WHEN SHALL WE HAVE TRUE INDEPENDENCE? NIGERIA IS A BRITISH EXPERIMENT IN MEDIOCRITY SINCE OUR PSEUDO-INDEPENDENCE IN 1960

NIGERIAN MASSES REDEEM NIGERIA PARTY

N M R N P

WHEN SHALL WE HAVE TRUE INDEPENDENCE?

NIGERIA IS A BRITISH EXPERIMENT IN MEDIOCRITY

A British Legacy in Deliberate Underdevelopment of Ex-Colonial Territories Resulted In the Dark Years of a Revolving Door of Military Dictators in a Bedevilled Nigeria

 

Dr Jideofo Kenechukwu Danmbaezue, D.Sc.

Consultant Clinical Psychologist & Existential Family Therapist

Kenez Health Klinik & Happy Family Network International

5 Church Street, Federal Housing Estate, Trans-Ekulu, Enugu.

Phone: 0803-9097614 or 0805-1764999, E-mail: saintkenez@yahoo.co.uk

You can also visit my website: www.happyfamilynetwork.hpage.com for more

THE PREAMBLE:

Has anyone ever bordered to ask, why was a primary classroom teacher preferred to lead a developing nation whereas that country had a British-trained barrister and an American-trained journalist as leading nationalists?

Alternatively, put it this way, what was the rationale that warranted hoisting a ‘Homo Faber’ non-politician that never participated in the agitation for independence on an emerging nation whereas vibrant and prominent nationalists were available and eager to serve. Were they deliberately ignored, maligned, ostracised and craftily sidelined.

The answer is simple for any political analyst who is worth his salt in evaluating the “divide-and-rule” diplomacy of Britain; Nigeria was/is merely an experiment in mediocrity by the British Political Class designed by expert neo-colonialists to maximise her full exploitation of the natural resources of the natives!

The evidence is so clear and unambiguous. For thirty years, with only a few years respite, the civil polity in Africa’s most populous and the largest black nation worldwide bled under a revolving door of military rulers! Her natural crude oil was the priority that the West needed! Her citizens were simply abandoned like lepers; ignored to grunt and die!

THE KENEZIAN DEPOSITION:

Dr Jideofo Kenechukwu Danmbaezue, ex-Biafran Commando Major (BA/6532) of the 12 Commando Brigade, 1968 - 1970 & currently a retired FLT LT (NAF 759) of the Medical Corps, 1976 – 1979, emphatically states that ;

NIGERIA IS AN EXPERIMENT IN MEDIOCRITY BY BRITISH NEO-COLONIAL MASTERS designed to exploit and under-develop the nation through remotely teleguiding the Northern Mediocre they had hoisted/helped to cling to political power since her pseudo-independence in1960. To date they manipulate them from Buckingham Palace/No 10 Downing Street! The experiment is on-going; the 2011 post election riots prove my case.

From the end of the unnecessary fratricidal war till 1999 the polity knew no peace and had no respite from the marauding Generals, all from the North,  who changed batons in a marathon race of stealing authority, maiming opposition leaders and successively looting the national treasury. You may not blame them; they were drafted into the Nigerian Defence Academy (NDA) early in life for the sole purpose of dominating the Southerners for ever and were indoctrinated that the military would rule in the future by the Late Sultan Ahmadu Bello, the Sarduana of Sokoto, the leader of NPC.

General Buhari, a protégé of the Late Sultan used it as his main campaign manifesto by reacting to the principle thus; he told Northern youths that if an ‘unbeliever’ from the South won the 2011 Presidential election; they would be slaves for the next 40 years. Read about all his tactics of playing on ethnic and religious sentiments from both local and international media. Below is a recent witness/exhibit: 

According to Friday, 22 April 2011 00:00

By Reuben Abati in Opinion – Columnists;

“It is Buhari’s CPC that has literally been on the offensive.  There is no iota of doubt whatsoever that the angry youths who have made a section of the country ungovernable believe that they are acting on behalf of the CPC. They have been chanting: “mu ke so, ba muso hanni” (It is Buhari we want, we don’t want an unbeliever”). General Buhari has been quoted in the media saying that he deplores the violence, he has also spoken on BBC Hausa service and he has issued two statements in English language to that effect. General Buhari has to do much more than that.

His responses to the electoral process and his party’s have been at best contradictory and mischievous. It will be recalled that in the first week of March 2011, General Buhari advised his supporters to “lynch” anybody who tries to rig the April polls. In his words: “you should never leave polling centres until votes are counted and the winner declared and you should lynch anybody  that tries to tinker with the votes.” Subsequently, with his supporters having been so incited, General Buhari disclosed that he did not intend to go to court as a person, but that his party could do so, in the event of his not winning the election.

In the same month of March 2011, Buhari’s running mate, Pastor Tunde Bakare also allegedly declared that there would be a “wild wild North” if the elections were rigged. Buhari and Bakare were strongly criticized for this, with pointed insinuations by a group called “Coalition for Transparency and Integrity” that the CPC duo did not have the right temperament for the job that they sought. On April 16, General Buhari after voting complained about unusual aircraft movement and the distribution of ballot papers that had already been thumb-printed: “Buhari said that it was the responsibility of young people as major stakeholders to ensure that the elections were free and fair. If they allow the ruling party to mess them up, it is they who will suffer for the next 40 years.” (The Punch, April 17, at page 14).  There has been a lot of lynching in the North since then! Today, we also have on our hands, a “wild wild North”. So, what exactly does General Buhari want? And what should he do?

I have read the statement issued by General Buhari titled “Message of Peace and Hope.” There is very little about hope in that message.  A speech in which the General writes off the entire election as fraudulent and Jega as insincere, and shows no sign of reconciliation with the opposition says nothing about hope, rather it says everything about the likely dangers ahead. General Buhari should realise that it is precisely this kind of attitude that led to the current crisis in Cote D’Ivoire. In the US Presidential election in 2000, Al Gore could have put his feet down over Florida: the margin between him and George Bush Jnr was so close, but in the end, he conceded defeat so America could move on. In 1979, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who commanded like Buhari, a cult-like following chose to go to court to contest the results of the Presidential election in part, his disciples insist, in order to prevent violent protest in the South West, and the occurrence of another “wild wild West phenomenon.” It is such statesman-like conduct that is required from Buhari at this moment.”

