Pity the country that is outwitted by an oxymoron

The recent rubbish talk about June 12 led me to recall some of the  antidotes to it including an address delivered by Mohammed Haruna at a seminar in Ibadan in March 1994. As it was one of the clearest statements of what June 12 was, and what it was not, about, I chose to preserve […]

The recent rubbish talk about June 12 led me to recall some of the  antidotes to it including an address delivered by Mohammed Haruna at a seminar in Ibadan in March 1994.

As it was one of the clearest statements of what June 12 was, and what it was not, about, I chose to preserve a copy of the address on the day it appeared in The Guardian twenty-five years ago. The paper I saved shows its age but I see that I wrote the word “No” accompanied by my rough guess at the geographical coordinates of Potiskum in the space after the last word in one of the paragraphs of the text on it.

Haruna’s a longread but as with all good writing, it has aged very well. I have taken the trouble to reproduce it exactly as it appeared, save for the fact that whereas the names of newspapers and magazines appeared in italics in the paper, I have captured them in capital letters; and whereas I have used blank lines to separate paragraphs, they are distinguished by indentations in the paper.

The electronic copy I have made is still poorer than the original because the visible signs of the paper’s age have been completely lost. It is appended at the end of this comment. In it, you will see the following paragraph, but not the word in brackets:

“Mr. Chairman, it has been argued that June 12 is not about Abiola. Indeed, it isn’t and that is precisely why we should put the mandate it gave him behind us and address our mind to how that mandate can go back to the south. June 12 may be important for nearly producing a southern candidate [president] but that feat, if indeed it is a feat, can be repeated. That was why on September 30, 1993, we at CITIZEN advocated that “Northern political leaders should authoritatively offer the south the presidency of the next republic.” Nearly two months later, the political leaders did indeed gather in Kaduna with the intention of making such an offer. And then, thanks at least in part to Abiola, the CD and Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Abacha struck.”

What Haruna’s defunct Citizen magazine suggested as a way out in 1993 was, of course, what we saw in the 1999 election, an agreement to limit the contest to two candidates both from the south. In other words the remedy came six years late during which time we saw the denouement of the tragic stories of first Sani Abacha and then, shortly afterwards, MKO Abiola, both offed, yes, it isn’t said for the subject has been dishonesty avoided but yes, offed, in intelligence operations in which their country’s role was that of a quiescent accomplice.

Haruna’s audience needed no reminding but it is useful to remember that the SDP and NRC were Ibrahim Babangida’s creations. He created them, and even built offices for them, after he had abolished the ones the politicians had created for themselves. MKO and Bashir Tofa became candidates not simply because of his annulment of the September 1992 primaries but because Shehu Yar’adua, Arthur Nzeribe, Olu Falae, Adamu Ciroma, Umaru Shinkafi and the memorable gallery of others, the like of which Nigeria has not seen again, who had taken part in them were not only banned from further participation but also put under arrest. It was widely seen at the time that Babangida had instead chosen to pave the way for a choice between his friends MKO and Tofa whom he had asked to stand as candidates. He had made sure to own the parties. He had made sure to own the candidates.

MKO was Babangida’s friend. He had been Murtala Muhammed’s as well as Yar’adua’s. He had long been a tool of the military and been known as the kind of big businessman joked about in Haruna’s address. He was in truth the man perfectly depicted by that great political commentator the like of no other, our Fela Anikulapo Kuti, but not many are guided by the unsentimental portraits of our public figures.

MKO gave many interviews, delivered many public addresses, spoke at many  ceremonies. He expressed himself in proverbs as well as in awkward metaphors and never gave an evasive answer to a question. Encounters with him or with his expression were always memorable, often amusing and sometimes grossly so. He was also lucky to have encountered an interviewer who asked unusual questions. “You and Babangida,” said the interviewer from the defunct Tempo one day early in 1994, “have an interesting relationship. He likes dealing you blows and you like receiving the blows.” “What kind of question is that?,” responded MKO, “Since when has he been dealing me blows? He only started dealing me blows in June.”

It is instructive to remember that Babangida has maintained that the decision to annul the election was not his alone. Any close reviewer of the many interviews MKO gave during that period will clearly see a man set off on a wild goose chase against his better judgment. “You do not tell a deaf man that the market is over because he has eyes to see,” he often said in his English translation of Yoruba words, “and by the time he looks around and sees there is no one left, he will pack his goods and go away.” MKO looked around and saw the campaigners. They failed him. Left to him alone he would have found accommodation in Abacha. He would have seen in Abacha another military man upon whom to employ the same skills that got him close to Murtala and others.

In truth MKO was led to tragedy against his better judgment. The hypocritical campaigners who placed such a heavy burden on him completely ignored the very eloquent public speaker with whom he had stood at the election, Babagana Kingibe. They did not saddle Kingibe with a share of the burden, not even during the period MKO was away from the country. Instead they put a lot of pressure on MKO to return. Upon

his return, he was asked why he had fled without his running mate. “Does a bird tell another bird that a stone is coming?,” he said. The campaigners have long lived with their consciences troubled by their role in his tragic end. The effort they have put into securing memorials has more to do with comforting themselves than anything to do with MKO and some so-called campaign for democracy.

In any case, the posthumous honours given him, the June 12 declared as democracy day and the stadium named for him are memorials to MKO’s role in the elongation of military rule. The fact that the remnants of the campaigners who have applauded these memorials granted him by a military president had earlier rejected the memorial of a notable university named after him by a civilian president is apposite proof positive. It

should also be said bluntly that some of these hypocritical campaigners resisted the university renaming because they knew MKO to be the dark businessman that he was and did not wish to see their university associated with him but it is the military, not the civilians, that have been the beneficiaries of what has been mischaracterised as a successful campaign for democracy.

Where is the civil rule?

First we had a true federation and civil rule; then we lost the true federation and civil rule and ended up with a General; then another General; then another General; then another General; then a return to civil rule without the true federation; then we lost the civil rule to another General; then we had a General who called himself President and got us used to a military man as president and civilians as governors.

Then came June 12 and MKO and the so-called campaign for democracy. That led us to a short-lived appointed civilian chaperoned by a General; then the General himself; then another General; then the General who had come after a General that did not rule long enough to reveal himself, now retired, again coming after another unrevealed General; then the short-lived civilian brother of a late General who owed his nomination to this relationship; then a civilian who was made to face all sorts of military challenges and therefore to channel huge resources towards the military; then once again the General only able to displace civilians, now retired.

This was part of a speech delivered by Mohammed Haruna at a seminar in Ibadan in 1994