Amnesty and Emergency

At the height of the public display of folly disguised as rationality over a so-called amnesty for “Boko Haram”, I wrote in “The politics of Boko Haram” that “amnesty will be meaningless to the core religious Boko Haram and the spinoff Ansarul, for in their minds, they do the work of God and have reinforcing links to AQIM and Al Shabab”. I had thought that it was fairly obvious that, given the religious and political aspects of the motivation of the fundamentalist terrorists, and the weakness that the Nigerian state had projected in response thus far, an offer of amnesty to the religious militants was likely to be regarded as a sign of imminent victory! But to my shock, I watched as the cream of the Nigerian elite – eminent traditional rulers, state governors, leading politicians, respected newspaper columnists, reverend fathers and political bishops and sundry members of the Nigerian establishment sub-structure – celebrated this magical proposed amnesty, the great harbinger of peace and reconciliation that was going to end a terrorist onslaught that had consumed 4,200 innocent Nigerian citizens, many of whom were actually security agents employed by the state to defend public order and safety and innocent Christians just practicing their faith! This Nigerian elite was ready to trade off its own police and military officers who had been killed by Boko Haram in search of an elusive and expedient peace, these victims being dispensable in the eyes of a dysfunctional state and an equally dysfunctional elite. It did not matter that the sponsors and advocates of this silly idea had not even made any contact with the terrorists they sought to bestow forgiveness on! It didn’t matter that Boko Haram had expressed neither remorse nor repentance over the murders they had committed! It didn’t matter that the group at every turn in fact justified those killings as a divine obligation and great accomplishments! Even when the character named Imam Shekau, their purported leader, spurned the offer of amnesty and declared that it was indeed the Nigerian leadership that merited forgiveness, otherwise intelligent Nigerian commentators urged government to proceed all the same! The ways of some Nigerian elite are mysterious indeed! Fortunately for us, the folly of the amnesty rigmarole did not take too long to manifest! Economists and social scientists know that incentives play a large part in explaining human behaviour – a country that handsomely rewards those who take up arms against it and those who murder innocent citizens will have to deal with many more such behaviour by the murderers, and others who realise that the route to recognition and power in that society is through “militancy” and “terrorism”. Soon Boko Haram was killing people in 50s in Baga and Bama, and they were soon joined by the “Ombatse” of Nasarawa who killed over 40 policemen and state security officials in one fell swoop. If President Jonathan did not retreat fast from the amnesty illogic, Nigeria would have been consumed by a mass multiplication of terror and militancy – North, East, South and West in very short course! Thank God commonsense eventually prevailed. I am in complete support of the state of emergency declared by the government in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa States. Indeed, given how far the government had allowed the insurgency to fester, and the audacity that the insurgents had since developed, there was no other option than Nigeria ceding the North-East to Boko Haram…and then the North-West…and North-Central…and then southwards! I believe that the Jonathan administration allowed itself to be strung along this far, by elements who were either scared of or sympathetic to Boko Haram, as well as those who had a political objective in intimidating or discrediting the regime, into taking only half-hearted measures against the terrorists. That vacillation and/or naivety has cost us over 3,500 additional lives (we should have taken this step when the death toll crossed 500!), but maybe it is better late than never! I also believe, contrary to many commentators, that government did the right thing in leaving the democratic structures in place in the emergency states, as dictated by our constitution. I believe that the removal of elected governors in Plateau and Ekiti States under ex-President Obasanjo-imposed emergency rule was unconstitutional. Beyond constitutional adherence, I do not in fact see any operational benefit in saddling military officers faced with a serious mission against well-motivated religious fanatics and secessionists with civilian responsibilities such as managing education, health services, local government administration, chieftaincy, road construction and other non-security related functions of states and local governments. There is no doubt that concerning military and security functions, however, the state governments have lost all powers to the military and security agencies, and that is all that is required to prosecute the now-official war against terrorism and secession in Northern Nigeria! I hope that having found the will to finally confront terror, this will be a defining moment in Goodluck Jonathan’s presidency and he will find similar will power in addressing all the other ills that ail Nigeria, particularly corruption, poverty and unemployment, reform and diversification of the Nigerian economy, and good governance. In a sense, on the day he declared the state of emergency, the de facto transition from Yar’Adua to Jonathan finally ended, even though his occupancy of de jure power had long since been established!