I thank Reuben Abati. He is a courageous journalist! I doff my cap for a patriot! In short, he literarily stated that Buhari incited the Muslim youths to lynch anyone who stopped them from winning the Presidential election. “If they allow the ruling party to mess them up, it is they who will suffer for the next 40 years.” (The Punch,  April 17, at page 14). The best question to ask is; HOW HE GOT HIS FIGURE OF 40 YEARS. Can you not see how he got his figure of 40? Do a simple arithmetic; 2000 – 1960 = 40. That was the blueprint of the Northern Oligarchy masterminded and popularised by the almighty Sultan of Sokoto who had intended to dominate Nigeria with his select group of NDA graduates! If you did not know, then realise it now; KADUNA NZEOGWU pre-empted the Anglo-sponsored coup d’etat of NPC scheduled for the 17^th of January 1966. His was a counter coup that the Omniscient and Merciful Creator used to save the Southerners from a pre-meditated slavery of 40 years! The British political strategists were fully aware of this and it explains why they ceded two-thirds of the nation both in land mass and population to the “Hausa and Fulani in the North (29.8 million), Yoruba in the West (12.8 million), and Ibo in the East (12.4 million). Although Western impact came late to the larger and more populated Muslim North, ruled by powerful feudal emirs, its legislative majority dominated the federal Parliament.” See Audrey Chapman, (Feb 1968) cited on p.10 below. Don’t ignore British ‘divide-&-rule’ demonic diplomacy! Remember also that a vehicle plate number slogan; “BORN TO RULE” came from the Northern home state of the Sultan.

THEREFORE, MY DISSERTATION IS:

“Nigeria is a perfect example of the British legacy of deliberately under-developing her ex-colonial territories. This resulted in the dark years of a revolving door of military dictators in a bedevilled Nigeria. From the end of the unnecessary fratricidal war till 1999 the polity has not known peace nor had any respite from the marauding military dictators, all from the North,  who changed batons in a marathon race of looting the national treasury, perennially reducing our GNP, depleting the natural resources in the Delta region, misappropriating our foreign reserves, maiming opposition leaders and successively clinging onto political power as their late mentor had taught them to do.”

-- Dr Jideofo Kenechukwu Danmbaezue, (Flt Lt J. K. D. Mbaezue, (rtd) NAF 759

SAMPLE THESE EXCERPTS FROM ROBERT STOCK OF THE MICROSOFT ENCYCLOPAEDIC ON THE BACKGROUND OF THE PSEUDO-NATION CREATED BY BRITAIN IN 1960 - - - - (UNEDITED)

The constitution failed on several counts, was abrogated in 1949 and was followed by other constitutions in 1951 and 1954, each of which had to contend with powerful ethnic forces. The Northern People’s Congress (NPC) argued that northerners, who made up half of Nigeria’s population, should have a large degree of autonomy from other regions and a large representation in any federal legislature.

The NPC was especially concerned about respect for Islam and the economic dominance of the south. The western-based Action Group also wanted autonomy; they feared that their profitable western cocoa industries would be tapped to subsidize less wealthy areas. In the poorer east, the National Council for Nigeria and the Cameroons wanted a powerful central government and a redistribution of wealth—the very things feared by the Action Group.

The eventual compromise was the 1954 constitution, which made Nigeria a federation of three regions corresponding to the major ethnic nations. It differed from the 1947 constitution in that powers were more evenly split between the regional governments and the central government. The constitution also gave the regions the right to seek self-government, which the Western and Eastern regions achieved in 1956. The Northern Region, however, fearing that self-government (and thus British withdrawal) would leave it at the mercy of southerners, delayed the imposition until 1959.

In December 1959, elections were held for a federal parliament. None of the three main parties won a majority, but the NPC, thanks to the size of the Northern Region, won the largest plurality. Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, head of the NPC, entered a coalition government with the eastern NCNC as prime minister. The new parliament was seated in January 1960.

With an active Parliament and a sturdy economy, the most populous country in Africa had seemingly made an easy transition to independence in 1960. Nigeria's 250 tribes, each with its own language and customs, were divided into three and later four regions, each dominated by major tribes: Hausa and Fulani in the North (29.8 million), Yoruba in the West (12.8 million), and Ibo in the East (12.4 million). Although Western impact came late to the larger and more populated Muslim North, ruled by powerful feudal emirs, its legislative majority dominated the federal Parliament.

The better-educated, change-oriented, aggressive Ibos in the East, many of whom immigrated to key positions outside their crowded region, resented Northern dominance and the many evidences of federal corruption. The tragic events of 1966 began on January 15 when a military coup by army officers toppled the government and led to the establishment of military rule under an Ibo general, Johnson T. U. Aguiyi-Ironsi, who surrounded himself with Ibo advisers. Northern resentment led to attacks on Ibos, and on July 29 the regime of General Ironsi was overthrown, and Lieutenant Colonel (later Major General) Yakubu Gowon, a Northern Hausa, became the chief of state of the Federal Military Government (FMG).

In September some 20,000 to 30,000 Ibos were massacred, and many more were attacked and maimed. Having reason to believe themselves marked for extermination, Ibos from all over Nigeria returned in a mass migration to the Eastern Region, where, under their regional military governor, Lieutenant Colonel (later General) Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu, many pressed for local autonomy and the more militant called for independence. The break came on May 30, 1967, three days after the federal government divided the four regions into 12 states in a move to decentralize and thereby reduce tribal antagonisms.

Cut off by the division from coastal trade and oil resources which would have made them economically viable, the Ibos declared the independence of the Eastern Region under the name of the Republic of Biafra (taken from the name of an inlet on the Gulf of Guinea). Fighting broke out in June, and despite Biafran forays during the early months of the war, the federal forces had, by the end of this year, closed an ever-narrowing ring around Biafra, which continued to resist in guerrilla fashion.

America

POST MORTEM AND OPTIMISTIC OUTLOOK AS A REMEDY

Restrained optimism marked Nigeria's tenth independence anniversary on October 1. Gowon promised a new national census by 1973 and a new constitution as preludes to elections leading to a return to civilian government by 1976, or earlier if possible. Most close observers saw Gowon's leadership as a necessary factor in maintaining peaceful progress, but few had expected the elections to be delayed as long as six years. Those who are optimistic about Nigeria's future point to the rapid pace of the return to economic and social normalcy.

A reasonable reconciliation with the Biafrans has been achieved despite dire predictions of their being massacred. The federal victory held together over 400 diverse tribes, and the 1967 redrawing of the former four contentious regions into 12 more equitably balanced states should help prevent tribal differences from causing another war.

In February the oil industry output exceeded the highest prewar level, making Nigeria the world's tenth-largest oil producer. In November, Gowon announced a four-year plan to develop Nigerian industry. The government plans to control the nation's industries and 'strategic natural resources' to make sure companies comply with the planned growth timetable. The oil industry, presently entirely foreign run, will be taken over by a planned national oil corporation. The development plan appropriated $658 million, of which $114 million will be spent in 1970-1974, for implementing industrial expansion. In addition, money was allotted for expansion and modernization of the public transportation, educational, and agricultural systems.

CONCLUSION

When shall we be truly independent of Britain and her crafty foreign policies? We are being manipulated from Buckingham palace and 10 Downing Street by remote controls, while we mistakenly think it is our northerners brothers who are being used against us are our real political enemies. They are not! They have been brainwashed!
My dearest compatriots don't sit on the fence while we remain only pawns on their chess board! Our children's future is at stake. I need veritable answers now before another civil war engulfs us.

