|
|
|
|
|
|
|
IgboNet |
|
The Igbo Network |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
||||||||
|
|
The Igbos
in the Context of Modern Government and Politics in by Prof. Ben
O. Nwabueze Ọha na eze, ekene m ụnụ, I would like to begin by expressing My original choice of a topic for this lecture had
a distinctly legal leaning, but I felt that a topic with a more immediate
bearing on issues and problems in modern Igbo history might have more abiding
interest and utility. I have therefore chosen to speak to you today on the
position of the Igbos in the modern government and politics in Incorporation of the
Igbos in a larger For the communities comprised in the geographical
area now known as The incorporation of the various distinct
communities in one common government implies benefits as well as obligations
for their people: the benefit of protection, peace and ordered existence,
increased trade and economic activity and the benefits of modernity generally;
the obligation of allegiance, the duty of the inhabitants to be loyal and
faithful to the Nigerian State and to obey its law. It has also brought in its
wake profound changes in the social, cultural and religious conditions of the
component communities. For the Igbos, it has meant that, as Adiele Afigbo
points out in his Ahiajoku Lecture in 1981, they have the rest of How the Igbos are Organized
in The core of the Igbos is located in two states of
the Nigerian Federation – Anambra and Imo. In these two states dwell some ten
million people who give the Igbos their distinctive character and culture. But
the boundaries of Igboland extend beyond Anambra and The state boundaries in Outside their traditional habitats in Anambra and With only two states as against five each for the
Yorubas and Hausa/Fulanis, the distribution of states in the Nigerian
Federation is clearly unbalanced against the Igbos, given that the population
of the three groups is roughly comparable. (The demand for a third Igbo State
was rejected during the 1976 states creation exercise.) The effect of this
imbalance is particularly unwholesome since a state, rather than a recognized
social grouping, such as the tribe, is now used as the unit for the application
of the federal character principle in top civil service appointments,
appointment of ministers, revenue allocation, representation in the Senate, and
in the distribution of various kinds of government amenities. A situation in
which the Igbos have two shares as against five each for the Hausa/Fulanis and
Yorubas cannot make for harmony in the country, nor can it nurture in the Igbos
the feeling that they belong and have equal rights with the others. This
anomaly needs to be corrected. As Dr. Obi Wali said in the Constituent Assembly
in 1978, the creation of states has ceased to be solely a response to minority
problem, and has become “a means of the majority groups trying to adjust again
in order to square up.”[2] The use of the state rather than the ethnic group
as the unit for the application of the federal character principle in the
distribution of government benefits is of course a distortion of its underlying
objective. The tribes are the groups for whom participation and protection
against domination are sought to be provided through the federal character
principle. States are not part of our indigenous social organization, but
rather artificial political creation. Moreover, distribution according to
states in no way reflects the numerical strengths of the four social groups –
Hausa/Fulanis, Yorubas, Igbos and the Minorities. It is either the Igbos are
given at least two more states or the application of the federal character
principle is based on the ethnic group and not on the state. It is as well to note that some of the Igbo border
communities in The politics of modern A new pan-Igbo organization, by the name of Ohaneze, formed after the 1979 restoration,
was high jacked by the politicians of the The method of the 1984 Decree is rather insidious.
Whereas the 1966 Decree left no doubt as to the identity of the associations
affected, under the 1984 Decree dissolution hangs over practically every tribal
or cultural association of which it could be said by any one, however
ill-motivated, that it is "meant to promote ethnic differences or likely
to destroy or disrupt the unity of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.” With the
risk of imprisonment for not less than five years, a tribal or cultural
association can continue to function only at its peril. I believe that tribal or cultural associations
fulfill a useful societal role. They are not really a danger to the unity of
the country. On the contrary, they do provide strong support for the Nigerian
unity. They may have exerted pressures on government on behalf of their
respective groups, but such pressures would be there and have indeed continued
without the tribal unions. It seems rather ironical that the military rulers
who proscribed tribal unions for their role in sponsoring and promoting ethnic
interests and conflicts in the political days should, without: the prompting of
the tribal unions, have fallen easy victims to the pressures of the very same
ethnic interests. We should certainly eschew tribalism, but we cannot abolish
the tribe any more than we can abolish our individual existence. “Any
idea,'" writes Arthur Lewis, “that one can make different peoples into a
nation by suppressing the religious or tribal or regional or other affiliations
to which they themselves attach the highest political significance is simply a
non-starter. National loyalty cannot immediately supplant tribal loyalty; it
has to be built on top of tribal loyalty by creating a system in which all the
tribes feel that there is room for self-expression."[5] The Igbos are among the most adversely affected by
the proscriptions. The tribal unions of some of the other groups have continued
to function, not openly, of course. The Igbos cannot take such chances without
running the risk of being branded as subversives. There is a Leader of the
Yorubas publicly so styled and acknowledged. The Hausa/Fulanis acknowledge the
leadership and authority of the Sultan of Sokoto, at any rate in matters of
religion, but religion happens indisputably to be the most critical single
factor in Nigerian government and politics. The Igbos have no leader of any
kind, religious or otherwise. They are left to drift without proper direction
and guidance. Chinua Achebe is right when he says that “the real problem with
the Igbo since Why the Igbos are
feared, resented and hated in It is indeed remarkable that some Igbo communities
have repudiated their Igbo identity. I know of no other group in So intense indeed is the fear, resentment and hatred
of the Igbos in Nigeria that no Igboman, however good his credentials, not even
Zik, the widely acknowledged father of Nigerian nationalism, can today expect
to command nationwide acceptance as a leader in the government and politics of
the country. His every action and utterance will be misunderstood and
misrepresented. He will be hounded from pillar to post, until he is got rid of,
which will be sooner than later. In present-day The question, then, is: Why are the Igbos feared,
resented and hated in Perhaps the most outstanding quality of the Igbo is
his innate receptivity to new ideas and adaptability to change which, under the
stimulus of Christianity and western education imported into By this “fantastic burst of energy”, the Igbos were
able, in the twenty years between 1930 and 1950, to challenge the lead which
the Yorubas had enjoyed in the field of education by reason of being the first
to come under western modernizing influence, and to threaten to neutralize the
dominance which this had given them in the public service, commercial firms and
in business. Igbos had become a menace to the Yorubas, and a danger to the
other Nigerians, exciting in all the fear of domination. Next
to the Igboman’s zeal for self-improvement and modernity through education
comes his economic individualism and his spirit of enterprise and competition
which have found ample expression and encouragement in the individualistic and
libertarian ethos of the modern government. His individualism is apparently a
product of his social and political system in which the village-group was the
largest political unit, and in which within the village-group authority was
diffused among the heads of the numerous families, lineages and villages. The
society was an egalitarian one in which everyone counted equally and was
entitled to a say in public affairs. The Igbo was therefore very little
inhibited by authority or by any stratification of society based on birth.
