Fencing Odumegwu-Ojukwu from the NPRC, grossly impolitic

Anytime Nigeria needs me or I feel that I can do something for Nigeria, then I get up and start going. That's purely that. I don't need to be asked to help my country, and I have said this to many people. If I don't agree that Nigeria is my country today, my right place is in the bush, leading a guerilla warfare against Nigeria. But I have agreed that Nigeria is my country. I want it to be the best place on earth.

I am compelled to start this piece with a caveat. As an Igbo, I am not an avid fan of Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu. But I respect him for who he is and what he stands for, for his unassailable ability to discuss any issue - political or otherwise – and get his point of views across without any ambiguity. Hence, my personal consideration of him does not in any way becloud my view of him as an eminent Nigerian politician. It is in this context, and several others, that I believe that Odumegwu-Ojukwu not being part of the ongoing National Political Reforms Conference (NPRC) was grossly impolitic and a grave mistake on President Obasanjo’s part.

But more than Obasanjo, it is Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s fellow Igbo and political allies that bear a greater responsibility for this unallowable oversight. Had they insisted on his participation it would have become possible. Odumegwu-Ojukwu himself called his exclusion from the confab “one of the tragedies of Nigeria” and I believe that he has a point.

Whatever one may think or say of Odumegwu-Ojukwu, you cannot deny his being a Nigerian, his being Igbo, his being a politician and his having concrete views on Nigeria, its problems and probable solutions. These, taken singularly or collectively, ought to have earned him a place at the NPRC. The fact that he led the Biafran rebellion that almost wrecked Nigeria, makes it even more imperative that he should be heard, even if in the end nothing is done with his views. Let’s for one second take a cursory pass at just one of his encapsulating comments on the Nigerian political system.

I was born into Nigeria at a very auspicious time when the whole idea of independence was coming… so we had the possibility of learning what it was like, the anticipation, and the excitement that was Nigeria. I think, not too many people will readily agree to this. In the 50s, we found ourselves looking forward to a mini England for Nigeria. My reference point… English. The very first thing that moved away politically was going for the presidential system. Our reflexes were certainly not tuned to the presidential system. We don't know how to manage the obvious "winner-takes-all" situation that the presidential system brings about. Even the very first time…. I am saying that perhaps the parliamentary system would have suited us better, but the departure was clearly made. And again, in our politics, we have two elites in Nigeria, the British elites and the American elites.

Anyone, who can so easily parse Nigeria’s fundamental political and doctrinal problems with regards to the correct system of government we should have, surely ought to be at the table where a true national dialogue on Nigeria is taking place. Odumegwu-Ojukwu could have emerged a delegate in several categories; Anambra State delegate, a presidential delegate, an eminent person, an Ohanaeze delegate, an APGA delegate or in his own personal recognizance. That he did not, is a very sad commentary on the state of our political affairs, our level of political tolerance and the true intent of the ongoing conference. One can’t resist asking this question: Was Odumegwu-Ojukwu excluded because he was a rebel leader?

It is the height of irony to be discussing how to keep Nigeria together without bringing on board those that had tried or might try to rend it apart. Certain issues can never be overanalyzed, and this includes the critical role Odumegwu-Ojukwu played in Biafra and his subsequent place in Nigeria’s body politics. But he has his full pardon. He also participated in the Abacha's 1995 Constitutional Conference, so he has comparative experience in such proceedings; and he stood in the last presidential elections. So what is the ouster clause that kept him out of the NPRC, beside sheer pettiness?

