The peremptory declaration of the NGF was still being discussed when Jonathan publicly stepped out to queue behind the governors. He stripped the constitutional provision on state of emergency of its essence and offered Nigeria its counterfeit.

The President told the people that he has declared state of emergency in Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states. But he shied away from dismantling the democratic structures in the states. The governors of the affected states are to remain in office. The State Houses of Assembly are also to continue to function.

This set-up is bemusing. It defies rational justification. Emergency rule in the affected states became necessary owing to the fact that law and order have broken down in them. The constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, provides that the president has the power to declare state of emergency in any part of the Federation where law and order have broken down. And law and order can only break down in a state when the governor who is the Chief security officer of the state fails to arrest the security slide or crisis in his domain. In the case of the affected states, insurgency has overwhelmed the governors. They could not tame the blight of terrorism that has crippled their individual states. That being the case, the primary reason for the existence of government, which is the preservation of law and order, became absent. In other words, the governments have lost the reason for their existence. They could as well be dissolved. It is that dissolution of the structures of an ineffectual government that leads to declaration of state of emergency. Such declaration means that a new structure that will perform the responsibilities which the dissolved government could not perform will have to be put in place. That is what emergency rule translates into.

Curiously, however, Jonathan has side-stepped the issue. He left the failed governments as they are and pretends to have set up an additional structure that will complement the efforts of the failed governments. This scenario makes mockery of the constitutional provision on state of emergency. It also makes mockery of the president. Since it is evident that Jonathan was not properly disposed to declaration of emergency rule, he should have left the situation as it is. He should simply have stepped up the security operations which relevant agencies of government have been engaged in in the affected states. He should have fashioned out a name for whatever arrangement be puts in place in the states. He should not have called it emergency rule.

It is not only the president that has messed up. The entire presidency stands indicted. Only last week, there were speculations that the president was planning to declare emergency rule in states where law and order have broken down. But the rumour was swiftly denied by the presidential spokesman. He said there was no plan by Jonathan to declare emergency rule anywhere in Nigeria. But a few days later, the rumour mill carried the day. The Presidency contradicted itself by doing that which it earlier discountenanced. This is an embarrassing display. It does not speak well of the presidency.

The latest action of the President further dramatizes his legendary lack of courage. Because the governors had spoken, Jonathan decided to step out with unsure steps. He bowed to their whims and caprices. He could not assert his constitutional right to act appropriately where and when it matters. This is most unfortunate.

Evidently, Jonathan was afraid of everything, including his own shadow. He was afraid of the Northern establishment. He did not want to step on their toes. He wants to be seen as a good man. He did not want to ruffle feathers. He simply played safe so as not to endanger his chances of being re-elected  in 2015.

But he was more particularly afraid of the governors represented by the NGF. The forum has lately been known to be meddlesome. It takes a position on virtually every national issue as if it is another arm of government. It has also tended to checkmate the Presidency on a number of issues, particularly the Excess Crude Account and the Sovereign Wealth Fund.

It is evident that the presidency led by Jonathan did not, at first, understand how serious the NGF took itself. The forum, having considered the enormous powers State Governors wield as the treasurers and accounting officers of their states, felt that the governors can, indeed, determine the tone and direction of the Nigerian state. Even though the governors who make up the NGF are elected to serve specific tenures, they have made it seem as if their offices and personalities are permanently etched in the Nigerian psyche and can therefore not be dispensed with. That was the mindset that got the NGF to start breathing down on any issue or institution it took interest in.

But somehow, the forum became a lot more powerful during the Chibuike Amaechi era. Perhaps the Amaechi personality also robbed off on the NGF. Under him, the forum has had more than a voice. It is almost combative in its drive. It was therefore little wonder that Jonathan and Amaechi fell into a collision course. Their differences are still being sorted out.

It is also worthy of note that it was because some elements in the polity thought that Amaechi was uncontrollable that they decided to float a counter forum – the PDP Governors forum. The new group came with a lot of promise. The chairman, Godswill Akpabio of Akwa Ibom state talked tough. But the fire appears to have gone out. We are no longer sure whether the forum still exists or not.

As things stand, the Amaechi coalition within the NGF appears to be winning. That was why it re-launched itself this week. The issue this time is emergency rule, and Jonathan who has been acquiescing to most of NGF’s decisions has also fallen for this one.

There are reasons to believe that Jonathan had no clear-cut position on emergency rule and therefore had to depend on the NGF for direction and guidance. I recall that in the last quarter of 2011, terrorist activities in some Northern States bothered Jonathan so much that he decided to think emergency rule. The immediate fillip he needed to do this at that point in time was the Christmas Day bombing of Saint Theresa’s Catholic Church, Madalla, Niger State. Following this and some other terrorist activities carried out by Boko Haram, Jonathan declared partial emergency rule in 15 local government areas of Borno, Yobe, Plateau and Niger states. Many of us did not understand what the President meant by partial emergency rule and we told him so. We also told the president that it would not work. And it never worked. Unmitigated bloodletting continued on a daily basis in the aforementioned states. There was nothing that suggested that some areas of the states were singled out for extra security vigilance. Jonathan’s declaration was therefore simply as good as the paper on which it was written. It had no other impact. That was a classic case of trivialization of state of emergency.

Certainly, the NGF must have taken note of the president’s unsure steps in this regard. They are aware that the president needs to be told what to do. That was why speculation rent the air last week that the president wants to declare state of emergency in some Northern states where mindless killings have become the order of the day. The speculation about emergency flowed from a high-level security meeting which Jonathan held with his team last week. That, again, was a demonstration that the President was not sure of his steps. If the President wanted emergency rule in any part of the county, its declaration would have taken the people by surprise. It cannot become an issue for speculation. When Obasanjo as President of Nigerian declared state of emergency in Plateau and Ekiti States, he did not create room for speculation. He simply came on air and announced to Nigerians the decision that his government had taken. But because Jonathan was probably not sure of what to do, he wanted the Nigerian publics to decide for him. Now, the NGF has seized the day. It dictated to the President the way to go.

Going by the situation we have on our hands, it is clear to one and all that law and order have broken down in Borno and Yobe States, for instance. The two states have become ungovernable. The governors of the affected states have been overwhelmed. In most cases, they have been accused of complicity or duplicity in the terrorist acts that have been taking place in their States. The governor of Borno state, for instance, was believed to be cavorting with a Boko Haram terrorist, Kabiru Sokoto, who masterminded the Madalla bombing. In fact, Sokoto was arrested at the Governor’s Lodge in Abuja. That tells a lot of story.

Situations such as this tended to give the impression that some of the governors are not really out to tame the blight of terrorism in their States. If anything, they have been aiding and abetting such criminal activities. Today, the affected states have become killing fields. Life in them have become brutish and nasty. Because we have states like Borno, Yobe, Kaduna, Kano, Adamawa and some others, life in Nigeria has become cheap. Bloodletting has become commonplace, and death has grown wings. Indeed, the Boko Haram- infested states have given Nigeria a new name. With them, Nigeria has become a jungle, a Hobbesian state where the strong trample upon the weak.

All this is happening before our very eyes. They are happening while Nigerians watch with helplessness. They take place as Nigerians scamper for safety. As all these go on, Nigerians have been calling on their president to do something. They have asked him to take decisive steps to arrest the scourge of terrorism.

Unfortunately, the President has failed to meet the people’s expectations. He has chosen the line of least resistance. His decision to deploy more troops to the affected states will, like the earlier emergency declared in Borno, Yobe, Plateau and Niger States, fail. The President is simply beating about the bush.

But we, members of the Ikedi Ohakim political family, got the very opposite of what the season represents. Rather than reap growth and renewal, our rank got depleted. We experienced a withering away, a dryness that has left our lips cracked.