“Unlike the Hausa/Fulani”, writes Chinua Achebe, “he was unhindered by a wary
religion and unlike the Yoruba, unhampered by traditional hierarchies. This kind
of creature, fearing no God nor man, was custom-made to grasp the
opportunities, such as they were, of the white man’s dispensation.”[7]
They saw therefore in the larger Nigerian community a welcome outlet for their
spirit of enterprise and adventure. Taking advantage of the free mobility of
people, the free enterprise system and the peace and security afforded by the
modern government, they moved out of their “forest home”, and soon established
themselves in various kinds of business a]l over the country – shops, hotels,
garages, market stalls and even schools and hospitals. Their competitive energy being such as only few, if
any, other groups in the country can match, they soon “virtually seized the
floor” from the people among whom they settled, buying them out of their lands
and shops, and again exciting in them fear of domination. Only few other groups
in In their enterprising spirit and aggressive
individualism, the Igbos may appear to be exploitative, grasping and greedy,
but these are attributes which characterize all aggressively enterprising
people everywhere. They are not therefore proper grounds on which resentment
can justifiably be nursed against the Igbos by other Nigerians. Fear may be
justifiable, but certainly not resentment. Resentment based on these grounds
simply tantamounts to envy and jealousy. I believe also the Igbos are
democratic and fair-minded people, always prepared more than any other group to
concede to others the right to share equitably in what belongs to all. Accusation
of nepotism often leveled against them seems to me therefore unjustified. However, his success in education and trade has
inclined the Igbo toward a “noisy exhibitionism”, over-assertiveness,
over-confident and too-know air, an over-weening pride and to a patronizing and
condescending attitude towards the less successful communities among whom he
settled. The latter are despised and mocked to their face for not being as
successful. For all this I think the Igbos are justifiably resented. But this is only a manifestation of a more basic
strand in the Igbo character – his lack of diplomatic sense in dealing with
others. In his relationship with others, especially people in authority, the
Igbo is incapable of displaying anything of the fawning obsequiousness of the
Yoruba or the submissive humility of the Hausa/Fulani, which is all part of the
techniques of social diplomacy that has enabled them to get along so well in
Nigeria. This lack of diplomacy in the social relations of the Igbo may often
appear to others as a mark of disrespect and discourtesy. In so far as this may
be considered a defect, I confess to being a typical Igbo, for I am quite
incapable of fawning on any one, however highly placed, even as a matter of
social diplomacy. The social relations of the Igbos are characterized
further by a certain amount of thoughtlessness and lack of tact. That seems
clearly to be exemplified in the rather idiotic killings during the first coup
in January, 1966. An undertaking, nobly nationalistic in conception, was thus
needlessly given a tribal colouration on account of the fact that, with one
exception, all the people, civilian and military, killed in the course of it
were non-Ibos. It should have occurred to a more thoughtful group of people
that in a military coup led almost entirely by Igbo officers, killing involving
only non-Igbos would be open to this kind of interpretation. In any case, most
of the killings, especially those of the military personnel, were both
unnecessary and senseless. I am not sure whether the killings
could be explained simply in terms of thoughtlessness. I think they also
suggest something, of a headstrong disposition. Was it mere thoughtlessness
that propelled us into rebellion knowing, as we did, that the inevitable outcome
would be war for which we were thoroughly ill-prepared? It must be something
more than thoughtlessness that made us insist on fighting the war over every
inch of Igboland, instead of negotiating an honourable termination of it at an
appropriate time earlier. I think that rebellion and continuation of the war in
those circumstances betray both thoughtlessness and a headstrong disposition. The Igbos are undeniably a headstrong
people, stubborn and violently self-willed. “A certain stubbornness seems to be
built into our psyche; an instinctive preference to break when perhaps it is
possible only to bend."[8]
This headstrong disposition is well depicted in Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart when the principal
character, Okonkwo, in true Igbo character, “took his matchet oft its sheath,
chopped off the court messenger’s head and walked home, proud that he had acted
like a man but disillusioned to know that his people had allowed the other
messengers to escape.”[9]
But, as Mike Echeruo remarked in his brilliant Ahiajoku Lecture in 1979, the
headstrong disposition in Igbo character is both a source of strength and of
disaster.[10]
Rebeliion and the civil war are the worst disaster it has brought to the Igbos. Again we read from Elizabeth Isichei's
A History of the Igbo People, that
resistance to colonialism was fiercest and longest in Igboland. It took the
British “over twenty years of constant military action” to subdue the Igbos.
