The National Chairman of Afenifere Renewal Group, Mr. Wale Oshun, in this interview with LEKE BAIYEWU of the PUNCH, speaks on the leadership crisis in the Afenifere, President Goodluck Jonathan’s endorsement for re-election by Yoruba leaders, and other issues:
Some Yoruba leaders have decided that the people of the South-West would vote for President Goodluck Jonathan at the forthcoming polls. Do you think this is the general wish of the Yoruba?
Whether or not it is the wish of the entire South-West does not matter at the moment. What is, is that can those who made the claim lay claim to the fact that they’ve been speaking for the South-West? They cannot claim so.
Why can’t they?
As far back as 1999, there had been internal crisis within the Afenifere or the Yoruba leadership. This was when a shadow election was held for the late Chief Bola Ige and Chief Olu Falae at De Rovans (a hotel in Ibadan, Oyo State) and, eventually, Falae was picked as the presidential candidate of the Alliance for Democracy. Right or wrong, Ige believed that the decision did not represent the normal way of doing things within the Yoruba political and social leadership. He believed that the decision was taken to spite him and he felt he had been wronged. Between the two swings of those who took the decision - those who felt justified and those who felt that the decision was unfair - division started to creep in.
At a meeting held on March 26, 2000 at the Ijebu-Igbo home of the late Senator Abraham Adesanya, the leadership admitted to this division. Those of us who were younger elements within the group knew that the differences that were rearing their heads as of that time were driven by personality, ego and feeling of self-importance on all sides. They were essentially not ideological differences. When you talk of speaking with one voice, I think that division started from that time. Even when Chief Bola Ige passed on, the division subsisted because he had his followers and those on the other side also had theirs. Who would have called the leaders to order as of that time? We were the younger elements then, even though many of us are old now. We felt that it was an unnecessary crisis and that everything that needed to be done should be done to curtail it. That was precisely what we did. Ultimately, we had a conference at the International Institute of Tropical Agriculture in Ibadan in 2006 to resolve these crises. As of that time, we had the elders - Ayo Adebanjo, Olaniwun Ajayi, Olu Falae and all others - and the governors, who as of that time also had their grouses. It was not essentially because they were followers of Ige but because they felt there was the need for certain changes to take place. We strove to effect reconciliation. Even though we left Ibadan with the feeling that we had succeeded, that euphoria was smashed a few days after by Adebanjo, who, on turning 80, granted interviews in which he viciously attacked the person of the governors and their followers. That reopened all the wounds.
From that moment, the question of leadership, particularly at the progressive level, became one that was clearly divided. Whatever anyone might say, Adesanya tried his best during his lifetime to sustain the organisation; to give it a unified voice and face, even though there were difficulties. But there are some other leaders who didn’t behave with maturity to maintain the unity. If one extrapolates the impact these sides have, one will note that it will be difficult really for just a side to say that it is speaking for the entire Yoruba nation.
What roles did you and other younger members play then?
Those of us who were younger elements and who tried to work out reconciliation were initially driven by a messianic spirit. We felt it was necessary. But at a point in time, if the governors and the elders who believed at that time that they could speak for the Yoruba had no ideological differences, and we could define the ideology, then it was better for us to move ahead and do the proper thing.
If anybody can claim to speak for the Yoruba people now, it is we who went on to form the Afenifere Renewal Group, which I always dub on many occasions that this is the new Labour. When Labour kept declining in Britain, there came a time when younger elements like Tony Blair and others decided to work together and reshape the original content and thinking that was Labour. We did the same thing with Afenifere. If anybody wants to claim to be speaking for the Yoruba people now, it is we who have not deviated from the concepts and values that led to the formation of Afenifere in 1951 in the house of the late Pa Adekunle Ajasin in Owo (Ondo State).
The spokesperson for Afenifere, Yinka Odunmakin, recently described the ARG as having sympathy for the All Progressives Congress led by Senator Bola Tinubu, who incidentally was one of the AD governors aggrieved with the Afenifere leaders. Is this true?
Odumakin himself knew he was dissembling; he was not putting facts in the correct manner. He was our (ARG’s) first Publicity Secretary. Whatever his faults are, he is one of the best publicity secretaries you can have anywhere – a hard worker. But then, he is also driven by his agenda and goals. The truth is that he genuinely knows that at the foundation process, when he came in, that none of the governors had a hand in it. It is not a question of not being visible; none of them had his hands or played roles in it. He knew that. If he has a personal score to settle with Tinubu, let him settle it without dragging ARG into it.
