Atlas Cove and the Niger Delta struggle

IS the Niger Delta conflict being ethnicised? Does it face the risk of being reduced to an Ijaw/Yoruba face-off? Or perhaps at some stage the Niger Delta/Igbo/Yoruba/Hausa-Fulani face-off? Of what import is the introduction of ethnic and territorial factors into the Niger Delta struggle within the larger Nigerian question? The earliest attempt to introduce an ethnic angle to the Niger Delta discourse in more recent times, would seem to be the splitting of hair between certain Northern establishment intellectuals who argued that the crude oil in the Niger Delta actually belongs to Northerners and that what Niger Deltans are fighting over is Northern property which escaped towards the Delta through some geomorphism over the centuries. Southern intellectuals have debunked this with equal vehemence. There can be no doubt about the Niger Delta people's claim to the ownership of the extractive resources in their region. But a frightening clash of ethnic emotions has resurfaced in the Niger Delta conversation since the Sunday July 12 attack on the Atlas Cove Jetty in Lagos by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND).

The Lagos State Government was the first to condemn the turning of its territory into a battle field, with a subtle threat that this "must not repeat itself". The state government has since been joined by the Yoruba establishment, expressing its objections, through meetings in various Yoruba "creeks", and the threat of war drums. The Yoruba Council of Elders is asking for a meeting with President Yar'çdua to discuss the development. The Oodua Peoples Congress, the Coalition of Oodua Self-Determination Groups (COSEG), and the Committee of Indigenous Associations of Lagos State have each promised retaliatory action in the event of a recurrence. On July 20, a meeting of Concerned Yoruba Leaders and Elders was held at the Airport Hotel in Lagos, comprising party leaders, traditional rulers, and all the Chairmen of the 57 local councils in Lagos. A report in The Nation newspaper titled "Lagos elders to militants: don't try another attack" pointed out that "it was an emotionally charged meeting" (The Nation, July 21, p.1)

This "quasi-war council" issued the following threat: "We hereby give a serious warning to the militants in the Niger Delta to view the latest attack as the last of such, and that the incident must never again be repeated as any attempt to do so would be met with serious consequences which the attackers would live to regret". The Yoruba groups demanded an apology, and as if to demonstrate the possible consequences, some Ijaw fishermen in Badagry were attacked by angry Yoruba youths. What has been the response from Niger Delta militants? An Ijaw group, namely the Ijaw Media Forum issued a statement apologising to the Lagos State Government for the attack on the Atlas Cove jetty.

But MEND, the protagonist of the incident has since dismissed the ethnic and territorial objections of the Yoruba elements on three grounds (1) that the Atlas Cove jetty is Federal Government property and hence Lagos State was not the target of the attack, (2) that there will be no hiding place for oil companies anywhere in Nigeria and (3) Jomo Gbomo speaking on behalf of MEND claims that both OPC and the YCE are ranting. If anything he insists, it is the Yoruba that should be apologising to the Niger Delta "after their son, Olusegun Obasanjo wiped out Odi with innocent civilians and stole our commonwealth as the Minister of Petroleum. ...The Niger Delta issue may have started in the Niger Delta, but the problem caused by injustice knows no boundaries. It is a Nigerian problem that should be enjoyed or suffered by all....It seems some people just enjoy ranting. Is the OPC threatening to attack any Niger Deltan or a particular state or tribe there? We have the Itsekiris, Isokos, Urhobos, Ijaws, Ibibios, Igbos, Efiks, so who do they plan on attacking first? Do they plan on attacking pipelines and oil companies and making our job easier or plan to destroy non-existent infrastructure? ..." (Daily Sun, July 22, p. 6).

Jomo Gbomo's rhetoric is logical in relation to MEND's objectives, but he surely does not speak for all Niger Deltans. There is no doubt that Nigeria is paying for the mistake of taking the Niger Delta militants for granted, treating them when the rebellion began as if it would fizzzle out with time; what the Atlas Cove incident has demonstrated is the failure of Nigerian leadership and the vulnerability of the Nigerian state, what we are dealing with is a Nigerian problem. From the point of view of strategy, it was a huge triumph for Niger Delta militants, and MEND may not have intended the attack on the Atlas Cove Jetty to be an attack on Yoruba interest.

But the ethnicisation of the incident is crowding out the opportunities for learning a few lessons which it graphically presents: there are lessons here for the Federal Government, the Lagos state government and the Niger Delta struggle. Nigeria is in deep trouble, Atlas Cove points to a national security crisis of grave dimensions. The current "Hurricane Moses" hits directly at the soft underbelly of the Nigerian state and should be seen as a signal that something more than amnesty offer and symbolic palliatives is required in addressing the crisis. The militants as seen in Jomo Gbomo's statement, do not seem to be intimidated by the protests by the Yoruba groups nor do they seem to care. But there is need for caution on all sides. With emerging talks about "our territory"and "their son", and plans by the YCE to hold a meeting with Yar'Adua, the objectives of the struggle and the relevance for all progressive groups could be diluted.

One gain of recent developments is however as follows: in many quarters, there had been an attempt by Nigerians in comfort zones to treat the Niger Delta issue as an external crisis, and the devastation and uncertainties in the region as "their problem". Bringing the conflict to the shores of Lagos has suddenly put the Niger Delta at the top of the public agenda, it has moved it immediately to the level of "our problem". It is a rude awakening. It has provided a rallying point for the expression of fears about territory and security, and although concerned Yoruba Leaders and Elders have issued threats, they have been forced nonetheless to take on the Niger Delta issue as a matter of direct importance to the security of their own people. They want to talk to Yar'çdua. Traditional rulers had to abandon their palaces to discuss the Niger Delta struggle, local government chairman left the treasury alone for a while to discuss the coming of MEND to Lagos!. The seeming ethnicisation of the Niger Delta conversation is a development that should be taken seriously nonetheless by both the militants and the rest of Nigeria, for it is a danger signal.

There are among other things, four touchy subjects in the Nigerian arrangement whose mismanagement could result in a national emergency: one- oil - the major source of the country's revenue two: personal security: three- ethnicity/territory - this is a ready source of conflict in Nigeria which activates primordial instincts for survival, and four: religion. MEND has shown its readiness to force the issue on all of these fronts, if need be. It has touched on three already; the introduction of a religious dimension is imaginable, but MEND should also be careful not to lose the momentum that it has gained by adopting strategies that could defeat its core philosophical objectives. The special challenge that the Nigerian government faces is this: it must begin to approach the Niger Delta crisis and the implications for Nigeria's wholesomeness with a higher level of rigour and urgency than is currently being demonstrated. It needs not wait for the country to be up in flames before it embarks on more meaningful dialogue and action on the Niger Delta Question. For the Federal Government, the Navy and the Lagos State Government, there are security issues along the coastline that would still have to be addressed.

Will MEND's extra-territorial aggression alienate other Nigerians? Yes, possibly. It is a double-edged sword, not without costs. With recent attempts by the Federal Government to seek the partnership of the militant groups in the Niger Delta, MEND and similar groups should explore the offered opportunties for dialogue. What the people of the Niger Delta want invariably is exactly what most other Nigerian ethnic nationalities want: justice, equity and fiscal federalism. At the Airport Hotel meeting, for example, the Yoruba equally expressed frustration with their circumstances, detailing spefically how Lagos State has been abandoned and marginalised by the Federal authorities. Nearly all the country's over 400 ethnic nationalities have one complaint or the other. Niger Delta strategists need the partnership of other ethnic nationalities and progressive forces in their search for change. Violent incursions which drive up ethnic sentiments and which make Niger Deltans an unfair target of reprisal attacks could dilute the revolutionary import of the struggle in the same manner as kidnapping and other criminal activities in the Niger Delta.

The Nigerian leadership elite appears confused in addressing the crisis truthfully, in part because the present contentious status quo provides opportunities for a corrupt and unwise minority that is interested only in its own economic security and the power it wields. The partnership of other nationalities would be required in driving the momentum for change at policy and constitutional levels. What cannot be denied however is the fact that the Atlas Cove incident has woken us all up to the reality that there can be no comfort zones for as long as there is injustice or internal colonialism in any part of Nigeria.

The Niger Delta crisis is not hundreds of miles away, it is in our backyards, it is the pimple on our face, sitting delicately on a dangerous vein; it is the keg of gunpowder on which Nigeria sits. All concerned elders, leaders, politicians, be they in Lagos, Aba, Kafanchan, Kano, Aso Villa or Maiduguri can be mobilised through constructive engagement, and dialogue to focus more on the struggle for a better Nigeria. Engaging in ethnically-determined rhetoric which reduces the subject to the level of primordial sentiments and biases serves only the divide and rule objective of the ruling class.

Deplorable state of Federal roads

With the advent of the rains, the deplorable condition of most of the Federal roads across the country has reached critical dimensions. From different parts of the country, calls for the repair of dilapidated Federal roads have reached a crescendo, as some now constitute a threat not only to the lives of motorists, but the economy of the nation.

Key among the roads that have become a threat to motorists and the national economy is the Apapa-Oshodi Expressway, which leads to the country’s two major seaports – the Tin Can Island and Apapa Ports, as well as the Murtala Mohammed International Airport. Trailers and tankers sometimes derail on the failed portions of the pothole-riddled expressway, with attendant loss of lives.

Other dilapidated Federal roads which have become a source of anguish to motorists include the Benin-Ore Expressway which links the West to the Eastern part of the country; the legendarily-failed Onitsha-Owerri Expressway and the Kabba-Akutupa-Abuji Road, which links the North Central to the North and South of the country.

Roads, generally, have been a constant source of acrimony between the people and the Nigerian government since the end of the civil war. The nation’s expressways have, since that time, been liable to failure, probably because the builders did not factor in the texture of the soil before their construction. The integrity of the roads, then and now, was easily compromised, with erosion, especially, taking an awesome toll on those in the Eastern part of the country.

To worsen the situation, Federal roads are not properly and regularly maintained, but abandoned until they fail, abysmally. The unsalutary situation has not been helped by the ubiquitous ogre of corruption, with huge funds voted for road development and rehabilitation often ending up in the bottomless pit of graft.
The problem is further exacerbated by the crass disregard of the importance of professional background and competence in the choice of Ministers for the Works and Transportation ministries. There is also too much pressure on the roads on account of the failure to develop the rail sector, despite several promises from the government.