With only capguns, Dane guns, machetes and the occasional rifle, they flung
themselves, heedless, against the British, heavily armed with rifles, machine
guns and unlimited supplies of ammunition and were slaughtered in their
thousands. In this, they were mindless of the simple truth that discretion is
the better part of valour. As late as 1905 when the British had
smashed almost every resistance to their colonial penetration, the Ezza of
Abakiliki were reported to have told an emissary of the colonial government
that they “recognized no superior authority except the Heavens above and the
Earth beneath”, and that between these two awe-inspiring super human potentates
they constituted a third force.[11]
What a defiant spirit, but it also betrayed a certain pig-headedness and
self-delusion. The worst in the Igbo seems perhaps to
be his lack of political sense, his tendency to look at issues in Nigerian
government and politics in a purely idealistic context and to apply to them
purely idealistic solutions often based on acquired book knowledge but without
sufficient regard to the realities of the Nigerian situation. Politics being
simply the art of the possible, the Igbos may truly be described as poor
actors, utterly devoid of a political sense. With their background of a
diffused traditional political system, they have no traditional familiarity
with the techniques and tactics which the government and politics of a large
and complex political community like The Igbo political naivete is perhaps
best exemplified by Ironsi’s abolition of the federal system in favour of a
unitary system in the belief that that offered a short cut to Nigerian unity.
In the circum-stances of We all know the cost to the Igbos of
the thoughtlessness of the killings in the January, 1966 coup and of Ironsi’s
unitary scheme. It was in order to settle scores with the Igbos for th6se
killings and to counter the threat of Igbo domination implicit in the unitary
scheme that thousands of Igbos resident in the North were massacred in May,
July and September, 1966. The massacres were certainly too genocidal in their
extent and too savage in their methods to have been warranted by the
provocation, but we did give some occasion for it. There is so much in the present
political situation in the country that makes it necessary that the Igbos
should be extremely circumspect and cautious so as not to become scapegoats for
whatever might go wrong, and thereby invite yet another massacre on themselves.
Those Igbos in sensitive or critical public positions should carefully weigh
their actions and utterances in the light of this. It is perhaps wiser for them
not to express themselves too soon on explosive public issues. Igbo propensity for
self-hate, self-destruction and intra-group discord The Igbo society is really a plural one comprising
various sub-groups between whom there is little common identity beyond that
based on a common language and broad cultural patterns. There is, for example,
the division between the riverine Igbos and the upland Igbos (Olu and Igbo) and, in The relations between the members of a village or
village-group, and between one village-group or clan and another are marked by
social discord. They are always disputing over one issue or the other – land,
water, ceremonial rites, traditional offices and titles, etc. None is prepared
to accept the leadership or authority of the other. Everyone is king unto
himself. The quarrels are embittered by the poverty of the traditional Igbo
society. The Igbos thus come to the politics of modern And so we find, as l think everybody acknowledges,
that the political feud of the The Igbo capacity for self-destruction was again
well demonstrated in what has been referred to as the “saboteur mania",
which had seriously undermined the ability of their new state of The Igbo propensity for intra-group discord has
been further aggravated by the modern government in two other respects. At the
time of the advent of the modern government in Igboland, slaves and their
descendants formed a large element of the societies of most Igbo communities.
They even outnumbered (and still do) the free-borns in some of the riverine
communities, notably those in Ogbaru district where I come from. This had
resulted from the stoppage of export trade in slaves from the 1830s (the last
slave ship left the Delta in 1854) which meant that, since the internal trade did
not thereby cease, the slaves had then to be absorbed within the communities.
In the result “slaves became cheaper, and their number increased vastly."[16]
They were accumulated “partly as a status symbol." As a result of the large increase in the number of
slaves, the societies of the affected communities had become polarized. For,
slaves were without any legal rights whatever, being the absolute property of
their masters and as such subject to their power of control and disposition.
They were subjected to oppressive disabilities and debasing treatment, like
being used for sacrifices or for the burial rites of titled masters, the denial
of the right to become the head of a family or village, the right to take
titles or to intermarry with free-borns. They acquiesced in the system,
although slave revolts did erupt from time to time. Over a period of time, the
slaves and their descendants began to be assimilated into the lineage structure
of the communities. The assimilation proceeded upon a social fiction where-by
slaves and their descendants were regarded as having originated from the same
ancestral stock as the free-borns, so that terms implying kinship, such as
“brother” and “sister”, were used between them and the free-borns. But the
disabilities remained in actual social life. There was thus in the system the
seed of social discord which eventually germinated and grew under the stimulus
of certain measures of the modern government implementing its democratic ethos
of freedom and equality. There was, first, the proclamation of 1901 which
abolished slave dealing in all its various forms.[17]
Another proclamation of the same year, as amended in 1912, enabled a salve to
buy his freedom.[18]
And in 1916, the status of slavery itself was finally abolished.[19]
(The Slavery Act of 1833 enacted by British Parliament applied only in the
colony of Lagos, but not in the rest of the country which was a protectorate).