The death of Dr. Aloy Aguwa, the Commissioner for Petroleum and Environment under the Ohakim Administration on the first day of the month was a rude shock to all of us. News had filtered in early last Thursday concerning the ugly incident. My friend and colleague, Chuma Nnaji, my predecessor at the Ministries of Information and Strategy and Culture and Tourism, had called me by 10:58 am on that day to inform me that he had arrived Abuja. We had spoken days earlier about his impending trip. His call was therefore supposed to be a mere confirmation that he made the trip. We exchanged the usual pleasantries.

Then came the dampener. “There is a sad news around Aloy Aguwa,” Chuma said. His voice dropped. The diminuendo was unusual. He could not go ahead with the story. There was suspense. Within moments, my imagination raced through so many possibilities. Maybe he has high blood pressure. Maybe he has suffered  a minor stroke. Maybe…. Then Chuma picked up again. “They said he was involved in an accident somewhere in Bayelsa State and died .” My composure collapsed. There was momentary silence again.  Then  I returned with a flurry of questions. How? Where? How did it happen? As  I reeled out the questions, disbelief seized the better part of me. The shock was indescribable. The story sounded too remote, too improbable to be true. “Aguwa?” I muttered and stuttered. “How?” I asked again. Chuma was to help me  out again. “ Someone called to tell me that. But I am yet to confirm the story”.

At that moment, Chuma and I wished it were not true. We wished that someone would interject to say that Aguwa did not die after all. But that turned out to be mere wishful thinking. The truth was that Aloy Aguwa was dead. But the details were sketchy at that point in time.

Then, minutes and hours later, those of us, the casualties, began to exchange calls. Ohakim, our principal, called many of us to talk about the unexpected development. He quickly summoned a meeting in his Abuja office to enable members of his team discuss the matter and take a decision on what to do.

Every call that came from my colleagues was more or less a tribute to Aguwa. Kezie Ogaziechi, our Commissioner for Local Government and Chieftaincy Affairs, described him as “a free spirit.” Levi Oguike, whose last port of call was at the Ministry of Planning and Economic Development, said he was shocked beyond words as he had spoken to Aloy only a few days earlier. Then he began to philosophize, as he always does, whenever we are faced with trying moments of this nature. I shared his sentiments and convictions.

Ngozi Anyikwa, the last Commissioner for Youth and Sports, who I will describe as a kindred spirit because of the quaint jokes that three of us –Aloy, Ngozi and myself—always shared at Exco Chambers, sought solace in calling me. We reminded ourselves of the Aguwa that we knew.

The exchanges that the three of us were accustomed to developed at the Executive Council Chambers. When my portfolio changed from Information to Tourism, the new order saw me sitting between Aloy to my left and Ngozi to my right. Aloy’s  jokes were coarse. It recognized neither male nor female. He delivered them freely. He was adept in light-hearted jokes and edifying banters. Sometimes, Ngozi, being female, cringed at some of the banters. But they were harmless in so far as they issued forth from Aloy’s bag of jokes. I do not remember ever feeling sad while around Aloy. He always made light the tedium of life. Sometimes I wondered  whether he was sent into the world to make people laugh.

Indeed, for all of us, the loss was a tale of regrets. Prof. Chris Eze, our last Commissioner for Commerce and Industry, spoke of Aloy’s dead dreams. An American-trained environmentalist, Aloy had been offered a teaching job at the Federal University of Technology, Owerri, where Prof. Eze also teaches, but he had to decline it when a few conditions could not be met by the university authorities. Prof. Eze’s regret  is that Aloy’s other dreams after declining the University’s offer had died with him.

As I spoke to one colleague  or the other, they reminded me of some of those things that marked Aloy out. He was very devoted to the job that brought him back from America after over three decades of sojourn. He was always at government functions and on time too. Where most of his colleagues would prefer to stay away or look in briefly and leave, Alloy would devotedly go through the entire  gamut of events. I called him ‘Mr. Compliance’ not out of derision but in admiration of his sense of duty  and dedication to the job we went to Owerri to do.

We were yet to come to terms with Aguwa’s death when another bad news enveloped the Ohakim clan of Commissioners, Special Advisers, Senior Special Assistants and other strategic appointees. The news this time was that Pini Jason Onyegbadue, Ohakim’s Special Adviser on Special Duties, was dead. That was just three days after Aguwa’s death.

As in Aguwa’s case, Pini’s death struck us like a thunderbolt from the outer space. Again, none of us had any idea of what the matter was. Ethelbert Okere, Ohakim’s Special Adviser on Public Enlightenment and Documentary, was the harbinger of the bad news this time. He said Pini had undergone a surgery over some stomach troubles but could not survive.

From Aloy to Pini within a space of three days? That was like a harvest of tragedies. It made many of us apprehensive. Has an evil force been unleashed on us? That was the natural feeling. However, since I am hardly given to superstition,  I dismissed such a line of thought.

But whatever may be the case, death has devastated us. We are enveloped by a deep sense of loss. While feeling for all of us, I feel particularly for Ohakim, our governor. How does he handle the double tragedy? What would he say at Aguwa’s graveside? Will he repeat himself at Pini’s funeral? This set-up is bound to constitute difficult times for the governor. Even though he will come over it, the scenario is clearly unpalatable for him and those of us, who served under him.

Being a public figure, Pini’s exit is being discussed outside as much as is being reflected upon within. Nigerians have been paying tribute to the seasoned columnist.

In the tribute which I sent to the Vanguard Newspaper family hours after Pini’s death, I had written a s follows: “What a great loss! What a seminal mind. One of the leading lights of the horde of columnists that Nigerian newspapers are saddled with today. His exit is bound to create an unquantifiable vacuum in the area of informed commentary in Nigeria Journalism. Those of us who are left to mourn him will miss his arresting sense of humour and his roaring laughter. An engaging personality has left us.”

May the souls of Aloy and Pini who laboured with the rest of us to bring about a new and improved Imo State rest in peace!

As chairman of the house adhoc committee on review of the 199 constitution, Ihedioha midwifed the exercise. The way it was then, the received impression was that the exercise would be inconclusive. But the Deputy Speaker was delighted to note during the presentation that his committee promised Nigerians that it would be accountable and transparent. He was happy to return to them to announce that the committee kept faith. That was sufficient reason for excitement.

Snippets of the report have told us what Nigerians want and what they do not want. By this token, it could be safely said that ordinary Nigerians, who are the actual owners of the constitution, have had a say in the formulation of the supreme document with which they are governed. Those who have even an elementary understanding of the political history of Nigeria will applaud this for the simple fact that it is the first time that deliberate  steps have been taken to make Nigerians part of constitution-making in their country.

To this extent, Ihedioha’s committee came home with a trophy. I can understand the sense of elation that seized the better part of him on that day.

From what transpired at the occasion, it would appear that the Speaker of the House Representatives, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, was pleasantly surprised at the outcome of the people’s public sessions. He noted that some issues which the media hotly debated and gave the impression that Nigerians were for or against them, as the case may be, turned out otherwise when the people voted on them. His verdict was that the views of the local majority must be approached with a great deal of circumspection, next time around.

When I had cause a few days ago to reflect on this issue with a few enlightened colleagues, the preponderance of opinion was that Tambuwal was a bit hasty in his conclusion. Even though Ihedioha had enthused that the committee was transparent in the exercise, my interlocutors said they were prepared to give him benefit of the doubt but that they too have the right to raise questions about the claim to transparency.

They also said that they did not really understand what the emphasis on ordinary Nigerians was all about. They argued that those who participated in the public sessions were, indeed, not ordinary Nigerians. They believe that those who took part are enlightened enough to have contributed meaningfully to the debate. Their position is that the ordinary Nigerian, strictly speaking, is nameless and voiceless. He does not understand constitutional issues and cannot therefore, be a part of their formulation or amendment or review. They also posit that the ordinary Nigerian is so weighed down by existential worries that he hardly knows what the rest of us are talking about. Their verdict? A people’s public session may have taken place. But the ordinary Nigerian should be left out its outcome because he was never part of it.