We need to ask what exactly institutions like the Federal Roads Maintenance Agency (FERMA) are doing to justify their existence when the nation’s major expressways are riddled with craters. Nigeria is talking of developing her economy and opening up the rural areas when link roads are not motorable.

The Federal Government should change its strategy if better roads are to be delivered to the people. It needs to include a maintenance clause for about 15 years in road construction contracts to ensure that contractors do quality jobs. President Umaru Yar’Adua should demonstrate greater commitment to addressing this problem, especially as transportation is a key component of his promised 7-Point Agenda.
The toll that bad roads takes on Nigerians is, indeed, heavy. Lives and properties are lost, time is wasted, vehicles are spoilt, motorists are frustrated and business is stymied. The security implications of the terrible roads are incalculable, as thieves seize the traffic hold ups occasioned by the failed portions to chance upon innocent motorists.

It is a big relief that the Federal Government has promised to carry out limited repair work on the Apapa-Oshodi Expressway, and the repair of the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway, which has been concessioned, is to begin next month. The promise to appropriate supplementary funds for comprehensive repairs of the road should be fulfilled. Similar commitment should be shown to the repair of other existing Federal highways.

Everything should be done to ensure that all roads scheduled for repair are properly done, with the contractors and engineers who approve the performance certificates for payment in the ministries held accountable for the projects. No one should be allowed to get away with shoddy execution or approval of road projects. The deal should also include drainages, preferably, covered ones to counter the peculiar propensity of our people for turning drainages into dustbins.

Above all, government must expedite its programme on concessioning of the railways to provide an alternative to road transportation, especially for haulage of heavy goods. The condition of Federal roads has become an emergency and it should be treated as such.

Failed Banks Debtors

Today Nigerians know better why 13 of the nation’s banks went under some years ago, leaving their depositors and staff in agony from which many of them have not recovered.
Reports released the other day by the Nkechi Nworgu-led Senate committee on banking and finance gave out the names of some prominent Nigerians who took huge loans from the ill-fated banks but failed to pay back. They had used their privileged positions as directors in such banks to funnel jumbo-size loans to themselves but either failed or refused to pay back. Reeling under the debilitating weight of such un-repaid loans, the affected banks collapsed.
The more shocking part of all this is that these defaulters, if not defrauders, had never had to face the law which their actions contravened. Almost all of them still swagger around the country as if they have done nothing wrong despite the anguish that their action had caused many unsuspecting Nigerians.
Despite calls for proper investigation of the collapse of the banks, it was not until recently that the Senate waded into it and uncovered what has come to look like a can of worms. When those entrusted with the safe-keep of depositors’ funds turn out to be the undoing of such treasures, then something is wrong with the system.
In commending the Senate for its painstaking investigation and making the names of these defaulters public despite obvious pressures not to do so, we urge that it makes good its promise to bring them to book through the relevant government agencies. The Senate also needs to widen its investigation. There may be others who are equally involved in this heartless profiteering.
For clear reasons, the action of these loan defaulters must be seen for what it is: an act of economic sabotage. By their greed and irresponsible act, they had not only made depositors, and even other shareholders lose their money but also made workers of the collapsed banks to lose their jobs. Both developments have had very grave impact on the social and economic well-being of the nation.
While all the ruined careers and wasted investments may not be redeemed, those behind such recklessness must not be allowed to get away with a mere slap on the wrist. Regardless of their social standing, they must be made to face the full wrath of the law and to pay back that which they took from the failed banks. The National Assembly must ensure that not only are the offenders properly penalized but also that the relevant laws aimed at checking such insider-abuse are strengthened in the nation’s corporate governance. It is possible that such insider-abuse is still happening today. We need not wait for more banks to fail before serious measures are taken to stamp out this unhealthy practice.
It may not be possible to eradicate fraud altogether from any financial system. But it will be sad to create the impression that any set of individuals can defraud the system with impunity. If that happens, then the authorities would be fueling crime in a sector so critical to the economic health of the nation. That is why in other countries economic crimes such as tax evasion, criminal manipulation of the stock market and violation of specific financial laws are visited with severe penalty. The Bernard Madoff episode in the United States is a very recent example. For committing financial crimes against the system, the 71-year-old Madoff was sentenced to a jail term of 150 years. He was also stripped of all his possessions under a $171 billion forfeiture order. But the crime was so evident that he refused to appeal the sentence.
The essence of Madoff’s sentence is to deter others who may be inclined to toe that line. Nigeria should do no less with economic saboteurs.

Resolving the Oil Wells Issue

The on-going dispute between Cross River State and Akwa Ibom State over the ownership of 76 oil wells (another account puts the figure at 75) should be resolved before it gets out of control. Already, the issue is generating too much heat in the media.
The process of settling the maritime boundary disagreement between the two states was initiated and completed during the last administration, with the then President, Olusegun Obasanjo presiding over the meetings attended by the respective governors. Technical, political and historical options were all considered by the National Boundary Commission (NBC) before arriving at the proposal it tabled before the parties. Eventually, both states were satisfied with the resolution as their boundary was adjusted to ensure that each of them still possessed enough wells that would qualify them as oil producing states and, by implication, beneficiaries of the derivation fund of the federal purse.
But, in August last year, the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC) met and, based on the loss of Bakassi, a former local government area in Cross River State , to Cameroon , ceded the oil wells located in the Bakassi area to Akwa Ibom. As a result of that action, Cross River has been losing billions of naira in revenue since March this year. The case is in the Federal High Court but the situation has sparked off agitation among Cross Riverians.
Akwa Ibom has put up an argument in support of its claim of the ownership of the contentious wells. In advertorials published in several dailies last week, the Akwa Ibom Elders Forum put its position thus: “For centuries, the Bakassi Peninsula had been variously administered as part of the present Akwa Ibom State through Eket Division, then Oron, and then Mbo local governments as administrative units became created. By the time the Peninsula was expropriated from Akwa Ibom to Cross River State under General Sani Abacha’s administration only in the 1990s, records of effective control and governance of the Peninsula resided in Akwa Ibom.…Prior to January 2005, all the 75 oil wells were never in Cross River State but were rightly within Akwa Ibom territory.…The 75 oil wells were confiscated from Akwa Ibom State and arbitrarily handed over to Cross River State by the then federal government.”
Cross River also has its side of the argument. In its presentation to the presidential committee on the matter the other day, the state government stated: “When in 2008 RMAFC requested NBC to produce maps of maritime territories of the states based on strict technical demarcation of the maritime boundaries ignoring all other considerations, the NBC, being well versed in this matter, was aware of the dangers that this method portends and the injustice and confusion it can bring. In a memo dated 2nd June, 2008, the NBC stated in Paragraph 5 as follows: ‘Maritime boundaries are subjected to United Nations laws of the seas articles which provide technical solutions but with modifications for equitable results….This gives Cross River State chances of historical circumstances to retain its previous maritime boundaries prior to the handing over of Bakassi Peninsula to the Republic of Cameroon.’ “
Expectedly, both sides have been churning out updated facts to back their arguments. But from experience, technicalities alone cannot settle sentimental subjects like this. In trying to mend the fences of the two brother states, there is an important issue about the positions of the RMAFC and the NBC, which is constitutionally empowered to define boundaries, after going through due process that includes the enactment of an Act of the National Assembly.
Federal Government should now, as a matter of national interest, seek political solution to this potentially combustible scenario. The Niger Delta region, theatre of this brewing misunderstanding, is already overheated.

NCC and the 2.3 GHz controversy

I HAD to restrain myself from joining the fray for long and prayed that the matter would be quickly resolved. This was a difficult decision for me. Hardly a day passes when I don't read falsehood concerning the controversial sale of the 2.3 GHz Frequency band, and have the itch to put pen to paper. Finally, my patience ran out a few days ago. It was because of an alleged report from the Attorney General, Mike Kaase Aondaaka endorsing the purported sale of the broadband by the Nigerian Communications Commission, NCC.

According to the report published in The Guardian of July 14, 2009, the AGF had written to President Umaru Yar'Adua on June 2 this year, explaining that the NCC did not breach any law or Act in its handling of the sale. This was news to me. I believe this development took the conflict to an utterly preposterous level. Why? It offered a seal of approval for the illegality perpetrated by the NCC and would encourage other agencies to flout directives from their ministers, with the conviction that any disagreement or conflict on the matter would be referred to the AGF for judicial interpretation. This is a dangerous precedent.

But let me not get ahead of myself; first, the facts of the matter. In May this year, the NCC placed an advert in a few newspapers, calling for bidding for the 2.3 GHz Frequency Spectrum from interested buyers. The Frequency Spectrums are limited and scarce resources which are essential for services in the telecoms and broadcast industries. Globally the allocation of frequency spectrums is done by the International Telecommunications Union, while matters of spectrum management and allocation in Nigeria are handled by the National Frequency Management Council, NFMC which has the Minister of Information and Communications as Chairman. Section 28 of the Communications Act 2003 states clearly that NFMC shall ''carry out bulk Trans-Sectoral allocation of spectrum to statutory bodies that are authorised by enabling laws to allocate spectrum to end-users and receive and allocate returns and statistics on spectrum allocation to end-users from the statutory bodies specified...''. But in this very sale, Ndukwe's NCC acted suo moto! And since the 2.3 GHz Spectrum was never allocated by the Council, the licensing was a nullity ab initio. As we speak, the Minister has challenged Ndukwe to produce the minute containing the resolution to sell off the broadband to no avail.

Aside this, the Controversial NCC advertisement gave interested buyers of these scarce national resources just five days to pay up and have the money cleared in its account. This was clearly in contravention of the Public Procurement Act, which stipulates that the advertisement for Federal Government property should be placed for a minimum of two weeks. This is to ensure that such deals are widely publicised and thus every Nigerian has the opportunity to bid for them if they wish to. The NCC advertisement was obviously in contradiction of the letter and spirit of the Public Procurement Act.

But that was the least of the 'offence' of the NCC in this matter. One of the major reasons why the controversial sale was a 'no no' is because the spectrum was not even NCC's to give out. The allocation of Frequency Spectrum was solely the function of the NFMC, and not even the Minister could bypass this important Council in the licensing rounds. The NCC claimed that the approval was given by the immediate past Minister of Information and Communications, John Odey. But the NFMC had debunked that in a letter, stating that the NCC had not been given its expressed approval, and the Commission was expected to refer back to it before making any plans to sell the frequency spectrums. Of course, NCC did not do that, and was trying to sell the Frequency Spectrums through what appeared to be a backdoor deal. It is no wonder then that the sale drew the ire of stakeholders in the telecoms industry, and a petition was sent to the minister.