For Odumegwu-Ojukwu not to have been considered for one of the six slots assigned to Anambra State can only be attributed to myopic and partisan decision by the Governor Chris Ngige. After all, collective Igbo interest ought to transcend whatever differences there might be between PDP and APGA in Anambra State. If this were not a consideration, respect for elders, which remain the norm in Igboland, would have instructed the symbolic gesture of including Odumegwu-Ojukwu in the Anambra delegation. I sincerely doubt that Ngige could seriously claim to have personal issues with Odumegwu-Ojukwu. One can only begin to conjecture where Governor Ngige was in life in 1966 when Odumegwu-Ojukwu became Governor of the Eastern Region or, in 1967, when as the Peoples’ General, Odumegwu-Ojukwu declared Biafra’s secession in the name of Ndiigbo and the Eastern minorities.

Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s absence from the NPRC ought to be a rankling curiosity to any well-thinking Nigerian. There may be many legitimate arguments by the Presidency unbeknown to this analyst, as to why he was excluded. After all, the Abia State delegation list was tempered with and a nominee of Governor Orji Kalu dropped for the same alleged security reasons. Media reports indicate that attempts by Abuja to exclude Commodore Okoh Ebitu Ukiwe from the NPRC would have worked but for Governor Orji Kalu’s resistance. Nevertheless, I believe that as a matter of honor, civility, and good faith, the parameters for selecting those deemed most qualified to make meaningful contribution to the ongoing national dialogue should have been applicable to Odumegwu-Ojukwu. But more interestingly, we have crooks and convicted criminals in government, as well as soldiers who took over government by force serving in the national assembly. Armed rebellion, which Odumegwu-Ojukwu led, like military coups, are all treasonable offences. So why the double standards?

Let’s for a simple minute assume that Odumegwu-Ojukwu was dropped on account of being a rebel leader. True, Odumegwu-Ojukwu may have been a rebel, but he is not unworthy of acclaim for being erudite and for his political sagacity. But there may be obvious reasons why some powers-that-be does not want to confront Odumegwu-Ojukwu. Does this have anything to do with some inferiority complex? After all, he participated fully in the Abacha's 1995 Constitutional Conference and made meaningful contributions. Odumegwu-Ojukwu himself is seized of these same queries in wonderment. It was in this vein that he recently surmised his fate:

“I said very often and in so many words, that I am one Nigerian that the authorities in Nigeria have not permitted to be Nigerian; whenever there is something to be done, for some unknown reasons, it becomes clear that they don’t want me to participate. I don’t know what they are afraid of. Intellectually too, I must say, I always laugh particularly at things like this. It is clear to me that somebody doesn’t want to confront my argument in the dialogue.”

One can appreciate why some people would be worried about his big grammar or dogon turenchi. A strong-willed, Western-educated, Western-minded and well-educated polyglot, his presence can intimidate. But since when did considering a person a political gadfly start overriding national and collective interests?

As Odumegwu-Ojukwu himself also suggested, some people might not have been comfortable with his participation for other reasons, given the various lists from which he could have emerged. As he told Tony Edike and Chinyere Amalu of The Vanguard:

“The Ohanaeze had talked to me before, indicating that they would not only wish me to participate but, in fact, to lead the Igbo delegation.”

Indeed, he alluded that it was the wish of the people of the Southeast that he should be present at the conference. This, really, may be one of Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s key problems. It is common knowledge that some within the Igbo community perceive Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s claim of being the speaker for the Igbo nation with great reservation and trepidation. Indeed, some consider the claim as ringing with self-delusion.

But then, which other Igbo leaders can stake claim to having the credibility, panache, track record, and bravado for saying and doing things the way that Odumegwu-Ojukwu does on behalf of Ndiigbo. Odumegwu-Ojukwu, without flinching, will defiantly venture into issues and areas where other self-absorbed and self-preserving Igbo elite -- but for a precious few -- hardly trod. Unquestionably, there is a crisis of confidence among Ndiigbo, that they would send a delegation to Abuja that does not include Odumegwu-Ojukwu. These are the same people who would proudly mouth-off about how then Lt. Col. Odumegwu-Ojukwu had bested Lt. Col. Gowon at Aburi by impeccably negotiating a treatise that would guarantee an equitable place for Ndiigbo in the Nigerian political context and space. If Odumegwu-Ojukwu could do so well in 1967, at a rather youthful age, why should he not lend his voice to articulating Igbo interests in 2005?

