With all confidence, it can be assumed that tomorrow’s state governorship elections take place at Anambra. Coming against the background of uncertainty of official threat, in view of the prevailing violence, to impose state of emergency in the state, it is so far a relief the elections are not being postponed. Expectedly, the threat was issued by Federal attorney-general and minister of justice, Abubakar Malami, perhaps out of frustration with critics, mainly political opponents. Also, tomorrow’s elections in Anambra are against the background of counter assurance by President Muhammadu Buhari, completely ruling out a state of emergency.
All the same, Malami’s earlier threat of state of emergency provided a field day for sceptics who created doubt on who to believe between Buhari and Malami. But nobody should be deceived. Had the crunch come, Buhari would have had no choice than to back his attorney-general. In the first declaration of emergency on any state in Nigeria wayback in May 1962, Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa summoned the House of Representatives for that purpose. These days, state of emergency is declared in the state concerned ahead of approval later by the National Assembly. At least, that was the experience under former President Olusegun Obasanjo on Ekiti state last time.
Again, nobody should be deceived that prospects of state of emergency over Anambra or entire south east or even over Nigeria would completely disappear after tomorrow’s elections in Anambra. The authority, time (indeed timing) and risk of declaration of emergency over any part of Nigeria are all the sole responsibility of the prevailing Nigerian Federal Government, usually part of a self-serving political move. For example, in 1962, the NPC/NCNC federal coalition government moved through the declaration of emergency, to unseat the opposition Action Group administration of the defunct western region. On the other hand, a PDP-controlled federal government under former president Obasanjo suspended another PDP administration in Ekiti state. It therefore does not limit exercise of federal power to declare emergency over a state is limited to political rivalry, though such may help. Therefore, the outcry that only APC prejudice and political opportunism were behind the threat to impose emergency rule against the APGA administration in Anambra state was not tenable.
The question is: Did (and still does) the atmosphere in Anambra or in fact the entire south east warrant/justify emergency rule or not? That is the issue. Accordingly, south easterners must not be terrorised by a minority against their wishes. If the people are traumatised, especially with bare-faced threat against their individual or group security of lives and property, the federal government has a duty to come to their aid by declaring a state of emergency in the area(s) concerned. Otherwise, why are these same Nigerians blaming the federal government for glaringly failing to ensure the safety of Nigerians of all ethnic nationalities and religions throughout northern zones for the past fifteen years? Admittedly, that must be preceded by identical poser on why the federal government is not thinking of emergency rule against the anarchy in at least ten northern states? Still not an excuse to be unconcerned about the total lawlessness in south east.
There are more questions for south easterners, be they Nigerians or Biafrans. By the way, the struggle for Biafra even as an independent nation, provided through self-determination, is legitimate. Southern Cameroon, formerly part of eastern Nigeria, exercised similar right of self-determination in a referendum conducted by the United Nations in 1961, shortly after Nigeria’s independence. However, such right must not be translated into terrorism as we are witnessing in south east. If people are violently attacked and killed, either because they oppose Biafra,or to compel them to support Biafra, that is terrorism and such victims are entitled to be protected or rescued by the Federal Government even if through declaration of mergency rule. Nobody should therefore get it into his head that the electons in Anambra tomorrow will necessarily end prospects of emergency rule. The anarchists will continue even after the elections.
Fortunately, this is not the first time south easterners are struggling for independence. Till today, the leader of that first struggle between 1967 and 1970, Ikemba Emeka Ojukwu remains a cult hero despite the failure of the independence effort. And why? South easterners are resurgitating on Biafra while even Yoruba who joined the north to conquer Biafra in the civil war, are today vindicating Ojukwu by agitating for Yoruba Nation as an independent country from Nigeria. Ikemba Ojukwu did not kill his people or terrorise them to support Biafra. The support for Biafra under Ojukwu was voluntary, arising from common cause. So it should be today.
South east, either as part of Nigeria or even independent country should not be be for only corpses or the jobless as they are being compelled to be. Who are those claiming that atmosphere for declaration of emergency rule does not exist in south east or specifically in Anambra state? Last time, a top Nigerian politician Ahmed Gulak, was shot dead in Owerri, Imo state on a Sunday morning on his way to the airport. Whatever the reason(s). Gulak had earlier overseen an internal political process in their APC. Ostensibly for this, he was killed? Forty years ago, such a political tragedy would have caused disproportionate reprisal killings in his part of the country, almost throwing the country into total conflagration. Those who don’t know or don’t believe should go into Nigeria’s history. Luckily, we escaped repeat of such national tragedy. Perhaps, that narrow escape did not make us realise the thoughtlessness and risk of pointless killings going on in south east even as a prelude to the attainment of Biafran independence’.
