THE CHANGE AGENDA AND ITS POLICIES FROM NDIGBO PERSPECTIVE

It had appeared at the time of the last presidential elections that Nigerians were overwhelmed by the very loud message of change propagated by APC and Buhari that even the election managers and umpires themselves, INEC, got bit by the bug of change. Some INEC officials unwittingly (some others, very deliberately) joined in the clamour for change, without remembering that they were supposed to be neutral arbiters. They embraced change such that it became apparent that the only way to stop the deception of change was for the then President, Goodluck Jonathan, to have sacked the then INEC chairman, Prof. Attahiru Jega who was widely reported to have held several clandestine meetings with the leadership of APC in different locations most notably in Dubai. But Jonathan failed to do the needful, and the rest as they say is history.

That message of change swept through the media and overwhelmed it to the extent that you could hardly differentiate between the media and the opposition. It was clear that the media had been bought over as they distorted the truth and the facts and misinformed the public, the unsuspecting plebeians, the gullible masses and the impressionable lot.

We have to make the point clear that the media is, by constitutional provisions, meant to be the fourth estate of the realm. This simply means that the next place to look to if the three arms of government seem to be under-performing is the media. But, the people are in trouble when the media is no longer visible as an estate of the realm, having joined forces with either the opposition or the government in power. Today, we are seeing a situation where the Nigerian media has become somewhat the mouthpiece of the government of Buhari. The Nigerian media is no longer the fourth estate of the realm. It is no longer an estate of the realm. It has shamefully been subsumed into the executive arm of government.

Today, no media house is truthfully reporting the Biafran protests in Igboland except Channels TV for electronic media, and The New Telegraph and Vanguard Newspaper for the print media. They have blanked out the news of the protests and it is deliberate. This should be cause for concern for right thinking, fair-minded and justice-minded Nigerians.

The result is that the change we were all sold to has become illusory and evasive because the media that ought to take the lead in reminding the government of its change promises has suddenly become the mouthpiece of the same government explaining away the failure of the government and keeping silent in the face of poor governance, abdication of responsibility and failure of effective response to the yearnings of the governed. We now see that sometimes news items that are detrimental to the interest of government are killed. In simple terms, a society is doomed where the media loses its voice. A society is doomed when the media takes sides with the government. Journalists occupy a delicate place in the life of citizens even more than lawyers. A lawyer can openly identify with politicians and be excused but same cannot be said of journalists. It is dangerous for journalists to have open sympathy for any government, reason simply being that journalists should be able to fairly and unbiasedly report all activities of government. Today, the Nigerian media has lost its voice. And Nigerians are worse for it.

Change simply means making a thing different from what it used to be. Regarding the Ndigbo, can we say that they have positively or negatively benefited from the change agenda? According to Harold Wilson, “he who rejects change is the architect of decay. The only human institution which rejects progress is the cemetery.” When you speak of change, you speak of a new set of identity, political, economic and social.

So, Ndigbo in real terms actually desire change, change that ushers in progress for Igbo families, change that brings personal fulfilment, change that brings development, change that assures them of a bright future. They desire change. They want to see their children gain admission when they finish secondary school, not to be denied admission because of quota system. They want to score 150 in an entrance examination and be given admission ahead of someone who scored 20. They want change that will guarantee their children equality of treatment within any society they find themselves. They do not want to see their children remain second class citizens. They do not want to see their children suffer from unemployment, not because they are not qualified but because their places are being reserved for some educational disadvantaged group, a group that has been so disadvantaged since eternity. Ndigbo are aware that they are the group with only five (5) States while other units have six (6) or more States. They are aware that they have the least number of local governments and as such the lowest share from the federation account and distributable revenue. This, to them, is far from being equitable or just.

Ndigbo do not want to be part of an unjust society where they lack the ability to determine their future by themselves, where the white man has already done their thinking for them and has told them what is right for them without giving them the opportunity to decide for themselves whether indeed that thing is right for them or not. Ndigbo are a vibrant people. They do not allow other people think for them.