It was all these that rankled Akunyili and made her to order Ernest Ndukwe, the Executive Vice Chairman of the NCC to halt further actions on the controversial sale. A simple directive, which Ndukwe flouted with impunity, and instead began a war of calumny against the Minister in the media. The honest attempt by Professor Dora Akunyili to resolve the matter has met a brick wall. For instance, at a meeting in May this year with stakeholders, a number of decisions were reached, chief of which was that NCC's sale of the 2.3 GHz frequency bands be cancelled, and new process which meets the principles of fairness, transparency and openness be conducted. At that meeting were Professor Akunyili, the Minister of State, Alhaji Aliyu Bilbis, Ndukwe Chairman of the NCC, Alhaji Ahmed Joda and others. That directive too was also flouted by Ndukwe's NCC.

If Akunyili is given to washing dirty linen in the public, she would have engaged Ndukwe in a fight but she didn't. Instead the former NAFDAC DG respectfully brought the matter to the attention of the President. She did so on June 10.

The purported working paper which the AGF allegedly sent to the President was on June 2, which means that the AGF took position on the matter without hearing the minister's take on it. Assuming the report is true, then the Attorney General has broken one fundamental principle of law, which is fair hearing. That raises a poser, why was Aondaaka in a hurry to pass judgement, so to speak, on matter he was not very familiar with, without listening to both parties involved?

This apparent gang up against Akunyili goes deeper than the AGF's office. In that same report in The Guardian, it was stated that Akunyili's predecessor, Odey wrote a letter to the AGF, explaining that the 2.3 GHz band was exclusively allocated to telecommunications in the table of frequencies. Obviously this was meant to strengthen NCC's position.

When I drew this to the attention of my friend who is a telecoms expert, he laughed. He explained that there was nothing like exclusivity in allocation of frequencies. According to him, "there is no allocation of specific frequency bands for telecommunications by the ITU. Radio frequency bands are allocated for various services by the ITU, and are subject to acceptance and adaptation by individual countries, which determine which band should be used for what services".

This indicates that those campaigning against the minister are willing to turn logic on its head to score cheap points. But they fail each time they try because the truth will always overcome. It gladdens my heart that in all of these, no one has suggested that the Minister has personal interest in the matter. They only accused her of being too tough and strict. But that is what you get when you live up to the principle of due process, and it is not a mantra you chant when it is convenient. That is what you get when you put your foot down and insist that the right thing is done, even if the whole world is against you. And that is what you get for being Dora Akunyili.

The destruction of Atlas Cove jetty

ON Monday July 13, Lagos citizens awoke to the totally unexpected news that the Atlas Cove jetty, one of the major arteries supplying refined petroleum products to Lagos and most parts of the South-west, had been attacked by militants from the Niger Delta. Nigerians are aghast at this fresh turn of events. Several interpretations have been given to this unwarranted attack on the commercial capital of Nigeria. Many commentators condemn the act and fear that the militants in the Niger Delta may have crossed a forbidden line.

What is known about the attack is fragmentary, but a broad outline will indicate that heavily armed men arrived at the Atlas Cove on the night of Sunday July 12 in three, six or 15 gunboats. They opened fire on the facility and killed some five or nine persons including a naval officer, some ratings and some men of the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC). They seemed to have met little or no resistance hence they were able to hold the fort for more than one hour during which they made sure that the cove was totally destroyed.

Since then questions have been raised as to how such an audacious attack was carried out. Nigerians are wondering how such a vital facility was left so exposed to hostile forces and why no one came to the aid of the besieged jetty. NSS Aradu, a flagship war ship was said to be in the vicinity of the attack. Could those on board not have seen that a part of Nigerian territory was under attack? Other issues thrown up by the disaster include the failure of intelligence. If security agents knew before-hand that an attack was being planned around the Atlas Cove, as some reports suggest, why was it that security was not beefed up just in case?

If they did not know about it, harassing villagers around the Atlas Cove after the event is futile and amounts to closing the farm door after the horse has bolted. When the militants started a billowing fire, where was the fire service? Typically, the Nigerian fire service was completely unprepared so that it was only Julius Berger, a construction company, whose good offices and expertise were relied upon to quench the fire and perhaps save Apapa from the full effects of a so-called 'Hurricane Moses' boastfully crafted by the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND).

The intrusion of the militants into Lagos has been roundly condemned as an unsound manoeuvre that can in no way advance their cause. On the contrary, what they have done to a mega metropolis quite removed from the Niger Delta can rebound on them. This foray into Lagos is the sort of action that can turn sympathisers into antagonists. Whether the militants know it or not, what they have achieved so far is not so much owed to their individual prowess as it is to the groundswell of public sympathy for their plight.

The Niger Delta is a terrible environment. There are very few schools, roads and hospitals. Oil spills have poisoned the land and the water. Gas flares burning 24 hours a day have damaged human, animal and plant life in the area. Air pollution from the flares results in acid rain, low crop yields and respiratory problems. Everything costs more in the Niger Delta and yet poverty is endemic. The per-capita income in the Niger Delta is below the national average of $260 a year whilst unemployment hovers around 90 per cent. These facts are known but they can in no way be helped by a thoughtless assault on Lagos.

The government of President Umaru Musa Yar'Adua has been trying to manage the Niger Delta situation. He can improve on his methods. But he has offered a 60-day amnesty programme with sweeteners to all gunmen in the Niger Delta in the hope that the violence which has cost the country billions of dollars in lost oil income would cease.

For more than one year, a leader of MEND, Henry Okah was clamped in jail for gun-running and treason. MEND made his release a condition for peace. He has been released. But on the eve of that release MEND attacked the Atlas Cove. Two days later, production facilities belonging to Chevron and Agip in the Niger Delta were also blown up by MEND. The attack was of such severity that Agip had to declare a force majeure for some crude oil exports. All this has put a question mark on the effectiveness of the amnesty.

Despite this provocation, President Yar'Adua has continued with his 60-day amnesty programme. MEND for its part has also declared a 60-day truce as a goodwill gesture for the release of rebel leader Henry Okah. But in the light of what has happened before and since Henry Okah's release, we wonder whether MEND can be trusted. Moreover, freedom fighters have been joined by common criminals and kidnappers in the Niger Delta. There are now war-lords all over the place with pockets of influence. It is very difficult to make peace with a leaderless organisation. Whatever the constraints, we call upon all the warring parties to give peace a chance and to return to the negotiating table. Henry Okah must justify the confidence President Yar'Adua has reposed in him to find a lasting solution to the Niger Delta debacle.

Addressing the issue of fiscal federalism and resource control, mass poverty and lack of infrastructure in the Niger Delta will no doubt form components of a long lasting solution. But it is unreasonable to expect the federal government or any other government to negotiate with a gun on its head. All militants must be made aware of this fact as we appeal again to them to lay down their arms and give peace a chance. In the meantime, a rethinking of security attitudes would have to be considered; the attack on the Atlas Cove Jetty shows just how serious the insurgency in the Niger Delta is.

Amnesty, sincerity and the Niger Delta

WITH every care about the public relations profits to be reaped from the measure, President Yar'Adua announced, on June 25, 2009, his offer of amnesty to former and active militants of the Niger Delta. By the one word, militants, the Federal Government meant "all persons who have directly or indirectly participated in the commission of offences associated with militant activities in the Niger Delta." In the result, kidnappers-for-ransom as well as genuine armed and unarmed activists for fiscal federalism and restitution for 50 years of savage dispossession were forced into one camp. Were MOSOP's Ken Saro-Wiwa and the Ogoni 8 alive today, they would doubtlessly be within the purview of this definition and be expected to embrace this amnesty. As the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta and a few commentators have since pointed out, however, Yar'Adua and his policy henchmen seem to believe that "criminal" and "freedom fighter" are interchangeable terms.

And indeed power invariably sees them as such. Hence, to Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, Nelson Mandela was a terrorist. While it is true that one person's freedom fighter may be another's criminal, it is also true that we can distinguish the one from the other easily enough. But doing so requires integrity. And for the person in power, whose view matters most in this context, integrity means sincerity of purpose, the willingness to shun the lazy resort to calling a dog a bad name in order to hang it. Once Mandela was branded a terrorist and the ANC a terrorist organisation - which the Zulu warlord, Mangosuthu Buthelezi, and his Inkatha Freedom Party were definitely not - Thatcher, Reagan and the entire government machineries they controlled could go on profiting from the apartheid regime's favourable economic policies while perpetuating the notion of white racial superiority. As if the alleged terrorism of Mandela and the ANC had somehow redeemed their choice of empowering evil.

Sincerity emerges, then, as the real test of any government policy on the Niger Delta. It is not surprising, therefore, that MEND, the main armed group engaged in guerrilla acts of sabotage against the federal government, has said as much. Nor that it did so in a pointed reaction to Vice President Jonathan Goodluck's claim that criminal barons were to blame for the reluctance of "militants" to queue in eager embrace of his boss's offer of amnesty. On the contrary, MEND saw government's insincerity as "the major cause" of the troubles of the Niger Delta, citing the preparedness of the Interior Affairs minister to travel from Abuja to Port Harcourt "to talk to fake representatives of militant commanders" and his unwillingness "to travel the shorter distance" to confer with Henry Okah in a nearby prison.

Now that Okah has accepted Yar'Adua's amnesty, and the prospects of a ceasefire brighten the horizon, Abuja's corridors of power must be reverberating to noisy chest thumping. The quick fix, it seems, is here. Some form of agreement will be reached, the essence of which will be that MEND surrender or at least lay down arms. Okah will be expected, like a garrison commander, to disarm and disband his troops. Peace will return to the creeks and the waters of the coast will be calmed for uninterrupted flow and exportation of oil and gas. Petro dollars will once again flow unhindered into the national booty fund misnamed the treasury for the continued orgy of looting. In the interim, a few bones will be thrown from the crowded banquet tables in Abuja to the hapless souls of the delta: a hastily paved one-season road here and there, a bridge to link two or three previously marooned creek towns to the nation that claims their loyalty, a school that in effect boasts nothing more than crooked walls and a blackboard, a few clinics and dispensaries that wouldn't pass a Red Cross first aid test, etc. And, of course, contracts, contracts, and more contracts, all paid for by the same oil and gas that is the very bone of contention.