The End of Federalism-Businessday

The House of Representatives recently released what it called outcomes of public hearings held in respect of its process of amending the 1999 Constitution. If those touted outcomes become law, they will mean de facto and de jure end of the concept and practice of federalism under Nigeria’s constitution. In virtually every instance, the Representatives voted against federalism! It is shocking, given the agitation for a return to some semblance of a federalist constitution from our current unitary-federalism that the House chose to further erode the last vestiges of federalism left in Nigeria’s constitutional order. Item 16 of the House platform endorses the amendment of section 197 (1) (b) of the 1999 Constitution to abolish state election commissions and have all elections conducted by the national electoral commission, INEC. If this provision becomes law, INEC will conduct future local government elections! This follows the effective nationalisation of the judiciary through the National Judicial Commission; transfer of virtually all important legislative matters to the exclusive legislative list controlled by the federal government; nationalisation of policing and security; and other federalist aberrations in the constitution. It is unbelievable that our Representatives believe the way to go is to further worsen the constitutional balance in favour of the federal government! If you thought the House’s inclination to increase rather than reduce federal powers, and reduce rather than increase state powers, at a time most enlightened Nigerians call for devolution of powers to subsidiary levels of government (and even unitary nations such as the United Kingdom are devolving powers to sub-national levels!), was an innocent mistake, you would be wrong given other decisions taken! Item 15 was a modest attempt to move some sinecure items (fingerprints, identification and criminal records; insurance, labour, prisons, public holidays, railways, bankruptcy and insolvency and registration of births and deaths from the federal government’s exclusive legislative list to the concurrent list. This would not have prevented federal legislation on those matters. Rather, any federal law would still override state laws as every student of constitutional law knows! But our anti-federalist House of Representatives platform rejected even this small step towards redressing our defective federal structure! The worst assault on the federal principle was in respect of local government administration. In a series of positions contained in items 10 to 14 of the House platform, the Representatives systemically seek to make local governments accountable to the federal rather than state governments. In item 10, the House adopts the position that local government funding should be transferred direct to them by the federal administration, bypassing states; item 11 categorically and overwhelmingly rejected a sensible attempt to make local government creation an exclusive affair of state governments as they are in other federal systems; item 12 demonstrates in unmistakable terms the intent of the House by voting explicitly to make local government a third tier of government with its own legislative list! And item 14 seeks to prescribe in the national constitution the tenure of local governments! These positions are shocking and aberrant and show that our Representatives do not understand the imperative of the nation for federalism! It is sad that rather than redress the erosion of our federal constitution, the House would rather seek its final destruction by further weakening the states and centralising additional powers. There are several other indicators of the House’s abhorrence for the concept and practice of federalism in the recently published platform. The House rejected both a modest proposal in item 4 for recognition of the six geo-political zones “for administrative purposes only” and a more ambitious proposal in item 5 that they be treated as “another tier of government”. Evidently, in the view of our Representatives, Nigeria is just perfect the way it is! Some cynics will say, “Why wouldn’t they think so? They are just fine the way they are – allowances, constituency projects, “oversight” and all!” Not surprisingly given its other preferences, the House in items 35 and 36 rejects entrenchment of the principle of derivation, and in items 19-21 overwhelmingly rejected the establishment of state police and unambiguously affirmed that the current police system and structure should be retained, completing the rout of the federalist principle at least in the opinion of our current members of the House of Representatives! I am aware that House members will argue that these obnoxious outcomes do not represent their personal opinions or House resolutions, but are decisions reached by their constituents in the public sessions conducted by them. I do not accept this position! From reports I have received, those public sessions were so poorly and shabbily organised, publicised and attended that they cannot represent the views of Nigerians. My suspicion is that these positions reflect the personal and preconceived views of the Representatives and their consultants, rather than popular positions! Those outcomes certainly appear perverse and are unlikely to reflect the views of many constituencies in Nigeria. Certainly not mine! Nigeria needs federalism both as a political and economic imperative. The evidence is overwhelming that the strategy of centralisation and unitary prebendalism is already destroying the nation. By the time you centralise all elections, police, armed forces, security, judiciary, all important legislation, local government, and most resources under one national leader, Nigeria would be ready for full civilian or fascist dictatorship! The House of Representatives must not be allowed to drive the final nail in the coffin of Nigerian federalism and democracy.