In Eastern Nigeria, the Abolition of Osu System
Law, 1956 completed the process of emancipation by abolishing, not only the
status of slavery or osu, but also
all their attendant disabilities, and by making it an offence for any one to
enforce against any person any disability based on his previous status as a
slave or osu. Slaves and their descendants were naturally
encouraged by these measures to challenge the privileged position of the
free-borns, and to demand to be admitted to the kingship of the village-group
or clan and the headship of families or villages, to the wealth title societies
and to the other rights and privileges previously denied to them. Where their
demands were not conceded, as was the case in many of the communities, they
organized separate kingships, head-ships, title societies, festivals and other
traditional ceremonial rites for themselves. Many Igbo communities have thus
become thoroughly dichotomized into two antagonistic groups feuding among
themselves over practically every issue. Social and economic development in the
communities has inevitably suffered, as the energy and resources that would
otherwise have been channeled into development projects are wasted on feuds. Feuds over chieftainships instituted by the modern
governments are yet another factor that has exacerbated social discord in
Igboland. The modern government’s conception of authority as something
requiring, subject to checks and balances, to be more or less concentrated in a
single person, as opposed to the diffused or “massed” character it assumed in
Igbo traditional society, led the British colonial government in Nigeria to appoint
so-called "warrant chiefs" to assist the colonial district officer in
superintending the affairs of the village communities of Igboland. Those so
appointed were, for the most part, upstarts, people smart or bold enough to
come forward to meet the white colonial district officer. They quickly
established a regime of incredible corruption, rapacity and oppression,[20]
which created widespread resentment among the people, culminating in the famed
Women’s Riot of 1929, which at last forced the colonial government to abolish
the system, and to recognize in its place the traditional system of
administration by family, lineage and village heads and other elders. The conflict of authority created by the warrant
chief system between the government-appointed chiefs and the traditional
authorities was rekindled in 1950 when the government of Chieftainship continued to be a thorn in the flesh
of the government of Thus was unleashed on Igboland the struggle for
recognition as a chief. Rival contenders or rather pretenders to chieftainships
which either never existed before or originated in the discredited warrant
chief system, or which have been in abeyance for more than half a century
mushroomed overnight, splitting the communities into feuding factions. Few, if
any, communities in Igboland have been spared the embittering social discord of
chieftaincy feuds. And even after the contest was supposed to have been
resolved by the government recognition of one of the contenders, the losing
factions have remained unreconciled, so that the feuds have continued almost
unabated. Chinua Achebe’s remarks on the present situation
regarding chieftainship in Igboland seem to me most apt and worthy of our
attention: “The bankrupt state of Igbo leadership”, he says,
“is best illustrated in the alacrity with which they have jettisoned their
traditional republicanism in favour of mushroom kingships. From having no kings
in their recent past the Igbo swung round to set an all-time record of four
hundred “kings” in Imo and four hundred in Anambra! And most of them are
traders in their stalls by day and monarchs at night; city dwellers five days a
week and traditional village rulers on Saturdays and Sundays! They adopt
“traditional" robes from every land, including, I am told, the ceremonial
regalia of the Lord Mayor of The Igbos in
rebellion against It is an irony of history that the
Igbos who had been the most ardent champions of Nigerian unity should also be
the people to sponsor secession. Until 1966, Nigerian unity had indeed been an
article of faith with them. As Stanley Diamond has rightly remarked, “the Ibos
had nurtured the idea of common citizenship with all people among whom they
lived. To inquire into the precise identity of an Ibo was to insult his sense
of fraternity with other Africans in Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, an Igbo, is acknowledged by the
generality of Nigerians as the founder of Nigerian nationalism. His able
lieutenants were of course drawn from all over Nigeria, but the most
outstanding among them included many Igbos – Mazi Mbonu Ojike, Dr K. O.
Mbadiwe, Dr. Nwafor Orizu, Mokwugo Okoye, Osita Agwuna, Dr. M. I. Okpara,
Ikenna Nzimiro, to mention only a few. Why then, did the Igbos turn round to sponsor
secession? The explanation seems to be that secession was forced upon them by a
combination of tragic events. The planned massacre in 1966 of thousands of
Igbos resident in the North, the unwillingness or inability of the federal
government to protect them and their properties against such acts of wanton
destruction, the constant state of fear and insecurity in which they had to
live, the possibility that the pogrom might be re-enacted following the cyclic
pattern it had taken in May, July and September, 1966, the consequent mass
exodus of Igbos (numbering some one to two millions) from the rest of Nigeria
back to the safety of their homes in Eastern Nigeria, the failure to keep faith
over the agreement reached among the military leaders at Aburi, Ghana on the
form of association for Nigeria – these and other acts of oppression combined
to produce in the Igbos a feeling that they were no longer wanted in the
Federation. Federalism in government is the aggregation of different
communities for the purpose of pooling together their resources, human,
economic, etc., for the common benefit of all. Of these resources, the human is
the most important. Once, therefore, the human element has been torn apart, the
Federation is like a disembodied object. While a desire for the exclusive
control of the oil wealth located in Eastern Nigeria might have been an
operative factor in the secession, the masses who demonstrated, demanding
secession, were moved by the bitter emotion of their relatives killed or maimed
in the North, and by the agonizing spectacle of the wretched condition of those
who managed to escape the slaughter to return home. It is generally conceded both by political
theorists and constitutional lawyers that a people may be morally justified in resisting by force a government which has
persistently abandoned its responsibility to protect them or to cater for their
material well-being.[28]
This view of the matter is predicated upon the rationalization that since the
purpose of government is the protection and well-being of the people, a
government which has become destructive or careless of that purpose forfeits
its claim to the allegiance of the people. Discussing the question whether a
constitution, by virtue of being the supreme law, is binding morally upon all citizens in all
circumstances, Sir Kenneth Wheare, the celebrated English constitutional
lawyer, has said: “There are circumstances in which it is morally
right to rebel, to refuse to obey the Constitution, to upset it. A Constitution
may be the foundation of law and order in a community, but mere law and order
is not enough. It must be good law and good order. It is conceivable surely
that a minority may be right in saying that it lives under a Constitution which
established bad government and that, if all else is tried and fails, rebellion
is right. No doubt it is difficult to say just when rebellion is right and how
much rebellion is right, but that it may be legitimate is surely true.”[29] The right of the people to throw off their