The argument sounds distractive, doesn’t it? I feel so because all the hue and cry about the ordinary Nigeria begs the question. Our interest should be on the fact that Nigerians across the country have voted for the constitution they want. The 43 items which the report is based upon may not have all the answers to all our nagging national questions, but they are representative enough. If the people’s position on the issues is diligently pursued and reflected in our body politic, then the bogus assumptions of the 1999 constitution which claims to derive its legitimacy from the people will begin to make sense.

Beyond the excitement that the outcome of the people’s public sessions has elicited, the relevant authorities in the National Assembly must go beyond the back-slapping. For instance, the Ihedioha committee has completed its assignment and turned the result over to Speaker Tambuwal. This is where the expectations begin. Now that Ihedioha has gone home with great laughter on his lips, the watching public will now turn their attentions to Tambuwal. They will like to know what he will make of the document. They are interested in the use to which it will be put.

Already, there are those who believe that the constitutional amendment will not go beyond the submission of the report. Are they right? Will their pessimism carry the day? This is the challenge Tambuwal faces.

The prediction of the pessimists is not borne out of nothing. It is rooted in our National experience. The country has had a surfeit of committees, panels, conferences and the like. Each came with its promise. Each engaged the people of Nigeria meaningfully. They had a concentration of eggheads. They came up with new and refreshing ideas. But the authorities who were supposed to effect the populist changes never had the will to do so. They seemed to be afraid of the big issues.  They even viewed the positions canvassed and decisions reached with suspicion. They felt that it would tinker with the Nigeria they are used to. Consequently, each ended up as a paper tiger.

Concerned Nigerians will be interested in knowing how Tambuwal’s House will handle this issue.

Of course there is no gainsaying the fact that the matter goes beyond the House. Only recently, Ihedioha’s counterpart in the Senate, Ike Ekweremadu, who as Deputy Senate President is the chairman of the senate adhoc committee on constitution review, took the spark off people’s expectations when he said that constitutional amendment would not lead to state creation. Enlightened Nigerians already knew that. But there is also an army of the uninformed who thought that the National Assembly could, by fiat, legislate new states into being.

Ever since, Ekweremadu has not said much again about the constitutional amendment. But his principal and Senate President, David Mark, has continued to raise hope about state creation. From the way he has been speaking, Mark appears to have sympathy for state creation. But he may be constrained by larger circumstances.

But whatever the hang-ups may be, the Assembly has a responsibility to make something out of the constitutional amendment process. Both the senate and the house must go beyond the pervading atmosphere of hysteria and translate the issues into action.

Indeed, the 7th Assembly under Mark and Tambuwal must go home with something. They must have a story to tell when they leave the National Assembly. This story will be prefaced with and illustrated by the impact that they may have made in our national life. They can achieve this through purposeful constitutional amendment.

To achieve this objective, the leadership of the National Assembly should seize the day now. It should convert the outcome of the people’s public sessions and the state and zonal sessions into advantage. Both chambers of the National Assembly should harmonise their views with a view to giving Nigerians a constitution that they can identify with.

I suggest something. They do not have to insist on injecting the 43 items into the constitution. They should pick a few salient issues and deal with them decisively. Since the people voted in favour of creation of more states, how will the National Assembly translate this whish and yearning of the people into action?

This is pertinent. Nigerians, at the end of the day, will not be celebrating the number of issues they took a position on. They will be delighted instead to know that their choices and preferences have led to one significant change in the structure of the federation. This will be the real trophy that the National Assembly can showcase.

The commission had in its report on the convention released recently rejected the March 24, 2012 exercise on the ground that the mode of election adopted in respect of some candidates at the convention was not in conformity with the mode of election stipulated in paragraph 6.5 (i) of the guidelines for the conduct of the year 2012 congresses and national convention.

Even before INEC’S position on the convention was released to the public, some three members of PDP had approached an Abuja High court asking it to declare null and void the said convention on the ground that it failed to meet the basic requirements of the party’s constitution and guidelines as pointed out by INEC. If INEC’s report is accepted by the national leadership of the party or if the courts grant the prayers of the plaintiffs who are challenging the election or selection of the 18- member National Working Committee (NWC) of the PDP, then the NWC will be dissolved and a fresh convention organized to elect new NWC members. This is the crux of the matter.

Until we got to this critical point, various interest groups within the PDP had been at war with themselves. At first, the real bone of contention rested with the choice of Alhaji Bamanga Tukur as the national chairman of the party. Tukur, from all indications, was not the popular choice of the greater majority of party stalwarts who had a say and a vote at the convention. Tukur was also out of favour by his geo-political zone—the North East to which the office of the national chairman was zoned. However, the pockets of opposition could not go far because the Presidency led by Goodluck Ebele Jonathan was favourably disposed to Tukur’s candidature.

Regardless of what the majority wanted, sound political sense demands that Jonathan as President should act in a way to protect his own political territory from being invaded by detractors. Therefore, the interest of the president had to take precedence over those of others who had diverse interests to protect within the party. Therefore, regardless of what the silent majority wanted, the national chairman had to emerge based on the choices and influences of the president. As the leader of the party, it is believed that the president has unspoken powers, which he can utilize to his own advantage.

This was what happened at the 2012 national convention of the PDP. However, even though the president had his way, the party has known no real peace ever since. In fact, the crisis of confidence has gone beyond Tukur. It has infected the entire NWC. It has even led to the sack of Olagunsoye Oyinlola who was returned as national secretary on March 24. Like Onyinlola, Bode Mustapha, the national auditor, was sacked through court action. Even those who did not suffer the fate of Oyinlola and Mustapha are ill at ease with the state of affairs. Only a few months ago, all but one member of the NWC practically passed a vote of no confidence on Tukur when they reversed their earlier position on the crises rocking the Adamawa State branch of the PDP.

Their decision left Tukur, an Adamawa indigene, castrated while giving an upper hand to his arch rival, Murtala Nyako, the governor of Adamawa State. Ever since, Tukur has been bulldozing his way through issues that concern the NWC. So far, he has proved to be a formidable force to contend with. He is at once at war with many PDP governors and the NWC. But he appears to be weathering the storm. But the matter goes beyond Tukur. His survival on the seat or dethronement, as the case may be, has implications for Jonathan’s hold on the PDP. If Tukur, the president’s man falls, then the man that has anointed him would have lost substantial ground. His influence on the party would become tenuous.

This is what Jonathan has been trying to avoid. He cannot afford to be a lameduck in an environment where he is supposed to be in charge. The challenge Jonathan faces becomes much more compelling considering the fact that he has his eyes on 2015. He has to be in control of the party to be able to weather the storm ahead. But the struggle is not Jonathan’s alone. Those who want to weaken the president’s Influence on the PDP are working on a different agenda. Part of their target is to ensure Tukur’s fall. The expectation is that if Tukur falls, the President’s ranks would have been broken. And if Tukur is succeeded by someone who is not the president’s choice, then the hawks would seize the party and hijack its machinery from the president. So far, the battle has been tough for anti-Tukur forces. But they are not resting on their oars.

They are fighting from all fronts. For analysts, the recent interjection from INEC appears to be in the interest of those who want Tukur out of the way. It is considered strange that INEC whose 11—member monitoring team was part of the 2012 national convention of the PDP waited for one year before it released its report. While the NWC members were sworn in on March 24, 2012, INEC’s report on the Convention was dated March 19, 2013. The one-year gap between the convention and INEC’S report looks like a deliberate ploy to comment on the convention at time it would serve suspicious interests.

That INEC rejected the outcome of the convention after one year looks like an after-thought. With the declaration by the commission that the national convention is unacceptable to it, the expectation is that the PDP would return to the basics and hold a fresh convention. Whose interest will this arrangement serve? In fact, many are left wondering whether INEC is not acting out a script. Nevertheless, no matter what anybody may think, the PDP as a democratic institution is expected to respect its own guidelines and constitution. INEC may have thrown itself open to suspicion and criticism, but the fact remains that PDP must act and be seen to have acted legitimately.