The End of Federalism!!!

Introduction The House of Representatives recently released what it called outcomes of public hearings held in respect of its process of amending the 1999 Constitution. If those touted outcomes become law, they will mean de facto and de jure end of the concept and practice of federalism under Nigeria’s constitution. In virtually every instance, the Representatives voted against federalism! It is shocking, given the agitation for a return to some semblance of a federalist constitution from our current unitary-federalism that the House chose to further erode the last vestiges of federalism left in Nigeria’s constitutional order. Abolition of State Electoral Commissions-INEC to Conduct ALL Elections Item 16 of the House platform endorses the amendment of section 197 (1) (b) of the 1999 Constitution to abolish state election commissions and have all elections conducted by the national electoral commission, INEC. If this provision becomes law, INEC will conduct future local government elections! This follows the effective nationalization of the judiciary through the National Judicial Commission; transfer of virtually all important legislative matters to the exclusive legislative list controlled by the federal government; nationalization of policing and security; and other federalist aberrations in the constitution. It is unbelievable that our Representatives believe the way to go is to further worsen the constitutional balance in favour of the federal government! Rejection of Modest Transfers from Exclusive to Concurrent List If you thought the House’ inclination to increase rather than reduce federal powers, and reduce rather than increase state powers, at a time most enlightened Nigerians call for devolution of powers to subsidiary levels of government, (and even unitary nations such as the United Kingdom are devolving powers to sub-national levels!) was an innocent mistake, you would be wrong given other decisions taken! Item 15 was a modest attempt to move some sinecure items (fingerprints, identification and criminal records; insurance, labour, prisons, public holidays, railways, bankruptcy and insolvency and registration of births and deaths from the federal government’s exclusive legislative list to the concurrent list. This would not have prevented federal legislation on those matters. Rather any federal law would still over-ride state laws as every student of constitutional law knows! But our anti-federalist House of Representatives platform rejected even this small step towards redressing our defective federal structure! Nationalisation of Local Government Administration The worst assault on the federal principle was in respect of local government administration. In a series of positions contained in items 10 to 14 of the House platform, the Representatives systemically seek to make local governments accountable to the federal rather than state governments. In item 10, the House adopts the position that local government funding should be transferred direct to them by the federal administration, bypassing states; item 11 categorically and overwhelmingly rejected a sensible attempt to make local government creation an exclusive affair of state governments as they are in other federal systems; item 12 demonstrates in unmistakable terms the intent of the House by voting explicitly to make local government a third tier of government with its own legislative list! And item 14 seeks to prescribe in the national constitution the tenure of local governments! These positions are shocking and aberrant and show that our Representatives do not understand the imperative of the nation for federalism! It is sad that rather than redress the erosion of our federal constitution, the House would rather seek its final destruction by further weakening the states and centralizing additional powers. Rejection of Six Geo-Political Zones There are several other indicators of the House’s abhorrence for the concept and practice of federalism in the published platform. The House rejected both a modest proposal in item 4 for recognition of the six geo-political zones “for administrative purposes only” and a more ambitious proposal in item 5 that they be treated as “another tier of government”. Evidently in the view of our Representatives, Nigeria is just perfect the way it is! Rejection of Derivation Principle and State Police Not surprisingly given its other preferences the House in items 35 and 36 rejects entrenchment of the principle of derivation, and in items 19-21 overwhelmingly rejected the establishment of state police and unambiguously affirmed that the current police system and structure should be retained completing the rout of the federalist principle at least in the opinion of our current members of the House of Representatives! Conclusions I am aware that House members will argue that these obnoxious outcomes do not represent their personal opinions or House resolutions, but are decisions reached by their constituents in the public sessions conducted by them. I do not accept this position! From reports I have received, those public sessions were so poorly and shabbily organized, publicized and attended that they cannot represent the views of Nigerians. My suspicion is that these positions reflect the personal and preconceived views of the Representatives and their consultants, rather than popular positions!!! Those outcomes certainly appear perverse and are unlikely to reflect the views of many constituencies in Nigeria. Certainly not mine!!! Nigeria needs federalism both as a political and economic imperative. The evidence is overwhelming that the strategy of centralization and unitary prebendalism is already destroying the nation. By the time you centralize all elections, police, armed forces, security, judiciary, all important legislation, local government, and most resources under one national leader, Nigeria would be ready for full civilian or fascist dictatorship! The House of Representatives must not be allowed to drive the final nail in the coffin of Nigerian federalism and democracy.