He spoke about an advertisement (in which ARG was) eulogising Tinubu; whether you hate Tinubu or you love him, you will also admit that Tinubu had played some fundamental roles in ensuring that the ground we lost to the conservatives and renegades were reclaimed. When the (AD) governors were deemed to have lost in 2003 to the Peoples Democratic Party, we all know what happened. That in many respects, they did not actually lose; that those elections were tinkered with by (Chief Olusegun) Obasanjo because he needed a place and platform. He is alive, he knew. Tinubu was lucky to have survived that onslaught.
Tinubu then worked assiduously with other leaders – Bisi Akande, Adeniyi Adebayo, Lam Adesina and Segun Osoba – to ensure that all the lost territories were regained, and over time we gradually regained those territories. They worked together; they sat together. Because Tinubu was the one in government, he was able to play a prominent role but they worked together. If one is talking about political leadership, the (AD) governors could decide among themselves but if one is talking of the socio-cultural leadership among the governors, it was Bisi Akande that was playing the coordinator as an elderly person. If one wants to blame or fight Tinubu, one cannot take away from him that aspect of the onslaught to take over the territories that were taken away, because they were not based on any election result; they were manipulated results.
Why then is the ARG pitching its tent with the Tinubu camp against the Afenifere leaders, if truly the AD governors did not have a hand in the formation of your group?
The old Afenifere, of course, will define what their ideologies are. For us in the ARG, we have a basic understanding that the Yoruba people have inalienable rights to exist as free citizens that are not subjugated by any other tribe or race or nation; people who can pursue their economic and social activities as they are pleased with the common wealth and agreed rules in Nigeria. In ARG, we also believe that the yoke under which the Yoruba people have laboured, particularly after the military intervention in 1966, which had subjugated federalism in favour of unitary system, is totally unacceptable to the Yoruba people. These are our basic ideologies. Tell me if they have defined their ideology.
During the confab in Abuja, for instance, we saw a common platform to work together – like we (both) believe passionately that Nigeria should be restructured in a way that no nationality in it is subjugated or made to carry an unnecessary burden. But if we work together on that common platform, it will be erroneous to think that the platform we had, upon which we prepared the report – which we literarily fought and agreed with other nationalities before an agreement was reached – that such a report can be put in a cooler.
If their argument is that ‘yes we fought for restructuring and we are supporting somebody who has put the report in a cooler’, then something is wrong. What is the point in fighting for those things only to be put in abeyance? What is the point in fighting for those things if no step has been taken on it, if nothing has been done on it since we left the conference? Have you heard anything about that report? Have you had any other consideration on that report? Have you heard anything about the report made by about 400 people who had taken their time? That was the best Nigeria could have in terms of age distribution and qualifications – we had a 92-year-old and a 22-year-old and there were professors and market women. The confab spanned all the strata of the society. Imagine someone now collecting such a report and handing it over to six or so ministers; to do what? Since then, nothing has been heard. How can you now say somebody who did that (dumped the report) should be supported?
One of the arguments raised by these Yoruba leaders is that Jonathan is more likely to implement the report than the APC presidential candidate, Muhammadu Buhari, whose party once opposed the confab. How valid is this argument?
When they say Buhari’s party rejected the confab from the outset, did they at any time hear Chief Bisi Akande, who was then the chairman of the APC or the then secretary of the party, Senator Lawal Shuaib, at any time, say ‘we as a party are opposed to this conference’? It is true that they (APC) did not send delegates; they may have their reasons for that. But did anybody at any time hear them saying they were opposed to the confab?
But for Tinubu, the national leader, and Lai Mohammed, the spokesperson of the party, to have criticised the confab; doesn’t it mean the party has spoken?
What you will not take away from Tinubu is that he is also a Nigerian with his rights. He has a right to express himself on any issue like any other Nigerian. All the APC governors sent delegates to the confab; all the governors nominated three delegates each to the confab.
But this category of delegates was to represent the state and not the party to which the governor belongs.
These were governments funded and led by the APC. If you start to make a distinction; if the decision (to send state delegates) is unacceptable to the APC, you would not find any of the governors doing so because he would be acting against the interest of his party and he could be penalised.
Is it not against the interest of the people of a state, if a governor refuses to send delegates to the confab?
Can you now distinguish between the interest of the people of a state and the government of that state, particularly if it is that government that is protecting the people’s interest in that state? Can one make a clear distinction?
The PDP sent its delegates as a party, ditto the All Progressives Grand Alliance and other parties. Why did the APC not send its delegates and not capitalise on those sent by the states the party govern?