If we then proceed on the assumption that PDP must hold a fresh convention, we will be saying that anti-Tukur forces may have leveled up with him. The issue will then be whether Tukur would be able to return as chairman of the party. The way it would play out will depend to a large extend on the disposition of President Jonathan. After the battle of wills that has attended Tukur’s stay in office so far, it is hardly certain whether Jonathan is still properly disposed to his continued stay in office. If the president sees Tukur as a liability, then he is likely going to turn his attention elsewhere.

But if he feels he still has a strong ally in Tukur, then he is likely going to throw his weight behind Tukur, regardless of all odds. But there are those who believe that President Jonathan would not be bothered about the possibility of a fresh convention. Such people hold that Jonathan may use the opportunity to free himself from Tukur’s baggage. They believe that a fresh convention would provide both the PDP and the president the opportunity to put right some incongruities that are not in best interest of the party. One of such odd situations is the one that obtains from the Northeast zone where the national chairmanship position is zoned. Whereas the five Northeast states of Bauchi, Gombe, Borno, Yobe and Adamawa states are adequately rewarded with party offices and ministerial positions, Taraba, the sixth state of the zone, is lamenting that it has neither a party officer or any governmental position. For the people of Taraba, the present political equation in the PDP is against them. They therefore want a change in the present order.

This is one issue which party stalwarts from Taraba state are inviting the president and the national leadership of the PDP to take notice of. If the concerned authorities show any sympathy for the cause of Taraba PDP faithful, then a fresh PDP convention will likely address some of the imbalances. Nevertheless, whichever way the pendulum swings, the PDP has an obligation to conform to its guidelines and constitution. This makes the holding of a fresh national convention imperative.

They have thrown the government’s offer back at it, claiming that amnesty is for those who have done some wrong. They said they have, in their own case, done nothing wrong and should therefore not be blackmailed with the offer of amnesty. That is the ridicule into which government has been thrown. The villain is donning the toga of the wronged. He is chiding his accuser for his effrontery in labeling him a sinner. He is even seizing the moral high ground. Now his accuser is no longer sure of anything.

His accuser is feeling somewhat guilty, almost believing that the accused may be right after all. This scenario is representative of the quandary that the government of the day faces. Like a fool, our government rushed in where angels would fear to tread. Now it is caught in a lurch. It does not know whether to move forward or step backwards. The situation is the type that J.P Clark describes as dilemma of a goat. It is the dilemma of our government.

In trying to deal with this situation, the Jonathan government can do just anything to appease the insurgents. Having lost control of the situation. government is relying on all manner of advice, suggestions and even blackmail from Northern elders whose body language suggests that they are enjoying the confusion that government suffers over Boko Haram. Because government depends on them for direction, they have continued to deepen government’s confusion over the insurgency. Whereas government was ready to dole out the amnesty largesse without due consideration, the elders have queued behind Boko Haram in blackmailing government.

Now it wants the Nigerian government to set up a Dialogue and Reconciliation Commission to deal with the Boko Haram challenge. In a matter of days, our government will begin to tilt towards this suggestion. It will abandon its earlier plans on the issue and begin to toe this brand new line of action. It was the same set of elders who put pressure on government to go the way of dialogue. When government complied, they shifted the goal post. They must be enjoying the joke.They must be playing pin-pong with our government.

Our next expectation is that government would rely on the elders again and get stranded along the way. It has become a game of musical chairs. We are not only cheering, we are jeering at the dance of staccato that we are being treated to. Now, what do these northern elders mean by dialogue? Is it the same option that Boko Haram earlier rejected? Is it the same idea our government was once ambivalent about before it eventually realized that it was not possible to go into dialogue with ghosts? Is there anything that makes dialogue possible now since the insurgents remain faceless?

And when they talk about reconciliation, what is the point of departure between the insurgents and the government? Why did the terrorists take up arms against the fatherland? What is or what can be the justification for the murderous campaign that they have been engaged in? There does not seem to be any ground for the dance of death that they have been rehearsing and practising. Reconciliation is therefore out of sinc with the issue at stake. I had thought that those who cajoled government into embracing amnesty meant business. It is now evident that the call was only a bait.

They wanted to use it to test the resolve of government. Regrettably, government fell cheaply for the plot. Now, those behind the subterfuge are having a good laugh. They are amused at the naivety and pliability of the government. But the musical chairs have to continue. That explains the new plan, the fresh call for dialogue and reconciliation. They even want a commission to deal with the issue. That is how mighty the idea is.The plotters are almost certain that our government would listen. I am sure that their next step is already known. This time, there may be strident calls for a special ministry or department of government that would exclusively be concerned with Boko Haram affairs.

Insurgency will soon become a special Nigerian affair that requires an agency of government to deal with it. And since the brand of insurgency represented by Boko Haram is peculiarly northern in character and complexion, setting up a ministry to deal with the Boko Haram crisis could well be a way of creating a ministry for Northern Affairs. That is where the Jonathan administration is headed. The blackmail piled up against it is so enormous that it can hardly think clearly on the issue of insurgency. In case President Jonathan does not know, the actual meaning of Boko Haram is yet to emerge.

The insurgent group will continue to assume new dimension and approaches. What the government is dealing with today is what it thinks it knows. But what it does not know awaits it. However, to all intents and purposes, Boko Haram may well mean the fall of Jonathan. It could be an instrument for his downfall. It must be the wedge between him and the Northern establishment. With Boko Haram in place, the Jonathan government will continue to stumble until it crashes out. Boko Haram may therefore not be interested in appeasement. It is just out to end Jonathan’s reign. After that, it can metamorphose into anything else.

Until recently, the battle cry from the North was that Boko Haram activities are fuelled by poverty. Jonnie Carson, the United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, helped them to advance that viewpoint. Even though it has been argued, with plausibility, that poverty could not have been the reason for Boko Haram’s actions, the government of the day decided to dole out some largesse to the North through the proposed amnesty. But now, the people do not appear to be interested in the money any more. They probably feel that giving Jonathan the opportunity of amnesty would provide him with a soft landing.

It could end the nightmare that his Presidency faces. The game plan, it appears, is to prolong the President’s headache. He must be kept on his toes at all times until 2015. The idea, I suspect, is to weaken his hold on power as much as possible. While Jonathan is working hard to appease the North in order for him to realize his 2015 ambition, the North is not impressed one bit. They want to give the President the nightmare of his life. By so doing, they may succeed in causing so much confusion that Jonathan will become a baggage not only to his Presidency but to the entire country.

They have to sustain the musical chairs to achieve this objective. So far, the crisis of terrorism which the country is facing has been solely a Northern affair. The South has been playing the onlooker. But the blackmail that is amnesty for Boko Haram is beginning to ruffle some Southern feathers, especially those of the Niger Delta region. They have seen through the lie that is Boko Haram and are incensed that the North wants to appropriate, unduly, the wealth of the Niger Delta, using Boko Haram as a front.

The Niger Delta is ill at ease with this game plan. The idea rankles. They do not accept it. The militants who, some three years ago, laid down their arms, are threatening fire and brimstone. Asari Dokubo, the leader of the Niger Delta Peoples Volunteer Force has rejected the idea of amnesty for Boko Haram. The Movement for the Emancipation of Niger Delta (MEND), whose leader, Henry Okah, was recently jailed in South Africa, has given notice of war in response to the activities of Boko Haram.

The Niger Delta group has threatened that it would begin to bomb Mosques just as Boko Haram has been bombing Churches. That is balance of terror. If that should happen, the attention of government would then be divided. While it will be pursuing the dialogue and reconciliation commission option which the Northern elders are calling for, it would certainly do something else to rein in the resurgence of militancy in the Niger Delta. The way things stand, Nigeria appears to have a Northern and Niger Delta problem.

That is what the government of the day has been concerned with. But in all of this, no one has factored in the interest of the South West and South East zones of the country. Nigeria is currently appeasing the North and South South regions, leaving the South West and South East. Very soon, the forgotten groups may begin to have a rethink. They will begin to feel that they are left out in the scheme of things because they chose the path of peace. Very soon also, they will begin to feel that peace does not pay in Nigeria.