And after that? Indeed, in the course of these acts of deception falsely called development of the Niger Delta? Any act of self assertion, any vigorous prosecution of the cause of the exploited, expropriated, maligned and mocked people of the Delta will be seen as evidence of ingratitude. Of an unbecoming greed that will be satisfied only with a one hundred percent derivation principle. In short, as an imminent threat to the corporate integrity of the nation. And, so, as proof beyond any doubt of insufferable unpatriotism. Woe betide every denizen of the Niger Delta then, militant and non-militant! Odi under General Obasanjo would be a mere battle drill in comparison. This well-laid trap is what the Attorney-General, Michael Aondoakaa, revealed in court in answer to the reservations expressed by Femi Falana, Okah's counsel, regarding the non-constitutionality of Yar'Adua's preferred amnesty in opposition to the prerogative of mercy or other options open to him. "Let us leave the matter like that," Aondoakaa insisted. "I have given you (a) guarantee that unless he breaches the agreement, Okah cannot come back to the court."

So we have it on good authority. Unless Okah - or any militant so-called - breaches the agreement, he will not be tried again by those who expropriate and drive him to arms. But what agreement is this that Okah must not breach? How will it be reached and with whom? Will this agreement have anything to say about a derivation formula that will do justice to the Niger Delta and every productive region of the country? Will it acknowledge the decades of dispossession and commit a fair and unencumbered sum over a reasonable period to undoing the colossal damage to the Delta's land, flora and fauna?

Will it bind the government to a geo-political restructuring of the unitary state that falsely bears the name of a federation? You can bet your last kobo on it that it won't. For Aondoakaa is right: all that Yar'Adua, the Federal Government, and let's face it, the majority of a nation that depends bread and breath on the oil and gas of the Niger Delta, want is to "leave the matter like that." In other words, to perpetuate the status quo of mindless dispossession of the Delta through vicious laws and a cruel derivation formula carefully reformulated from its fair and just manifestation in the days of regional governments and independence constitutions.

But all of this is nothing new. Power will not respect anything that cannot compel it to the path of reason and to act in the general good. Always, it is a question of the balance of forces. So it seems, quite regrettably, that the only way Yar'Adua's government or successive caretakers of the oppressive Nigerian state will be moved to attempt a sincere solution to the Niger Delta crisis is if militant opposition makes continued dispossession impossible. This is very clear to MEND, hence its recently announced "two-pronged" strategy of combining dialogue and intensified attacks. Let's call it the yam, or fish-and-stick approach.

Attacks may be halted temporarily to respect any agreed upon ceasefire, but harbour no illusions that Yar-Adua is ready to loosen the government's stranglehold on the Delta. But now the test of his sincerity is about to begin and I dread the result. For try as I may, the words of Leo Tolstoy, the great Russian novelist and moral philosopher, keep buzzing in my ears: "I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back."

The high price that men pay

THE achievement of fairer and more equal relations between men and women, boys and girls is still largely considered a women's issue in Nigeria as it is often assumed that women and girls stand to gain far more from gender equality. For sure, women and girls benefit tremendously from greater access to education, employment opportunities, and leadership positions and from freedom from physical violence and emotional abuse by their intimate partners. But it has now been well-established that children in particular and society as a whole benefit significantly from more equal gender relations in terms of general reduction of poverty, illness, premature death, and poor educational outcomes.

Moreover, it is becoming clearer that men can play a critical role in challenging and changing unequal gender power relations. And that they are more likely to do so when they fully realise the high price that they also pay when the rights of women and girls to equal opportunity, bodily integrity, and decision-making are not as affirmed, respected and protected as those of men and boys. In other words, there is a strong case for helping men to better appreciate the benefits that would accrue to them from avoiding and not contributing to the oppression and exploitation of women and girls. Three examples may be used to shed further light on this matter for the benefit of change-resistant men.

First, there are several economic and social costs to men when the culturally defined and enforced 'scripts' for females and males perpetuate men's domination and female subordination in the running of the home. These include poorer quality of decision-making around resource allocation that often results in larger holes in the man's pocket, needless waste from non-pooling of resources, and greater likelihood of passive or active resistance by the female partner to the man's income-earning or asset acquisition efforts. It is also the case that men's productivity is adversely affected by associated marital discord.

When men's domination of the domestic space extends to the emotional and physical abuse of their spouses, one immediate cost to them is often unhappy, resentful and educationally underperforming children. There is appreciable research evidence which shows that such children often turn out to be emotionally unbalanced and socially deformed young adults that regularly bring their fathers' highly cherished family names into disrepute.

Second, in the sphere of intimacy, the dominant gender ideologies in our society that support excessive male freedom and recklessness alongside extremely constrained female autonomy in sexual and reproductive matters also harm men. They do so by making men engage in disease-bearing and economically wasteful extramarital sexual activities as well as life-threatening delays in seeking sexual health care. They also increase the likelihood of men being at the receiving end of their spouses' hurt or fear-induced surreptitious activities like retaliatory infidelity and secretive use of contraceptives. These are acts that can be socially and psychologically costly to men.

Furthermore, when infertility is an issue within a marriage, the male superiority ideology tends to propel men into costly reactions such as outright refusal or irrational reluctance to seek and follow through with medical interventions. The undue pressure that is often put on women in such situations, when in fact the men are as likely as the women to be the source of the problem, means that a number of such women will secretly seek an 'external donor' solution to protect their emotional health and their spouses' bloated but fragile egos. What cost could be higher than this to the affected men when the truth invariably finds its way out?

Third, men also pay a high price for the persistence of the sharp contrast between the experiences of widows and widowers in Nigeria whereby the latter rarely go through trial by ordeal as prime suspects in the demise of their wives, or long confinement periods and physical abuse as part of mourning their deceased wives. These customary practices which no longer serve any useful purposes have been repeatedly shown to put the life chances of the children that men leave behind in great jeopardy.

Yet, a lot of men do next-to-nothing while alive to economically empower their wives, make child-specific investments, and oppose widow maltreatment. Since most men are highly concerned about their legacy, what better means could they deploy to protect this than to increase their wives' overall capacity to independently raise their children into productive and successful adulthood? It is after all, a demographic reality, due to biology and Nigerian men's tendency to marry much younger women that majority of them will die before their spouses.

Achieving gender equality is thus a societal responsibility that should fully command the attention of men and women. For the men who still do not see gender equality as being good for its own sake, they should remember that there are many avoidable costs to them from the continuing lack of progress towards this goal in Nigeria.

Dispute over 76 oil wells

OVER the past few weeks, the governments, people and stakeholders of Cross River and Akwa Ibom states have been engaged in a riot of media campaign and altercation over 76 disputed off-shore oil wells. Governor Liyel Imoke of Cross River fired the first salvo when, several weeks ago, he raised an alarm over the precarious finances of the state government. The state, ordinarily a marginal oil producer, had zero allocation from the derivation formula, because its 76 oil wells had been reallocated to neighbouring Akwa Ibom.

The ensuing passion, claim and counterclaim underscore the gravity of the problem. Although tempers have been kept in check, there is a high risk of an eruption of conflict between the peoples of the two states who share kinship and other cultural affinities. When the 12-state structure was first created in 1967, the area was known as the South-Eastern State. In 1976, it became Cross River State, which was further split into Akwa Ibom State in September 1987. The commercial and cultural exchanges between the two states go back a long way. That now, is at risk, because of oil revenue.

The primary cause of the raging dispute is as much political as it is legal. Acting on the advice of the National Boundary Commission, the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission had proceeded to credit Akwa Ibom with 76 oil wells which only in 2004 had been allocated to Cross River by the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo. The government had taken the step at the time in response to one of the major consequences of the implementation of the decision of the International Court of Justice directing that Nigeria cede Bakassi to Cameroun.

The Supreme Court had also held in 2005 in a case in which Cross River was the plaintiff and Akwa Ibom the defendant, over border disputes upland, that the crucial effect of the Bakassi judgement was to render Cross River non-littoral. Which meant that Cross River could not lay claims to off-shore oil wells. The point being canvassed tenaciously by Akwa Ibom advocates is that the Obasanjo administration adopted an arbitrary geometry in skewing the median line between Cross River and Akwa Ibom in their maritime boundary. The skewed line, to the west, is where the 76 oil wells are located.

It certainly calls to mind once more the arbitrariness of the Obasanjo years, that similar skewed geometry was applied between some other oil-producing states. Thus, on its western boundary, Akwa Ibom lost oil wells to Rivers State; much as Bayelsa and Abia also lost. These peremptory actions have now been corrected by the administration of President Umaru Yar'Adua.

Yet, at a deeper level, the agony of Cross River State has been exacerbated by the heedless cession of Bakassi to Cameroun. It was bad enough that Nigeria took the border dispute to the ICJ for adjudication. But it was all the more unpatriotic that the Nigerian government with its eyes wide open opted to cede part of its territory to Cameroun. As we observed in an earlier editorial, there were cogent constitutional reasons for the Nigerian government not to be in a rush to implement the Green Tree Accord that spelt out the procedure for enforcing the ICJ ruling. Government officials had argued then that Nigeria would still administer the western part of Bakassi, with the result that the country would not lose its control over the maritime area. But that has not materialised; as Cameroun has taken full control of Bakassi, and Cross River is now a non-littoral state. Without the cession of Bakassi, Cross River could still have claimed some oil wells.

Considering the Bakassi factor in the lingering dispute over the 76 oil wells, it would be mistaken for anyone to assume that this is a matter merely between two neighbouring states. Two states are involved alright, but the issue has a national resonance. It goes to the heart of the quality of the country's leadership and the locus of the minorities in Nigeria's political equation. The people of Cross River were never consulted before the agents of the Federal Government, acting in selfish interest, took the Bakassi matter to the ICJ. The voice of the people of Cross River was stolen from them. Even when the Obasanjo administration was stampeding itself to hand over Bakassi, no plebiscite was ever conducted among the people.

Today, Cross River is in dire financial straits. Its current paltry receipts are swallowed up by recurrent expenditure, with no hope of embarking upon any meaningful capital projects. The state is also labouring under a huge debt burden which is being serviced at source through irrevocable standing payment orders. According to Governor Imoke, the State's capacity to implement even its modest budget has dropped by some 25 per cent. It is anybody's guess for how long more Cross Riverians will endure the aggravation of their penury.

