Usman Ayegba
After a hiatus from writing on IPOB activities in Southeastern Nigeria because of personal conviction that I have done enough what I feel I should do no matter how inconsequential it might be, I feel obliged again to pen down this piece to draw attention of those who have sworn on the graves of their forebears that the oncoming November 6, 2021 governorship election would not hold in Anambra State except the detained IPOB leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu is released, to have a rethink. In itself, this is a condition I am very sure Nigerian the government of today is not averse to honour even if heaven falls. It will be a miracle of this century if the Federal Government of Nigeria of today is quivered to give in to the threat of IPOB of releasing Mr. Kanu as assurance of holding governorship election in that state. There are two obvious reasons why I believe the Federal Government will not do that.
One, in the eyes of the Federal Government, Mr. Kanu is the shepherd of the IPOB sheep and as long as the shepherd is in its custodial facility, the sheep will be scattered and left without direction. This obviously is in Nigeria’s best national interest. And the Nigerian government is aware of what absence of Mr. Kanu is doing in the camp of IPOB. Already, there is lack of cohesion within the ranks of IPOB as there have been reported cases of leadership tussle in recent time. The Nigerian government knows too well that Mr. Kanu holds the key to the vault of IPOB agitation and holding him incommunicado will deny IPOB the requisite leadership to move and act with guts and speed. For that, IPOB should know that Kanu will be the guest of Nigerian state for a while. The fact that Kanu had a record of jumping bail that cost the Federal government so much resources only to be re-arrested in June this year, foreclosed any chance of giving him any benefit of the doubt regarding bail. For authorities in Abuja, it is a case of ‘once bitten, twice shy’.
Yes, the Federal Government knows that holding the governorship election will be an accomplishment for Nigerian democracy but much more, it will serve greater interest of Anambrarians. If the election fails to hold due to threat of IPOB, be rest assured that the president will not hesitate to exercise the power that the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria grants him, the power to declare state of emergency and install whoever he deems fit to administer that state (I wish we avoid taking that path). Already, that idea was muted by the Attorney General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr Abubakar Malami some few days ago. The Constitution clearly states in 305(1) that, “Subject to the provisions of this Constitution, the President may by instrument published in the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the Federation or any part thereof. It went further to say in 305(2) that, “The President shall immediately after the publication, transmit copies of the Official Gazette of the Government of the Federation containing the proclamation including the details of the emergency to the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives, each of whom shall forthwith convene or arrange for a meeting of the House of which he is President or Speaker, as the case may be, to consider the situation and decide whether or not to pass a resolution approving the Proclamation.
In 305(3) says “The President shall have power to issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency only when: (a) the Federation is at war; (b) the Federation is in imminent danger of invasion or involvement in a state of war; (c) there is actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof to such extent as to require extraordinary measures to restore peace and security; (d) there is a clear and present danger of an actual breakdown of public order and public safety in the Federation or any part thereof requiring extraordinary measures to avert such danger; (e) there is an occurrence or imminent danger, or the occurrence of any disaster or natural calamity, affecting the community or a section of the community in the Federation; (f) there is any other public danger which clearly constitutes a threat to the existence of the Federation; or (g) the President receives a request to do so in accordance with the provisions of subsection (4) of this section. The said Subsection (4) states that “The Governor of a state may, with the sanction of a resolution supported by two-thirds majority of the House of Assembly, request the President to issue a Proclamation of a state of emergency in the state when there is in existence within the state any of the situations specified in subsection (3) (c), (d) and (e) of this section and such situation does not extend beyond the boundaries of the state.