allegiance to an oppressive government or one that fails to protect them is
nowhere mere eloquently stated or more forcibly asserted than in the American
Declaration of Independence of We must hasten to emphasize that the legitimacy of
rebellion in appropriate circumstances is only a moral one. It cannot justify
rebellion as a matter of law. To concede that it can, would involve the absurd
proposition that the constitution can legalize its own destruction by force,
that there can be resistance to government under the authority of government
itself, and that the law sanctions violent opposition to itself. Consequence of
rebellion for the Igbos The primary consequence of rebellion for the Igbos
is that, with its eventual failure after a thirty-month civil war, they have,
like a conquered people which of course they are, been reduced almost to the
status of second-class citizens in their own country. That is the bitter truth
of the present position of the Igbos in One must, however, acknowledge the magnanimity of'
the Federal Military Government towards the Igbos after the civil war, as
manifested in the grant of general amnesty, the guarantee of personal safety
and security for property, and of the right to reside and work anywhere in
Nigeria, the re-absorption of public servants and the restoration of properties
and businesses abandoned in other parts of the country. The amnesty has been
honoured to the letter, as no prosecutions for the rebellion have ever taken
place against any one. Never before in history has an armed conflict, fought
with so much brutality and unbridled vituperation, ended with no reprisals, no
trials and no shootings. When one reflects upon the history of reconstruction
in the United States after the civil war in 1865, one cannot but be impressed
by the magnanimity displayed by General Gowon and his government towards the
rebellious Igbos. Despite all this magnanimity, however, it seems
that, fifteen years after the end of the civil war, the Igbos are still
begrudged equality of treatment along with the other tribes. Or how else
explain the imbalance in the distribution of states with the consequent
discrimination in matters of public appointments, revenue allocation, the
distribution of federal government investments, financial aids and other
amenities? How explain the neglect of Anambra a and Imo States in the siting of
industries, both publicly and privately owned, a neglect that has left the
economy of the two states much mote depressed than that of any other state in the
Federation? How in particular explain the non-inclusion of even a single Igbo
in the original membership of the Supreme Military Council (SMC) announced at
the advent of the Buhari military administration on Furthermore, there were two measures of the
military government which constituted a sad blot on its otherwise singular
magnanimity. One is the abandoned property saga in And by the Abandoned Properties Decree, 1979, every
such sale or disposition “shall be deemed to have been lawful and properly made
and any instrument issued by the Committee which purports to convey any estate
or interest in land shall be deemed to have been validly issued and shall have
effect according to its tenor or intendment." The sale operates to vest in
the "purchaser" the abandoned property in question "free of all
encumbrances." The registrar of lands is directed, upon presentation to
him of the instrument of sale duly signed by or on behalf of the Committee, to
expunge from the register the name of the registered owner and to substitute
therefor that of the “purchaser”. Failure by any one to comply with these
stipulations is made a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment for one year
without the option of a fine. Finally, members of the Committee and any one
acting on its behalf are indemnified of all liability in respect of the sale of
an abandoned property or of anything else done by them in compliance with the
directives of the FMG on the matter, and no suit shall lie at the instance of
any person aggrieved by any such action, notwithstanding that such action is a
violation of a light guaranteed by the Constitution. The military government's
handling of the abandoned property issue is a rather distasteful chapter in the
history of The other measure was that enacted by the Banking
Obligation (Eastern States) Decree, 1970 which, while giving full effect to
withdrawals, refused to recognize deposits made into hank accounts within the
former Eastern Region after the date of secession. By the Decree, a bank's
repayment obligation was limited to the deposit balance as at It seems blatantly illogical to recognize
withdrawals and refuse to give a customer credit for payments-in. There is no
rational basis for so discriminating between them. The illogicality exposes the
punitive design of the Decree. The basis of obligation, as between the bank and
the customer, should have been whether withdrawals or payments-in were made in
lawful Nigerian currency. The Nigerian currency had remained in use as the only
legal tender in The cut-off date for the legal effectiveness of
withdrawals equally as of payments-in should therefore have been The punitive design of the Decree is also exposed
by the fact that the non-recognition of payments-in made before The Decree, unquestionably punitive though it was
meant to be, has to be viewed in the light of whether it is harsher than what
was necessary to punish secession and to deter its future occurrence. It seems
more crushing and ruinous in its effect than the secessionists perhaps
deserved. So ruinous was its effect indeed that many Igbos never recovered
financially from it, some even dying of heartbreak. Lessons of the civil
war The rebellion of the Igbos and the ensuing civil
war to crush it have an important lesson for the country. It is this – that a
country composed of disparate social groups should not so conduct its affairs
as to disaffect large sections of the community to the point where they are no
longer willing to be part of the system or to have their affairs regulated
under it.[32]
In particular, the headship of the federal government should be allowed to move
round. It must be borne in mind that, under the presidential system of the The federal character principle enshrined in the
1979 Constitution is predicated upon the view of Nigeria as a house on four
pillars, the four pillars being the Hausa/Fulanis, Igbos, Yorubas and the
Minorities, and that the edifice will begin to wobble and its stability
imperiled if the headship of the federal government is not made to move round
these four groups. Nigerian unity demands an acceptance and commitment by all
to the principle of rotation, i.e., that ordinarily
no two persons from the same group should hold the headship of the federal
government in succession. Unless the federal character principle is applied in
order to rotate the headship of the federal government among the four groups,
its application at the lower levels will not be effective to secure national
unity. The danger of disintegration and of demands for a confederal arrangement
will continue to stare us in the face. The civil war underscores, in the second place, the
overriding relevance and importance of justice in the administration of the
government of any human society. Justice, it has been aptly said, is the “bond
of society”,[33]
the “cornerstone of human togetherness.”[34]
Implying as it does an acceptance by all of “each other’s existence, respect
for each other’s rights, and rendering to one another his or her dues”,[35]
justice is the condition in which the individual can feel able to
"identify with society, feel at one with it, and accept its rulings.”[36]
An unjust society cannot maintain its unity and cohesion because it cannot
arouse in its members a strong enough feeling of loyalty and allegiance.