Resolving the issue will involve two major levels of intervention. One should be by the Federal Government (i.e. the Executive and the National Assembly); the other by joint action of Cross River and Akwa Ibom. The Federal Government must acknowledge straightaway that its cession of Bakassi created the condition for the declaration of Cross River as a non-littoral state and its attendant loss of off-shore oil revenue. The Federal Government must equally demonstrate that it is genuinely concerned about the grievous financial consequences of the loss of Bakassi. Cross River itself is battling with the resettlement of the returnees, and has also lost rights to the collection of rates and taxes in Bakassi.

The Federal Government must intervene decisively to shore up the revenue of Cross River. The most effective way to realize this is through legislation, by which the Federal Government would be under a duty to subvent Cross River State at an agreed rate or sum that the National Assembly should work out.

Happily, Governor Godswill Akpabio of Akwa Ibom has spoken of his willingness to explore an amicable solution. We urge that, beyond litigation, the governments and people of the two states should tone down the rhetoric and arrange a roundtable for what should be, considering the close ties, a family meeting at which measures will be outlined and steps taken to assist an indigent cousin. It will also require the participation of the legislatures of both states, so that an agreeable legal framework of assistance can be hammered out, and to ensure that the agreement and obligations arising therefrom are honoured by successors.

MEND, the Lagos Speaker and a nation adrift

"ATLAS Cove."

"Now, that gets me angry. I'd ordinarily expect the Niger Delta militants to show some consideration for the Federal Government, after the release of Henry Okah and Asari Dokubo. But the same day Henry Okah was released, MEND chose to attack the Atlas Cove Jetty."

"It was a welcome reception for Henry Okah. I thought Okah himself said so in an interview with the BBC. And MEND is talking about Hurricane Moses. MEND, while negotiating with the Nigerian state, wants to visit the country with one plague after another. The choice of Lagos is strategic. It is a clear demonstration of the seriousness of the crisis. Bringing the Niger Delta insurgency to Lagos, the country's commercial nerve centre, exposes the vulnerability of the Federal Government. The country is unsafe."

"It took the Atlas Cove incident for President Yar'Adua to change his Minister of Defence. He wants to place emphasis on professionalism."

"So, what if there was no MEND attack.? Knee-jerk responses can never help us in this country. I have always said this. What we need is a rethinking of attitudes and practices. Specifically, government must see the Atlas Cove incident as a signal that it must secure all its strategic infrastructure in every part of the country."

"The Navy was caught napping. If Atlas Cove was so strategic as an off-loading and distribution point for petroleum products, why was it left in the care of four naval ratings, who were probably not well-equipped? This calls for an investigation."

"This is Nigeria. NNS Aradu, one of the country's warships was only a short distance away from the point of attack. The Navy could not respond. And the MEND militants were not in a hurry. They took their time. They destroyed the facility and set four naval ratings ablaze"

"Even the fire could not be put out by the Federal Fire Service. They had to call on Julius Berger to help."

"In a more serious country, a strategic facility like Atlas Cove will be properly secured."

"Nobody was expecting the militants in Lagos."

"Well, we should wait then until they attack the Murtala Mohammed Airport, or they carry out their threat to cause havoc in Abuja."

"Maybe not. MEND has declared a 60-day ceasefire."

"A ceasefire can be called off. They are already threatening to call it off; less than 72 hours later. They are insisting that the Federal Government's Joint Task Force should be withdrawn from the Niger Delta."

"I think government has granted the militants who attacked Atlas Cove Jetty amnesty."

"What I know is that Governor Fashola of Lagos State has issued a warning that the attack on Lagos state must never repeat itself."

"Or else..."

"Well, or else..."

"The Oodua People's Congress for example has warned MEND not to go anywhere near the South-West again, or it'd be forced to retaliate. That is how it starts. War."

"I don't see the amnesty working. I think it is about time government gave the Niger Deltans what they want. It is time we re-negotiated Nigeria."

"My fear is that when the amnesty period ends, there could be a serious show-down in the Niger Delta."

"War?"

"War on criminal elements in the region."

"I am scared."

"Don't bother yourself. You don't have a hostage value."

"Who says?'

"Go and sit down. They are not looking for people like you. In fact, if anybody kidnaps you, I'd simply advise that they should keep you."

"I understand members of the House of Representatives are bent on commencing impeachment proceedings against the President for failing to implement certain aspects of the 2009 budget."

"Are they still on that matter? That is not what Nigeria needs at the moment. The lawmakers want constituency allowances. It is not as if they are acting in the public interest."

"But if President Yar'Adua signed the Appropriation Bill, then he should implement it. He can not subject the national budget to his own discretion."

"Come to think of it: what part of the Budget 2009 has been implemented at all? Can't see any evidence of implementation. And now by December, MDAs will be asked to return unspent part of the budget to the treasury."

"Some money was released recently to pay the monetization benefits of Federal civil servants - N40 billion, to get striking workers back to work."

"Yeah. The entire country is on strike. Crazy."

"NIPOST is on strike'

"Medical workers are on strike"

"ASUU."

"Even PHCN is on strike"

"PHCN has been on strike for as long as I can remember. Can't remember when last we had electricity supply in our neighbourhood. How about yours?"

"December, last year."

"You see. The Nigerian government itself is on strike."

"Well, the politicians are busy preparing for the 2011 elections. I understand there is now a big fight over the voters' register."

"You mean, the rigging has started? Always with the voters' register. You'd recall that in the 2007 election in Osun state, names like Bill Clinton, Michael Jackson, and Osama were on the Voters' register."

"Osama Bin Laden. Where is that fellow, these days?"

"In your village...The Americans will soon come there to smoke him out. But I have one piece of good news for you, though"

"Oh ho."

"I saw a photograph of the INEC Chairman, having a handshake with the Pope. Front page of Daily Champion"

"Iwu and the Pope? Come on, that is not possible. Are you sure the photo is genuine, because these days in the Nigerian press, you never know"

"Yes. Nigeria's Maurice Iwu and the Pope in front of St. Peter's Basilica in Rome. The Pope was meeting with select world leaders."

"I'd have loved to know what the Pope said to Professor Iwu."

"Must have been something like Maurice; your sins are forgiven by our Father who art in Heaven. Go and sin no more!"

"Is the Professor a Christian?"

"I should think so."

"So, when are you going back to the campus? Looks like all of you who left the university system should begin to go back. Now, you can retire at 70, a Professor's take-home pay is now N5.4 million per annum, about 40 per cent increase."

"ASUU does not want it"

"They want more?"

"Why not?"

"By the way, they say you people are the brains behind Nigeria's problems".

"They?"

"Well, the Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly, Adeyemi Ikuforiji says media practitioners in Nigeria are the brain behind Nigeria's problems."

"Lord Lugard as far back as 1913 referred to the Lagos press as scurrilous. Spiro Agnew talked about journalists being "nattering nabobs of negativism". Former President Obasanjo abused journalists. Abacha also did. So did Buhari and Idiagbon. Speaker Ikuforiji is in good company."

"Are you saying you did not read what he actually said about Nigerian journalists? It is worse than you imagine, and I see the media is not speaking up in its own defence."

"No?"

"The Daily Independent published the story. Other newspapers ignored it. The media is not even willing to report its own story."

"I am usually careful about stories that are reported by only one source."

"This one is straightforward. It carries a by-line and since the story appeared in the Daily Independent on Tuesday, nobody has denied it."

"So, what exactly did the man say?"

"I think it is better you read the story yourself. It is like this. Members of the Lagos State House of Assembly were discussing President Obama's speech in Ghana, when the Speaker suddenly got angry and said he observed that President Obama did not mention the Nigerian media "as one of the models" in the African continent."

"Meaning what?"

"The Speaker then turned on the reporters who were in the House of Assembly. Listen. He said: "The Nigerian media is not always doing the right thing; they write what they want to write. They choose to spare the executive arm and concentrate on legislature. They are not doing their job the way it ought to be done. Their own corruption is worse than any other person."

"Really? Did any newspaper publish the Speaker's photograph, showing him taking an oath or something, naked?"

"Wait now... Read this part of the report: He told the young reporters - "And it is not the fault of you that are young in the profession but your bosses that are in the office. Your own Ghana-must-go is the worst; you and your bosses in the office must change for good."

"Has the Speaker started drinking? Was this at a beer parlour, after several bowls of isi-ewu, or on the floor of the House."

"The House. And of course, the Speaker enjoys parliamentary privilege. And you wait for this, the journalists that were present "simply burst into laughter and this made the Speaker angrier."

"The journalists laughed? They didn't stage a walk-out? No, let me get something straight. Were those reporters part of a rehearsal for a toothpaste advert and they needed to show their teeth?"

"You always like to trivialize things."

"I am trying to understand the story".

"What are you trying to understand? The Speaker of the Lagos State House of Assembly says journalists are thieves, bribe-takers, worse than armed robbers and he hopes that by the time you people finish destroying this country, you'd all relocate to Ghana!"

"Tactless, if you ask me. Did the Speaker also say that journalists joined MEND to attack the Atlas Cove Jetty, or that journalists are the ones trying to impeach the President, or that journalists also took money from the banks and refused to pay back?

"Candidly, I don't know".

More bombs: MEND's official reply to amnesty offer

IN my analysis of the amnesty which Umaru Yar'Adua offered to the Niger Delta activists, I highlighted last week some of the problems that could wreck that offer. In that article I wrote: "Attractive as the amnesty carrot appears, there are problems. Other than the man or woman who goes by the name of "Gbomo Jomo" who has carved out an image as the official spokesperson for the leading group - Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta (MEND) - the government has no clear idea about the characteristics of the other disparate groups in the region. The ill-defined nature of the leadership of the various groups in the Niger Delta also implies there is no identifiable command structure on which the government can lean to push for negotiations."

It would appear that I spoke too soon because 48 hours after the publication of that article, MEND attacked the Atlas Cove jetty in Lagos last Sunday night. At the last count, no fewer than nine people were reported to have died. Lagos represents the hub of Nigeria's commercial activities. So, any attack on Lagos is by inference an attack on the heart of the nation's business centre. The attack on the Atlas Cove jetty has serious security implications. It exposed the ill-prepared nature of the security agencies to respond quickly to emergency life threatening situations.