What does is confrontation or war. By the time the south west and south East begin to think along this line, insurgency in Nigeria will go full circle. When this happens, Nigeria will become a lost soul. There will be no one left to save it from itself. At this stage, the people will not just jeer and cheer over the musical chairs, they will equally moan and groan.

Ordinarily, the passage of Achebe, a world acclaimed literary icon, is enough reason for his compatriots and the world at large to tear themselves apart in diverse ways. But the matter is made more compelling by the fact that the dust raised by Achebe’s latest book, There was a Country, was yet to settle when Death, the leveler, reminded us of its inevitability. It struck Achebe and the debate has had to begin all over again. But this time, the focus is no longer on Achebe and his views about Biafra and certain elements that played certain roles. Attention has shifted to what could be said to be his place in literature. References are being made to the Nobel Prize in literature. So far, almost all agree that Achebe deserved to win the prize. There have also been attempts to compare him with Wole Soyinka, his contemporary and a Nobel literature Laureate. Some have even gone to the extent of carrying out a fresh review of Achebe’s books published in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1980s.

The interjections, I guess, must have been sparked off by Mohammed Haruna’s declaration that Achebe is Africa’s best in the field of literature. That is Haruna’s position. He adduced cogent and sound reasons to support his viewpoint. But what I found fascinating in his delivery was his open admission that he is a layman in literature. Yet, his position was well considered.

Haruna’s position may have led to a situation where some are asking why Africa’s best did not win the Nobel Prize in literature. Such people have therefore decided to compare him with Soyinka. The assumption here by those who are fixated about the Nobel Prize is that the winner of the Prize cannot be said to be inferior to the one that did not win it. In other words, the Noble Prize is a measure of one’s rating in the literary world.

Personally, I hate to compare Achebe and Soyinka. I prefer to treat each on his own merit. In dealing with them, I also do not bring in the Nobel Prize. This is especially in the light of the fact that the two literary icons did not go to war with each other over the Nobel, regardless of the hilarious drama over who the Asiwaju or Ogbuefi of African literature is or is not. Besides, going into the Nobel debate is needless not when the likes of Chinweizu took several weeks off in 1986 to educate the literary world on what the Nobel is not.

The Nobel Prize committee, no doubt, is highly reverred and respected. Its recognitions to deserving persons who have made outstanding contributions to physics, chemistry, physiology or medicine, literature and peace is noteworthy. But like all human institutions, the Nobel is also afflicted by foibles and inadequacies that border on politics, colour or geography and the like. We cannot therefore ascribe infallibility to a human institution. Thus, the Nobel Prize is a good prize to bestow on an achiever, but it is certainly not the ultimate prize. This being the case, it makes little or no sense to wonder why someone regarded as Africa’s best did not win the Nobel Prize.

But the people whose interventions beat the imagination are those who have assumed the role of literary pontifices in their dissection of Achebe’s literature. I am somewhat amused by their priestly disposition. They think that their magisterial posturing is all that we need to situate a literary work, particularly those of Achebe. If only they are properly tutored in the art of literary criticism, they will know that criticism, whether practical or textual, is an art. Dealing with a literary work is an imaginative response to, and appreciation of how literature functions. It has no formula. It has no one answer. It cannot therefore be approached like science.

It is because some critics believe that their positions are inviolable that they would dictate to the rest of the reading public which of Achebe’s works is the best. They think that those who vote Things Fall Apart as Achebe’s best work do not have a point. Their appreciation of what constitutes art must be faulty. They will only be right if they vote Arrow of God as the locus classicus of Achebe’s works. I invite those who suffer this fixation to take one or two lessons in the critical interventions of T.S. Elliot, poet and the extremely influential critic who wrote “The perfect critic” and “The Imperfect Critic” whose linguistic, cultural and philosophical insights made him the leading writer in English of his generation.

A critic of whatever persuasion must bear in mind the fact that the writer does not have him in mind while crafting his lines or telling his story. The writer lives in a world of ideas. He assumes an imaginative space and practices his art there. He does so in line with the dictates of his imagination. When a critic therefore interprets a work of art and begins to impose formulae or rules on the work of the writer, he is usually taken to be at liberty to ingratiate his critical instincts. But he misses the point when he tries to establish rules and conditions that the writer must meet before his work can be positively adjudged. It was this error that a certain critic called Ibrahim Bello- Kano committed when he dismissed Achebe’s Anthills of the Savannah as having a slow narrative exposition, a thin and shallow style of presentation and threadbare plot. Those who know what literary criticism is all about cannot but shudder at his imposing declarations. Bello-Kano is acutely entitled to his assessment of any work of art but he must recognize the fact that another critic may and can espouse a contrary viewpoint.

Unfortunately, dismissive criticism is becoming fashionable among practitioners of the literary art. For instance, Eddie Iroh’s Toads of War was once dismissed as journalism, not literature by a critic. In the same vein, Ayi Kweh Armah’s The Beautiful Ones are not yet Born was derided by a critic for being full of scatological metaphors. If these novels have failed in the eyes of these critics, the rest of the literary community is not bound to accept these positions as axiomatic.

Even though the literary culture, like any other human enterprise, has continued to evolve, we need to remind ourselves that art practitioners are iconoclasts whose primary motive is to give vent to their idiosyncrasies. The Pre-Raphaelites who seized the London art stage in 1848 did this much. They gave great importance to subject in their works. Their paintings were elaborately detailed. They were fond of outdoor settings. Those who sought reason for their predilection merely wasted their time. The Pre-Raphaelites were apostles of art for art’s sake. They believed that art has a reason which reason itself does not understand. Therefore, it is pointless to seek to know why they do what they do. The Pre-Raphaelite disposition may have become archaic. But it is at the root of the way art functions.

The on-going debate about the Nobel and even the one that went on in 1986 and thereafter when Soyinka won the prize have affirmed one thing. Achebe’s literary space is larger than the Nobel Prize.

The Nobel Prize committee may have, in its wisdom, sidetracked Achebe in their selections. But it did not really matter one bit. The literary world may have been thrown into a fit of debate over this. But that has, in itself, commandeered them into appreciating the depth of Achebe’s masterpieces. If Achebe were not a writer of uncommon strength, the world would easily gloss over the fact that he did not win the Nobel. But his works compel attention. His thoughts are inimitable.

Beyond literature, Achebe was a man of conviction. He mastered his environment clearly and breathed at if from the vantage position of one who knows. He did not engage in self-censorship. He broke loose from all strictures, holding truth as an article of trade. There were many who knew as much as Achebe did. But there was hardly any that had the courage of an Achebe to speak up. Posterity will hold him out as the conscience of a nation that is ill at ease with the facts of its history.

My Error

In BROKEN TONGUES edition of March 28, 2013, I erroneously stated that the first Ahiajoku Lecture was delivered by Prof. Adiele Afigbo. The lecture was actually given by Prof. M.J.C Echeruo. The error is regretted.

To make the event the huge success that it turned out to be, the world was programmed to move Eastwards – to the University town of Nsukka – to celebrate a seminal mind who had, for decades, affected the tenor and tempo of literary engagements on the world stage.

One of the scholars who graced the occasion from outside our shores was a man called Michael Thelwell, a renowned professor of English from an American university. I was in the Master of Arts class in English at the University of Lagos then. For some reason, Professor Thelwell, who was on his way to Nsukka, had stopped over at the Department of English of the University of Lagos. He had an arrangement with our own erudite Professor Theo Vincent to meet with the Literature group of the Masters class for some interaction.  Prof Vincent took us on a course called “Theory of Drama”.

Our Masters class was largely interactive. I recall that I was scheduled to deliver a paper on the concept of “heroic tragedy” on that day. I had finished my presentation on John Dryden whose play “All for Love” is the embodiment of the art form. Prof Vincent and the rest of the class were taking me on on my presentation when Prof Thelwell was ushered in. He did not join our discussion on heroic tragedy. He chose, instead, to take a panoramic view of the course, but he elucidated very brilliantly on dramatic literature. At the end of the exercise, we were deeply enriched by the fresh perspectives that Prof Thelwell brought to bear on our discussion that day. He was later to proceed to Nsukka to join other kindred spirits that had gathered in honour of Achebe.

