MAURICE IWU AND THE GAMES IGBOS PLAY WITH THEIR MOST FAMOUS SONS

By: Dr. Yakubu Tsav

Before Nigeria gained freedom from the British, the Igbos of Nigeria were known to be the most dominant and united tribe in comparism to the Yoruba and Hausa/Fulani. The Igbos were so united that the party they led, the NCNC, was deemed to be the only one with some national spread. It came to pass that when the British left, the Igbos were still the most united and prepared group to dominate national affairs in Nigeria. Their unity of purpose helped them a great deal in controlling the pre-1967 Nigerian armed forces, national commerce, and even the federal civil service. I don’t believe that it is the same great Igbo, one of whom I am happily married to, that have lately turned upon one another in an ending frenzy of political self-cannibalism. They did it to Zik (NPN sell-out); did it to Ojukwu (by getting one Onwudiwe to ‘defeat’ him); they betrayed Ekwueme in Jos; produced too many Senate Presidents; and now they have turned their self-destructive gunsights to Professor Maurice Iwu, a man who much of Nigeria sees as Igbos’ most powerful son of the moment, like or not.

It is troubling that the Igbo bask in scattering into smaller groups that quarreled amongst themselves while other Nigerians are pulling together. They forget that the Yorubas faired better because they always stuck to Awolowo and the Hausa/Fulani stuck to Sardauna, even in death. Instead of banding behind Ojukwu when he returned, the Igbo conspired to procure one unknown Onwudiwe to ‘defeat’ the charismatic Ikemba in the Nnewi senatorial election. Since then, Nigerians have never heard of that Onwudiwe again, not to talk of while he was in the Senate. A disunited Igbo forgot that they would have gained a lot more if they had united to send Ojukwu to the senate at a time when other Nigerians either respected or feared him. It therefore goes without saying that the Yorubas would have never imagined rubbishing Awolowo in any contest that held national implications and the Hausa/Fulani would have done likewise for the still-revered Sardauna.

This whole sad drama knows no bounds, as it is now being extended to Professor Maurice Iwu, Igbo’s highest political office holder in Nigeria. If you doubt the vast reach of Professor Iwu’s power and influence, remember that he continues to retain a privileged access to the President and commander-in-chief. His access to the highest levers of federal power is guaranteed by his constitutional position as head of INEC. That means that he gets to see the President anytime he wishes. And under the constitution and the Electoral Act, the office Iwu occupies is imbued with a lot of authority. This is besides the intimidating international stature and access to the highest levels of power in the United States Iwu had attained before he accepted to serve in INEC.

Recall also that Professor Iwu was appointed by Obasanjo and being that Obasanjo was our last President, Iwu can still indirectly wield lots of power and influence through him. I don’t believe the self-delusional hype that Obasanjo is suddenly no longer in reckoning in political decisions of the present day when a vast number of powerful federal officials owe their emergence to his political patronage. Except for overthrown, deceased or impeached ex-presidents, a nation’s politics continues to be influenced awhile by its ex-president, especially one like OBJ whose political machine produced much of Nigeria’s current leaders, top to down. So, whether you like or not, Obasanjo is still a force to be reckoned with, and through him, Professor Iwu can, whenever he chooses, flex lots of political muscles of a national scale.

Other ways Professor Iwu can exert his influence and power is to turn to members of the National Assembly, all of whom owe their tenure to the transition Iwu midwifed (or eked out) in 2007. Same is true of the Governors and members of the Houses of Assembly in all the states of the federation. If you think about it, you will agree that this explains why those who sought removal of Iwu relented because they got feelers from the Senate that it would have been impossible to muster the majority the constitution required for removing the Professor.

It is as if the Igbo don’t know what other Nigerians have since known and that is: Professor Iwu is their supremo of the moment, possessing plenty of goodwill and national stature the Igbos can deploy to some political advantage. It therefore beats me why Igbos have chosen to continue to be blind to Iwu’s high potentials in favor of this bewildering pre-occupation with Iwu-rubbishing. You can see this from the so many anti-Iwu media reports sponsored by the Igbos themselves, especially some Igbos of Imo State where Iwu hails from. They seem not to have read the handwriting in the wall that Professor Iwu alone can muster the most power and leverage to reach across Nigeria to ensure that the additional state they crave so much will be created.