 

Dr Jideofo Kenechukwu Danmbaezue, D.Sc.

Phone: 0803-9097614 or 0805-1764999, E-mail: saintkenez@yahoo.co.uk

NIGERIA IS A BRITISH EXPERIMENT IN MEDIOCRITY SAID DR KENEZ IN 2011 BEFORE THE ELECTIONS AND NOW HE HAS MANY FOLLOWERS

The triumph of mediocrity in Nigeria

ON AUGUST 13, 20137:40 AMIN VIEWPOINTCOMMENTS

By Femi Aribisala

SOME years ago, I visited Angola.   On a sight-seeing tour around Maputo, my guide took me to an area of the city where the powers-that-be lived. The houses were obviously more elegant than those in other areas.  The streets were tarred and the gardens manicured.  He then said something that caught my attention.  He said: “There are no power-cuts in this part of the city.” Negatively egalitarian: For some reason what came immediately to my mind was that Nigeria is an egalitarian country.  Don’t ask me to justify this questionable distinction, but I thought: “There are no parts of Lagos where there are no power-cuts.”  All Nigerians enjoy power-cuts.  Even the powerful are not denied this benefit. While that might suggest there is little discrimination between the rich and the poor in Nigeria, it is not intended here as a compliment.  It means we have not been able to define exclusion zones to power-cuts. Let me put it this way: Nigeria seems to be currently incapable of identifying an area, city or region where there would be no power-cuts for whatever reason? Nigeria Football Supporters Club There were power-cuts in the middle of the African Cup final football match between Nigeria and Burkina Faso.  Given our current romance with power-cuts, is it possible for Nigeria to define an area of excellence with regard to something as basic as electricity?

The President of Nigeria is the Patron of the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs.  In that capacity, he gives an annual speech on the state of Nigeria’s foreign policy under the auspices of the Institute.  I recall one of those speeches when General Ibrahim Babangida was Head of State. The venue was the National Arts Theatre, Iganmu, Lagos.  In the middle of the president’s speech, there was a power-cut that lasted thirty minutes.  The back-up generator failed to come on.  Everyone remained there in the dark in silence, waiting for the light to come back on.  The security implications were not lost on me.  Given Nigeria’s checkered history, there might have been a coup d’état at that very minute and the president could have been attacked. Democratisation  of power cuts My problem with that incident lies in our inability to guarantee electricity even when the president of the country is giving a major speech.  In other countries, heads would roll for such a blunder.  In Nigeria, it is par for the course.  We are not bothered because power-cuts are “democratised.” Nobody is excluded.  Today, I bet there are power-cuts even in Aso Rock.  The only thing will be that standby-generators are turned on when they occur.

Mediocre presidents: Nigeria is a country of mediocrities.  Anybody can be anybody in Nigeria.  A carpenter can be appointed as Minister of Health.  A doctor can become the Minister of Mines and Power.  Qualifications matter little.  It is “Turn-by-turn Nigeria Limited.” An indolent man wakes up in the morning, has a long stretch and then comes to a sudden decision: “I am going to run to be President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”  Two weeks later, he is interviewed about his candidature in one of the country’s major newspapers, after having given a bulging brown envelope to a strategically-placed journalist. Does anyone really believe this nincompoop has a chance of becoming president of Nigeria?  Yes, indeed!  In Nigeria, all things are possible.  Even a blind man can become the goal-keeper of the Super Eagles.  Nigeria is a democratic country in a truly Nigerian sense of the word.  Just about anybody can be president of the country. Chris Okotie was a musician. Then he morphed overnight into a pastor.  From there, he received a divine call to run for president of Nigeria.  Nobody seemed to be bothered by this.  Nobody laughed at his presumptiveness.  He filled the newspapers with adverts proclaiming his divinely ordained candidature.  He never thought it necessary to start off by running as a local government chairman. He overlooked his state legislature.  He refused to consider running for membership of the Federal House of Assembly.  He considered the Senate to be beneath his aspirations.  He clearly felt running as the Governor of his state would not cut it. 

In Nigeria, experience is irrelevant. Presidents don’t get much done anyway.  Therefore, the first choice of a political neophyte by name of Chris Okotie was to run as president.  Presumably, as president, he would run the country by prayer and fasting. Nigeria is a country where true presidential materials never get to be presidents.  Many are celebrated in death as the best presidents Nigeria never had.  On the contrary, we have many examples of men who glory at becoming presidents unexpectedly, without plan or purpose. Obasanjo became president and claimed: “Not My Will.”  Shagari became president when all he wanted was to be a Senator. Goodluck Jonathan became president essentially as a result of his good luck.  That means people become president who don’t have a clue what to do when in power.  When they become president, they register in a school and start to learn the ABC of public policy.  By the time they reach JSS 1, their term is over.  Then they might shoot for a third term.

Challenge of leadership:

Different countries define their areas of specialisation; not Nigeria.  When you think Brazil, you think football.  When you think of Cuba, you think Olympic boxing.  When you think of Jamaica, you think of world class sprinters. When you think of Japan, you think electronics.  But when you think of Nigeria, nothing of excellence comes to mind.  When you think of Nigeria, you think of corruption, kidnapping and armed-robbery.  When you think of Nigeria, you think of 419; “yahoo yahoo” and other scams.  We only specialise in the negatives.  We have not yet decided as a nation to be good at anything or to be known for anything good.  In 52 years of independent existence as a country, we have still not even decided to be a nation.

And yet, it is a decision that can very easily be made.  All it requires is a leadership that can challenge Nigerians to excellence.  There is no question that Nigeria is full of remarkable people who are exceptional in virtually every area of human endeavour. You will find them all over the world, in key and strategic areas of the economies of foreign countries.  But you will struggle to find them in Nigeria.  The same Nigerian who fails to pull his weight while working at the Federal Ministry of Education, undergoes a metamorphosis when he moves to the British Council where he puts up a stellar performance.

 “We choose to go to the moon,” declared John F. Kennedy as President of the United States in 1962, “We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard.”  By 1968, United States had landed a man on the moon.  That is proof of leadership.  A decision is taken and resources are marshaled to bring it to fruition. By the same token, Nigerians can and should choose to excel in something for a change.  We cannot continue in the current pattern where we chose to go to the Olympics and are determined to win no medals whatsoever.  The last Olympic outing was nothing short of disgraceful.  We tried our very best to fail and succeeded.  The best sprinters in the world are naturally produced in Nigeria, the same way the best middle-distance runners are naturally produced in Kenya and Ethiopia.  Nevertheless, we continue to watch on the sidelines as a small country as Jamaica, with only 6 million people, dominates the sprints in the Olympics.