More than two decades after, I had forgotten Prof Thelwell until last year when Achebe’s last work, There was a Country was released. Achebe had written at page 38 of the book that Thelwell was one of the first intellectuals in America to pick up Things Fall Apart in the early days of its publication and present it to an American audience. Then I remembered our encounter with a man I had long forgotten. But beyond that, the recollection reminded me of my abandonment of my scholarstic roots in pursuit of a flowery vocation.

It has also reminded me of the entreaties and advice of some of my lecturers at UNILAG. When I went ahead to pursue my doctorate after the Masters programme, the University had signed me on as a Graduate Assistant. Some of my lecturers were interested in my career pursuits. They wanted to know if I had plans to join the staff of the department. My responses were largely equivocal. While I was prevaricating, they also took notice of the appearance of my articles on weekly basis on the pages of The Guardian. I was on the Sunday Desk of the newspaper then.

Then one day, Dr. Babalola who took us on a course entitled, “A History of Literary theory  and Criticisms” at the Masters class called me into his office and remarked with derisive hilarity. “Mr Obi, you know these things you people write in newspapers are not serious things. None of them can pass for an essay”.  That was his own way of telling me to embrace literature rather than journalism. For years, I had remained torn between the two stools until recently when it occurred to me that journalism has had its way in my career, but that literature, where I have real expertise, must take over, sooner or later.

My recollection about Achebe also takes me back to 2009. The occasion then was the 2008 Annual Ahiajoku Festival which was staged in January 2009. Achebe was the lecturer for that year. The Government of Imo State under Chief Ikedi Ohakim had undertaken the ambitious project of bringing Achebe back from America to deliver the Ahiajoku lecture. It was no mean task. Achebe had not been home for so many years. His confinement to the wheelchair had constrained him. To bring him back to Nigeria was a Herculean task. So much needed to be put in place to achieve that. But the Ohakim government, in its pursuit of excellence, insisted on braving the odds. Achebe was brought home and the literary community and the general public went agog.

On the occasion of the Ahiajoku lecture which was held at the Civic Centre grounds in Owerri, the atmosphere was electric. Scholars and intellectuals from all walks of life poured into Owerri in droves. The general public stormed the venue of the Ahiajoku lecture. They wanted to catch a glimpse of Achebe. He was like a mythic figure. People milled around in anticipation of his entry. His arrival was greeted with a tumultuous ovation. It was heralded with a 42-round gun salute. The legend had arrived. The sojourner had returned to his people. To demonstrate the uniqueness of Achebe’s presence, the Ahiajoku procession for the occasion was the longest ever. The number of scholars robed in academic gowns who filed out to usher Achebe in was beyond imagination. The atmosphere evinced awe and trepidation. The legendary author of Things Fall Apart was in the mist of the ecstatic crowd. On that day, people celebrated not the Ahiajoku festival, but the person and personality of the legend called Chinua Achebe.

But what did Achebe do with the mammoth crowd that came to catch a glimpse of him in Owerri? The Ahiajoku lecture is normally a very memorable event. The lectures are usually delivered by renowned scholars. Beginning from Prof Adiele Afigbo who delivered the inaugural lecture in 1979 to Chinua Achebe who mounted the saddle in January 2009, Ahiajoku Laureates have usually emerged from the exclusive class of Igbo eggheads.

In 2010, I had the privilege of organizing the Ahiajoku festival on behalf of Imo State Government in my capacity then as Commissioner for Culture and Tourism. My tour of duty at the Ministry afforded me the opportunity of peeping into the philosophy and concept of the festival. There is always a thematic concern for each festival, and the guest lecturer usually chooses a topic that would address that overall theme. It had been so in the 30-year history of the festival until Achebe stepped in. He moved away from the tradition. Contrary to expectations, Achebe had no written lecture. Obviously, he knew the expectations, but he chose to speak to the audience from the innermost recesses of his being. Rather than do the expected, Achebe took a cold hard look at the mainly Igbo audience and decided to dwell on the vexed issue of Igbo unity.

As a man given to native wisdom and intelligence, Achebe does not waste words. He is not a pretentious intellectual. His outlook is rather rooted in reality and eternal truth. He had been telling the story of our changing world which he domesticated using the Igbo worldview. That day was his day and he took time to prick the Igbo conscience by drawing attention to their weakest point – the blight of disunity.

While the audience was expecting a seminal paper complete with research and bibliographic citations, Achebe talked to his people as if they were in a family meeting. By the time his measured and educated tone dropped to signal the end of his lecture, the congregation was enveloped in a paroxysm of awe and excitement. The genius had spoken. It was incumbent on his audience to take home the message.

Just as his exploits in his lifetime elicited uncommon interests and responses, Achebe’s demise has equally sent shivers of trepidation into the world. Even those who had cause to disagree with him on certain national issues have been humbled by his exit. There is a general acknowledgement that Achebe was the true embodiment of greatness. There is even the likelihood that he will be better appreciated in death even by his virulent critics.

Even the short tribute to him by Wole Soyinka and J.P Clark underline the centrality of truth in Achebe’s literary concerns.  An aspect of the tribute reads: “We need to stress at this critical time of Nigerian history, where the forces of darkness appear to overshadow the illumination of existence that literature represents. These are forces that arrogantly pride themselves implacable and brutal enemies of what Chinua and his pen represented, not merely for the African continent, but for humanity. Indeed, we cannot help wondering if the recent insensate massacre of Chinua’s people in Kano, only a few days ago, hastened the fatal undermining of that resilient will that had sustained him so many years after his crippling accident.”

These were the words of Soyinka and Clark. They underline the naked truth that Achebe has been pursuing. He tells truth to humanity without minding whose ox is gored. He did so in his last work, There was a Country, released some seven months ago. Because he said it as it is, those who were ill at ease with the truth have been howling.

But no matter what anybody may think or feel, we should respect Achebe for telling Nigeria the truth about itself. He has shocked Nigeria by lifting the information blocade which the Nigerian authorities imposed on the Biafran story. He drew the attention of the world to the genocide that took place in Biafra in the War years

For telling the story of the organized massacres directed against the Igbo in Nigeria before and during the Biafran War, some glib critics have said that Achebe’s book is Igbocentric. In Nigeria, the easiest way to disparage an idea or an issue is to label it “Igbo”. It excites non-Igbo Nigerians to do so. Yet, those conditions that make the Igbo to cringe and react have been made permanent features of the Nigerian environment.

If the mass killing of the Igbo in Kano some four days before Achebe died was not another pogrom, we wonder what else it is. But for other Nigerians, the Igbo must not complain when such atrocities take place. Now, is that not what Soyinka and Clark have drawn attention to? Have they not, as liberated minds, expressed regret that this is happening to “Chinua’s people”?  Have they not even suggested that it may have “hastened the fatal undermining of that resilient will that had sustained him so many years after his crippling accident?” What the Soyinka-Clark declaration suggests is that there is an issue here which Nigeria has refused to address. Achebe sought to deal with such issues through the medium of his pen. But he was little appreciated by those Soyinka and Clark have rightly described as “forces of darkness”.

People, naturally, must be differently persuaded when they come in contact with the eternal truth that Achebe told. But no matter the persuasion, Achebe remained true to his conscience. He did not suffer fools gladly. He pricked the conscience of Nigeria to no end. There was a Country was his parting effort. It is the final truth to Nigeria from Achebe’s pantheon. This truth is bound to endure.

It was taken as one of those pious declarations by politicians. It was seen as a ghost word which can be assigned any meaning, depending on who is applying it. With time, however, it became evident to one and all that Yar’Adua meant well. The pronouncement was intended to restore normalcy to the beleaguered oil-rich region of Nigeria. Yar’Adua did not live long enough after his declaration to see to the full and proper implementation of the amnesty programme. But his luck was that his deputy was a member of the aggrieved lot that took up arms to draw attention to their plight.