Injustice not only alienates the individual's loyalty, what is worse, it also
arouses him to intense indignation and disaffection. It is a denial of the
individual’s worth as a human person, a manifestation by society of an uncaring
attitude towards him. An individual or group denied recognition by society
cannot but feel alienated and disaffected. Thirdly, it serves to emphasize the point that the
conduct of public affairs should not be allowed to be unduly conditioned by the
leaders’ selfish ambition for power or by a propensity for an easy resort to
violence for the settlement of disputed issues. The civil war would have been
avoided but selfishness, intransigence and lack of good faith and of an
accommodating spirit on the part of the military leaders on both sides of the
dispute. I hold the view that the war was needlessly forced upon the country by
these leaders. With the reintegration of the Igbos into Conclusion This lecture is designed as a kind of
self-examination with a view to self-correction. It is a call on the Igbos to
re-examine themselves, and to try to correct some of the defects and
shortcomings in their character and manner of behaviour, particularly as they
affect their relations with other Nigerians. The Igbos need In the context of Our sense of common identity as Igbos
is too fragile, and must be strengthened. Igbos must learn to restrain the
propensity for intra-group feuds. It is a tragedy of Igbo historical
development in The creation of executive
chieftainships in Igboland is probably not a bad thing in itself. For the lack
of them has had an unsalutory effect on the Igbo character by predisposing him
towards unbridled individualism and lack of due respect in his attitude towards
authority. By the creation of executive chieftainships, a start may now be made
in the evolution amongst us of the traditions of respect, obedience and
submissiveness demanded by the institution. But the propensity to feud over
chieftaincy titles and the desire to invent ridiculous-looking dresses for the
office must be restrained. The significance of the office lies, not so much in
the flamboyance of the regalia, as in the authority it bestows on the holder to
enable him to shape the character, behaviour and lives of his people. Form and
ceremony are, of course, important in the life of a people. I am a firm
believer in ceremony. For it is, in Mike Echeruo’s words, “at the very heart of
culture.” Yet it must not be allowed to become so absurdly elaborate and
expensive, as the ofala of many of
the new Igbo kings tends to be. Finally, the immense complexities of
life in Ọha na eze, ekene m ụnụ. FOREWORD Since Professor M. J. C. Echeruo, in 1979,
eloquently discussed the question of Igbo identity, very rewarding statements
have been made on Igbo civilization in the areas of history, agriculture, science
and Igbo cosmology. In the 1985 Ahiajoku Lecture held on Friday, Afo, 29th November, at the Multi-Purpose
Hall, Owerri, Professor Ben O. Nwabueze, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, made
another great stride in his lecture titled “The Igbos in the Context of Modern
Government and Politics in Nigeria: A call for Self-Examination and
Self-Correction”. Like the legal luminary he is, the Professor delivered his
lecture with great eloquence and analytical skill, letting the Igbos understand
and face the socio-political reality of their peculiar situation in Professor Nwabueze examines the new relationships
of Igbo people both with the Nigerian state and with other Nigerian peoples;
and unequivocally states that despite obvious capabilities of the Igboman, his
shortcomings in diplomacy, thoughtfulness, tact and political sense, coupled
with some heedlessness and truculent self-will, have earned him resentment by
other Nigerians. He has also raised the question as to whether the degree of
resentment is justified. On the whole, however, his lecture seeks to caution
his kinsmen to make necessary readjustments for a meaningful accommodation in
their environment. One could say that this lecture is the first climax
in the series of Ahiajoku Lectures, as it brings to a head the findings of
previous lectures. Some may find it controversia1, and many may find it
edifying, but all will certainly find it exciting. My ministry is very grateful to Professor Ben O.
