitarian, communist or populist! 4. Freedom and enablement for citizens to fulfil human, socio-economic, political and spiritual potential: Such society cannot be oppressive; cannot allow for tiered citizenship of first-class, second-class or other subsidiary levels; all citizens and groups must have strong political freedoms and equality; individual freedom of religion and worship must be guaranteed; and the nation must reject ethnic, religious, sectarian, clique or class hegemony or other political ideology based on superiority of one group or class over others. Every sentence, paragraph, article, perspective or position presented or articulated in this column since inception in 2006 is motivated by this vision of the Nigerian society. Every judgment or preference proffered is driven by careful review and judgment as to what choices are more likely to take us towards that vision. That clarity of vision also makes it extremely easy to recognise people or positions that take or are likely to take Nigeria in the opposite direction! The columnist also enjoys one significant resource – deep familiarity with Nigerian pre- and post-independence history and the current global environment which enables scenario thinking, insight and foresight. I do not believe anyone who is ignorant or not sufficiently grounded in contextual history is competent to discuss or proffer solutions on any matter, no matter how much passion and good faith the person expresses. As they say, the road to hell may be paved with good intentions! Some readers may have a different view of the type of society they would like to inhabit; others, and I believe the overwhelming majority, would be at least broadly aligned with my societal ideal. Whichever, however, our choices and preferences can be easily understood, if not reconciled.

State of the Nation

There is no doubt that political risk is elevated. “Boko Haram” terror attracted its first serious reprisal in Kaduna last month. Anger is rising within the Christian population as bombing of churches is now a “Sunday-Sunday” fare and no one can be held accountable. While “Boko Haram” says it is acting in the name of Islam with the objective of Islamising Nigeria, mainstream Muslims say the group does not represent them. Public anger, meanwhile, is directed at the government, rather than the terrorists, for not “catching” the terrorists precisely as Boko Haram sponsors calculated, and indeed threatened. Northern Nigeria – especially the North-Eastern core of Borno and Yobe, and its periphery, stretching to Kano and Kaduna – is essentially ungovernable. All that remains is for Boko Haram to have a successful operation anywhere in Southern Nigeria, and for reprisals to follow subsequent bombings North or South, and Nigeria may enter a sectarian crisis of immense and unmanageable proportion. Government and public attention should now focus sharply on the terrorist group and on ascertaining who its financiers, sponsors and collaborators are. Whatever happens, however, Nigerians should NEVER countenance or cooperate in any action that interrupts Nigeria’s constitutional order and democracy, as some appear to desire. Boko Haram, even though with social (poverty, unemployment and ignorance) and religious (extremist religious ideology and pursuit of religious hegemony) contexts and roots, is a deliberately escalated crisis designed to achieve explicit political ends. One of those objectives may include providing justification for military intervention in Nigeria’s governance as a last stratagem of the “ungovernability” agenda. Nigerians must not acquiesce in such stupidity. The democratic freedoms we enjoy must be preserved in spite of insecurity, political or economic difficulty and any other challenges we may face as a nation. I always remember those who rejoiced in 1983 when Sani Abacha announced the entry of the Buhari military dictatorship! Soon it became evident (as the NPN leaders had always warned) that there were only two ruling parties in Nigeria – the NPN and its military wing! Not surprisingly, the emergent military regime concentrated all its brutal attention on opposition governors and politicians while exonerating leading ruling party leaders and members. It was a similar experience when members of the “June 12 movement” and civil society activists (Beko Ransome-Kuti, Olu Onagoruwa, etc) naively collaborated with Oladipo Diya to bring Abacha into power during the Shonekan Interim Government. Soon afterwards, the full weight of Abacha’s brutality was turned upon MKO Abiola and his supporters once Abacha consolidated his position! Evidently, the pursuit and promise of power can rob people of their judgment, insight and foresight! Meanwhile, economic risks are increasing as well. The Greek voters stepped back from the precipice recognising that while in the first election they could vote with their hearts against austerity, in the re-run election they had to vote with their heads in favour of Greece’s stay in the EU and eurozone. Now markets will, and are already shifting their attention to Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and others as bank deleveraging, fears of sovereign default and bank ratings downgrades fill the European airwaves. Europe may already be affecting global demand. More critical for Nigeria is falling oil prices, which will threaten our foreign reserves accretion, exchange rates and budgets. Except we make the required domestic fiscal adjustments, most of which are and will be unpopular, a substantial decline in global oil prices will lead Nigeria into adverse economics, which, if combined with current security challenges, may be explosive. The critical question for economic policy managers is whether the decline in GDP growth rate to 6.17 percent witnessed in the first quarter of 2012 is a temporary blip or a new reality. There are factors that suggest the latter – Northern insecurity may already be reflecting in agricultural output, and food production in subsequent seasons may weaken; low purchasing power appears definitely to be affecting manufacturers and FMCG companies; financial sector growth is weak and credit growth to the private sector remains muted; and oil sector output growth is again negative. On the positive side, there are useful reforms which can transform the economic outlook – agricultural reforms are promising; power privatisation, if concluded in October, may be truly transformational; port and customs reforms are being sustained; investments in critical infrastructure – road, rail and aviation – imply a medium-term improvement in infrastructure; and the January oil price increase reduced the budget spend on notorious fuel subsidies, and a new Petroleum Industry Bill draft has finally been written. Economically, Nigeria is at a crossroads of sensible reforms and an unsettling political and internal security environment. The government has to ramp up employment generation and wealth creation initiatives such as the “You-Win” programme and its promised public works programme. The approach to such initiatives cannot be leisurely or at the public sector speed of project actualisation. There is a jobs and poverty emergency out there, and action must be stepped up to ensure we engage urgently with the 24 percent (or more) who are unemployed (especially the 37.7 percent who are aged 15-24 years!) and the 60 percent drowning in poverty and lack. The most significant short-term policy action that President Jonathan can take is, however, to ensure successful completion of the power sector privatisation in October 2012 as promised. Power privatisation will be an economic game changer!