Football prodigies: Nigeria is a nation of footballers.  Visit any major Nigerian city on a public holiday, and you are likely to find that many streets have been converted to makeshift football pitches.  However, since our local football league is still under mismanagement, Nigerians adopt clubs of the foreign English Premier League.  The London clubs are the most favoured, especially Arsenal and Chelsea.  As a matter of fact, the European Champions League is hotly contested in Ibadan and Enugu. Comparative advantage There is no reason why a Nigerian team cannot win the World Cup in football, and yet, we even fail to qualify for participation.  Nigeria has a comparative advantage in producing excellent footballers.  For some reason or the other, we produce quite a number of world class footballers who give good accounts of themselves all over the world. Nevertheless, we fail again and again to put together a world-class national football team.  When we manage to qualify for the World Cup, we choose our coaches four weeks to the competition and train a ragtag team for no longer than a fortnight.  Is it any wonder why we always come back with eggs on our faces? Finally, after a 19 year hiatus, we won the African Nations Cup this year in spite of ourselves.  We did our very best to ensure failure as usual.  But somehow, we succeeded most unexpectedly against the odds. 

The coach, Steven Keshi, claimed he only had five weeks to prepare. He refused to include some of the country’s best players in the squad.  By the quarter-finals, word had reached him that he would be fired, something that must have been very good for team morale.  Having won the cup against the odds, he immediately decided to resign before the Minister of Sports successfully prevailed on him to stay on. Something needs to be done about this failure-driven Nigeria.  Something needs to be done about our penchant to be mediocre.  We need to stop squandering our riches.  Nigeria needs to become a serious country.  A country where a chronically sick man is “selected” President and then dies in office is not a serious country. A country where a man like Alao Akala becomes the Governor of a state is not a serious country.  A country that cannot increase its power output in eight years, in spite of spending 16 billion dollars for that very purpose, is not a serious country.  

Read more at: https://www.vanguardngr.com/2013/08/the-triumph-of-mediocrity-in-nigeria/

Why Nigeria is a mediocre nation

By Akpomuvire Mukoro

26 October 2016   |   3:55 am

Low ranking of Nigeria’s aviation

3 hours ago

Nigerian children attend independence day celebrations in Lagos in October 1, 2013.

PHOTO: Pius Utomi Ekpei/AFP

The first of October, in the year Two Thousand and Sixteen was Nigeria’s Fifty-Sixth Independence Anniversary. Some Nigerians and her friends had cause to celebrate; some were sad and complained bitterly, while others were just ambivalent – awaiting what the nation had in stock for them. Why were people divergent in their attitude and assessment of the situation; you may want to ask? Without embarking on too much rigorous intellectual soul searching, we may have to place the situation on certain everyday happenings around us.

To begin with, history told us that Nigeria got her independence on a platter of gold. It is not that it is bad to get something on a platter of gold. The point to look at here is to what extent has this process been of value to Nigerians? A contraption of people without a centripetal force pulling them together, plunged into a disoriented marriage which they neither understood nor know how to manage, because Nigeria fared better in its days as regions under colonial government. What then was the result of this forced marriage? Your guess is as good as mine: strife to lord it over one another, bitterness towards each other, and the winner takes all mentality and worst of all a pander towards things that were of the ordinary.

·         What do we have as a nation today? A bewildered people who never expected that it could get that bad, a leadership that is so polluted that it’s every action stinks to high heavens, a rudderless nation without focus and without direction.

·         What do we see in our institutions of today? We see a reign of mediocrity over excellence, the absence of vision and mission, laws that are respected only in their breach. A situation where sanity is seen as an abnormality and the proceeds of hard drugs, fraud and the illicit acquisition of public money for private gain is celebrated.

·         In fact, Nigeria is currently inside a suffocating nest that is being dangled and awaiting whether to be done away with or to be rescued.

It was our own celebrated scholar (Chinua Achebe), who said long ago that the problems of Nigeria laid and still lies squarely on the problems of leadership. Majority of Nigerians may agree with him, or how else can you explain how the table turned between 1956 (when the motion for independence was moved) and 1960 (when independence was gained?). The answer is simple. It was because the colonial masters wanted the status quo-ante to be maintained; that meant and to date still means: to have the old order in place (imperialism) but in a new form (Neo-colonialism). The leadership that Nigeria got at independence could not renovate itself after independence, and it has remained so, whether we are referring to military leadership or civilian leadership. You will agree with me that a cat cannot give birth to a dog.                 In the same manner a compromised leadership will continue to recycle another pseudo-leadership by reproducing itself and its every action will be compromised right from the handover date.

·         Whether it is in the sphere of policy conception or in its implementation?

·         Is it in the sphere of quality or in its manifestation?

·         Is it in the sphere of intellectualism or not?

·         Is it in the sphere of creativity and productivity or is it when we talk about honesty and integrity.

·         I may be wrong, but tell me what sector of the Nigerian project has not been infested. Even, the university systems where I belong have become polluted.

·         Majority of us have become what the economist refers to as rent seekers. Lies are told in order to undo colleagues.

·         Most frightening is the fact that, because of political patronage vice chancellors who are misfits are made and unleashed on the hapless staff and students.

·         Of course, what do you expect in return: mediocrity? Although we know that it is not yet uhuru, Nigeria still has some pockets of excellence splashed around here and there.

Yet, here is another supporter of my thesis that NIGERIA IS A BRITISH EXPERIMENT IN MEDIOCRITY MASTER MINDED BY WICKED NEO-COLONIALIST TO RULE US BY TELEGUIDING MEDIOCRES FROM THE NORTH WHO SHEEPISH WORSHIPED THEIR WHITE SKIN!

THE 1995 FEDERAL CHARACTER COMPLICATED THE ISSUE OF REGIONALISM, ETHNICISM AND PAROCHIALISM AS A RECIPE FOR NATIONAL INTEGRATION:

M.L. Bello Department of Political Science,

University Of Ilorin, Nigeria

ABSTRACT

The problem of representational equity in Nigeria started with the problem of an unequal North-South duality, as if that was not problematic enough, the smaller southern component was split into two to create a deleterious Southern duality and an equally debilitating national trinity. The attempt to redress North-South regional imbalance resulted in the irrational creation of states which in its wake resulted in weakening the South against the North. This then became the justification for other methods albeit the Federal Character Principle for the promotion of a sense of belonging in the country by eliminating or at least minimizing domination resulting from imbalance in appointments. The purpose of the principle of federal character is laudable; unfortunately the application and operation of the principle differentiated rather than integrated Nigeria.