Last April (2021), the country home of Imo state governor, Hope Uzodinma was attacked in Owerri by numerous heavily armed men who left at least two security staff dead. Suppose the gunmen came at a time the governor was spending time at home, he and his family could have fallen fatal victims. Do we have to wait for such disaster to warrant declaration of state of emergency? We should not even mention killings of locals in various churches regularly throughout south east which have become rituals, even if not related to the struggle for Biafran independence. All the same, such needless and unexplained killings form an essential part of the existence of anarchy in south east, making declaration of emergency rule inevitable eventually. Otherwise, what explanation could be offered for the murder of Chike Akunyili, a widower and not much visible as a politician? Was it some kind of political partisanship to have gone to collect an Anambra state government posthumous award for his deceased wife Arising from that senseless murder, what is expected to be the reaction of the orphans of the deceased couple to any prospects of or actual declaration of state of emergency over Anambra by the Federal Government?
Some might submit that another victim of the anarchy in Anambra state (and the entire south east), Joe Igbokwe is luckier, despite his monumental tragedy by arsonists who burnt down his modest house in Nnewi. Luckier even if alive? That is arguable. Joe Igbokwe and his entire immediate family henceforth as the loss extends to the entire south east. In short, after Igbokwe, any other family in south east is vulnerable. How can the family, especially the children, be ever convinced of their safety or any interest in visiting their father’s country home in Nnewi? It will be fear and sad memory all the time. Suppose they were all at home when the arsonists called, what would have been their lot? In the name of fighting for Biafra’s independence?
If the Igbokwe family (or any family for that matter) could not feel safe against the violence of the anarchists now that federal government is assumed to be responsible for the safety of all parts of Nigeria, what guarantee is available that the anarchists in an independent Biafra, would not descend on targeted families like the Igbokwes? Suspects in Anambra, have disowned responsibility for burning down the house and belongings of the Igbokwe family. As if the suspects could ever have owned up to the crime. Does that reduce the losses of Igbokwe family or Igboland? Where is Igbokwe’s house situated? Not Ijebu-Ode, not Katsina, not Kano, not Jos, not Agbor, not Ipetumodu, not Owo and not Oyo or Ile Ife but in Nnewi city, Anambra state. In effect, the burning down of Igbokwe’s house reduces, by one, the number of modest houses in Nnewi and the entire south east. Who burnt down Igbokwe’s house at Nnewi? Not a Yoruba man, not a Kanuri man, Not a Fulani, Tiv, Hausa or Fufude. Those who burnt down Joe Igbokwe’s country home were all fellow Igbos. That is for the record.
Any claim that violence warranting declaration of state of emergency exists in south east as well as at ten states spread across northern zones is more credible and tenable to compel justice for all. That is the argument rather than any other submission which holds no water. The annual almost mass return of all south easterners from all parts of the world for the yuletide and new year festivities is at hand. The financial contribution of that event to the economy of the south east is inestimable. Now is the time for the anarchists to embark on gradual ceasefire and a more peaceful approach to their political goal. Or the present violence will scare away many south easterners from the Christmas and new year celebrations. Neither should any truce be for only tomorrow’s election or it will be followed by a resumption of the violence, which will be politically suicidal. It will also be a risk which will make declaration of a state of emergency more possible without necessarily extending same to the vulnerable ten northern states.
Every reason for declaration of state of emergency in Anambra or anywhew in southeast can also apply in the ten northern states. Violent attacks on schools, prisons, police stations, higher institutions, churches, mosques, hospitals, murder of innocent citizens, bombing of markets, kidnappings, lockdown of cities and states at the pleasure of the anarchists, etc. The picture is that of a stiff competition between south east and the ten vulnerable northern states.
By the way, in these matters, the enemy may not necessarily be Muhammadu Buhari. South easterners should look among themselves for the enemy. Should Buhari approach national assembly for approval of state of emergency in the ten vulnerable northern states, sufficient number of southern will join adequate number of northern members of national assembly to oppose declaration of emergency rule in the northern states. On the other hand, should Buhari contemplate declaration of emergency rule in south east, southern members of the national assembly will, more enthusiastically, along with their northern colleagues, endorse the move. Time will tell.
A good example. Following the destruction of lives and property especially in the north east in the past fifteen years by Boko Haram, the Federal Government introduced a bill for special fund for the reconstruction of north east. The bill was hurriedly passed by National Assembly with support of southern members of the National Assembly. Only less than three years ago did it occur to south eastern members that their zone also needed special fund for reconstruction of roads in south east. Either more than the north east or like the north east, it is a hangover from the destruction and damages from the civil war which ended fifty years earlier. What was the outcome or benefit (if any) of the bill for special fund for the reconstruction of south east?