Margaret Thatcher 1925-2013

On May 4, 1979 when Margaret Hilda Thatcher (nee Roberts) became Prime Minister of Great Britain (actually there wasn’t much “great” about that country when she took office!), I was in the third year of secondary school; by November 28, 1990 when she left office, I had graduated from the University of Ife (as it was then known); attended the law school in Lagos (there was only one law school then!); completed my NYSC in Benin City, Bendel State (these newer states didn’t exist then!); had a short stint practicing law; and was about to leave (the older version of) First Bank for then new generation of Guaranty Trust Bank! In short, Margaret Thatcher by the time of her death on April 8, 2013 was very much a historical figure. There were already four prime ministerial successors after her-John Major, Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and David Cameron. Margaret Thatcher was the first and so far only, female political leader of the United Kingdom, and irrespective of what you thought about her, after Thatcher, any doubts about the ability of females to lead became a nonsensical proposition! Before she became prime minister, Thatcher had already acquired a tough image, known as “the milk snatcher” for her role as the secretary of state for education and science who implemented a policy of abolishing free milk for school children aged 7-11. Cabinet papers reportedly later showed however that she actually opposed the policy, but was forced into it by the Treasury, one indicator perhaps that much of her public image was erroneous. A Soviet defence ministry newspaper Krasnaya Zvezda (Red Star) called her “iron lady”, an appellation that stuck! It was not until I became at first a visiting lecturer and later held a faculty position as an academic, researcher and teacher in a business school, working in major aspects of political economy and business strategy that I fully appreciated Margaret Thatcher’s era as British Prime Minister. Essentially Thatcher redefined many aspects of global thinking about macroeconomic policy and management, development, privatization and public-private partnerships, deregulation and liberalization, regulation, financial markets and labour market flexibility. The fact that her bold and pioneering work in these areas was not based on academic postulations, but were actually executed (I would suggest successfully!) in a major OECD nation meant that most of the world followed her policy leadership. The fact that her ideas, which were implemented amidst much tumult and opposition in the UK have become mainstream thinking in today’s global political economy is a great testament to her vision and courage. The Britain that Thatcher inherited in 1979 was essentially almost ungovernable-powerful and often irrational unions; a damaging series of strikes, incompetent and inefficient state-owned utilities and corporations, racial tension and a country that in the views of many was sliding towards conditions seen in third world nations and requiring IMF support. Whether anyone accepts it or not, Thatcher reversed that slide and restored the UK’s place as a first world nation. Her policies had a monetarist theoretical foundation anchored on lower taxes, low inflation, limits on public spending (hence privatization), and financial sector deregulation. But there was a social cost to these policies, most notably in the resistance through the miners strikes of 1984, when Arthur Scargill’s National Union of Miners (NUM) proceeded on a long and costly strike which Thatcher deemed illegal. Margaret Thatcher formed a strong cold war alliance with the US Republicans led by her conservative soul mate, Ronald Reagan and together they confronted communism, ultimately ensuring the collapse of communism and the victory of western-style democracy and free market systems. The greatest error (and it was a grave one) attributed to Mrs Thatcher was her perceived tolerance and even support for the apartheid system in South Africa and her opposition to the African National Congress (ANC) and its leader, Nelson Mandela who she branded terrorists. It is a sad blight on her otherwise sterling record. The anti-colonialist, African mindset in me also sympathized with Argentine claims to the Falklands Islands, but victory in