The Federal
Government of Nigeria has requested the Federal High Court, Abuja, presided
over by Justice Binta Nyako to revoke the bail granted to the leader of
Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), Nnamdi Kanu because he has violated the
conditions for which he was admitted to bail. Notwithstanding the validity of
this claim, that is not the way to go. The Federal Government should drop the
idea and seek a political solution to what may be termed ‘the Kanu –IPOB
matter.’ The simple reason is that, there are too many crisis points in the country. Rather than ‘war-war’ and later to
‘jaw-jaw’, it is only sensible to pursue the option that reduces tension,
assuage anger, and encourage mature and objective discussion of grievances in
order to achieve a more just and equitable polity.
It may be
admitted that, to adhere strictly to the law of the land, the offence of
conspiracy to commit an act of treason and other related offences for which he
is on trial is indeed grave and it is not one for which bail is normally
granted. Kanu, also, has indeed broken the terms upon which he was released on
the strength of his failing health because, in the words of the presiding
judge, ‘it is only the living that can stand trial.’ Indeed, the court refused
bail to three others standing trial with Kanu.
He was released to receive treatment subject to 12 conditions that
include submitting to the court monthly, reports on the progress of his health
and treatment, not granting interviews or being present in a group of more than
10 persons.
Besides,
Kanu was to provide three sureties in the sum of N100 million each, one of them being a senior, highly
placed person of Igbo extraction such as a senator. One must
be – and this is most strange in a
sovereign nation – a highly respected
Jewish leader since Mr. Kanu claims his religion is Judaism, and one must be a highly respected person who owns
landed property and is resident in Abuja. The state, as represented by
the Federal Government now avers, and truly too, in its application to the
court that ‘rather than observing all of the conditions (of his bail), Kanu, in
flagrant disobedience to the court order, flouted all the conditions of the
bail.’
The first
and most important point to make about the Kanu matter is that his agitation
for segregation is a symptom of a much larger discontent in this polity. It is
a component of a widespread and comprehensive dissatisfaction with the
structure, the composition, and the working of Nigeria’s political, economic
and other systems. Against the
background of Nigeria’s history, and the experience of the people he claims to
fight for, no right-thinking person really believes that Kanu’s extreme
separatist demand is realisable or even desirable. But, of course, the art of
negotiation tends to begin with all contending parties starting with the utmost
demand possible, regardless of how untenable or how ridiculous. Kanu is not
therefore foolish in this respect. Like a man possessed beyond reason of the
validity of his demand, he has challenged constituted authority to test its
popularity through a referendum even as it is clear that not a few among the group he purports to
represent disagree with either his
position or his tactic, or both.
The
appropriateness of the way Nnamdi Kanu has pursued his goal is a matter of
opinion, but its socially disruptive impact cannot be denied. It has triggered
reactions that are unhelpful to peace, stability and unity of Nigeria.
It is
noteworthy, however, that the claim of
marginalisation, inequitable generation
and distribution of national
resources, and other forms of
disaffection with Nigeria as presently
constituted, is not at all unique to Kanu and his group. Most geopolitical
zones at present exhibit, in varying degrees of severity, certain
dissatisfaction with what may be termed ‘the Nigerian system.’ Taken
altogether, these constitute an absolutely unwholesome ‘Nigerian condition’
that, should worry every patriot, apart from the government which
constitutionally is obligated to keep the country secure and livable for its
citizens.
The legal
aspect of the Kanu nuisance, his violation of bail conditions, may not be in
doubt, but like other loci of disaffection in the polity, it is essentially a
political issue that must be handled with political tact. At other times, government
has indeed sought political solutions to incidents that were either even more
socially disruptive or were threatening to national stability. During the
presidency of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, the declaration of Sharia law by some
states was handled by federal authorities with the appropriate level of
maturity that kept this country together. The incumbent government of Muhammadu
Buhari has –wisely- secured the release of some of the Chibok girls through
negotiation, and it has stated its readiness to talk with a demonstrably wicked
Boko Haram leadership. Only on the condition that such a leadership is the
authentic one.
A second
point to make is that the seething and spreading discontent at different
levels, segments and territories of this federal republic can be ascribed to a
country not collectively and freely agreed to by its federating units. There is
little – if any at all – meeting of minds among the leadership. There are
hardly shared values among the component nations of Nigeria; there are hardly
any core values that may be identified as irreducible minimum national values.
If a Nigerian nation is work in progress, as some
would optimistically claim, it
stands to reason that, judging by the
problems that beset the
country more than a hundred years
after it was cobbled together,
and six decades into
self-governance, this most desirable
goal remains, still, too far in the
horizon to see.
For Kanu to
attain this current level of threatening prominence, however, speaks for an abject
failure of elders and leaders to guide him, manage him, and rein him in. No.
But it is not too late for these elders and leaders to work with the
Federal Government and
every well-meaning segment
of the country, to pursue
a political solution to not
only the Kanu demand, but indeed
the grievances of other peoples
in this multi-ethnic country.
Truth be
told, this federation is not working because its managers are not true to the
spirit and the letters of it. So, all discussions for a peaceful, stable, and
developed and progressive Nigeria must begin and end with all federating units
agreeing freely on the terms and conditions of the federation. This is the
fundamental political solution that Nigeria’s leaders must implement at this
trying time. And it is the only way to end the Kanu matter or other such
matters.
Guardian
0 Comments