Take the constituency delineation exercise for instance. Last month, some group (from Ideato in Imo State) said to be comprised of mostly retirees, awaiting for their pension in the village and with no clue of current trends in national affairs were procured by a bitter, a non-Ideato ex-governor to sponsor anti-Iwu articles and paid advertorials. Their write-up was devoid of any concrete facts to support their position but was instead laden with rambling personal attacks on the person and office of Maurice Iwu. Many Nigerians I spoke with didn’t see any justification for blaming Iwu for a delineation plan that was long endorsed by Ideato’s elected representative in the federal house and its two members in the state house of assembly, besides other civic groups from Ideato which have since published their own more credible reasons in support of the new delineation plan.

Under the constitution, INEC (which Iwu heads) is empowered to carry out this exercise after every ten years. Professor Iwu is doing it almost two years late because, as I gathered, he did not want to overheat the polity so close to before or after the 2007 elections. The delineation exercise is a serious national affair that is not limited to the said Ideato constituency or even Imo state alone. But any uninformed observer reading the newspapers recently will believe erroneously that Professor Iwu singled out Imo State alone and its Ideato for delineation. So, it is puzzling that a small portion of Imo State is getting personal with Iwu on a matter upon which he has the constitutional duty to act and over which other sections of Nigeria have accepted his authority.

The technical committee Iwu set up on delineation made recommendations that affected the entire federation in terms of which federal constituency gains or loses LGAs. This comports with the constitutional requirement that federal constituencies be as equal as possible in population and number of LGAs. The rest of Nigeria similarly affected has since come to terms with this. Why is Imo State alone roiling and hauling unnecessary insults on Professor Iwu? Why is Ohaneze silent when Igbo’s most famous son of the moment is being harangued by all sorts of unknowns? Why the Imo Governor, a product of Iwu’s courageous umpiring of the Imo elections, is silent while his citizens are unleashing vituperations on Imo’s most highly placed federal official? Why is the Imo House of Assembly too cowed to pass a simple resolution to condemn this perfidy? Why are Igbos continuing to embarrass themselves in front of their fellow Nigerian compatriots? Why?

Dr. Tsav is a public affairs analyst ytsav@yahoo.com

IGBOEZUO STATE BEST REPRESENTS THE PARITY NIGERIANS INTENDED FOR SOUTHEAST

IGBOEZUO STATE BEST REPRESENTS THE PARITY NIGERIANS INTENDED FOR SOUTHEAST

BY: ALOY EJIMAKOR

Creation of a new state has always been a hot-button issue since the inception of Nigeria. The very first – the creation of two protectorates of North and South was by sheer colonial fiat and it was easier because the British did not care to have any local input. They figured it was not necessary anyway since they did it mainly for their own administrative convenience and to drive the colonial agenda of ‘divide and rule’.

The second, which split Nigeria into three large regions of East, West and North was done in some recognition that Nigeria comprised of three major nationalities (Igbo, Yoruba and Hausa-Fulani). The British reckoned that the smaller nationalities will have to make do with co-existing with their larger neighbors. What emerged was a mixed federal-unitary system that mimicked the Union of England, Scotland and Ireland in the British homeland. That stuck for awhile despite the agitations by the various minority groups for their own separate regions.

The third, which led to the birth of the Midwest region (after independence) was largely driven by the then dominant NCNC which wanted to contain the Action Group through the creation of a region out of the Western Region. Some called it the Welsh of Nigeria – a fourth dimension of sorts to complete the mimicry of the ‘three-plus-one’ arrangement of the British homeland that included the Welsh as a fourth region.

The fourth creation of states (not regions anymore) was by Gowon in 1966 and it was targeted against the monolithic (read: separatist and feared) Eastern Region and their allies in the Midwest. Simply put, it was just meant to defeat the gathering secessionist drumbeats. To Gowon’s credit, the balance of power between the North and South was maintained in a 12-state structure.

