I grew up in the home of a
nomadic civil servant. Today, my father will be on his way to Delta state for
supervision. Tomorrow, he is on his way to Jos for coordination. One thing was
clear in all those journeys: he was always travelling so he could meet our
needs, and seek a better life for the family he led.
Anytime my father returns from those long trips, we would sit around him
to hear different stories of how his trip went, while he earnestly listened to
what we had also faced in his absence. Those days were always a time to look
forward to.
After 103 days outside Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari finally
returns to Nigeria and heightens our expectations by saying he will address the
nation in less than 48 hours after his return. I was hopeful, and it reminded
me of one of those days, when my father will heartily speak to us after his
long trips. It felt all too familiar. The president seemed to show he really
cares about us. Despite the state of his health, he still want to address us.
What a father!
I, for one, went to bed early, to wake up and hear for myself everything
the father of the nation will tell his sons, whom he had been away from for
over three months. By the end of the speech, the president had a clear and
important message he was sending home to us all, but that in itself was yet
another unforced error.
Not minding the style in which the speech was delivered — some say it
was reminiscent of the military era — but I beg to differ. Goodluck Jonathan, a
democratic president, and Yemi Osinbajo, a revered professor of law, gave
speeches in similar stance and manner. The style is not exclusive to the
military. However, some of the content may have been rather undemocratic.
“Nigerians are robust and lively in
discussing their affairs, but I was distressed to notice that some of the
comments, especially in the social media have crossed our national red lines by daring to question our collective existence as
a nation. This is a step too far,” Buhari had said.
“In 2003 after I joined partisan
politics, the late Chief Emeka Ojukwu came and stayed as my guest in my
hometown Daura. Over two days we discussed in great depth till late into the
night and analyzed the problems of Nigeria. We both came to the conclusion that the country must remain one
and united.
“Nigeria’s unity is settled and not negotiable. We
shall not allow irresponsible elements to start trouble and when things get bad
they run away and saddle others with the responsibility of bringing back order,
if necessary with their blood”.
This seems innocently pleasing, especially to someone like myself who
loves the idea and the prospects of a united Nigeria. I strongly believe that
many who are calling for secession of a certain portion of the Nigerian state
are doing it for political reasons, but I also know enough to know that in a
democracy, the voice of the people is prime, regardless of how political they
sound.
The president said the nation’s red lines were crossed because some
Nigerians questioned our collective existence. When did it become a crime to
question the collective existence of Nigeria? Is democracy not about choice?
Choosing what we deem right for ourselves at any time within the ambits of the
law. That is the democracy Mr President swore to uphold.
Mr President also referred to a meeting he held with late Biafran
leader, Emeka Ojukwu, and said they both concluded (outside political power)
that Nigeria must remain united. That both men decided in 2003 that Nigeria
must remain one, does not mean Nigeria has to remain one, 14 years later. A lot
has changed in our political landscape through those years. Even if nothing
changed, the fact that we operate a democracy, the private discussion of two
men, who were citizens like us, is not binding on a nation state.
Finally, the president — like a
dictator — crossed a red line himself by making an absolute statement that Nigeria’s unity is settled and not
negotiable. This is very undemocratic.
Nobel Laureate Wole Soyinka had said — and I so support — that anything
is negotiable, including the unity of Nigeria — especially the unity of Nigeria.
“We must stop confusing and mixing up the argument, we are mixing up the
argument. It is very unfortunate for our leaders to say that the question of
breaking up or not breaking up should not have arisen in the first place. It
all sounds hypocritical, dogmatic and dictatorial. The statement is the unity
of Nigeria is non-negotiable, now that to me, is a false,” Soyinka said in
July.
“Anything is negotiable, the right for people to determine their future
is what is non-negotiable. Most nations came to being through negotiation. What
the question should be: should Nigeria break up? My answer to that is no, but
please don’t tell me that Nigeria, as it stands is non-negotiable. For me, this
is a fallacy.
“The nation has got to be negotiated, negotiation includes ensuring that
there is no marginalisation. Negotiation means control of resources,
negotiation has to do with restructuring a nation in a way that the components
and constituents are not feeding an overbloated centre to the detriment of
their development. The language we should use is what are you willing to
sacrifice? What efforts are you willing to make to ensure Nigeria remains
intact? That is the question.”
Excuse me Mr President, you are President Muhammadu Buhari, the reformed
democrat — not General Muhammadu Buhari, the head of state. Nigeria will not be
safe, secure and progressive, if we do not negotiate our way to unity. You do
not dictate unity, a people must negotiate and work their way to unity.
No comments: