www.ooduapathfinder.com
By adminadmin on July 25, 2014


The “North” is now the proverbial whipping boy for the strategic missteps embarked upon by a section of Yoruba leadership at both the Jonathan Conference as well as the unfolding political drama in Nigeria. Gani Adams, the National Coordinator of OPC, was reported to have gone this route, blaming the “North” for the failure of the demand for Regionalism and Parliamentary system of government.
Any one following political developments in Nigeria would know that the “North” had never been in favor of Regionalism unless it is under its control as in the First Republic, and in recent times it has been going around the country telling anyone who cares to listen that it will oppose such positions at all times, and this was even before the commencement of Jonathan’s Conference. It is therefore strange that Gani Adams would blame the same “North” for the failure of the proposal.
Gani Adams ought to make an inward reflection and ask why would the Yoruba, for example, state that any delegate that failed to canvass for the position would not be welcome back home and also that it is “Regionalism or Nothing” only for the same delegates to turn around and blame the “North” for their failure? When making these proclamations, the delegates obviously thought that the Conference was a lecture hall where “reason” will take over. But we all know this would not be the case; we all know that the Jonathan Conference is a part of an on-going power struggle for political dominance hence it can not be “reasoned out”. The administration of the Conference itself was stacked against agitation for Regionalism/Parliamentarianism; a 30% veto power bloc was already enshrined in a minority, which even if we reduce the “North” to only the Fulani, would have served their purpose. Even the chairman of the advisory committee that went all over Nigeria taking memos on the Conference, Dr Femi Okurounmu once stated that there is no way the Conference would come out with a recommendation close to “True Federalism”—and he was/is a Yoruba delegate.
Thus, when it was assumed that the Conference was that important and the Yoruba delegates made such demands, it ought also to have been assumed that strategies would be in place to advance such demands; which, if done, would create a scenario for taking the issue beyond the Conference hall—unless they are telling us that even as everyone knew what the “North” would come up with, the delegates went ahead and allowed it to have its way knowing full well that they can always fall back on making a scapegoat out of the “North”—which was exactly what Gani Adams did.
Not finished yet, Gani Adams was also reported to have said that the southern delegates were united and they “performed” well.
“Unity” of delegates, as it were, was not a condition for a successful conference, where such success is defined by the ability of such delegates to achieve their major demand—which the southern/Yoruba delegates clearly failed to do. Furthermore, the issue is not about whether they performed well or not—for again, we have to look into how performance is measured.
Delegates who failed to achieve the major aspect of their demands cannot in any way be said to have “performed well”.
When Professor G.G. Darah, a southern delegate, in his paper on the issue of derivation and resource control, wrote thus: “It was the Gowon-Awolowo diarchy that abolished the derivation principle and funneled all the revenue to the ravenous central government under the guise of depriving the breakaway Biafra Republic of 1967-1970 of funds to prosecute the civil war”, the Yoruba delegates did not take him up on it.
What we now know as the Niger Delta or large parts of the South-South, were part of Biafra which was at war with Nigeria of which Chief Awolowo was the Finance Minister. Hence, a necessary war-time decision is now being used to castigate Chief Awolowo and a Yoruba delegate in the person of Gani Adams would see nothing wrong in that and proudly proclaim that they were “united and performed” well. Besides, it was Aguiyi Ironsi’s Decree 34 that vested everything in the center, a decision which eventually culminated in the Biafra war.
Professor G.G.Darah went on to describe the origins and continuance of resistance of the Niger Delta while glamorizing the roles played by late President Umaru Yar’ Adua and Sanni Abacha on their efforts at seeking justice for the Niger Delta. He failed to also state that political leaders of this region were in alliance with the same “North” he was castigating; that in all elections, pre and post-independence, their political leaders had always favored the “northern” party, to the detriment of even an Action Group that was manifestly championing minority rights right from its inception as a political player in Nigeria’s decolonization. Yet, a Gani Adams would excuse this on the basis of some type of “unity”? Yes, Professor G.G.Darah acknowledged the “unity” of purpose among southern delegates, especially on derivation, but then such “unity” cannot be at the expense of any part of the south; in other words, we, the Yoruba cannot subsume ourselves and our history under some nebulous “unity” that seek to make us bag carriers of the center, and we don’t expect any southern Nation to be so treated either.
This was why Gani Adams would measure “performance” in what was achieved as in State police etc. What he failed to add was the creation of more states, now totaling 54 and whose funding will be based on what we currently have now, with minor changes, especially when the essence of Nigeria itself, resource generation and control, is to be virtually left intact. Hence, what the current 36 states are sharing will now be divided up among 54 states which are now also to be saddled with additional responsibilities of having their own policing mechanisms. In effect, this is a one step forward two steps backward “performance”.