There are clear messages that emerged from last Sunday's bombing campaign at the Atlas Cove jetty. First, by exporting its campaign of terror from the Niger Delta creeks and swamps to Lagos, MEND has demonstrated its capacity to strike with ease any time and anywhere it fancies within the borders of Nigeria. Also, by implementing in Lagos its underground war tactics planned and rehearsed in the Niger Delta, the leadership of MEND has returned fire - literally and metaphorically - as its official response to Yar'Adua's offer of peace.

The events of last Sunday, in particular the loss of lives and property at the jetty, will test not only the resilience of Yar'Adua's amnesty but also his approach to the conflict in the Niger Delta region. Whether or not we accept it, MEND has effectively shredded Yar'Adua's offer of reprieve to the activists in the region.

The bombing of Atlas Cove jetty was an audacious move but it was a daring action that was ringed with contradictions. First, it came on the heels of the announcement that the Federal Government would release Henry Okah, the unconfirmed leader of MEND. In fact, no sooner was Okah released than he denied public perceptions of him as the authentic leader of MEND. That classical denial meant the government had been shooting blanks all these years, incarcerating Okah on the belief that the man was the leader of MEND. The government must have hoped that Okah's unconditional (or conditional) release would precipitate the installation of relative peace in the Niger Delta. That did not happen. In fact, following the bombing of the Atlas Cove jetty, MEND raised the abrasive tone of its war-based "nursery rhyme" in an online statement it released soon after the disaster.

According to newspaper reports published on Tuesday this week, MEND's provocative statements tended to celebrate the destruction of the Atlas Cove jetty. In a media release dripping with taunts and uncompromising rhetoric directed at Yar'Adua's government, MEND's spokesperson "Jomo Gbomo" said: "A boardroom or creek battle of epic proportion which will either emancipate the Niger Delta from over 50 years of tyranny or subject her to perpetual slavery was flagged off tonight by Hurricane Moses with a plague of warning attacks... Led by a pillar of fire, heavily armed MEND fighters today, Sunday, July 12, 2009 at about 2230 Hrs carried out an unprecedented attack on the Atlas Cove Jetty in Lagos State. The depot and loading tankers moored at the facility are currently on fire."

MEND also stated that "The two-pronged approach of combining dialogue and intensifying attacks throughout the course of negotiations will be the unique characteristics" of its approach to the government's peace initiatives. Now, that is a serious declaration.

Statements like these tend to aggravate rather than reduce tension. They distort the peace process. Above all, the brusque tone and language of MEND's media release shows there is no such thing as goodwill between the leaders of MEND and the Federal Government. What is particularly bewildering about the whole situation is that, while Okah said (on his release from detention) that he was not the leader of MEND, the media statement released by MEND mentioned his name as one of those to be consulted during negotiations. There are many ways to interpret the contradictory positions. The most probable interpretation is that the conflicting statements could be a deliberate strategy skillfully created by MEND and designed to confound the government.

If the statement credited to MEND, which suggested that Okah would be consulted during negotiations, could be confirmed, it would raise serious questions of credibility in regard to Okah's denial that he was the leader of MEND. Here, we have two positions that are at odds. Okah says he is not the leader of MEND but MEND identifies him as one of the men it would consult in its negotiations with the government. Who should we believe - MEND or Yar'Adua's government?

The bombing of the Atlas Cove jetty and the loss of lives and property a day before Okah's release from detention imply that the secret code of violence in the Niger Delta had not yet been cracked. Yar'Adua's top security machinery must now return to the drawing board to see if they can decode the mystery of the success of the underground groups in the Niger Delta, including the identities of the true leaders of MEND. Why, for example, would any government negotiate with an organisation whose leadership it cannot identify? The government's inability to identify the leadership of MEND increases the puzzle about MEND and its modus operandi.

In its determination to end the conflict in the Niger Delta, Yar'Adua's government must remove some daunting obstacles that hinder peace. The government must do one or more of the following: it must identify the number of clandestine groups that operate in the Niger Delta; it must identify their principal leaders in order to understand their perspectives on how to resolve the conflict; and leaders of the various groups must be presented with the amnesty offer on acceptable conditions. These are no mean tasks. For example, trying to muster reliable information on the number of groups that operate in the Niger Delta is as challenging as it is to pick out a pin from a sack of garri. In the Niger Delta, there are as many groups as there are conflicting ideas about how to resolve the crises, including how to respond to Yar'Adua's offer of official pardon.

So far, Asari Dokubo, the leader of a somewhat "liberal" movement in the region, said last week that his organisation was not interested in Yar'Adua's amnesty offer because members of his group have not committed any crimes. A bland but straightforward statement, I would suggest. Here is the reason. In his amnesty proposal, Yar'Adua said the offer applied to individuals and groups that may have killed, raped, plundered, bombed or wreaked havoc inside or outside the region. However, in his public statement last week, Dokubo was adamant that his organisation did not fit Yar'Adua's descriptive analysis of militants in the region.

Perhaps the most reasonable feature of Dokubo's statement was his contention that an organisation that fights environmental pollution should not be bombing oil facilities because it would increase the level of pollution. Dokubo's latest view has been described as a rational and persuasive argument. The main question remains: How many leaders of the other sub-military organisations share his views or how many of the leaders would be willing to adopt a similar philosophy?

Based on their successful bombing runs and raids, it would appear that the different organisations that wage war by proxy in the Niger Delta have managed to confuse and baffle the nation's political, military and police authorities. They have successfully evaded the most elaborate and well laid plans crafted to arrest them. If Yar'Adua's amnesty offer would be effective, the government must identify the authentic leaders of the groups in the region -- including the stakeholders -- and engage them in negotiations. There are too many pretenders claiming to be leaders of the different organisations in the region.

Obama and Zimbabwe

I WISH to respectfully disagree with President Barack Obama of the United States on the true cause of the Zimbabwean economic and political crisis. During his recent state visit to Ghana, he was of the opinion that the economic crisis in Zimbabwe was not caused by colonialism but by bad leadership. While I agree with him that President Robert Mugabe has become an embarrassment to the liberation struggle and an impediment to the emergence of true democratic culture in the Southern African country, we all recall that at the heart of this crisis is the land question?

For many years the white minority that ruled Zimbabwe cannibalised and appropriated to themselves the productive agricultural landscape in the whole of Zimbabwe leaving the black majority to become slaves in their own fatherland. As if this is not an evil policy, enough to cause disenchantment, the British Government agreed to finance the land re-distribution policy as part of the negotiation in the advent of the historic independence in the late 1970s and early 1980s.

It is an open knowledge that for the umpteenth time, the British Government reneged on this agreement to the consternation of the African Union and particularly the Zimbabwean Government and its people. In the process, there arose a serious internal insurrection although tacitly supported by the Zimbabwean Government against the white minority holders of the land and in its wake severe sanctions were meted out against the Government amidst violence.

It is very unfortunate and a revisionism of history that the whole world supported by the powerful Western media and new broadcasting technology, rather than condemn the British Government for reneging turned against Robert Mugabe who rightly was fighting for his people. Again whether the strategy is right is another issue entirely.

Against this background, it came to me as a rude shock for President Obama who is an apostle of transparency and equanimity of purpose to outrightly condemn African leaders in our soil and left the oppressor Europe to enjoy their loot from Africa amidst poverty, perpetual economic down-turn and fake boundaries in West Africa, Rwanda, Burundi and Morrocco.

Today in Africa, millions of people are living together against their wishes, this accounts partly for the ethnic clashes all over the continent and this was manifested in the genocidal war in Rwanda, the perpetual religious crisis in Nigeria and the contradictions in Cameroon where one part of the country speaks French the other half speaks English. To Europe and America, the African continent is a commodity that must be shared amongst them for full exploitation- Where is the United Nations?

Because ignorance is not an excuse for breaking the law, like President Bill Clinton, Obama should settle down and read the works of Walter Rodney on "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa" Claude Ake's Democracy and the Crisis of Underdevelopment in Africa and of course compare the situation with Singapore as captured in the work of Lee Kuan Yew " Singapore: From Third World to the First". I am sure these will give him an idea of the difference between what it takes for a people to control their destiny and for a people's destiny to be controlled by others.

For me the African situation is beyond rhetoric and Presidential gallivanting and speaking from an Olympian height amidst claps and cheers from a listening political class who in the words of Claude Ake have no development in their agenda in the first place.

In unmistaken terms, it must be stated that most African leaders have messed up severally post-colonial rule and squandered the opportunities that clearly came to us as a continent to develop and liberate our people from poverty, disease and illiteracy and others too numerous to mention. In Nigeria we have experienced "strong man" rule as noted by President Obama who attempted to change the constitution rather than strengthen institutions. In Gabon and Zaire, Presidents have died in power trying to equate the destiny of the countries to their own existence and in North Africa, gerontocracy still reigns supreme.

However, the Zimbabwean situation is a classic case of the battle of a people to take over their God- given land. What they do with it is another page for history to foretell. And for America, I hope the analysis of Mahomoud Mandani in his book "Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism or Francis Fukuyuma's treatise on the End of History and the last man is not manifesting already?

Dispute over 76 oil wells

OVER the past few weeks, the governments, people and stakeholders of Cross River and Akwa Ibom states have been engaged in a riot of media campaign and altercation over 76 disputed off-shore oil wells. Governor Liyel Imoke of Cross River fired the first salvo when, several weeks ago, he raised an alarm over the precarious finances of the state government. The state, ordinarily a marginal oil producer, had zero allocation from the derivation formula, because its 76 oil wells had been reallocated to neighbouring Akwa Ibom.

The ensuing passion, claim and counterclaim underscore the gravity of the problem. Although tempers have been kept in check, there is a high risk of an eruption of conflict between the peoples of the two states who share kinship and other cultural affinities. When the 12-state structure was first created in 1967, the area was known as the South-Eastern State. In 1976, it became Cross River State, which was further split into Akwa Ibom State in September 1987. The commercial and cultural exchanges between the two states go back a long way. That now, is at risk, because of oil revenue.

The primary cause of the raging dispute is as much political as it is legal. Acting on the advice of the National Boundary Commission, the Revenue Mobilisation, Allocation and Fiscal Commission had proceeded to credit Akwa Ibom with 76 oil wells which only in 2004 had been allocated to Cross River by the administration of President Olusegun Obasanjo. The government had taken the step at the time in response to one of the major consequences of the implementation of the decision of the International Court of Justice directing that Nigeria cede Bakassi to Cameroun.