INTRODUCTION

The assertion that Nigeria is a creation of British colonialism is no longer incontrovertible. Motivated by economic considerations, the colonialists had wanted to limit their exploitative tendencies to the coasts. However, a combination of factors which were largely internal threatened the realization of their economic motive, this encouraged the British to move into the hinterlands. That crucial decision with time thus annulled the sovereignty and independence of the hitherto disparate autonomous socio-political entities which had inhabited Nigeria. The conquest of the country by the British inevitably led to the establishment of a system of administration alien to the people. Two International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 2 types of administration direct and indirect were tried out. The consequence of this resort is that the various nationalities inhabiting Nigeria have not been welded into a nation in which all of them would have a stake (Ubah, in Saliu 1999). The immense concern of the British with exploitation and the ruthlessness that characterized its pursuit made them to be contented with keeping the nationalities as farther apart as possible, the so-called amalgamation of the Northern and Southern Protectorates in 1914 notwithstanding (Usman, in Saliu 1999). Therefore it provided an unfortunate but conducive environment for mutual suspicion and distrust among the disparate groups in Nigeria. On October 1st 1960, Nigeria attained clientele sovereignty with lopsided Federation. The Political tripod was dominated by the “majors” to the exclusion of the “minority groups”. This brought to limelight the knotty issue of domination which evoked morbid fears of marginalization (Leadership 2008). Nigeria’s population is estimated at 140 millions (Bello 2006). The country has between 250 and 400 ethnic groups depending on the criteria used. A total of 374 ethnic groups were identified by Otite. These ethnic groups are broadly divided into ethnic “majorities” and ethnic “minorities” (Otite, 1990). The numerically and politically majorities ethnic groups are the composite Hausa-Fulani of the North with Muslim majority, the Yorubas of the South-West and the Igbos of the South-East with christian majority. Against the backdrop of this ethno-religious composition, political issues in Nigeria are seen from their ethno-religious perspectives, thereby giving credence to ethnic and religious jingoists and war lords. Political offices and appointments are seen as battle fields among the various ethnic groups, where the battles must be fought with all the available weapons a group can muster (see Obi and Obiekeze, 2004; Suberu, and Diamond, 2004). The problem of acrimonious existence among the diverse groups and interests in the federation of Nigeria leading to mutual distrust, suspicion and inter-communal conflicts International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 3 has become perennial and endemic in the nation’s body Politic and has militated against the political stability of the country since independence. The fear of domination of one ethnic group or section of the country by another and the national question of who gets what and how the national cake should be shared constitute a major factor of this problem. As a result of mutual suspicion existing among the various social groups, whatever the issue at hand in Nigeria, the patterns of reaction to it will be determined by geo-political as well as religious considerations. This situation seriously hampers efforts at national unity as it applies to the building of a united Nigeria out of the disparate ethnic, geographic, social, economic and religious elements or groups in the country (Saliu, 1999; Agbodike, 1998; Gamberi, 1994; Kurfi 1998). Among the measures put in place and constitutionally guaranteed as a recipe for national integration is the doctrine of federal character. The principle of federal character was formulated and put into use by successive governments in Nigeria to address and hopefully mitigate the problem of diversity so as to ensure a peaceful, stable and united Nigeria. As Ojo (1999) persuasively explained, Federal character principle as an integrative mechanism is defined as fair and effective representation of the various components of the Federation in the country’s position of power, status and influence. He however observed that the principle of federal character touches on array of problems in the political process which includes ethnicity, the national question, minority problem, discrimination based on a indignity, resources allocation, power sharing employment and placement in institution, etcetera. It provides a formula for participation in the governance of the country in such a way that a single section of the country will not dominate another or a segment dominating the rest. The basic assumption, as noted by Ojo (1994:) is that, if every segment of the Federation participates in governance, there would be almost equality in the country in the scheme of things and expectedly, it will engender a sense of belonging and national integration. This paper is set out to examine critically the expediency of the federal character principle as an integrative mechanism with a view to pointing out whether or not it is International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 4 succeeding in integrating Nigeria or widening the dichotomy among Nigerians. The paper is divided into four sections. Section one introduces the subject-matter, section two deals with conceptual clarification and section three examines the paradox of the federal character principle as an integrative mechanism while section four concludes the discussion. CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION National Integration The term National Integration is now widely used to cover a large range of political phenomena. We will attempt to analyse these various uses and show how they are related. National integration is firstly used to refer to specific problem of creating a sense of territorial nationality which eliminates subordinate parochial loyalties. In this sense, it is generally presumed that there exists an ethnically plural society in which each group is characterized by its own language or other self-conscious cultural qualities. This integration is used to refer to the tensions and discontinuities on the horizontal plane in the process of creating a homogeneous progressive reduction of cultural and regional territorial political community (Bamiseye, 2003). Secondly, national integration is often used in the related sense to refer to the problem of establishing national central authority over subordinate political units. Chizea (1985) sees national integration in this perspective. According to him, “it is a process leading to political cohesion and sentiments of loyalty towards central political institutions”. National integration is thus conceived here as the subjective feelings which individuals belonging to different social groups of historically distinct political units have totowards a new nation. Such a feeling is created through the objective control which the central authority has over the entire territory under its claimed jurisdiction. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 5 The third use of the term integration links the government with the governed. Implied in this usage is the notion of elite-mass relationship characterized by marked differences in aspirations and values. Integration occurs through the progressive bridging of the elite- mass gap on the vertical plane in the course of developing an integrated political process and a participant political community. We need to emphasize that the mere existence of difference in goals and values between the governing elite and the governed mass is not what constitute disintegration so long as the governor’s right to rule is accepted by the governed. It is not also the disappearance of differences among the elites and mass that indicates integration but a situation whereby a pattern of authority and consent is established (see Ogunojemite, 1979). The fourth series of definition takes its root from the elite-mass definition. It refers in the main to a minimum value of consensus that is necessary for the maintenance of a political system. These values may centre on ends to which the system aspires or means of achieving the desired ends. It presupposes therefore a minimum acceptable procedure for conflict resolution. Here the concern is with the legal norms, with the legitimacy of constitutional framework and the procedure by which it should operate (Weiner, in Fagbemi 1987). National integration, thus, covers a vast range of human relationships and attitudes ----the integration of diverse and discrete cultural loyalties and the development of a sense of nationality; the integration of the rulers and the ruled and the integration of the citizens into a common political process. As diverse as these definitions are, they have a common link in that they all point to the fact that integration is what holds a society and a political system together. THE ORIGIN AND MEANING OF FEDERAL CHARACTER The military government that planned the handing over of government to the civilians (in 1979) was by ample declaration, dedicated to removing the blemishes which brought International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 6 about the decline and fall of the First Republic. Hence it initiated a prolonged consultative process which was hoped to produce the political atmosphere that will prevent the recurrence of the conditions inherent in the first republic. There was a vigorous determination to curb