Nwabueze, S.A.N., for this wonderful lecture which is not only
thought-provoking but also very enlightening. Dr. Linus U. Akunnakwe Commissioner
for Information, Culture Youth and Sports A CITATION ON 1985 AHIAJOKU LECTURE by Innocent Diala Nwoga Chairman,
1985 Ahiajoku Lecture Planning Committee We return today to continue our search for an
answer to the great question of our time. Over the years, since we have
endeavoured as a people to run our own affairs, it has gradually become clear
that we are not at one with the milieu in which we have had to operate. As one
institution after another has turned to clay in our hands, and as the
volatility of life becomes insupportable, the need has manifested itself for us
to begin an inquiry into the requirements of our circumstance. And so, we find
that to come to terms with ourselves, we must struggle through the thick fog of
foreign influence and battle for order from the chaos which has been generated
in our world by its violent collision with the 20th century. As we look through the years and through the volume
of research findings which have been aired in this hall, we recall that the
proposal to start an Ahiajoku Lecture at first conjured, for many, the dreaded
spectre of a retreat to “heathen” worship. To some others, there was the fear
that the stage was being set for ethnic jingoism. But when Professor M. J. C. Echeruo delivered the
Ahiajoku maiden Lecture in 1979, he did not put on the cassock of a fetish
priest or the eagle feathers of a tribal warrior, but the robe of a
distinguished scholar. Under his considerable volume of scholarship and superb
craftsmanship, the Ahiajoku Lecture project came to life. His subject, “A
Matter of Identity”, at once defined and analyzed the objectives of this
seemingly strange proposal of the Imo State Government. In 1980, Professor B. N. Okigbo took us on a
fascinating tour of discovery whose richness amply matched the luxuriance of
our bushes, thickets and jungles, the mysteries of whose wealth he explored. The
third Ahiajoku Lecturer, Professor A. E. Afigbo, in 1981 invaded the dark
reaches of Igbo history and emerged with a picture of a period when
co-existence between the Igbos and their neighbours was characterized by
healthy social and commercial intercourse and a near-idyllic blurring of
boundaries which had its roots in a simple life, long before the harsh symbols
of politics and the dominance of tribal and ethnic consciousness in its current
virulent form. He spoke of the “age of innocence”. In apparent agreement with the saying that one does
not watch a masquerade from one spot, A. O. Anya, our distinguished Professor
of Zoology, continued the search in 1982, this time from the scientific
viewpoint. In a powerfully erudite survey that spanned the subjects of
geography, zoology, archaeology and history, and, in a startling reach, casting
as far back as 20,000 years, he brought back quite forcefully a message of the
changing times and the injunction that only by developing a new consciousness
of the nature of the world around us, as distinct from wearing western
blinkers, would we develop the capability to mediate change in a meaningful
way. In 1983, the god of Ahiajoku Lecture was not
sufficiently appeased and, so, there was no harvest. However, the Ministry of
Information, Culture, Youth and Sports quickly performed the ritual of
purification to appease the gods. I understand that the holocaust was cow-size
instead of the usual chicken. No wonder then that last year, as we sat
spellbound, Professor D. I. Nwoga, the renowned Igbo scholar, delivered to us a
prodigious harvest. In a copiously researched study, he took us on an intimate
journey through the Igbo world view and ethos. A full and successful life is
one that aims at Nka na Nzere, the
attainment of mature old age, and the achievement of status and fullness of
dignity. At this point, may I recognize in our midst, the
distinguished presence of Professors Echeruo, Okigbo, Afigbo, Anya and Nwoga,
our past Ahiajoku lecturers. Today at the age of seven, we are here for the 1985
Ahiajoku harvest. Our masquerade is the renowned jurist, Professor B. O.
Nwabueze, Senior Advocate of I shall now cease this diversion and clear the
stage for our flutist, Professor U. U. Uche, to usher in the great actor of
today. CITATION ON PROFESSOR B. O. NWABUEZE,
S.A.N. 1985 AHIAJOKU LECTURER by Professor U. U. Uche It is with a lively sense of elation that I respond
to the call to do a citation on Professor B. O. Nwabueze in this 1985 Ahiajoku
Lecture. I will rather not disclose for how long I have
known Ben Nwabueze for fear of bullying the younger members of this
distinguished audience. Suffice it to say that our familiarity spans several
decades, though it started by remote control during the turbulent mid-sixties
under the then Vice-Chancellorship of the badly mourned Professor Eni Njoku,
then of the No poor words of mine can add a cubit to the
stature of the said Professor Eni Njoku who, though dead, is still and will
ever be remembered whenever and wherever Igbo culture, identity and scholarship
are nurtured. He was to many of us not only a mentor of inexhaustible wisdom
but a friend of inexhaustible kindness. I should therefore be excused the
digression, if today with piety, with reverence and with no little trepidation,
I am specially conscious of his immortality. Let me return to Professor Nwabueze and here in
spite of my earlier stated elation at accepting the assignment to do the
citation, l do have profound problems of knowing how and where to begin and
even more so where to stop. You see, my reading of the earlier lectures in
these series has revealed that all the lecturers have hitherto been active
university people commonly referred to as practicing academicians or, more
naively, intellectuals. Let me quickly state here that the choice of Professor
B. O. Nwabueze for the 1985 lecture is not in any way or any sense a departure
from that respected and honoured tradition. Although with tongue in cheek, some
may refer to him as a university deserter (which description hardly applies to
me), yet Ben’s career, his writings and achievements have done both scholarship
and the legal profession proud. He is such a pearl that any university would
pay any price lo acquire and keep. After a star student career studded with several
scholarships on academic merit at the London School of Economics and Politicai
Science (that den of academic radicals of Harold Laski Stamp) No one who has not read his The Machinery of Justice in Nigeria can fully appreciate and none
who has read it can sincerely deny his depth of scholarship, his concern for
detail, his elegant prose and his humour. The book was published in 1963, hotly
followed in 1964 by his Constitutional
Law of the Nigerian Republic, a detailed and critical analysis of the Even the war years (1967-1970) saw Ben labouring
in-between air raids and taking cover in bunkers on his Nigerian Land 4aw later published by Nwamife Publishers in 1973. I understand
that he clutched tenaciously on to the manuscripts as he ran from location to
location, my own idea of a devoted scholar. Again in 1973, he brought out his Constitutionalism in the Emergent States. This
was followed in 1975 by Presidentialism in
Commonwealth Africa, and in 1977 by his Judicialism
in Commonwealth Is it any wonder that in 1978, the University of'
Loudon awarded him the unique degree of Doctor of Laws by examination as
distinct from those awarded Honoris
Causa. The award was based on the three latest publications mentioned
above. It is significant that Professor Nwabueze is the second Nigerian, indeed
African, to be accorded this academic honour by the Ben’s three “isms”, as the latest three
publications have come to be called, placed him in a category all his own as
one of the leading constitutional lawyers both nationally and internationally.