the Falklands war in 1982 significantly bolstered Thatcher’s leadership credentials and contributed to her re-election in 1983. She would win subsequent elections in 1987 and stay in office till for a total of eleven years. Her popularity would of course eventually wane-divisions over Europe, the unpopular poll tax, conservative disaffection etc, and Thatcher left office a bit disgruntled with her colleagues who she felt betrayed her. She became a member of parliament for Finchley in October 1959 and stayed on in parliament for two years after she left the prime ministerial office till April 1992. Born on October 13, 1925 in Grantham, England, she studied Chemistry and Law at Oxford University where she was a conservative activist. She had been Head Girl in secondary school in 1942-43, a sign perhaps of what was to come. She assumed leadership of the Tory Party in 1975 and was given a life peerage after she left office, becoming Baroness Thatcher. Her late husband, Dennis Thatcher was an important part of her success in politics and within the conservative movement. Margaret Thatcher always stood by her convictions, a trait that is rare in today’s world as weak men and women, who stand for nothing, assume and sustain leadership by doing whatever the polls say is popular!

The Politics of Boko Haram

I have previously written a two-part serial, “The Evolution of Boko Haram” on February 1 and 8, 2012 that chronicled the various phases and people in the emergence of that fundamentalist terrorist organization. My conclusion based on all the facts and analysis was that contrary to the contrived and pointless hair-splitting over whether it was religious, political or economic, “Boko Haram” like all human and social phenomena was multi-dimensional. There was religion of course at the core-an extremist religious ideology of a specie of political Islam which opposes secular or western education, advocates hatred and murder of Christians and Jews (and even opposing Islamic clerics), tolerates and even endorses suicide killings on promised reward of paradise (plus seven heavenly virgins!) and seeks to overthrow the secular constitution in favour of an Islamic Caliphate. How can anyone deny that these are religious motivations? There are social factors which predispose adherents to such mindless extremism-illiteracy, ignorance and social exclusion; and excision of young boys at very young ages from the family system through the Almajirai system of half-baked religious education, begging and occasional deployment by politicians, clerics and traditional institutions for violence in pursuit of political objectives; there are critical economic dimensions-poverty, unemployment, a complete absence in millions of young people, especially male, of any skills or competences and therefore their divorce from modern economic systems, and of course corruption which denies society the resources required to chart a different course for its citizens and leaves them without opportunity or hope. There are even aspects of a Kanuri “Liberation Movement” in the mix! Finally there are political factors-the early origins of “Boko Haram” in a clear political alliance with mainly All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) governors in the North-East Region of Nigeria and Kano; its ostracism and attempted destruction by its estranged sponsors and appropriation by new mentors and financiers; its transmutation from a locally-focused to a national political agenda as federal power slipped into Goodluck Jonathan’s hands; and its deployment as an instrument of undermining the credibility of the Jonathan presidency, both at home and in foreign embassies and capitals. This article focuses on these political aspects of “Boko Haram” and how the “amnesty” discussion fits into the overall picture. There is no doubt that in its early days, Muhammed Yusuf’s “Boko Haram” (BH) enjoyed a close relationship with the Borno State Government under Senator Ali Modu Sherrif and that Yusuf actually nominated a member of Sherrif’s cabinet. There is also no doubt that the group played a political purpose as enforcers to ensure ANPP’s defense against the federal PDP. The broader point in fact is that ANPP as a political strategy adopted Islamic intimidation as a bulwark against the rampaging PDP. While