Thus, as someone who would derive immediate benefit from the programme, Goodluck Jonathan, on mounting the presidential saddle, ensured that amnesty, as declared by his former boss, was given its full reign in his administration. That was how the word became a household one in Nigeria. It was not only so, it became pleasurable, even a privilege, to be identified with amnesty. Everyone hankered after it. Even the barely literate creek-dweller became an expert in the use and application of the word. Amnesty has become a good deal.

Those who did not know what it was all about at the beginning can now write a thesis on the sense and benefits of the amnesty programme. However, because everything in Nigeria comes in the manner of taste and fashion, amnesty has become fashionable. It has become a way of knowing and seeing. It is now a shibboleth – something with which we are known and identified. It has even become an integral aspect of our value. Amnesty has become something of a feast. It is a way of sharing the national cake, and you need to be smart enough to get a good slice of the cake. In fact, the received notion in many circles in Nigeria is that the Niger Delta militant has succeeded in arm- twisting the system for his own slice of the national cake.

He may have taken too much for the rest of the populace not to notice. But he has developed an insatiable appetite which goads him on. He wants more of the booty. In all of this, some other segments of the Nigerian society may have been watching with amazement. They feel left out in the whole deal. But they cannot understand why it should be so when amnesty has become a tradition, indeed a trademark that marks the Nigerian out from other human species. It is in the light of this perception and realistion that some now feel that this amnesty thing must go round. They do not want it restricted to a group or segment of Nigeria.

It is one fashion, one fad and fancy everybody must partake in. Those who have come to see amnesty in this light believe that no element in Nigeria deserves to be specially treated using the amnesty deal, to the exclusion of the others. This may have given rise to the new dimension which has been brought to amnesty in Nigeria. But how did the new order start? The agitation has been muted for some time. There were people who had, before now, muttered some incomprehensible things about amnesty.

They were not audible enough. But the little we could make out of their mumbo jumbo seemed to say that those who have taken up arms against their fatherland should be granted amnesty like the Niger Delta militants. But as I said earlier, they did not make their point clear. However, what would have remained a mere murmur was given vent to by the person and personality of the Sultan of Sokoto, Alhaji Sa’ad Abubakar III. He used a forum of Muslims recently to call on President Goodluck Jonathan to grant amnesty to members of the islamist sect called Boko Haram. The Sultan believes that such a gesture would help to arrest the current slide brought about by insecurity in the country. Significantly, President Jonathan has since responded to the Sultan.

He said he cannot grant amnesty to ghosts. But it appears that some people did not listen to Jonathan well. That may explain why the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, is being associated with the call for amnesty for Boko Haram. He was quoted as saying somewhere in Gombe last week that Mr President should give a second thought to the call for amnesty for Boko Haram. If the statement credited to Tambuwal is true, we can then say that the call for amnesty for Boko Haram has become an out-of-stage concert. It is becoming an agenda which could, willy nilly, be foisted on the people of Nigeria.

However, it is not the agitation for amnesty that is the issue here. The actual fact to seek is the thinking and philosophy behind the call. I have heard some people argue recently and very spiritedly too, that those who label Boko Haram as a terrorist organization have the onus of defining what terrorism means. They argue that the sect members are not doing anything unusual. They say that Boko Haram members are killing and maiming because they want to force government to pay attention to what they are saying.

I know that we have been told what Boko Haram is saying and many of us did not make sense out of it. But the advocates say there is more to what we know. But they have not told us. They seem to be saying that the whole card will be put on the table if government is ready for Boko Haram. With this disposition, it is evident that these advocates are making light of what many of us see as a big issue. While we are squirming from the onslaught of the terrorist group, the apologists are insisting that nothing unusual is happening. They seem to be comfortable in the face of the disorder. They seem to be taking sardonic delight in our discomfort.

But we may the do well to grant them the right to feel the way they are doing. Since no one point of view is unassailable in any human situation, we must allow those who feel otherwise to hold the other end of the stick. We must entertain their viewpoint. In other words, we can discuss their proposition – to wit – that Boko Haram deserves amnesty. But those who are sympathetic to the cause of Boko Haram owe the rest of us one thing. They should let us into the heart and soul of Boko Haram. By that I mean that they should let us know and see those who are wearing their grievances like a mask. In fact, I understood what Jonathan meant when he talked about ghosts in relation to Boko Haram.

But I am pretty sure that the apologists we are talking about here did not understand him. We are therefore pleading with them now to understand. We are putting it to them that human beings do not interface with ghosts. We are alerting them to the fact that human beings with faces cannot sit round a conference table with faceless objects. The latter-day advocates of amnesty should therefore do us a favour. They should let the rest of us know who they want our government to grant amnesty to. They have to do this if they have the interest of the country at heart. But if they fail, we can then say, without fear of contradiction, that amnesty has become a shibboleth in Nigeria. And if we reduce amnesty to that, we would have abused and discredited everything it stands for. That will be most unfortunate.

He is rooted in his environment. His foibles, inadequacies, sympathies and idiosyncrasies are those of everyone. He is the unadulterated product of the real society in which we live. Everyman lives in the midst of the crowd. It could be you. It could even be me. Yet, he is not easy to find and identify. It is so because many do not live in the everyday domain. Many are given to presenting false images of themselves.

Consequently, you hardly can see many as they truly are. Everyman is much more difficult to find among the elite class. Here, everybody proceeds with a certain air of impregnability. Almost everyone in this segment of humanity looks and acts out of the ordinary. The class is peopled by lilies of the valley who ride the high horse freely. The Everyman in them has therefore dissolved into insignificance. What is left of them are plastic images and attitudes that belong more to the realm of fantasy. You need not be told what public office has turned many a Nigerian into.

A good many have mutated. They are no longer what proper human beings should be. That is why we now freely use such words and expressions as arrogance of power, inaccessibility, class consciousness, aloofness, and the like to describe and label situations which many public office holders are associated with. Significantly, however, Aregbesola, a member of the privileged class of Nigerians, has remained where he is. He is still with the people, regardless of what public office may have tried to do to him. When around him, you do not see the air and aura that public office is said to foist on people.

You see the simple man called Ogbeni by people around him. But as governor, you do not just see the simple Aregbe, he radiates passion. He looks impatient. He seems to be saddled with a lot of vision. He appears to be in a hurry to translate his vision into practical affairs. Because he is passionate about so many things, Aregbe does not shy away from issues. He believes that he can take on any subject matter. Where people around him would want to shield him from certain issues, he would readily jump unto the arena, ready to do battle with whatever that presents itself. He does this devotedly, often forgetfully, about the high office he occupies. For him, the office is sheer symbolism. It is only a platform.

What matters is how you convert its bestowals to advantage, especially in the service of the people. He is known to have a method which most people would like to describe as unconventional. His approach to most issues follows the unusual trajectory. That difference in approach is what gives him the kick. It goads him on. But if you think that Aregbe is not getting it right, then you are in for a shock. When you confront him with his actions and his ways, he will tell you that the joke is on those who do not see things the way he sees them. The burden is on them to demonstrate that the Aregbe approach is not the right one. It is this sense of conviction that has attended his monthly keep fit programme tagged “walk to live”.

Here, the Governor and his enlarged cabinet, once in a month, walk the streets of Osun State for hours. The original purpose was to keep fit. But the programme has grown in dimension. It has become an avenue for grassroots mobilisation. The major cities and federal constituencies of the state are taken in turns. Every constituency in the state is now trying to outdo the other. Whatever the original intent may have been, the programme has become a yardstick for measuring the relationship between the Aregbe government and the people of the state. The people have come to identify with it.

They look forward to it every month with great expectation and enthusiasm. I was a witness to the mammoth crowd that streamed out last week to walk the streets of Ede with the Governor. Participation in the walk has become an act of comradeship. Through it, the governor meets and feels the people. The people, in return, meet and feel him. The programme has therefore dissolved and banished the halo associated with the office of governor. It has humanized both the office and the man who occupies it. If you are to ask Aregbe what all of this means, he would throw the question back at you. He would charge you to figure out the impact the exercise is making on the people. But whatever the conjecture may be, the exercise is one issue which those who seek to upstage the governor cannot gloss over.