But his pen is still very much charged, indeed somewhat overcharged, because in
1982, he brought out his Presidential
Constitution of Nigeria and again sti11 in l982, his Constitutional History of You will, I hope, forgive me for describing him at
the launching of his latest book in July, 1983, Federalism in Nigeria under the Presidential Constitution, as an
academic human factory. Let me warn you all that at that launching, Ben
threatened to inflict three more books on us all in the next few years, the
first of the series for publication by Longman’s Publishers will by now have
been handed in for printing. Having
mentioned some of his several works, I will spare this distinguished audience
the rather endless catalogue of his academic articles, conference papers and
public lectures. As if to atone for his long periods in the study
poring over volumes in spite of a charming wife and warm-hearted children, Ben,
in his latest book did admit that they have continued to put up with good
humour, the long spells of silence and irritability which had become a constant
feature of his life. Who would envy their lot? You will by now have got some idea of the kind of
lecturer whose citation I have been asked to attempt. Professor Nwabueze has not only been an author,
writing behind a silent desk in the tradition of William Blackstone and Kent of
the English and American legal systems respectively. He has indeed occupied and
performed in many roles both in His public appointments include: Member,
Constitutional Committee for Nigeria in 1966; Member, Constitution Drafting
Committee for Zambia, 1973; Member, Constitution Drafting Committee for Nigeria
and Chairman, Sub-Committee on Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles
of State Policy, 1975 – 1976; Member, Constituent Assembly for Nigeria, 1977;
Member, United Nations Study Group on Constitutional Processes for Namibia,
1977; Member, Organizing Committee for the Sixth Commonwealth Law Conference
held in Lagos in 1980 and Chairman, Papers Committee of the same conference.
Need one continue? Oh,
yes. Executive Committee Member, World Peace through Law. Is it then any
surprise that in 1978, he was made Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN) – a unique
honour reserved for the very best of the legal profession. In l980, he received
the National Merit Award from former President Shehu Shagari and in 1983, he
was made an Honorary Fellow of the Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal
Studies. The man seems to attract honours like a magnet. Even at the risk of converting this citation into a
mini-lecture, let me say that Professor Nwabueze’s citation as an academician
can never be complete without a brief, howbeit with nostalgia, of his academic
appointments. Apart from a brief period at the Professor Nwabueze is a sound Igbo son from Atani
in Ogbaru Local Government Area of Anambra State. Ha has ploughed and
fertilized vast academic fields, he has sown varied academic seeds and has
reaped rich academic harvest. The members of the Planning Committee of the
Ahiajoku Lectures could not have made a better choice for the topic: “The Igbos
in the Context of Modern Government and Politics in Ladies and Gentlemen, Behold Professor B. O.
Nwabueze. [1] Bretton,
Power and Stability in [2]
Constituent Assembly Debate, [3] Public
Order Decree, 1966 (as amended). [4] Political Parties (Dissolution) Decree, 1984. [5] Arthur Lewis, Politics
in [6] Chinua Achebe, The
Trouble with [7] Chinua Achebe, op. cit., p. 46. [8] M. J. C. Echeruo, Matter of Identity, 1979 Ahiajoku Lecture, p. 22. [9] M. J. C. Echeruo, loc. cit. [10] M. J. C. Echeruo, loc. cit. [11] Adiele Afigbo, The Age of Innocence, 1981 Ahiajoku Lecture, p. 16 [12] Quoted from [13] Isichei,
loc. cit. [14] Isichei, loc. cit. [15] B. Odogwu, No Place to Hide (1985), p. 97. [16] [17] Slave Dealing Proclamation, 1901. [18] Native House Rule Proclamations, 1901 and 1912, repealed by an Ordinance of 1914. [19] Slavery Abolition Ordinance, 1916. [20] See A. E. Afigbo, The Warrant Chiefs (1972); E. Isichei, op. Cit., pp. 143-155. [21] Cowan, Local
Government in [22] Isichei, op. Cit., pp. 234-236. [23] The Jones
Report, Government Printer, [24] Recognition of Chiefs Law, 1959. [25] Classification of Chiefs Law, 1959. [26] Chinua Achebe, op. cit., p. 48. [27] [28] See Carl Friedrich, Constitutional Government and Democracy, revised edition, Chapters VII and VIII. [29] K. C. Wheare, Modern Constitutions (1966), p. 64. [30] Central Bank (Currency Conversion) Decree, 1967; Central Bank (Currency Conversion) (Amendment) Decree, 1968; Currency Conversion Date Notice L.N. 137 of 1967. [31] Central Rank (Currency Conversion) (Amendment) Decree, 1968. [32] See S. O. Odegbemi, Military
Leadership and Political Integration in [33] J. R. Lucas, On Justice (1980), p. 18. [34] C. A. Oputa, Towards Justice with a Human Face – Paper presented at the Law Week of the Nigerian Bar Association, 18 – 23 February, 1985. [35] C. A. Oputa, op. cit. [36] J. R. Lucas, op. cit., p. 1. [37] National Day Broadcast, [38] Chinua Achebe, The
Trouble with |
|
|
|
|
Igbo Foundation | Igbo Heritage Foundation | Ikenga Think Tank |