The Supreme Court had also held in 2005 in a case in which Cross River was the plaintiff and Akwa Ibom the defendant, over border disputes upland, that the crucial effect of the Bakassi judgement was to render Cross River non-littoral. Which meant that Cross River could not lay claims to off-shore oil wells. The point being canvassed tenaciously by Akwa Ibom advocates is that the Obasanjo administration adopted an arbitrary geometry in skewing the median line between Cross River and Akwa Ibom in their maritime boundary. The skewed line, to the west, is where the 76 oil wells are located.

It certainly calls to mind once more the arbitrariness of the Obasanjo years, that similar skewed geometry was applied between some other oil-producing states. Thus, on its western boundary, Akwa Ibom lost oil wells to Rivers State; much as Bayelsa and Abia also lost. These peremptory actions have now been corrected by the administration of President Umaru Yar'Adua.

Yet, at a deeper level, the agony of Cross River State has been exacerbated by the heedless cession of Bakassi to Cameroun. It was bad enough that Nigeria took the border dispute to the ICJ for adjudication. But it was all the more unpatriotic that the Nigerian government with its eyes wide open opted to cede part of its territory to Cameroun. As we observed in an earlier editorial, there were cogent constitutional reasons for the Nigerian government not to be in a rush to implement the Green Tree Accord that spelt out the procedure for enforcing the ICJ ruling. Government officials had argued then that Nigeria would still administer the western part of Bakassi, with the result that the country would not lose its control over the maritime area. But that has not materialised; as Cameroun has taken full control of Bakassi, and Cross River is now a non-littoral state. Without the cession of Bakassi, Cross River could still have claimed some oil wells.

Considering the Bakassi factor in the lingering dispute over the 76 oil wells, it would be mistaken for anyone to assume that this is a matter merely between two neighbouring states. Two states are involved alright, but the issue has a national resonance. It goes to the heart of the quality of the country's leadership and the locus of the minorities in Nigeria's political equation. The people of Cross River were never consulted before the agents of the Federal Government, acting in selfish interest, took the Bakassi matter to the ICJ. The voice of the people of Cross River was stolen from them. Even when the Obasanjo administration was stampeding itself to hand over Bakassi, no plebiscite was ever conducted among the people.

Today, Cross River is in dire financial straits. Its current paltry receipts are swallowed up by recurrent expenditure, with no hope of embarking upon any meaningful capital projects. The state is also labouring under a huge debt burden which is being serviced at source through irrevocable standing payment orders. According to Governor Imoke, the State's capacity to implement even its modest budget has dropped by some 25 per cent. It is anybody's guess for how long more Cross Riverians will endure the aggravation of their penury.

Resolving the issue will involve two major levels of intervention. One should be by the Federal Government (i.e. the Executive and the National Assembly); the other by joint action of Cross River and Akwa Ibom. The Federal Government must acknowledge straightaway that its cession of Bakassi created the condition for the declaration of Cross River as a non-littoral state and its attendant loss of off-shore oil revenue. The Federal Government must equally demonstrate that it is genuinely concerned about the grievous financial consequences of the loss of Bakassi. Cross River itself is battling with the resettlement of the returnees, and has also lost rights to the collection of rates and taxes in Bakassi.

The Federal Government must intervene decisively to shore up the revenue of Cross River. The most effective way to realize this is through legislation, by which the Federal Government would be under a duty to subvent Cross River State at an agreed rate or sum that the National Assembly should work out.

Happily, Governor Godswill Akpabio of Akwa Ibom has spoken of his willingness to explore an amicable solution. We urge that, beyond litigation, the governments and people of the two states should tone down the rhetoric and arrange a roundtable for what should be, considering the close ties, a family meeting at which measures will be outlined and steps taken to assist an indigent cousin. It will also require the participation of the legislatures of both states, so that an agreeable legal framework of assistance can be hammered out, and to ensure that the agreement and obligations arising therefrom are honoured by successors.

PDP and Automatic Tickets

The subtle campaign by some PDP federal legislators for automatic re-nomination for the 2011 general election is hardly lost on Nigerians despite attempts to deny it. The campaign re-echoes a similar attempt by the party’s governors in 2003 to enjoy automatic re-nomination regardless of their performance in office.
Morally and politically, the campaign is unjustifiable and therefore offensive. Office holders are supposed to swim or sink on the basis of their performance. Automatic re-nomination flies in the face of this age-old principle. It is self-serving for the incumbent to seek to shut out rivals even when their performance is highly questionable.
It was therefore reassuring to read that the PDP has rejected such an idea. That is a move that is bound to engender healthy political competition.
The argument about continuity may be right but continuity must be earned not imposed, and must not be in disregard of a lawmaker’s performance. National Assembly members who would like to continue beyond one term in office must try to distinguish themselves as is the practice in older democracies.
True, we know of American Congressmen and Senators who have been in office for three decades and more. But they are not there simply because their parties wanted continuity but rather because they have worked so hard to earn the respect of the voters in their various constituencies.
It is important to remind ourselves that in a democracy, the ultimate power lies with the voters, not with the party leaders who may prefer to impose certain candidates however unpopular they may be. This must be avoided for the sake of fair play. Law makers who want to be re-nominated and subsequently re-elected must work hard to endear themselves not just to the party leaders but more importantly to the voters. There should be no short cut.
The way it is, we do not think there is any justifiable basis for automatic re-nomination of any legislator.
The field should be open to all. Rather than thinking of how to return en mass to the chambers of the National Assembly, PDP legislators should busy themselves with how to make laws that will impact positively on the well-being of Nigerians. So far Nigerians are yet to see any such inclination in their federal legislators.
The public is concerned that in more than two years, the law makers have not been able to pass enough bills to match the urgency of the many challenges the nation is facing and the billions of Naira spent on maintaining them at taxpayers’ expense. We do not see how such a poor legislative record could earn them automatic re-nomination.
In the run-up to the 2011 general election, the PDP and indeed all the parties should adopt a nomination process that will reward only the competent and productive. The idea of automatic re-nomination should be discarded. It is inconsistent with the democratic culture of letting the best serve at the pleasure of the voters. Any legislator who desires to be re-nominated for election should begin to work to earn such an honour. Right now we do not think that many who are angling for it deserve it.

Still on Obama's Cairo speech

PRESIDENT Barack Obama's words of change come in torrents. Not few are overwhelmed with multiple issues thrown up in Obama's spoken and written words: from a major speech in Prague before a 20,000 crowd where he envisions a world free of nuclear weapons to Turkey's speech during his first trip "overseas as President of the United States". Many are simply paralysed by analysis of sundry issue-motivated speeches of the 44th President of United States of America. Thanks therefore to the likes of Disu Kamor (The Guardian, June 18) for facing up to the challenge and opting for some informed analysis of Obama's Cairo speech.

Fidel Castro Ruz (retired but intellectually activist Cuban leader) and the master communicator in his own right spanning decades of despicable American blockade accepts as much that Obama's outing in Cairo is exceptional. In Fidel's own words: "Some time will go by before we see anything like it again". As significant as Disu's review of Cairo speech is, it regrettably betrays deep appreciation of Obama's inclusive vision of the world. He exhibits same exclusivist premises for an assessment of an inclusive historic presidential speech. As men and women of faith it is legitimate that we see issues from our "religious" prism. The challenge however lies in our capacity not to trade our preferred partisan and political views for our religious views because they are hardly one and the same.

After drawing inspiration from Churchill (who is certainly not an American founding father as he claims) and warns against easy "Words" without "great deeds", Disu unhelpfully slides into stupor of words and words and indeed religious rhetoric/ labelling of little heuristic value. It is misleading to characterise Obama's as "6000 words to Muslims everywhere". The speech is not so-called or so captioned. Yes the U.S. President delivers a speech at the Muslim University of Al-Azhar of Cairo but his audience is global regardless of race, creed and ideology. His quotes are not limited to Holy Quran but other Holy books: The Bible and Torah.


Just as he is "comfortable in his skin" to contest and win as President of USA, Obama refers to the books with ease neither as a Rabbi, or Pastor nor an Imam but as the 44th President of the United States. It is a misreading of his text to write that: "Obama put religion at the core of the peacemaking process in issues involving Muslims and America". We dare not assign unhelpful religious dogmas to Obama who has significantly moved from the notoriety of "crusade"/ "Jihadist" binary brigand ship of Bush era. The global media erroneously dubs Obama's speech as "dialogue with Islamic world".

At the last count, just like Disu, yours truly identifies the following all- inclusive subjects: Development, freedom and democracy, interfaith dialogue, education, science and development, history and Development, youth and women, Palestine Israeli conflict, nuclear proliferation, War and Peace, Afghanistan and terrorism. All the above subjects are not Arab or Islam specific. They are of profound interest to contemporary humanity and global peace and justice. One recurring theme in Obama's speeches whether in Prague, Ankara or Cairo (and I bet certainly in Ghana too!) is that what eventual binds humanity together is weightier than what divides us. Relying on memory, he reminds us that Morocco, an Islamic developing country was "the first nation" to recognise USA after its war of independence from Britain. One historic good turn deserves another. Obama, a proud student of history shows that in signing the Treaty of Tripoli in 1796, America's second President, John Adams, wrote,: "The United States has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquillity of Muslims."

For the demagogues who profit from hatred and unhelpful divide Obama reminds his audience that Islam is also part of American heritage. "American Muslims have enriched the United States. They have fought in our wars; they have served in our government". Obama tasks our imagination to bring to the fore similar historic examples of international solidarity which shatters into smithereens our artificial "religious" divide. It will be a good tune for once to complement Obama by also pointing out that Islam right from the times of the Prophets has been with peace with other faiths. As far back of 616, persecuted Muslims, sought sanctuary in Abyssinia (present day Ethiopia!), "that ancient bastion of Christianity in Africa whose religious traditions could be traced to the time of apostles". Contemporary Iraqi carnage and the Gaza genocide which leave in their trail hundreds of thousands killed are human (and not necessarily Muslim) tragedies.