Let’s get the fact straight here. Whilst Odumegwu-Ojukwu may no longer be a rallying point for all Ndiigbo, he still retains the admiration and loyalty of most Ndiigbo. It’s worth recalling that when the security agencies in Obasanjo government threatened recently to apprehend Odumegwu-Ojukwu over his expression of public sympathy for MASSOB, following the call for a stay-home that all but paralyzed the nation, the Igbo nation rallied to his defense. The government in its wisdom also backed down. I dare say that no other living Igbo leader could elicit such a support from the Igbo nation, if faced with a similar circumstance.

But more importantly, Odumegwu-Ojukwu still represents an incontrovertible reference point that is well beyond a footnote in the political history of Nigeria and the Igbo nation. But then, even footnotes can be illuminating. As he proved during the Abacha 1995 Constitutional Conference, Odumegwu-Ojukwu can bring added value, substance, and even drama to a national conference. Ask Umaru Dikko! Though Odumegwu-Ojukwu and Umaru Dikko are diametrically opposite in every sense, it is their likes (and perhaps late Wada Nas) that speak bluntly, stoke controversy, and take entrenched stands, which inevitably sharpen the discourse and arguments, thus forcing people to think the unthinkable on their feet and make the necessary political compromises. For this reason alone, his absence from the NPRC is a loss to a true national dialogue. Nigerians should feel shortchanged.

But let it not seem as if this analyst has not for once considered that Odumegwu-Ojukwu is part of his own problem, far from it. I will readily concede that some of the political resentment he faces and reservations people have about him are self-imposed constraints. I was present in Lagos in the 1980s when Odumegwu-

Ojukwu returned from exile in Côte d'Ivoire to Nigeria after being pardoned by President Shehu Shagari. I was one of those who had hoped then, against all odds, that he would take his pride of place in Nigeria as an Igbo and Nigerian elder statesman and not dabble into partisan politics. I had made this point even to some of my friends at Ribadu Road, and on one occasion, to the late Dr. Chuba Okadigbo, who Shagari had charged with handling Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s return. I was wrong. It was not to be. Perhaps, Odumegwu-Ojukwu felt he had to compensate the ruling NPN for his political pardon. Maybe, being the political animal that he is, he just could not do without being involved in Nigeria’s political mainstream. Again, maybe, he felt he still owed it to Ndiigbo to be in forefront of their struggle. It is clear to me, and I make bold to state here, that Chief Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu would be a more credible political force in Nigeria today had his ego and zeal not gotten ahead of his political judgment. But like he suggested in his book “Because I’m Involved,” Odumegwu-Ojukwu is the iconoclast that he is because he gets involved.

Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s current political fate reminds me of what Shirley Chislom once said:

“There is little space in the political scheme of things for an independent, creative personality, for a fighter. Anyone who takes that role must pay a price.”

This seems ultimately to be Odumegwu-Ojukwu fate in a Nigeria that aspires for unity, equity, freedom, social justice, and full national reconciliation. If this is the case, then, we are really into very troubling and quaint political days in Nigeria. Those who excluded Odumegwu-Ojukwu were mindful of their intent. They were neither political blind nor naïve. As such, their decision should be very unsettlingly to Nigerians, if indeed we aspire to continue coexisting as one nation. Put rather bluntly: Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s exclusion from the NPRC smacks of discrimination on grounds of his political belief and ethnic affiliation.

