Beyond the canary’s new song
Many of his critics, including Mohammed Haruna, the Daily Trust Wednesday columnist, believe Major Al-Mustapha is a singing canary that is desperate to divert attention from the main issue that has kept him in detention for fourteen years. While Mohammed Haruna and others were quick to dismiss Al-Mustapha’s allegations that General Abacha and Abiola were […]
Many of his critics, including Mohammed Haruna, the Daily Trust Wednesday columnist, believe Major Al-Mustapha is a singing canary that is desperate to divert attention from the main issue that has kept him in detention for fourteen years. While Mohammed Haruna and others were quick to dismiss Al-Mustapha’s allegations that General Abacha and Abiola were murdered, other Nigerians like this writer still believe that it is unwise to shoot the artist because you don’t like the picture!
Dismissive attitude to an allegation does not create the room for deeper evaluation and reflection over such issues. The issue is not whether you like the young Major or not; rather we should focus on the issue on its merits and demerits. One of Al-Mustapha’s critics, Mohammed Haruna, expressed open doubt about the Major’s credibility because, according to him, the “canary” (Mustapha) had sung this song before at the Oputa Panel in 1999. But the passage of time does not in itself kill a conspiracy theory. For more than 30 years, the conspiracy theories about how U.S. President John F. Kennedy was assassinated have still persisted, with many books published on the issue many years after his murder, in Dallas, Texas.
In all sincerity, is Major Al-Mustapha the only fellow married to the conspiracy theory of how Abacha and Abiola died? The late Abiola’s personal physician, Dr. Falomo, has consistently maintained that the presumed winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election was murdered by what he believes to be “a slow-acting poison.” Dr. Falowo recently reiterated this conviction in a newspaper interview. Why didn’t Mohammed Haruna and other critics of Al-Mustapha attack Dr. Falowo or accuse him of playing to the gallery? A mind of prejudice is never open to reason or cool-headed reflection. The tendency to demonize Al-Mustapha shouldn’t in itself divert attention from the issue. If Abiola’s personal physician could insist on the murder theory without being crucified, why should Major Al-Mustapha be? Are his (Mustapha’s) critics sincere on this issue? There are Nigerians who believed that Abiola was allegedly eliminated to enable the military continue in power to plan another transition to civil rule. With Abiola alive and insisting on his June 12 mandate, this school of thought posits, General Abdulsalami’s agenda to rule for nine months would have been impossible. But then, others also questioned how Susan Rice, a former U.S. Assistant Secretary of State (currently American Ambassador to the U.N.), could have lent her hand to any plot to kill Abiola just for the sake of achieving “a smooth transition.”
Yoruba critics of Al-Mustapha are not courageous enough to question the insincerity of their own leaders over Abiola’s well-being. The naivety of the Yoruba leaders largely contributed to Abiola’s avoidable death on July 7, 1998. It is on record that the late military ruler, General Sani Abacha, had made genuine efforts to find a political solution to Abiola’s detention ordeal. In 1995, the late military Head of State had offered to release Abiola on bail, but the leaders of the defunct National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) rejected the olive branch out of hand. In fact, Abiola’s eldest son, Kola was one of those who had wanted his father out of prison to continue his normal business life and rejoin his family. To demonstrate his commitment to his father’s well-being, Kola even went to court to challenge the legal representation of his dad by Chief G.O.K. Ajayi, who seemed to be dealing with the case academically against political reality of the time. He openly disagreed with Abiola’s second senior wife, the late Kudirat over his father’s legal representation. Unfortunately, Kola lost to NADECO over a crucial issue that bordered on the well-being and fate of his father.
Misled by NADECO activists, who were receiving huge donations from European Union (EU) to advance democracy in Nigeria, the late Kudirat rejected the political resolution of Abiola’s detention. Two Yoruba leaders who had served as Ministers in Abacha’s administration, Alhaji Lateef Jakande and Chief Ebenezer Babatope, confirmed in their various newspaper accounts how General Abacha had wanted to end Abiola’s detention politically rather than through protracted court process. Former NADECO leaders had frustrated every effort to grant bail to Abiola by the late General Abacha. The late presidential candidate of the SDP was the symbol of their struggle, which fetched them millions of European Union grants and that could have been affected if he was out of jail.
If Abiola had accepted his bail offer to rejoin his family, his health wouldn’t have deteriorated to the extent it did while he was languishing in detention. Even more importantly, the bail offer could probably have ended his incarceration once and for all. General Abacha had wanted to ease the political tension with the bail offer and he was not likely to re-arrest Abiola again to complicate matters for his administration. With Tony Anenih, Babangana Kingibe, Abiola’s running mate, the late Abubakar Rimi and other leaders of the defunct Social Democratic Party (SDP) having accepted to serve in Abacha’s government, was NADECO realistic to advise Abiola to remain in detention at the expense of his health or life? Technically, Abiola’s party’s structure had collapsed and it was curious why NADECO leaders could pretend to ignore this reality.
Therefore, while they are roundly excoriating Major Al-Mustapha, the Yoruba leaders, especially the former NADECO activities, should stop deceiving Nigerians. Didn’t they indirectly contribute to Abiola’s unfortunate but avoidable death? Did they show wisdom by advising Abiola to reject the bail offer from General Abacha, an overture which probably could have ended Abiola’s ordeal once and for all? With Abiola abandoned by the key leaders of the party, which gave him the platform to contest the presidential election of June 1993, was it expedient for NADECO to frustrate his bail offer? Isn’t this the height of political naivety? Consequently, Abiola not only lost his life but also his mandate. His people used his name for personal advantage.
In 1999, General Obansanjo was foisted on Nigerians as a compensation to the Yorubas over the death of Abiola and the loss of June 12 mandate. But soon enough, Nigerians had discovered that Obasanjo nurses a deep-seated personal animosity and envy towards Abiola (even in death)! Former President Obasanjo rejected all persuasions to name even one public institution after Abiola in recognition of his role in the entrenchment of democracy and the supreme sacrifice he had made. This is one clear example that some Yoruba leaders were simply using Abiola’s name for personal advantages. We don’t need a reminder by Major Al-Mustapha that to discover the insincerity of those hiding behind June 12 at Abiola’s expense.
Usman wrote from 81, Janet Akinrinade Street, Jabi – Utako District, Abuja. [email protected]