The fifth by Murtala was meant to correct the imbalances and inequities (rightly or wrongly) of the harried creation done by Gowon and also to break up the regional power hegemons. Thus, greater considerations were given to balance between the large tribes and neo-minority enclaves; yet, somehow, the Igbo were left marginalized. That concluded the first wave of state creations by military fiat. The coming of Shagari brought a lull due to the constitutional restrictions on creation of more states. When Buhari came, he did not care, but Babangida and Abacha succumbed to political expediency by creating additional states. In both exercises, an attempt was made to reward the Igbos for past injustices, yet both regimes did not go far enough, thus resulting in the present persisting imbalance where the South East has the least states out of all the geopolitical zones in the country. Suffice it say that state creation, even when done on the basis of administrative convenience or political expediency, still tried to capture some common elements, mostly bordering on considerations of large populations and linguistic/ethnic homogeneity (South East, South West, and Far Northern States); minority self-determination (The Middle Belt States and the South-South); and parity of regions (North-South divide, tripod theories, and now ‘geopolitical parity’ or balance). Intra-cultural affinity/identity and some fuzzy considerations of contiguity are merely ancillary.

But most tellingly, there is no clear evidence that previous creation of states occurring within and amongst a homogeneous Yoruba, Igbo and Hausa/Fulani was based on any notion of intra-cultural affinity or separateness from the whole (as argued by promoters of Adada, Orashi, Aba and Orlu/Njaba). The reason is because these three major ethnic groups are assumed to be possessed of a single (undifferentiated) cultural identity. Any opposite postulation is a fallacy and bound to be divisive, if not unconvincing to the larger Nigerian community that must approve the request for a new state. The only two groups that had advanced such arguments in the past, with some marginal success, were the Okun Yoruba and the Ika Igbo; and even then, both have not succeeded in selling it as a compelling reason to be created as separate states. The Okuns are still in Kwara and Kogi States with others; ditto for the Ikas in Delta State. To now accept that Adada, Aba, Orashi or Orlu/Njaba deserve a separate state because they are suddenly culturally different from the rest of the Igbos will inflame the Okuns and Ikas to competition. And if they renew their demands, they will do so with reasons more compelling than the best arguments advanced yet by promoters of Adada, Aba, Orashi and Orlu/Njaba. In the end, ‘geopolitical parity’, which was the sole reason that swayed other Nigerians to agree for the Southeast to get one more state will be submerged under a plethora of many new demands from other sections of Nigeria, all to the point of gridlock and the certitude that in the denial of all, the Southeast will again be denied.

Therefore, the creation of an additional state in the South East will succeed only if it set aside considerations of ‘intra-cultural affinity’, flimsy stretches of differences from the whole or other sectarian arguments in favor of the more persuasive and sensible ‘geopolitical parity’ theory, best represented by the compelling case that the new state will comprise of swats of territories from all the existing states of the South East. Reason: This is (again) the only agitation in the history of state creation that is propelled by the collective desire of Igbos as a whole for an additional state and it was endorsed by the rest of Nigeria for that reason alone. That means that it is the only one that fits the current national temperament on state creation and thus stands ready to pass the difficult legislative muster of all the State Houses of Assembly in the federation.

To be sure, the demand was for one more state in the Southeast and it was never propelled by any of the ‘cultural affinity/contiguity’ arguments now advanced to justify the sectarian demand for Orashi, Adada, Orlu/Njaba or Aba state. What was presented was a pan-Igbo collective request for an additional state to bring South East to some par with the other geopolitical zones. And that was the single rationale that persuaded other Nigerians to sign on. Thus, to now allow some sectarian group to take the bacon home and keep it only for themselves will be tantamount to some sort of political fraud on the larger Igbo, if not the larger Nigeria that had contemplated otherwise.

The polarizing demands dusted up from closed history by patchy groups of Igbos, so desperate to be now recognized as culturally distinct from the rest of the Igbos, has long been deemed inferior to the greater force and merits of the ‘geopolitical parity’ theory. Reason: All well-meaning Igbos everywhere fear (with some historical justification) that if allowed to proliferate, the purveyors of this ‘we are separate’ arguments will again frustrate what was initially a ‘one-Igbo’ effort, split Igbos into bitter groups against one another and eventually create the scary situation where other Nigerians may withdraw their universal support and deny the Igbo while pointing to their famous (or infamous) disunity as the sole reason. Thus, the only viable option is to push for a new state that will be neutral and not one that will appear to be recognizing and rewarding the selfishness found in the demand for the creation of Adada, Aba, and Orlu/Njaba or Orashi states.

Ejimakor writes out of Washington DC alloylaw@yahoo.com