Follow Us on Google
In those days, Nigeria’s political leaders had course, at critical intervals, to flock to London to negotiate their collective being. They had to gather in London because the fate of their land was in the hand of the British. What later became the Nigerian state was at that period a British territory.
To negotiate the future of Nigeria and Nigerians, the political leaders had to leave their land behind and go to a faraway country whenever they were called, where some foreigners superintended over discussions on what shape the administrative machinery of Nigeria would assume.
The discussions in London, especially the definitive ones between 1951 and 1959 produced the ground rules on how Nigeria was governed, as agitation for self-rule gradually gathered steam. Both the conferences of the 1950s and the ones that preceded them, paid enduring tribute to the British government officials assigned by the colonial government to oversee the affairs of Nigeria.
The constitutional and political history of Nigeria in the embryonic stage of the Nigerian state especially, therefore bore the imprimatur of such names as Clifford, (Arthur) Richards, (Oliver) Lyttleton, and (John) Macpherson. These were the lords and overseers of Nigeria as it then was. Understandably, London was the venue of the conferences on the future of Nigeria. It had to be. It was the metropole, where those who determined the fate of the colony lived. That was then.
In 1960, Nigeria secured freedom from the control of colonial Britain. Ostensibly. That was 62 years ago. That development, celebrated with fanfare, was supposed to mark the end of such routines as Nigerians reporting to London to discuss the future of their land. Deploying all manner of levers and ploys, however, Britain has refused to let go of Nigeria. Obviously, it must be conceded as well, some Nigerians have refused let go of Britain too, in spite of the independence in 1960. There is, for instance, the Commonwealth of Nations, a union of countries, that retains the titular head of Britain, the queen of England, as head of otherwise independent countries. In the Commonwealth and through it, the spirit and memory of when Britain was lord over people in far away places, is still being celebrated.
Sixty-two years after Nigeria obtained her political independence and about 64 years after the last political conference in London on the fate of Nigeria, the country’s political elite are seemingly nostalgic about the days before some of them were born, when their forebearers used to go to London to discuss the fate of Nigeria. To London therefore, they have suddenly decided to return once more, to re-commence discussions on Nigeria’s political future. Indeed, the more things change, the more they remain the same.
The recent quaint meetings and negotiations in London about the future of Nigeria speak eloquently of the retardation of the country’s political development. This time, it is not London calling Nigeria’s political leaders to come, it is, instructively, the country’s political leaders reporting themselves to London.
As the 2023 general election approaches, more so against the backdrop of the pervasive distrust and separatist spirit that have been nurtured to prominence under the present government, there is, without doubt, need for serious negotiations on the future of Nigeria. There may yet be a loaded symbolism in the return by the political elite to London, to discuss the fate of Nigeria.
The curious pilgrimage to London by the foremost presidential candidates for the 2023 election, for discussions on the future of Nigeria is remarkably curious. Interestingly, Nyesom Wike, governor of River State effectively inserted himself into the centre of this new political conferences in London. Wike has managed to make himself, not only an issue, but the common denominator of sorts, in an equation that remains, at best, hazy. Bola Tinubu meets Wike. Obasanjo meets Wike. Peter Obi meets Wike. Atiku Abubakar meets Wike. Thereafter, Wike briefs his disciples.
Whether Wike offers just nuisance value or real value in the contest at hand remains largely uncertain. What is clear though, is that none of the presidential candidates want to take the risk of ignoring him. Since Wike says London is his preferred location for negotiations, everyone then goes thence.
You have to sympathize with Nigeria’s political elite. Having either contributed directly or borne witness to the devastation of their country, they have no little appealing choice than to seek a conducive ambience to negotiate their own future and the future of Nigeria. With Abuja, Kaduna, Port Harcourt and Lagos not considered safe enough now for them, not even Obudu, where bandits can so easily over run all securities and cart away the VIPs, London appears attractive to Nigeria’s political leaders. President Muhammadu Buhari has, of course, established London much earlier as his preferred place of rest and medical tourism. Someday, maybe, there will be a formal proposal for Nigeria to drop all pretences and resume singing ‘God Bless the Queen’ as national anthem.
Re: Nigerian Armed Forces should be worried
I refer to your column of Tuesday, August 23, 2022, titled “Nigeria Armed Forces should be worried”. It surprised me that you did not seem to know the powers of the armed forces of Nigeria vis-a-vis other security agencies, particularly the Nigeria Police Force. The Nigerian armed forces are military, while the police force is trained to handle civil matters. The Nigerian armed forces are superior to the police force in every facet of their duty, but they have no power of prosecution of cases in court.
This is where Andy missed the point. A police officer must be diligent to handle matters so as not to destroy material evidence that will be tendered. I want to inform you also that the Nigeria Police Force is grossly underfunded deliberately by the bourgeoisie. I can say without any immodesty that Nigeria police are among the best in the entire world. The law is not a respecter of anybody. By the powers given to the Nigeria Police, they can arrest anybody believed to have committed an offence in the country. That is the law entrenched in the Constitution, until it is repealed.
– Izuatu Momodu, retired police officer, Auchi, 08037607020