They face a challenge here. How will they deal with this man who seems to have conquered his environment through sheer simplicity? What better grassroots mobilization programme will they adopt to defeat the one Aregbe has instituted? These present difficult times for those who have their eyes on Aregbe’s job. The man is obviously aware of the advantage he enjoys. But it is borne out of hard work and the spirit of accommodation. He recognizes that he is in office in the service of the people. Any opposition element who wants to outdo him therefore has a Herculean task ahead. In his populism as well, the Government of the day has a feeding programme for pupils and students in public schools in the State.

They enjoy a generous dose of quality meal once a day while in school. The idea is to ensure that the pupil who has been sent out to learn is properly nourished. The aim is to have sound minds in sound bodies. Now, the people of the state have got used to this set-up. Pupils and students are used to being fed free by government. So, how will anybody tell the people of the state that their children will no longer be fed by the government for whatever reason? That is one of the burdens which those who seek to step into Aregbe’s shoes must shoulder. It is not an easy nut to crack. He understands this much.

Sometimes he relapses into mirthless laughter to draw attention to the undeniable fact that his government has set standards that are not easy to equal, or surpass. Aregbe is not all about government and its programmes. He ministers to issues of self and spirituality as well. He believes that you should be who you are. He loves his religious faith and respects it. But there are those who accuse him of fanaticism owing to his devotion and, sometimes, appearance. Such accusations only elicit laughter from the man. He pities those who see him in that light. They suffer the blight of intolerance.

He would tell you that if only they know the real Aregbe, they would understand and appreciate the fact that more than two thirds of his appointees are not of the same religious faith with him. So, where is the religious bigotry in all that? Perhaps one thing the man holds dear is his unwavering convictions. Those who accuse him of subverting the nomenclature that we are already used to when referring to the states of the Federation are usually shocked by his vehemence.

He will tell you that he has done nothing wrong. In fact, he will insist that he is on the right track. After all, the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1999, recognizes 36 States with their names. It did not provide a prefix or suffix. So, how did we come to insist that it must be Imo Sate, for instance, instead of State of Imo? Aregbe believes that we do so because the military which ravaged the polity and our psyche for several decades made it to be so.

Should we stick to that aberration or should we follow the tradition of countries that run states-based federalism such as the United States, Canada, India and the like? If we do, then we will not be surprised to know that the Aregbe nomenclature is the right approach.

In that respect, I ought to have recognized that these satirical works that questioned the moral credentials of people who profess to godliness are not just fiction. They represent certain truths about the environments in which they are set. In fact, Mongo Beti’s anti-clerical cynicism was so telling that many a critic sometimes dismiss him as irredeemably anti-Christ in outlook. But how did reality dawn on me? A Catholic Reverend in a Parish where I used to worship had dropped that hint during a homily. I reflected on what he said and shared a joke pertaining to that with my wife. Thereafter, we began to reason together over matters of celibacy in the Catholic church.

I did not, however, make a big issue out of it until the recent rave reviews brought about by the resignation of Pope Benedict XVI. His Holiness, the Supreme head of the Catholic church, took the Catholic world by storm when he announced his decision to resign, citing weakness of body. But his decision was not taken on its face value in many quarters. Speculations have since rent the air. Those who claim to know about the inner workings of the Catholic church went to town with insinuations. The Papacy was put on trial. It is still on trial at moment.

In fact, the on-going pontifical transition has, more than anything else in over a century, thrown open the temporal dimensions of the Papacy. Some reviews of Benedict’s Papacy have tended to focus on certain crises that may have hastened his decision to resign as the Bishop of Rome and Supreme head of the Roman Catholic Church. Even though Pope Benedict cited his physical incapacitation as the prime reason for his resignation, there have been insinuations that the unpriestly acts of many bishops under his care may have put intense pressure on him to want to step aside. The critical reviews have mostly been found in the Western media.

They point to homosexuality and other illicit sexual affairs in the Catholic Church. We have been told that the church, under Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger as Pope witnessed well over 300 cases of paedophilia, but the Pope could not get the Bishops to open the archives. The people in the church hierarchy led by the Pope hid the facts from public glare. Many an analyst believe that issues like this may have led to the Pope’s decision to resign. But before we determine whether there is sense or not in these insinuations, it may be appropriate to take a cursory look at the progress of the Papacy in history. The Papacy, no doubt, is one of the enduring institutions in the world that has played a prominent part in human history.

It is significant to note that during the Early church, the Bishops of Rome enjoyed no temporal power until the time of Constantine. However, after the Middle Ages, the Papacy was influenced by temporal rulers surrounding the Italian Peninsula. Further transformations that took place led to the East-West schism that divided the Catholic church and Eastern Orthodox church. Then came the Renaissance Papacy which took forays into European power politics. The period also saw to the theological challenges to Papal authority. But it was the Protestant Reformation that largely stripped the Papacy of its spiritual influences. This was a period that witnessed the largest expropriation of wealth in the history of the church.

This brief review establishes one thing – the church has been under the constant invasion of the world. The spiritual has always come under the attack and influence of the temporal. But the church has managed to weather the storm. But it would appear that the church has come under a new affliction – that of sexual perversion. One of the cardinal pillars of Catholic priest hood is celibacy. Those who elect to go into the calling do so on their own volition. It is therefore expected that they would live above board in matters of sex and sexuality. However, since we live in a world of men and women, we hardly can expect perfection in this respect. But when sexual perversion becomes an article of trade in a setting where celibacy is regarded as a virtue, then something has gone wrong with the system.

For people in the Western World who are given to all manner of perversion, the invasion of the church by sexual perverts may not shock. It could be treated as an accepted and acceptable way of life. But the problem is that the prudish tendencies of the church has not helped to expose the perverts. Because the church is not supposed to be seen to be hosting sexual rascals, the system shields them from public glare. This may be the precarious circumstance the Western media was pointing to when it held that Pope Benedict was hamstrung by the activities of priests and bishops who are supposed to be models of chastity. If this was the case, then it does not make sense to me to suggest that Pope Benedict’s resignation derived from these violations in the church.

It is much more so since no one has come close to saying that His Holiness, the Pope, was guilty of any of the charges leveled against his subjects. Perhaps, what may have fuelled the speculations is the fact that Cardinal Ratzinger did the unusual. No Pope has done what he did in more than 600 years. His decision was therefore uncommon. It will go down in the history of the church as radical. But if the Pope’s action was traceable to this in any way, we should commend him for his nobility. As the Papacy grapples with the unusual development, it is important for us to reflect a little on the damage which Western culture has done to those of us in Africa who are forced by circumstance of birth and upbringing to embrace western culture and civilization.

It must be pointed out that the story of sexual perversion wafting out of the church particularly in Europe and America is an embarrassment to the church in Africa. Even without the teachings and influence of the church, Africans as a cultured people know and appreciate the fact that certain things must be held sacred. The average adherent to church doctrines and teachings in Africa views stories that border on homosexuality or lesbianism with utmost repulsion. He cringes whenever such perversions are mentioned. He does not understand how normal humans can do that.

But it becomes even more scandalous when those who worship in churches are associated with it. For the African then, issues bordering on morality are taken a lot more seriously. They are imbibed and respected. That is in the nature of the African. But the same cannot be said of the people who exported their culture and civilisation to us. While we idealise over their teachings and doctrines, they insult our sensibility with their unbelief. For them, morality does not seem to have a place in human conduct.

The Western world is therefore exerting a corrupt influence on the African world. The result is that those ideals and belief systems which we once held dear are crumbling. We are losing faith in them.It is for reasons such as this that people now advocate for a domestication of the church to suit the environment in which they operate. If the Catholic faithful cannot look up to Rome for worthy examples in morality, then we can as well begin to create systems that will suit out environment and milieu.