Identifying the Nigerian hero
Kudirat’s case was however different as the killers were known and confessed to the crime but were never prosecuted. Everyone knew that Major Hamza al-Mustapha didn’t actually assassinate anyone and it was senseless to try and convict him of vicarious liability or conspiracy while the real killers walked fee. Paradoxically the Major has to thank […]
Kudirat’s case was however different as the killers were known and confessed to the crime but were never prosecuted. Everyone knew that Major Hamza al-Mustapha didn’t actually assassinate anyone and it was senseless to try and convict him of vicarious liability or conspiracy while the real killers walked fee. Paradoxically the Major has to thank the current democratic dispensation for his life. He should be familiar with the case of Ken Saro-Wiwa who was also found guilty of murder despite not being present at the scene of the crime and was executed with indecent haste. It is the very democratic dispensation which the Major did everything to suppress that is responsible for saving his life. He should be truly grateful and use this God-given opportunity to spend his remaining time on earth furthering the cause of democracy and human rights. Sadly it has become the unfortunate norm for Nigerians to be sentenced to death in murder trials without a shred of forensic evidence being tendered.
It’s also not unusual for suspects to spend over a decade in prison on trumped up murder or armed robbery charges. So nothing unusual barring our normal systemic injustice towards both victim and accused has happened in this murder case. What is surprising though is that the Major is being described in some high quarters as a “hero”. The real lesson to be learnt from his story isn’t about police investigative incompetence, nor is it about our controversial judiciary. It’s about what defines heroes in contemporary Nigeria. Heroes used to be Greek demigods who were initially “protectors” or “defenders” of the downtrodden. The term later expanded to include anyone who in the face of danger and adversity or who from a position of weakness displayed courage and the will for self sacrifice for some greater good of others. This definition initially referred to acts in the field of battle where the brave feats could be achieved by the living but heroes always died. Living “heroes” came about when the term was further extended to cover other forms of behaviour which exhibited fortitude, sacrifice, great risk or moral excellence. Social scientists later created a distinction between “seeker” heroes who try to correct some wrong or injustice, and “victim” heroes who find themselves innocent victims of circumstances. These days’ many people referred to as heroes are often ordinary people who find themselves in extraordinary circumstances where they exhibit exemplary behaviour by acting to protect others with total disregard to their own safety.
Most religions traditio-nally emphasize humility, generosity and the ability to bear deprivations on behalf of others as their main form of heroics and many nations define themselves and their history by the roles heroes played in their development. Such national heroes tend to be political or military figures that made great developmental strides and founded or toppled governments. The opposite of a hero is not a villain but an anti-hero. This is an individual who exhibits qualities which are the last thing expected from a decent person in certain situations. Anti-heroes lack the typical characteristics of heroism such as nobility, morality, ethics, compassion, bravery, and self-sacrifice. They tend to be characterless unprincipled individuals whose fortitude is driven purely by self-promotion and self-preservation.
It isn’t difficult to see why Hamza al-Mustapha could be mistaken for a hero rather than an anti-hero. His story contains several of the essential themes which unite heroic stories throughout different cultures and beliefs. Heroic journeys always comprise three separate stages which are the departure, the initiation, and the return. In his particular case the departure meant imprisonment, his initiation was proceeding down a road of tribulations and achieving a realization about his life while his return is living through his trials and attaining eventual freedom.
This however doesn’t make him a hero because an essential part of heroism involves sacrifice for others and consideration of the greater good of all humanity. There is nothing in his record that puts him in that category. During the First Republic Nigeria bred men of “timber and calibre”. Men admired for their noble qualities, men regarded as role models, men who cared for the rights of the people and suffered for their care. Those men who paid the ultimate price were true heroes. Today’s “heroes” do nothing to uplift the people. Nowadays we worship anti-heroes such as Alamelsiegha who was given a “heroic” presidential pardon despite looting Bayelsa State treasury, being caught with millions in foreign currency in his overseas home, and accumulating luxury properties in the US while his people lived in penury. James Ibori, who was paid a “hero’s” pension of more than fifty million naira by the Delta State government despite personal and financial philandering, which got both his wife and mistress jailed in England for money laundering. Consider the example of Senator Iyiola Omisore, who received a “hero’s” welcome inside the hallowed chambers despite winning election to the Senate from prison where he was incarcerated on a murder charge.
Major Hamza al-Mustapha should defi-nitely be re-integrated into society and paid all his entitlements as is his right under law. He has been declared not guilty as charged by the Court of Appeal. Only he and Sergeant Rogers know if he is innocent. He should not be surprised that many Nigerians have little sympathy for his travails simply because he is after all still alive. He has definitely suffered injustice. But is he a hero? Most Nigerians believe that the true heroes are those who fought and died for the democracy we enjoy today.