and control the potentials of ethnicity as a force for national disintegration. This resolve is actually translated into the text of the constitution that emerged from the consultative process. The key phrase lies in the concept of “the federal character of Nigeria” (Ogunojemite, in Olugbemi 1987:224). As defined by the constitution drafting committee (1976), the federal character principle is: The distinctive desire of the people of Nigeria to promote national unity, foster national loyalty and give every citizen of Nigeria a sense of belonging to the nation (notwithstanding the diversities of the ethnic origin, which may exist and which it is their desire to nourish and harness to the enrichment of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.) The 1979 constitution amends the 1976 definition by dropping the passage in brackets and substituted a reference to “a sense of belonging to the nation as expressed in section 14 (3) and (4) of this constitution” Section 14 (3) clearly spelt out the modus operandi of the Federal Character principles as follows: The composition of the government of the Federation or any of its agencies be carried out in such manner as to reflect the Federal Character of Nigeria and the need to promote national unity and also to command loyalty thereby ensuring that there shall be no predominance of persons from a few ethnic or other sectional groups in that government or any of its agencies (The Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, 1979) In pursupursuant to this provision, various other provisions were made in the constitution to a guarantee that the federal character principle is operative. This various provisions enjoins that the conduct of the affairs of central, state and local government bodies shall be carried out in such manner as to recognize the diversity of the people within its areas of authority and the need to promote a sense of belonging and loyalty among all peoples of the federation. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 7 THE PARADOX OF THE FEDERAL CHARACTER PRINCIPLE AS AN INTEGRATIVE MECHANISM The implication of the provisions of the 1979 and 1999 constitutions for federal bureaucracy in Nigeria are interesting. Following these provisions, the composition of the federal public services for instance and the conduct of its affairs must reflect the federal character of Nigeria. And this can only be seem to have been done if it does not contain a predominance of persons from a few states or from a few ethnic or other sectional groups. In practice this means that in the appointment, promotion and postings of the federal public servants, every state, ethnic group religions or any other sectional group should be represented. Thus, the criterion of membership of the federal bureaucracy is accordingly heavily skewed in favour of representation. Representation of states, ethnic or any other sectional groups especially religious groups in the composition of federal bureaucracy has, thus, superseded recruitment on the basis of knowledge and technical qualification as determined through a competitive examination. The situation is not different when it comes to promotion and postings. There are instances where capable, long serving and loyal federal civil servants have been denied promotion, precisely because the quota for their states in these posts has been filled. Under such situations, one’s erstwhile subordinates usually become one’s superiors overnight. Postings of federal civil servants have followed the federal character principle. Every state would like to see its citizens in all the organs or agencies of the federal bureaucracy. Sometimes, this representation is seen in absolute numbers not just between states in the federation but also between the North and South as collectivities. In fact, the issue of representation based on the federal character principle has unwittingly degenerated into verbal and sometimes acrimonious exchanges between the North and the South of the country (Okoli, 1990; Obi and Obiekeze, 2004). Paradoxically, the federal character principle has succeeded in institutionalizing North-South dichotomy rather than integrating it To those from the Northern parts of the country federal character is synonymous with quota system and means therefore a proportional absorption into federal institutions. To those from the southern parts of the country, it means an attempt by the “North” to infiltrate into areas which they hitherto regarded as “theirs” by right (Hotline,1987, Suberu, 2001; Dagaci,2009). The federal character principle carried an inherent tug-of war between the claims of belonging to the nation and the claims of locally recognized International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 8 diversity. It is the insisting on equal representation and individual rights that will rock the boat of national integration. If we are to accept the intent of the concept that it carries an unambiguous and unchallengeable mandate for national integration, then the present provision has to be completely reexamined. (Okoli, 1990:5). By 1986 the problems created by the constitutional provision of federal character had to be addressed by the political Bureau which was set up to examine the grounds for another constitution. The Bureau argued that: “The constitutional definition of Nigerian citizenship should, as a matter of urgency, be studied with a view to removing the difficulties and anomaly arising form the interpretation of the relevant section of the 1979 constitution (Report of the political Bureau 1986). As Ayoade (1998) rightly argued, going by the constitutional definition of Nigerian citizenship, a dangerous dichotomy has developed between Nigerian citizenship and nativity of a state similar to the situation in the colonial period when Nigerians living outside their states of origin were regarded as native foreigners”. He noted that this category of Nigerians did not enjoy full citizenship rights in those states to which they migrated. Thus the operationalization of the federal character principle tended more to differentiate than to integrate. That the principle of federal character tended to differentiate rather than integrate is not by accident, it is by design. This position is supported by Olugbemi (1987) and Suberu and Diamond (2004:27 when they implied that federal character as defined and pursued by the 1979 and the 1999 constitutions cannot succeed in integrating the people because it was an ideology of the minority ruling class aimed at protecting their interest. According to them, the doctrine holds a lot in stock for the economically dominant class to the exclusion of the masses from the political process in the country. Firstly, it helps to divert attention from the internal economy where the mass of the people wallops in abject material want. Second, it helps to legitimize the dominant and exploiting class position in the society. Thirdly, it helps to prevent mass mobilization for development International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 9 and by implication contributes in no small measure in maintaining an oppressive social order. The various components of the petty bourgeoisies namely the top echelon of the armed forces, civil services, politicians and business people compete amongst themselves for the share of the state property and privileges (Heineken 1984). It is this intra-class factionalism within the economically dominant class over the state resources that the federal character as it is, attempts to give cover. In other words federal character by and large serves the economically dominant class that controls the state. This it does by giving explicit recognition to the essentially composite nature of the federation and provides ambiguous recipe for welding the federation into one ( Olugbemi, 1987:84; Otite, 1990:112; Ojo, 2006:122). The regime of federal character in Nigeria negates various definitions of national or territorial integration. Even the definitions by Ibrahim Tahir of national integration as the emergence of a situation in which every citizen is a perfect substitute for any other citizen for the purpose of selection and recruitment to perform socially determined roles subjects only to qualification of resident and technical competence is not appropriate. The caveat of residence neutralizes the integrative component. The insertion of non-task considerations and a modish concern for ethnic representation offsets presumed merit and job-skill related criteria. It is capable of resulting in a geometric diffusion of mediocrity (Okoli, 1990:8). This definition even contradicts that of Coleman (1958) and Rosberg (1971) who define territorial integration as “the progressive reduction of cultural and regional tensions and discontinuities in the process of creating a homogeneous territorial political community”. While this definition emphasizes the development of a homogeneous community, federal character is based on the recognition of ethnic differences. Neither does the opertionalisation of federal character agrees with Ernest Haas’s definition of national integration as “a process whereby political actors in distinct national settings are persuaded to shift their loyalties, expectations and political activities International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 10 towards a new centre, whose institutions possess or demand jurisdiction over the pre existing nation-state”. Federal character encourages the valorization of the ethnic individuality rather than a dissolution of the ethnic personality (Oyediran 1986), Tahir, 1986, Ayodele 1998; Suberu and Diamond, 2004). The Principle of Federal character emphasizes