Modu Sherrif deployed BH, his Zamfara counterpart, Sani Yerima launched “political Sharia” and virtually all ANPP governors followed suit. While Modu Sherrif’s romance with BH is well documented, the group probably played a role in other ANPP states-plausibly assisting in the party’s take-over in Kano in 2003; Bauchi in 2007; and its successful retention of Yobe-Senator Bukar Abba Ibrahim is an open and unapologetic supporter of Boko Haram’s agenda! There is evidence that some ANPP states made regular payments to BH. In the heydays of BH’s alliance with ANPP, its presidential candidate, both in 2003 and 2007 was General Muhammadu Buhari who is inextricably linked through his public comments before he became a politician, with the agitation for Sharia! There is no doubt that the underpinning of Buhari’s popularity in Northern Nigeria is the fact that the Islamic base trusts him. Soon however Modu Sherrif would fall apart with Yusuf and the group and would seek to destroy the Frankenstein he had nurtured! A second governor would have similar incentives (and this is little discussed)-Isa Yuguda of Bauchi who was on his way back to the PDP having married then President Yar’adua’s daughter. The attempt to destroy BH did not wholly succeed and the group would re-surface in 2010 as a pure terrorist organization! It also changed sides in Borno, apparently (as the matters of Senators Ali Ndume and Zannah, and late Ambassador Pindah suggest!) to the PDP!!! At the same time, national politics was changing and a Christian Southerner was defying Northern intimidation and opting to contest the 2011 polls. Soon BH’s agenda would transcend local and state politics! In spite of its military successes against the terror group, it is evident that the Jonathan Presidency lacks the local insight and support required to completely eliminate BH, and that having resolved to ensure Jonathan’s 2015 re-election plan is thwarted, the region has no incentive to help him solve the BH problem. As it is, Jonathan has two distinct but inter-related problems-the challenge of very difficult re-election prospects and a widening and intractable security challenge that undermines his governing credibility. “Amnesty” is being proposed to Jonathan as a magic wand to solve the two headaches, but I suspect it will solve neither! Amnesty will be meaningless to the core, religious BH and the spinoff Ansarul, for in their minds, they do the work of God and have with reinforcing links to AQIM and Al Shabab. But a political/security BH will emerge to accept the amnesty and receive the funds appropriated for that purpose. This other BH will merely be an instrument for extracting political and economic concessions for the Northern elite from Jonathan.

Chinualumogu Achebe 1930-2013

I was in form 3 at Igbobi College Yaba, Lagos in 1978 when we read Chinua Achebe’s “Things Fall Apart”, the book that defined him as a great African story teller. Though my school was predominantly Yoruba, we had a strong representation of most parts of Southern Nigeria-Igbos, Edos, Niger-Deltans and beyond. As thirteen year olds, we did not look at ourselves through ethnic or religious lenses-my favourite football team then was Enugu Rangers! Though we gained significant insights into Igbo language, traditions, culture and society through the book, we related with it and its author only as fellow Nigerians and Africans. The legacy of “Things Fall Apart” remained in our language and expression-a wrestler classmate became “Amalinze the cat”; an unserious student was Unoka, the never-do-well father of Okonkwo or Nwoye, his lazy son; the quote “things fall apart: the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world” from W. B Yeats’ poem “The Second Coming” became etched in everyone’s memory; colleagues who wore eye glasses became “Ojuigo” a Yorubanisation of one of Achebe’s characters; we relished expressions like “Amadioha will break your head”, “a man could not rise beyond the destiny of his chi…if a man said yea, his chi also affirmed”, “he who brings kola brings life” and “proverbs are the palm oil with which words are written”. “Things Fall Apart” was a memorable book and its African richness was part of every Nigerian secondary school student’s formation, at least in the 1970s. Chinualumogu (“may God