Good governance ought to have three basic elements namely, transparency, accountability and inclusiveness (participatory and policy inclusiveness). Has the change agenda of the present federal government ensured that these three basic elements are implemented in its governance template? Our answer is a straight no. There are a lot of secrecy shrouding the activities of this present government somewhat different from, and in some cases, the same as the previous administrations. Accountability is completely missing while the worst hit is inclusiveness. Inclusiveness simply takes the form of either participatory inclusiveness or policy inclusiveness. Participatory inclusiveness means that all components of a nation are included in the human governance structures of the government. This is the principle sought to be applied by the federal character principle of the Nigerian Constitution.

One major cannon of the change agenda is the 97% and 5% dichotomy. Ndigbo fall into the 5% divide, the clearly forgotten, the clearly insignificant group. Apart from ministerial appointments which is a constitutional imperative that must be followed, there has not been a single Igbo (south east, more appropriately) appointment in all of close to sixty (60) appointments made so far by President Buhari. Kachikwu Ibe is an Igbo man, yes, but he has been relieved of the extra-ministerial appointment he was given as the head of the national oil company, the NNPC. This is a deliberate policy of the Buhari change agenda and Igbos must accept this as their reality. Ndigbo are simply not considered to be central in the scheme of things in present day Nigeria. According to Shakespeare as adumbrated by erudite jurist, Lord Denning, “there is no art to find the construction of a man’s mind on his face except by what he does.”  It is by President Buhari’s appointments that we can decipher what is on his mind. It is any surprise that his appointments so far have reflected his principle of 97% and 5%? Or should we sweep this under the carpet?

The second part of the inclusiveness principle of good governance is policy inclusiveness. Can we say that Ndigbo have been central to the policy outlook of the present APC federal government? We all have the answer to this question. With no Igbo appointment into the President’s so-called kitchen cabinet, how can Ndigbo be of use in contributing to the policy direction of the government? Someone would ask how about the Ministers? The answer would surely be that the kitchen cabinet wields more influence than the Ministers who are there just to make up the numbers. We have recently heard our able President call Ministers “noisemakers.”

Presently, the story is all about getting a separate State of Biafra. The only explanation to the emergence of the present agitation, spearheaded not by our political or traditional leaders but by some hitherto unknown young persons led by Nnamdi Kanu, is the vacuum created by failed political and traditional leadership in Igboland.  Nnamdi Kanu feasted on the vacuum of leadership created by our political and traditional leaders. Today, there are demonstrations across Nigeria demanding for Biafra. People mistake this agitation for Biafra simply as secessionist, but it goes beyond that. Biafra is a reflection of the innermost desires of Ndigbo. It is a philosophy of freedom. It is a philosophy of expression of the voice of the people, what the Germans would call “volksgeist”. It is a reflection of the struggle for self determination, which does not necessarily have to lead to secession. The struggle is a reflection of the structural injustices abound within the Nigerian polity. It is a reflection of the chasms that are all so obvious within Nigeria but which our political elites, for convenience, sweep under the carpet. It is a reflection of the impact of the change agenda on Ndigbo.

We may not all be on the same page regarding how to go about Biafra (if any such thing as Biafra indeed exists) but we are all on the same page regarding the problem “Biafra” is, or Ndigbo are, facing in today’s Nigeria. The Oba of Lagos showed exactly what was on the mind of other parts of Nigeria regarding Ndigbo recently when he told Ndigbo to their faces that they are not liked. It is suggested we take a serious look at the agitation for Biafra because of the reality on ground today in Nigeria. Our only concern with the agitation is with the name.  As has been opined by Professor Ben Nwabueze, the name “Biafra” alone elicits negative reaction from those who ordinarily would have lent their support. We can achieve the same Biafran objective if the name is changed to something less offensive, less suspicious and more reflective of the commonalities that make up Ndigbo. Why not just “Ndigbo” instead of Biafra?

Again, in creating the new idea of Biafra, the agitators ignorantly include other parts of present day south south of Nigeria with the exception of Edo State into the map of Biafra. This is erroneous and an infringement on the fundamental rights of fellow ethnic nationalities. The clamour should be restricted to only Igboland and not beyond. The clamour should also be for self determination by means of a referendum supervised by the United Nations,  not outright secession. With the referendum, provision for a “yes” or “no” to secession shall be made for the voting. Secession presupposes that there exists a sovereign state which you want to dismember. Some writers and commentators, like erudite senior, Prof. Ben Nwabueze, have said that the clamour for Biafra bothers on treason in the light of an already existing sovereignty. The extent to which this is true is subject to serious debate. We must, however, accept the fact that even our present 1999 Constitution is a fraud. There was never a time the so called “we, the people” ever came together deliberately either by ourselves by way of voting or through our lawful representatives to give to ourselves the said 1999 Constitution as claimed by the Preamble to the Constitution. The Constitution simply lacks the imprimatur of the people it seeks to “grundnormise”. This deprives it of legitimacy.