the need for ethnic balancing as a necessity in the evolution of Nigerian citizenship and for ensuring less acrimonious relationships among the various peoples of Nigeria. It is argued that the principle “will make for a more equal federation to which more people will owe loyalty because, they see themselves represented meaningfully therein but unfortunately, the principle while stressing the imperative of ethnic balancing, invariably enthrones ethnicity and deemphasizes, the nation. In the process, too, it strengthens the parochial, particularist orientations and individual ethnic attachments of Nigerians. These tendencies form the basis of disaffection among various groups in the nation. In addition, the formula has not adequately addressed the problems of the minorities especially in states made up of different and unequal ethnic groups (Uroh, 2000: Saro-Wiwa 1987; Agbodike 1998). The federal character principle has been manipulated by, and channeled to serve the overall interest of the petty bourgeois ruling class. It is the members of this class who formulated and operates the principle. Even the debate on the principle, as carried in the Nigerian press has been mainly an elite preoccupation. Under the guise of the federal character principle, the members of the bourgeois class get themselves entrenched in power and exercise control over the machinery of state. Through the application of this principle too, they strive to reconcile their class differences through the operation of acceptable formulae for the allocation, distribution and sharing of national resources and benefits among themselves. While they do this, they capitalize on, and fan the embers of the ethnic differences among the various Nigerian peoples to win the support of the masses in their areas. And in the course of this elite game, members of this class climb to positions, amass wealth and enrich themselves illegaly. Thus, the federal character principle is merely an elite ploy, which would not materially improve the lot of the down- trodden in whose name it is raised (Awa 1972, Agbaje 1989,Gboyega, 1989). International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 11 Similarly, the operation of the federal character in Nigeria has given more powers to the politically superior groups thus creating a wider power disparity between the strong and the weak. The politically weak are subjected to double jeopardy, a situation that is patently antithetical to national integration. This situation is a natural consequence of the hegemonial ethnic political scheming. Secondly, it confirms the Austinian position, that the constitution cannot be enforced against the power that interprets it because constitutions are essentially morality, not law. But in a politicized plural society like Nigeria, morality is not a consensual value. If anything, in such environments morality is a strategic variable (Ayodade 1998: 67; Jega, 2007). Thus, as long as the application of the federal character principle discriminates against one group and favours another no unity can result from such an exercise. The application is also falsifiable because distributive justice which it aims to achieve is of two types viz: Arithmetical equality and proportional equality. Simple arithmetical equality has been applied where the equality of all states is assumed. But states are not equal in two main senses. They are not equal in population and they are not equal in the size of the pool of eligible candidates for appointment. Be that as it may, there is no greater inequality than the equal treatment of unequals. Proportional equality would therefore be more just and less discriminatory than arithmetical equality (Ayoade, 1982; Akinwumi, 2005). CONCLUDING REMARKS It has been observed that the principle of federal character is the Achilles heel of Nigerian politics. It is the most recent epiphany in Nigeria’s troubled federal theology. It was aimed at redressing historical imbalance and integrate the country. The attempt was to balance the ethnic groups in order to create a virile and united nation. Unfortunately, the exercise has turned out to be a mere substitute for subs substance. Thus, if we are to accept the intent of the concept that it carries an unambiguous and unchallengeable national integration mandate, then the present definition cum application has to be re-examined. This is because it gives equal weight to two potentially opposite principles which has International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 12 been described as the concept of “irrespectivity” i.e. that no Nigerian shall have cause to feel aggrieved or excluded on the grounds of his/her place of origin, sex religion or ethnic grouping, and that of “irreducibility” i.e. ethnic equation in the main institution of the state. The federal character may well have got the principle right but has pushed too far its “irreducible” principle. An all out application of the principle of irreducibility has already shown signs of head–on-conflict with the co-principle of irrespectivity. Nigerians are now being discriminated against in the country on account of ethnicity. Examples abound in the Educational and Economic spheres. This cannot make for loyalty to the Nigerian State and therefore bring about the much sought integration (Ayoade 1998, Ogunojemite 1997:112, and Juadu, 2007). The federal character as it is; is a doctrine of the emancipated educated elite in the civil services, armed forces and the business circles. It has little relevance to the integration problems of Nigeria. As practiced during the tumultuous period of the second republic (1979-1983) under Shagari’s leadership, Abacha’s military junta and even under the present ‘democratic dispensation’, the principle essentially focused on enhancing the dominance of the ruling class through patronage. The constitutional provision of federal character and zoning system within the political parties is for appointing trusted prebends, clients and hangers-on in strategic offices who in turn manipulated their powers by allocation of contracts, import licences, access to bank loans, fertilizers etc. Thus through the control of state power at the centre, the ruling class not only enhanced her leverage through patron-client alliances that cut across ethno-regional and religious cleavages, but also appropriated federal character principle to ensure its hegemony at all levels (Abubakar, 1998; Ogunojemite, 1987; Leadership, 2008). Thus, Nigeria’s experiences under successive governments as shown above exposes the limitations of federal character principle as a mechanism for enhancing national integration and participatory democracy in plural societies. One of the fundamental weaknesses of federal character as practiced in Nigeria is that it tends to enthrone mediocrity in governance, at the expense of merit and professionalism. Also in the name International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 13 of representation and national unity, federal character allows ethno-regional patrons and their clients to exploit and mismanage state resources without contributing to any meaningful development. Furthermore, by focusing on regional and ethnic representation, federal character exacerbates differentiation instead of enchancing mutual trust, accommodation and national integration (Abubakar 1998; -Farrest 1993 Onimejisin 2005). So far, we have argued that although federal character principle has been conceived as a policy mechanism for addressing the contradictions of Nigeria’s national question arising from British colonial policies of divide and rule, as well as uneven development; the political class which inherited power since independence manipulates state power, ethno- regional, religious and sectarian cleavages for its selfish ends. The federal character as a means of achieving the desired aim of integration relies solely on the values of the ruling elite. Although it has been able to keep the territory together more so with the present structure, it is equally able tot provide support for the central authority but in doing this it has only succeeded in widening the elite –mass gap because the value consensus that is necessary for national integration is lacking (Alabi, 2004). Perhaps, as Ojo (1999) and Popoola (2002) argued, the most chronic of the banes of federal character principle in Nigeria is that it potentially invades the integrity and standards of public bureaucracy and such other governmental bodies that normally require safeguards from the ravages of politics. The result in this regard has not been the promotion of national loyalty but inertia and alienation as those who hail from states and communities which have suffered from federal character discrimination become resentful and also eventually alienated from the overall body politics. As Ojo (1999:5) and Okoli (1990:11) rightly submitted, competent people who are disqualified on the grounds of states of origin and such other spurious criteria cannot be willing materials on which to erect the unity of the nation. They must feel wanted in order to volunteer themselves for national sacrifice. International Journal of Politics and Good Governance Volume 3, No. 3.3 Quarter III 2012 ISSN: 0976 – 1195 14 Be that as it may, our submission on the federal character principle as an integrative mechanism is that the principle, in practice has paradoxically exacerbated the division among Nigerians rather than uniting them. The principle in its operation cannot but do more harm than good to the fragile unity of Nigeria. Or what do we expect from a principle that robs Peter to pay Paul; certainly that principle cannot unite Peter with Paul! Bello concluded.