APC can answer that question because I am not an official of the APC; I am only a member of the party. APC will answer the question but I am saying that all their governors – 19 of them – sent three delegates each, even (Edo State Governor, Adams) Oshiomhole who raised fundamental issues against the conference. If he did it in the interest of the people of his state, then why would anyone say the APC was opposed to it? All I am saying here is that if indeed it is true that President Jonathan is interested in implementing the report – don’t forget that it was submitted as far back as September 2014, six months ago – where is the report today? Who is talking about it? A lot would have been achieved; it would have been the greatest legacy for Jonathan. I published a letter when that report was being submitted. I wrote the President as an individual on the need for him to leave his name in gold by acting on the report immediately. There were suggestions – reputable lawyers had offered insights on how it could be done. He would have been doing something on the report, if indeed he has the intention of implementing it. How can some people now place their endorsement on a perceived action; an action that has not been taken? They are not even sure it will be taken.
The Yoruba elders claim to have the word of the President on the implementation of the report, should he be re-elected into office. What if he has genuine intentions?
Should such a vital issue be a campaign issue? When Obasanjo was going to become president (again in 2007), he met with many groups. Later on, some groups, particularly in the North-West, claimed that he signed a pact with them to spend only one term. Obasanjo came out to say he never signed any agreement with them or anybody; not to talk of relying on mere words of mouth. You can see how powerful the office of the Nigerian president is. A saint, once he gets there, can choose to become a devil and discard all agreements.
Does the APC have any consideration for any of the recommendations in the report?
The truth is that as we speak today, you will find in the manifesto of the APC references to plan, to reform and to restructure. It is now left to the party, when in office, to pressurise. That is a contract with the people. If indeed Jonathan is genuine, he could have made it (implementation of the report) a campaign issue. He could have said ‘I set up this body, they have submitted their report, I have already started the process of implementing it and I will continue if I am re-elected.’ Why go and whisper that to a small meeting in a small room? That is a national issue. This shows that it is not genuine.
If you have dismissed Jonathan as lacking the political will to implement the confab report, do you think Buhari, whose party was not part of the process, will implement it should he become President?
Buhari’s party has rolled out a manifesto, in which such commitments are made. If they are made, it will be the duty of every party member to put Buhari under pressure to implement it. There is no such commitment in the PDP manifesto; there is no contractual obligation with the citizenry.
Even if the APC manifesto concentrates on the welfare of the people, how can it address issues like fiscal federalism, autonomy and restructuring?
If it (APC manifesto) talks about restructuring and making sure that every part of the country is not subjugated in any form, what are needed are other interpretations, which the report will fill. But if for any reason he is not happy with the report, he may decide to convoke his conference; he may decide to act administratively with the National Assembly. The issue is that there is, by virtue of that document (APC manifesto), contractual obligation which his party, as an institution, can continue to hammer on and get action upon.
Since Jonathan convoked that conference, he had the opportunity to start showing his genuineness and willingness to implement the outcome of the confab but he has done nothing about it. Till May 29, he remains the President of the Unitary Republic of Nigeria, definitely not a Federal Republic. That is why, for instance, Jonathan, as a sitting President, has been able to whip the Yoruba people in a way that we have never been whipped. Look at the political appointments. Go to the career appointments in the civil service and show me where the Yoruba people are. If you talk about political appointments, you may say ‘after all, if the Yoruba people are not in the party, they cannot expect to hold the political position.’ Go to the civil service. For somebody who wants to reform; who wants to implement a restructuring report and under his watch he has seen the Yoruba people completely dismantled and whipped even in career offices. The statistics are there. The people will speak in the election; that is if they allow the exercise to be free and fair.
Odumakin also said those who are opposed to the confab and its report used to be part of Afenifere and the National Democratic Coalition in the fight against military rule and the struggle for a national conference, but they pulled out after they had become wealthy under democracy. Are you one of those he’s referring to?
The call for the national conference started earlier than the NADECO days. It was started by Alao Aka-Basorun in the early 90s. When Abiola died in 1998, even NADECO at a point in time was under severe pressure by its members and leaders who were afraid to participate in the (General Abdusalami) Abubakar’s transmission process. We felt that we should seek restructuring first before any election.
How do you hope to get restructuring if you don’t have faith in the current confab report?
At least, the manifesto of the APC promises restructuring.
Can the manifesto be an equal alternative to the confab report?
If what you have now are deep blue sea and the ocean, you’ll have to make a choice; unless you are saying it is possible through any other means. And the other means would be violence. I think the people of this country have fought a civil war before. If for any reason there will be fundamental changes in the structure of the country, we will have either go the Soviet Union way without firing a bullet or the Czechoslovakia way. If this country is to be tinkered with in terms of its component structure and if a party promises it in its manifesto, it means that it can be the starting point to ask. Another party has not promised restructuring.
Post a Comment Blogger Facebook Disqus