To cap it all, Gani Adams now says we should come out as a people to support a referendum to implant the decisions as a second stage of the struggle.
What this means, in effect, is that all of the demands for “True Federalism” that had been the hallmark of Yoruba political development has now been “outvoted” by the “North” in a Conference of handpicked delegates and with a procedure that was created to favor the same North right from the onset. Besides, how can there be a pan-Nigerian referendum without reliable census figures? And if we are being told that such a referendum will be held after the 2016 Census, that can only mean that these decisions will be left hanging till then and if per chance, those census figures are also disputed, such a referendum will simply become moot. Furthermore, since Regionalism is no more on their agenda, would Gani Adams expect the Yoruba to participate in a referendum that has denied their basic and fundamental demand? Or is he now telling us to forget about it?
Contrary to Gani Adams, the second stage is not the referendum but going back to the basics and creating avenues for the manifestation of our basic demands. Even Professor Ben Nwabueze thought likewise when the Igbo leaders of thought virtually came up with an alternative to what the Conference says it has achieved. Whether Professor Ben Nwabueze’s group is a minority or not, the fact is that they have refused to capitulate to the Jonathan Coalition unlike our own Gani Adams.
All of these merely point to a failure of a certain section of Yoruba leadership that has capitulated to the Jonathan agenda under the guise of fighting the “north” when in reality, they are helping to make Youbaland politically prostrate. The failure is not with or in the “North”, but in the capitulation of that section of Yoruba leadership that has now ensured the consummation of the mainstreaming agenda with its origins in the First Republic.
Mainstreaming aims primarily to denounce Yoruba “opposition” to the Center and drag Yorubaland to the Center, not by its own motive force but as an appendage of whoever is in control of that center. This “opposition”, in the First Republic, was centered on different philosophical and ideological pursuit between the AG and the NPC/NCNC Coalition, where the social welfare policies of the AG was in contradistinction to the “feudal liberalism” of the coalition. The coalition succeeded in creating a division within the AG which led to the October 1965 election crisis in the West. It was the attempt to cozy up to the “feudal liberal” alliance that became characterized as “mainstreaming”.
It will also be recalled that the alliance utilized extra-Constitutional means to achieve its goal; first by the illegal and Unconstitutional imposition of a State of Emergency in the West and the political and economic hounding of the major leaders of the AG.
What we have now, with Jonathan in the saddle, is the consummation of that idea—for these leaders had earlier on teamed up with Jonathan to ensure the dominance of their coalition in Nigeria. And it has gone ahead to do this by attempting to neutralize
the only political opposition the West has to offer—utilizing the same tactics as was done by the “feudal liberal” alliance.
Yet, this new coalition would also blame the APC for trying to “enslave Yorubaland through its merger with the North” when all of what the coalition is doing points exactly in the same direction.
The then ACN submitted a proposal for the Restructuring of Nigeria at its first meeting with Jonathan, upon his assumption of the Presidency in 2011, after which Jonathan began distancing himself from the Party. So, then, if Yoruba APC is accused of selling us out to the “North”, what has these Yoruba-Jonathan Coalition been doing?
In the First republic, all ateempts by the AG to forge an alliance with the NCNC, its own way of getting to the Center, were rebuffed by the NCNC which ended up with the NPC. So, the issue is not about whether we should be in the Center or not. In today’s circumstances, the APC also wanted to be in the Center but Jonathan’s PDP is utilizing the exact methodology of the First Republic in trying to neutralize the Party.
Politically, even if the APC ends up with a Northern Presidential candidate and wins the election, the fact that its home-base is still under its control will give it and Yorubaland a leverage. But when that base is eroded, the Yoruba APC will simply have no voice in the Party itself and by extension, Yorubaland will have no voice in Nigeria. For, if the PDP returns to power in the Center and the same PDP has used its current control of Central power to neutralize the only opposition in Yorubaland, it can only follow that Yorubaland will be at the mercy of the PDP, which will be the fulfilment of the mainstreaming agenda.
The issue then becomes who controls the PDP itself? From all indications, and with what Jonathan’s presidency is doing, it will be apt to conclude that he is preparing the grounds for the “north” to take over the PDP. All the more so when the pan-Nigeria APC is akin to the political formation that saw a working relationship between the AG, the Borno Youth Movement and elements of opposition in the then NPC’s area of dominance. It can thus be said that Jonathan has embarked on a race to neutralize any and all sorts of progressive politics in Nigeria in favor of the reactionary section of which the “north” will be the only beneficiary. The “North” is therefore, not the problem.
By Leye Ige