MISSED OPPORTUNITY

It is comforting to a degree that Odumegwu-Ojukwu helped in more ways than one in preparing the Igbo agenda for the NPRC. I suspect that the takeoff point for that document would contain salient elements of the Aburi Accord which, if it had been implemented in 1967, would have obviated the civil war and ensured better devolution of power and sharing of revenue. It would have also guaranteed a more peaceful, advanced, and prosperous Nigeria. It is gratifying that that he does not feel that his absence would affect the outcome of the NPRC. As he magnanimously noted:

“I hope not. But then you see, touch me. I am merely human and could do what is humanly possible. I gave them advice; I helped in preparation of the documents. I do and I have done all that I can do without being there myself…”

It would now be up to the Igbo delegates to pursue what is now best in the Igbo interest. If they pursue narrow, selfish agenda – we all stand to lose.

And here is the-bottom line on this troubling issue. It would be presumptuous of me and premature to speculate as to the possible outcome of the NPRC. More importantly for my credibility, it would be far worse than naïve of me to presume, without being clairvoyant, that I can guess the outcome of a process for which I, like many Nigerians, do not know the real motives or agenda behind its convocation.

However, there is an incontestable truth we should be mindful of: In Nigerian politics, bending of the truth is rarely a mortal sin or political career-ending transgression. The same is true of not faithfully implementing government policies. On the issue under consideration, two critical governmental policies are being turned on their heads. In 1970, General Gowon in accepting the surrender of Biafra proclaimed the “no victor no vanquished” doctrine. When Odumegwu-Ojukwu returned from exile, having been granted a pardon by a democratically elected president, with the consent of the National Assembly, it was on the understanding that his rights as a Nigerian citizen had been fully restored. Many years later, at the critical juncture where we are discussing the interest of the Nigerian commonwealth, Nigerians, and especially the Igbo, have been given a cogent reason to really wonder if the civil war had ended. Perhaps so, for the Igbo, but not for Odumegwu-Ojukwu.

I had hoped that the NPRC would have been an opportunity to rally Nigerians together. Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s presence there would have had a symbolic and psychic influence over the people like Alhaji Mujaheden Dokubo Asari and other leaders of the Ijaw, the Egbesu Youths, or any other segment of Nigeria that might be contemplating divergence away from Nigeria. Odumegwu-Ojukwu would also clearly send a message to all Nigerians that having once led a rebellion against the fatherland and recanted, he is the best testimony that it does not pay to think outside the box when it comes to the unity of Nigeria and its corporate existence. I firmly believe that Odumegwu-Ojukwu fell victim to what is fast becoming an overwhelmingly powerful executive presidency, which is given to precepts and is wholly incapable of compromise and inclusiveness.

As Odumegwu-Ojukwu had vowed, himself, “If I don't agree that Nigeria is my country today, my right place is in the bush, leading a guerilla warfare against Nigeria. But I have agreed that Nigeria is my country. I want it to be the best place on earth.” I believe Odumegwu-Ojukwu has met the litmus test of reaffirming his loyalty to Nigeria. The government, however, by keeping him out of the NPRC has not met its own part of the bargain. This might all seem intangible and inconsequential, but in the scheme of Nigerian politics it speaks volumes. Indeed, well beyond Odumegwu-Ojukwu and his personality, his exclusion from the NPRC is a greatly missed opportunity for Ndiigbo and for Nigeria. Those who can read the handwriting on the wall already know what it portends. For the Igbo, it must certainly be idiomatic; at least, to the extent that an oracle that has partaken in the kolanut (~ fa talu oji) speaks vociferously with immeasurable candor. The same might be said of the government’s decision to fence off Odumegwu-Ojukwu from the National Political Reforms Conference, NPRC, where the future of Nigeria, including his and those of his posterity is being discussed.

With neither anger nor partiality, until next time, keep the law, stay impartial, and observe closely.

" The 400 Wise Nigerians"

-------

Hank Eso, is a columnist for Kwenu.com. His commentaries on Nigerian politics and global issues have appeared in The New Times (Lagos), African Profile International (New York), The Nigerian And Africa Abroad, (New York) and in Gamji.com.

HANK ESO

MISSED OPPORTUNITY

" The 400 Wise Nigerians"

-------