fight on my behalf”) Albert Achebe was born on November 16, 1930 in Ogidi, north-east of Onitsha in the present Anambra State. His father Isaiah Okafor Achebe, a convert to the Church Missionary Society (CMS) became a teacher and catechist. Achebe’s biographer, Ezenwa-Ohaeto notes his birth and early education at a time of “cultural crossroads” when traditional Igbo culture encountered the challenges of Christianity, Western civilization, British colonialism and a newly emerging multi-ethnic nation. “Things Fall Apart” explored these conflicts from the lenses of the fictional “Okonkwo” a proud Igbo traditionalist who resisted, ultimately in vain and to his own destruction, forces that were bigger than him. Between 1958 and 1964, Achebe wrote “Things Fall Apart” (1958), “No longer at Ease” (1960), “Arrow of God” (1964) and “Chike and the River” (1964). He also wrote “A Man of the People” and “Anthills of the Savannah”. I believe I read all these books! Achebe participated in politics, as a high officer of Mallam Aminu Kano’s People’s Redemption Party (PRP) along with “progressives” and intellectuals including S.G Ikoku, Abubabar Rimi, Professor Wole Soyinka, Balarabe Musa, Dr Bala Usman, Arthur Nwankwo, Michael Imoudu and Uche Chukwumerije. Indeed his pamphlet, “The Trouble with Nigeria” appeared to have been written at least partly to promote Aminu Kano’s 1983 presidential campaign, an objective short-circuited by Kano’s premature demise. Achebe defined the trouble with Nigeria as “simply and squarely a failure of leadership” and called for “a radical programme of social and economic re-organisation or at least a well-conceived and consistent agenda of reform”. He identified other problems-tribalism, self-delusion (Nigeria is a great country!), vague values (e.g. unity and faith-unity for what purpose? and faith in what?), false patriotism, social injustice, mediocrity, indiscipline (“although indiscipline is by definition distinct from lawlessness, the line between the two is often tenuous indeed…the danger of indiscipline escalating into lawlessness is particularly acute when large numbers of people are involved” he argued, correctly predicting Nigeria’s current descent into near-anarchy and breakdown of law and order) and corruption. His antipathy towards Chief Obafemi Awolowo is apparently not a recent phenomenon! He accuses Awolowo of a multitude of sins-stealing “the leadership of Western Nigeria from Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe in broad daylight on the floor of the Western House of Assembly”; “poverty of thought” (apparently for seeking personal success!); and of course being anti-Igbo! He wrote, “there were hard-liners in Gowon’s cabinet who wanted their pound of flesh, the most powerful among them being Chief Obafemi Awolowo” who he accuses of pauperizing the Igbo middle class! But then he extended the accusation beyond Awolowo-apparently in Achebe’s eyes, all Nigerians resent the Igbos!!! It is difficult, on all the evidence not to accuse Achebe of having a severe tribal mindset, one of the troubles he lists as plaguing Nigeria!!! His statement that Wole Soyinka winning the Nobel prize, did not make him the “Asiwaju of Nigerian Literature” was devoid of grace and involved an unwarranted ethnic allusion. Achebe’s last publication, “There was a Country” perhaps conscious of his approaching mortality, is an explicit effort to remind younger Igbos of the lost (or perhaps delayed?) Biafra. In the very first sentence, he recalls “an Igbo proverb tells us that a man who does not know where the rain began to beat him cannot say where he dried his body” and by his own admission, the book tells “Nigeria’s story, Biafra’s story, our story, my story”. The book is neither strictly speaking a work of history, nor one of literature-a master storyteller’s selective admixture of both!!! Chinua Achebe is part of the glorious Nigerian generation of academics and nationalists whose achievements stand in stark contrast to the state of the nation they so much loved. In that respect, his disillusion with Nigeria is understandable. I thank God I had a rare opportunity to be present at his final Achebe Colloquium at Brown University, Providence, Rhode Island, USA in December 2012. He died on March 21, 2013 aged 82. May his soul rest in peace.