The implication of declaring such emergency rule will be that, the National Assembly members (whether they be from Gombe, Ondo or Edo States) become the lawmakers for the people of Anambra State for the period of emergency. Therefore, whichever way, holding election in Anambra where Anambra people will decide who will be their governor will serve the greater interest of the people than having emergency rule declared. Let me also quickly cite two popular incidents of abstaining from election and implications both scenarios had on the absenting authority or people. The first example was Soviet Union (or Russia) over the Korean Peninsula imbroglio. In June 1950, the Soviets, rather than vetoing the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) resolution against it’s ally, North Korea, over the invasion of South Korea by Pyongyang, boycotted the Security Council meetings in protest of the seating of Taiwan as the permanent representative of the Chinese instead of mainland China. The resolution of the UNSC against North Korea stood, as the action of the Soviet Union was deemed to be a tactical approval of it (even though that was not the intention of Russia). Since then, permanent members of UNSC have learnt a lesson never to miss or obtain from Security Council meetings as protests (Salaam & Usman, 2019, p. 651).
Secondly, in Nigeria, during the 1964 Federal Election keenly contested by two alliance political parties – the Nigerian National Alliance (NNA) and the United Progressive Grand Alliance (UPGA) – the UPGA decided to boycott the election on the day of the poll on December 30, 1964, as a protest against the alleged arrest, molestation, imprisonment and harassment of it’s members especially in the North. While the order to boycott election was fully heeded to in Eastern Nigeria, it was partially observed in Western Nigeria. Despite the boycott by UPGA, the Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO) went on to conduct election. The NNA took advantage of the boycott and mobilized its members to take active part. In the end, Mr Eyo Esua, FEDECO Chairman, declared candidates of NNA winners to the surprise of UPGA. After the declaration of the results, the Premier of Eastern Region, Dr Michael Okpara, called President Nnamdi Azikiwe to summon a conference of all political leaders to “ break up the Federation (of Nigeria) peacefully”. Zik made a terse statement in that regard. Sir Ahmadu Bello quickly responded to Zik’s statement saying, “The Nigerian Constitution has no provision for secession or disintegration”. For three days, President Azikiwe refused to appoint Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa as the Prime Minister and Balewa refused to cancel the election and its results. After days of horse-trading, Dr Azikiwe invited Balewa to form a ‘broad-based national government’. The NNA government only gave some slots to NCNC members in the UPGA coalition (for full details, read Najeem Folasayo Salaam and Usman Solomon Ayegba, 2019, Rudiments of Government and Politics, Lagos, Concept Publications Limited, pp. 317 – 319).
Ndigbo, Ndi Anambra, of course, self-determination has become the internationally accepted norm and as Jeffrey Sachs said, this is certainly the era of self-determination. However, this self-determination for Biafra can be approached using other strategies acceptable by both local and international laws. Two examples cited above should be compelling enough to convince whoever is in doubt that non-participation in the political process is another form of acceptable participation. In both cases, the protest turned out to be the undoing of the protesters. The Soviet Union regretted, the UPGA regretted but America and NNA turned out victorious. The lesson here is that you cannot complain of unfairness in the process you willfully refuse to present yourself to participate. Let us be calming down. Peace is not the absence of war and war is not the absence of peace.
Our people say, let us first chase the fox away before we can begin to caution the fowl that strays into the bush. Let IPOB use the Anambra governorship election to mobilize supporters for a party and candidates it believes can experiment its anticipated governance model for Biafra. We are all crying because of poor governance. If Nigeria has been governed well over the years, nobody will be clamouring for secession. If IPOB can achieve good governance model for Anambra and by extension, the entire south east, who says it can not win the entire Nigeria over. We all have eyes, mouths and ears. If we all see that party XZY and candidates ABC supported by IPOB within the confine of law perform creditably well in Anambra and Southeast, be rest assured, North East, North West, North Central, South South, South West and even Africa, will hastily embrace such ‘Biafra’ model. Irrespective of our differences, one area we have all reached a consensus is that, good governance is desirable by and for all. The ethno-religious and regional politics that is been bandied around is a deliberate weapon by the ruling/governing elites to cause disaffection among the commoners. Otherwise, why do people put aside their religion, ethnic origin and regional affiliation when they seek for a better life in the Middle East, Europe and America?
Ndi Anambra, Ndi Igbo, let this sink, please. I come on peace.