Going further back, the purported amalgamation of northern and southern Nigeria to form present day Nigeria by Lord Lugard in 1914 was done without reference to the requisite consent of the people within the territories. It was forced on us by our conquerors, the British who used superior fire power to subjugate us into submission. The result was that strange bed fellows suddenly found themselves together in one country. This is the root of the contradictions pervasive within Nigeria till date.

It must be noted that support for the agitation for Biafra is not necessarily support for secession. Support for the agitation is a recognition of the inalienable right of Ndigbo or indeed any people to self determination. While self determination is a fundamental right, secession tends to carry a picture of dismemberment of an internationally recognized sovereign state.

The clamour should be for self determination, not outright secession, and wherever it leads, so be it. Self determination may lead to anything from true federalism to asymmetric federalism to confederation. Self determination is a fundamental right under Article 1(2) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UNDHR) and Article 20 (1) of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (ACHPR). Note that the ACHPR is now fully part of Nigerian laws by virtue of the African Charter on Human and Peoples Rights (Ratification) Act 1993 and also by virtue of the Fundamental Right (Enforcement Procedure) Rules 2009 which expressly compels Nigerians courts to apply and enforce the ACHPR. It can be achieved through referendum.

Something that we need to address is the prevailing thinking that the agitation for Biafra is a call for war. Why should it lead to war in these modern times? Are we still in vassal strings to a dominant power? Why should any form of peaceful and unarmed agitation lead to war? It is an erroneous postulation for anyone to suggest that the present agitations can only lead to war. It is either defeatist, cowardly, misconception, superiority complex or hegemonistic.

Is there any doubt that Igbos have been treated as second class citizens in Nigeria? Even a Yoruba writer, Femi Aribisala, has written in acknowledgement of this fact. He says that this treatment has been worsened by the Buhari regime. He suggested the following steps to assuage the situation, namely,

1. Peaceful negotiations with the Biafran agitators instead of forceful attacks, verbal and physical, on the pro-Biafrans which is currently promoting the struggle.

2. Unconditional release of Nnamdi Kanu

3. South East development starting with the building of South-Eastern sea port and railway linkages. (The 2nd Niger bridge comes to mind here)

4. Creation of one more State

5. Exploration of mineral resources

6. Revisiting of the National Question, focusing on resource control

6. Redistribution of resources from the “have-nots” to the “haves”

We would add that the Igbo elites need to urgently take over this Biafran struggle not by castigating or condemning the agitators but by finding a middle accepting and acceptable point between the agitations and the reality. This will take strength of mind and resilience on the part of this elite who should not shy away from identifying with the struggle.

When people shout and cry that the south west has control of the media, are they not indicting some Igbo brothers who also own some of this mainstream media? Take Orji Uzor Kalu for example. He owns Sun Newspapers and the New Telegraph, if we look closely. How has he used it to affect the interest of the Igbos positively, or advanced the cause of Ndigbo?

We think that the struggle for Biafra should change from having a separate State of Biafra to a struggle for self determination, which may not necessarily lead to secession, although it may lead thereto.

Coming back to this regime, the Buhari regime, there is no doubt that it is a retributive regime, like the American Conservative lawyer, Bruce Fein, rightly pointed out. We should join voices in insisting that the regime starts wearing the cloth of justice for all and for him to remove the cloth of 97% and 5% reward template.

Until His Excellency, President Buhari changes his perception of governance and until Igbo political leaders re-adjust their mentality and interests to signpost the interests of Ndigbo as a corporate entity, Ndigbo may yet continue in the present subservient condition they find themselves, a condition that can only be felt by Ndigbo themselves since only he who wears the shoes knows where it pinches.

Barr. Ikechukwu Ikeji

Lead Advocate

Constitutional Rights (and Peoples’ Development) Advocacy Initiative

(CRAI) CAC/IT/NO 61084