References totalled 55 authors deleted for brevity. The avid reader must see the original publication!

I HAVE ALWAYS STRESSED THAT THE STARTING POINT OF ALL REDEMPTION OF THE WORLD IS RELIGIOUS REORIENTATION

NOR WILL QUOTA SYSTEM NOR THE INFAMOUS FEDERAL CHARACTER, Dr Jideofo Kenechukwu Danmbaezue agrees, supports, concurs or confirms.

STARTING OF KENEZIAN THERAPEUTICS FOR THE BACKWARD MOVING NIGERIA.

IGBOPHOBIA IS AN EGO DEFENCE MECHANISM OF MOST NIGERIANS, A MORBID REACTION TO THE DOMINANCE OF THE SOCIOPOLITICAL TERRAIN BY CONGENITAL IGBO PURSUIT OF EXCELLENCE AND ECONOMIC SUPREMACY.

Dominance in Politics started with King Jaja of Opobo prior to 1904 and continued with the great Nnamdi Azikiwe of Africa who fought for Nigerian Independence from the 1940s till 1960 also had an Igbo genealogical doggedness for pursuit of both!

Indeed the Action Group developed as a result of jealousy, envy and fear of Igbo domination of politics in Nigeria with the British trained lawyer Obafemi Awolowo selling tribalism to his people as the only way to checkmate the Igbos whom he felt had taken his birthright by sweeping the elections into the Western House of Assembly. It was only after putting fear into the average Yoruba man at the time did they cross carpet en bloc overnight to usurp the Western House of Assembly in 1959. These are facts.

Awolowo started tribalism in Nigeria; with his divisive dictum, “WEST for Westerners, NORTH for Northerners and EAST for Easterners” that derailed true homogeneity in United Nigerian Nation the Great Nnamdi Azikiwe envisioned and championed! That was/is is why he never politically won any elections to rule this country. Hatred can never stand the test of time both in ancient and modern history. Did Awlowo not declare that ALL I WANT TO RULE NIGERIA EVEN IF FOR ONLY 48 HOURS? All the Igbos ask for, is fairness and competition. Open up all the job positions and academic spaces in our institutions and let us compete and we would see who comes out on top.

Besides THIS HATRED STARTED BY THE WESTERNERS, the DIVIDE-and-RULE TACTICS of our wicked colonial masters GREAT BRITAIN led by self-imposed Queen Elizabeth that ceded 2/3 of both LAND MASS AND POLITICAL DOMINANCE to their preferred Sir Ahmadu Bello and his NORTHERN PEOPLES CONGRESS, our dear Nigeria would have been built based on a level playing ground that favoured HARDWORK, ACHIEVED SOCIAL STATUS and PROVEN EXCELLENCE.

I, Dr Jideofo Kenechukwu Danmbaezue, as an experienced Professor of Clinical Psychometrics and double decorated Biafran Commado – Nigerian Air Force military psychologist will like to caution my people to stop the unproven claim or exhortation that IGBO is a corruption of the word HEBREW. From Hibru to Ibru to Eboe to Ibo to Igbo. Like them we are only courting HATRED and shall equally only attract the same Anti-Semitism the Jews suffered and are still suffering to date.

Nigeria, anyway, has no choice. To remain relevant in the global village our world has turned into, it must adopt best practices in socio-political dealings and so become a merit-driven society. When this occurs the Igbos would again dominate for in the words of the greatest African writer of all time, the man who has sold the most books and the only African whose books have been translated into more languages than any – Professor Chinua Achebe – “the Igbo is a creature built for competition held down neither by religion no tradition.” Social Mobility is by Personal Achievement, I guess!

THIS IS WHAT NOGERIANS NEED TO SUCCEED

THIS IS ANOTHER THERAPEUTIC SOLUTION

ALL OVER THE WORLD THE MAIN CAUSE OF POLITICAL STRIFE IS DOGMATIC RELIGION, SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS SPIRITUAL FELLOWSHIP AND ALL OTHER RELIGIOUS GROUPS IS THAT THERE IS NOTHING HERE THAT IS BUILT ON MYTHOLOGIES, FABLES, LEGENDS, DOGMAS, DOCTRINES, BELIEF SYSTEMS OR REVEALED TRUTHS! 

Integrational Spiritan Movement is a fellowship of rational human beings, average free thinkers and scientists built on simple truths of nature as they were designed, created and ordained by the Almighty Creator of the entire universe and were and still are observable around humankind in all parts of the world.

The difference between this spiritual fellowship for all mankind irrespective of one’s nationality, philosophy of life, social status, educational achievement or political persuasion and other religious fellowships is that there is nothing here that is built on mythologies, fables, legends, dogmas, doctrines, belief systems or revealed truths! 

Rather, what the founder of this interdisciplinary, inter-ethnic and integrational spiritual fellowship has done is to provide simple facts of nature that unites rather than divides the human race. Every being is a product of nature! It argues that since there is only:

·        One created universe, of which we all share its amenities,

·        One earth, on which we all stand, walk about, build our physical structures, plant on, harvest from and depend on for our food,

·        One atmospheric air that living things breathe from to live,

·        One rainfall that provides the water for all plants and animals, 

·        One sun and a moon that illuminate the world day and night,

·        One anatomy and physiology that ensures our survival or death,

·        Therefore, there must One Almighty Creator, who is the ultimate designer and engineer responsible all that we can think, say, hear, feel and see! He/she is our Father/Mother and we are all sons and daughters of this Infinite Truth that grants us life! Are we not brothers and sisters, irrespective of our skin colour, facial structures, languages and peculiar child rearing practices? We are surely, equal heirs to this commonwealth of mutually beneficent, compensatory and life-sustaining gifts from the Almighty Truth, the All-knowing Spirit, All-sustaining Father and All-powerful Creator of us all! 

This truth is inter-religious, interdenominational, intercultural, interdisciplinary and finally international! Simple statements of facts like these are incontrovertible, aren’t they? We inter-marry and reproduce healthy babies! 

So, why must we follow demonic leaders, spiritual or temporal, who delude us with their myopic ideas and ethnocentric theories into practising social prejudices that eventually result in fighting and killing of our own brothers and sisters? It is not only puerile and futile but also irrational and psychopathological! Let us seek for a solution! I. S. M. seeks that! 

In summary, whatever merited the first man who was taken up to live with the creator lest he be corrupted by his peers is out modus operandi et modus vivendi;

IF YOU REPLACED ALL OUR LOCAL DEITIES WITH FOREIGN ANGELS, DEVILS AND SAINTS, THEN TELL DR J. K. DANMBAEZUE, A PROFESSOR OF MODERN THEOSOPHY, WHERE ARE THE DIFFERENCES THAT CONDEMNS ONE RELIGION TO PAGANISM?