Indeed the anti-war protests and solidarity with Iraqi peoples are as profound and loud in Europe and America. The sense of outrage against injustices anywhere is not religion or race determined but ethically driven by our political convictions and choices. Venezuela, Peru and Cuba initiated diplomatic actions against Zionist Israel in the wake of Gaza bombings than scores of "Muslim nations". The struggle against apartheid (for as long as that inhuman madness lasted) shows that human solidarity cuts across and indeed transcends faiths. 40,000 Cuban heroic combatants in Cuito Cuanavale in South western border of Angola struck a decisive blow against apartheid troops (aided by Israel and United States of America) in the late 70s. Cubans shed their blood so that Nelson Mandela among others can be free. Cuba just as Nigeria (which used to be part of the front line states!) offered solidarity to the liberation movement, motivated by UN's lofty resolution which classified apartheid as crime against humanity. Historically, the global train of justice contains remarkable mix of noble passengers of diverse faiths and conventions that include Mahatma Ghandi, Nelson Mandela, Fidel Castro, Murtala Muhammed, Desmond Tutu, Che Guevara, Mother Teresa, Patrick Wilmot, Oliver Tambo, Julius Nyerere, Kwame Nkrumah, Amilcal Cabra, Franz Fanon, Walter Rodney, etc.

Disu asks the critical "relevant question": Will these nice words (of Obama) transform into real policies and actions in Washington? And that's the real problem. His question begets another question: if America through Obama is trying to change the world, are we also changing and moving out of straight jacket of dogmas to take another look at our methods and perspective? It is amazing how Obama's presidency has put the world on the defensive from Iran to Israel, North Korea to Europe and Sudan to Zimbabwe on governance issues in general.

The danger is that in the absence of creative, refreshing thinking elsewhere, we might be inadvertently promoting another global monologue punctuated with applauses in place of robust dialogue which certainly Obama craves for. Lastly, a Nigerian has no luxury of interrogating Obama's choice of Egypt. Whether Egypt is a "repressive" or "undemocratic" or not what should be of interest to Nigerians watching was that for as long as Obama's speech lasted in Al Azhar University, (described as the greatest Islamic institution of learning in the world,) there was no power failure!

Nigerian history through Awolowo (1)

I WAS not disappointed when I eventually obtained a copy of Awo: On the trail of a titan: Essays in celebration of the Obafemi Awolowo Centennial. Since its presentation to the public early in March 2009 I had sought the book because I believed that it would not only answer some lingering questions on the life and career of the late pre-eminent Nigerian leader, but also fill some gaps in my knowledge of Nigeria's political and social history. This fulfilled expectation explains the title of this article.

In general, I have for long held that any collection of essays on aspects of the life and career of any great political leader will be a good introduction to the history of the particular polity. In particular, I have held that any collection of essays on aspects of the life and career of any of these three Nigerian political leaders - Obafemi Awolowo, Nnamdi Azikiwe and Ahmadu Bello - will be a good introduction to the history of modern Nigeria. As I said earlier, I was not disappointed when I opened the pages of the book under reference.

The Awolowo book was edited by David Oke, Olatunji Dare, Adebayo William and Femi Akinola - four prominent Nigerian intellectuals who had previously researched and written on Chief Awolowo. The first three of the four editors have contributions in the book - with the first appearing twice. There are altogether 17 essays divided into four parts: Part 1: Obafemi Awolowo as leader (Chapter 1-7); Part II: Obafemi Awolowo's legacy for Nigeria (Chapter 8-11); Part III: footprints on the sands of time (Chapters 12-16); and Part IV: Awolowo in and through history (Chapter 17). There are, in addition, an opening poem, For Obafemi Awolowo (Ten Mays later) composed in 1997 by Niyi Osundare; a Foreword, A Guru for all time and all places by Wole Soyinka; a Founding Philosophy by Obafemi Awolowo Foundation; and Acknowledgements by Olatokunbo Awolowo-Dosunmu.

These four introductory entries take up 24 pages, bringing the total volume of the book to about 370 pages. Awolowo-Dosunmu categorised the contributors to the book as follows: "Professor Wole Soyinka, Noble Laureate, who was asked to write the Foreword; two other Nigerian National Order of Merit laureates; distinguished veterans of the struggle for Nigeria's development, particularly those who had worked closely with Papa; rising stars with the enthusiasm to make a difference in their generation; and a friend who identifies so passionately with Nigeria that he has practically become one of us". You will be able to place each contributor in his category as you read his essay.

I think I should list the 17 chapters of the book. Chapter 1: Obafemi Awolowo: politician, prophet, philosopher and patriot by Akinjide Osuntokun; Chapter 2: The essence of the Awolowo phenomenon by Itse Sagay; Chapter 3: The quintessential Awo by Wole Adebanwi; chapter 4: Obafemi Awolowo and the golden era of the Yoruba by Segun Gbadegesin; Chapter 5: Awo as a humanist by Sam Aluko; Chapter 6: Remember Awo: Reminiscences by Mvendaga Jibo; Chapter 7: Obafemi Awolowo: Reflection of a native son by Richard Joseph; Chapter 8: Fundamental essentials of the Awolowo heritage by Banji Akintoye; Chapter 9: Obafemi Awolowo's development legacy by David Oke; and Chapter 10; Resuscitating Awo's development legacy, also by David Oke.

Chapter 11 carries the essay: Awo and the opticom idea by Akin Mabogunje: Chapter 12: Awoism, the Awoist and Awology, by Francis Ogunmodede; Chapter 13: Rebuilding the Nigerian educational system for the 21st Century, by Anya O. Anya; chapter 14: Awo on minorities and revenue allocation, by Obaro Ikime; Chapter 15; Awolowo and culture by Ropo Sekoni; Chapter 16: In the fraternity of the pen: Obafemi Awolowo as a journalist by Olatunji Dare; and chapter 17.The titan and the titanic, by Adebayo Williams. Ending the book is an 11-page Corporate Profile of Odu'a Investment Company Limited, titled Welcome to the Awolowo economic development legacy.

We are thus presented with 18 essays; if we include Wole Soyinka's strongly-worded foreword. In this first series of review-article we shall look at some of the essays more closely - starting naturally with the Foreword. The other essays in this very important work will be appreciated in a future series.

Wole Soyinka introduced the subject - Chief Obafemi Awolowo - in the strongest terms possible: "This individual (meaning Obafemi Awolowo) was not only ahead of his time, he was ahead of his environment, and light-years ahead of his peers. A social philosopher, he was not content merely to see ahead, but to prescribe confidently ahead. The loss, not only to Nigeria, but indeed to the African continent, is immeasurable". To assist the readers appreciate Soyinka's assessment here we may remind them that Awolowo's "time" can be taken to be from his formation of Egbe Omo Oduduwa (1945) or the publication of his first book Path to Nigerian freedom (1947) to his death in May 1987. And among his peers were Nnamdi Azikiwe and Ahmadu Bello.

Soyinka had earlier wondered why the works of Awolowo, cited by various contributors to the book under appreciation did not make him a candidate for the Nobel Prize in Economics and how the "Forum of Federations, based in Canada, could have failed to induct such a mind into their Governing Council", and indeed why "a number of those works are not textbooks in the highest institutions of learning". I can as well say at this point that I share Wole Soyinka's assessment having now re-read Awolowo's Path to Nigerian Freedom (1947); The autobiography of Chief Obafemi Awolowo (1960); thoughts on the Nigerian Constitution (1966); the People Republic (1968); the Strategy and Tactics of the People's Republic of Nigeria (1970); and The problems of Africa: The need for ideological reappraisal (1977).

On the question of ideological affiliation, Soyinka testifies that "Awolowo was not a dyed-in-the wood absolutist of any contending ideologies. If anything, his ideological leaning may be summed up as one of welfarist capitalism, based however, on socialist humanism". Rigidity in ideological precept, he says, "was one constriction in prescriptive thought that Awolowo vigorously avoided: Awo's book. Strategy and Tactics of the people's Republic "remains applicable to more than just one developing nation, or the over-developed". For an assessment of Soyinka's opinion on this matter I would refer the reader to the concluding installment of the series of lectures which Awolowo delivered in Ghana in 1976 under the general theme Problems of Africa: The need for ideological re-appraisal. Awolowo's endorsement of socialism was unambiguous - even as late in his life as 1976.

Describing Obafemi Awolowo as a "passionate democrat and humanist by instinct", Soyinka regrets that he (Awolowo)" underwent the irony of a trial for treasonable felony, accused of attempting to overthrow, by violent means, a 'democratically elected government'. Soyinka refers to those who testified against Awolowo as "witnesses of untruths and distortions". This may well be true. But the deeper implication here is that Awolowo did not commit the offence for which he and a number of his follower were tried and jailed. That was one of the critical questions whose answers I had sought in the anthology.

Having now got my answer, I would simply re-state my view. The post-independence Federal Government run by the Northern People's Congress (NPC) and National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) deserved to be overthrown by truly nationalist and revolutionary forces. But I sincerely regret the tragic and senseless murders and liquidations which accompanied the majors' coup of January 1966. As to whether plans were made by the Action Group leadership to overthrow the Federal Government in 1962 - a question which Soyinka has answered in the negative - you may also need to read the testimony of Samuel Ikoku in Samuel Ikoku Inside Out: An authorised biography of an African statesman (1997,written by Kelvin Oji and Victor Efifik.

Finally, Soyinka says: "Awolowo, easily the most disciplined leader, after Mahatma Ghandi, that the world of national liberation and humane politics has ever known, was easily the most prolific- and that brooks no exception...We are constantly faced with an original mind, intellectually disciplined, resolute on principles yet pragmatic in the pursuit of political goals". I endorse this general assessment except to say that Awolowo was also sometimes rigid, rather than pragmatic, "in the pursuit of political goals". Apart from Mvendaga Jibo's opinion which we cite later on in this appreciation I would relate my personal experience.

In December 1978, or thereabout, Chief Awolowo came to Calabar on his Presidential campaign tour. With the Agency of Odia Ofeimun, his Private Secretary, I met the Presidential candidate of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) as he was taking his dinner (of bread and Lucozade, if I remember correctly) about 1.00 am. After the pleasantries, I told Chief Awolowo that I liked UPN's four cardinal programmes and would like to campaign for him but would not like to be a card-carrying member of the party. After appreciating my choice Chief Awolowo insisted that I should formally join the party. He also politely turned down the request that a particular "newbreed" politician - much more popular than the "old-bread" Awolowo loyalist-be adopted as UPN candidate for the governorship contest in the then Cross River State.

In the event I campaigned for Awolowo and for UPN in 1979 and 1983 without Awo's permission, and without joining the party.