Lessons from Benedict and Francis

Benedict XVI, born Joseph Aloisius Ratzinger on 16 April 1927 served as leader of the Catholic Church and Sovereign of the Vatican City State from 2005 to 2013. Benedict was elected on 19 April 2005 in a papal conclave. Ordained as a priest in 1951 in his native Bavaria, Ratzinger was a highly regarded university theologian and was appointed full professor in 1958. After a long career as an academic, serving as a professor of theology at several German universities, he was appointed Archbishop of Munich and Freising and Cardinal by Pope Paul VI in 1977. From 2002 until his election as Pope, he was Dean of the College of Cardinals, primus inter pares among the Cardinals. He was "one of the most respected, influential and controversial members of the College of Cardinals" and was one of Pope John Paul II's closest confidants. Benedict XVI was elected pope at 78, the oldest person since Pope Clement XII (1730–40). He had served longer as a Cardinal than any Pope since Benedict XIII (1724–30). On 11 February 2013, the Vatican confirmed that Benedict XVI would resign the papacy on 28 February 2013, as a result of his advanced age, becoming the first Pope to resign since Gregory XII in 1415. In modern times, all popes have stayed in office until death. Benedict is the first pope to have resigned without external pressure since Celestine V in 1294. Benedict cited his deteriorating strength and the physical and mental demands of the papacy and declared that he would continue to serve the church "through a life dedicated to prayer". Pope Francis born Jorge Mario Bergoglio on 17 December 1936 is the 266th and current Pope of the Roman Catholic Church, elected on 13 March 2013. A native of Buenos Aires, Argentina, he was ordained priest in 1969. He served as head of the Society of Jesus in Argentina from 1973 to 1979. In 1998 he became the Archbishop of Buenos Aires, and in 2001 a Cardinal. Following the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI, on 28 February 2013, the conclave elected Bergoglio, who chose the papal name Francis in honour of Saint Francis of Assisi. Besides being the first Jesuit pope, he is also the first to choose the name Francis, and the first from the Americas and the Southern Hemisphere. Jorge Mario Bergoglio was one of five children of Mario José Bergoglio, an Italian immigrant railway worker. Cardinal Bergoglio became known for personal humility, doctrinal conservatism, a simple lifestyle and a commitment to social justice. He lived in a small apartment, rather than the elegant bishop's residence, took public transportation and cooked his own meals, while limiting his time in Rome to "lightning visits". Instead of accepting his cardinals' congratulations while seated on the Papal throne, Francis received them standing, an immediate sign of a changing approach to formalities at the Vatican. During his first appearance as pontiff on the balcony of Saint Peter's Basilica, he wore a white cassock, not the red, ermine-trimmed “mozzetta” used by the previous Pope Benedict XVI and the same iron pectoral cross that he had worn as Cardinal. Francis began his first blessing with "Buonasera" ("good evening"), breaking with the traditional formality at the event and asked those in St. Peter's Square to pray for the pope emeritus, Benedict XVI and for himself before offering his own blessings. At his first audience on 16 March 2013, Francis told journalists that he had chosen the name in honor of Saint Francis of Assisi, and had done so because he was especially concerned for the well-being of the poor. In both his first homily as Pope and in his first address to the Cardinals, Francis talked about walking in the presence of Jesus Christ and stressed the church mission to announce him. He emphasized the concept of "encounter with Jesus" and stressed that "if we do not profess Jesus Christ, things go wrong. We may become a charitable NGO, but not the Church, the Bride of the Lord." He went on to teach that "When we do not profess Jesus Christ, we profess the worldliness of the devil... when we profess Christ without the Cross, we are not disciples of the Lord, we are worldly" (Sources: Wikipedia and news reports). Benedict and Francis offer refreshing and significant lessons in leadership to the world and to our nation. At a time in which people embrace power and high office for its own sake, Benedict walked away from one of the most powerful offices in the world because he recognized his inability to offer his best in that position. All over the world, and particularly in our Nigeria, many would have opted to stay and enjoy the benefits of the position. In a world in which so-called “leaders” do whatever the polls favour (whether its homosexual marriage or legalizing marijuana!!!), these are individuals who retain a moral and spiritual compass, irrespective of what the current liberal fashion is! At a time when many religious leaders are pre-occupied with worldly power and money, Pope Francis’ focus on the poor and shunning of the trappings of wealth and luxury is a positive reminder of the essence of our faith and his counsel against a worldly church (which is more or less a charitable NGO) is timely!