Follow Us on Google
Prof. Obianuju (“Uju”) Anya left the world mouth agape last week with an angry tweet wishing “excruciating pain” to a dying monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Ordinarily, the tweet for all its brashness could have received only passing attention from the twitterati. However, an unusual interest shown on it by a billionaire, followed by direct putdown on the post, skyrocketed Anya’s tweet to the top and generated controversy around it. The billionaire was Jeff Bezos, the world’s second richest man, and his commentary was no less acerbic. He then moved on from there to pass on his opinion about the Queen, who passed on same Thursday September 8, 2022.
Why did Bezos take a personal interest in what Anya, a college professor, had to say about the Queen? It is hard to say. What is obvious is that, for some reason, the co-founder and chief executive of Amazon has developed an interest in what the Nigerian-born professor who teaches in the United States has to say. Enugu Twitter users who offered comments weighed in on the thread of the post claim that Bezos has an axe to grind with Anya, for supporting the campaign to unionize workers of Amazon. It was also instructive that when the billionaire chose to air his views on the legacy of the Queen, he merely stated that she epitomized a sense of duty.
The professor’s tweet suffered severe reversals after this. Her employers, Carnegie Mellon University issued a disclaimer, calling her tweet inappropriate and offensive. Twitter eventually pulled down the post, claiming that it violated its rules. These did not deter the tigress as she doubled down on the post, largely cheered on by Nigerian Twitter space.
“If anyone expects me to express anything but disdain for the monarch who supervised a government that sponsored the genocide that massacred and displaced half my family and the consequences of which those alive today are still trying to overcome, you can keep wishing upon a star,” she said.
There are at least two reasons why the tweet and the firestorm it provoked are worrisome. The first is that those who oppose what she said attack her based on her entire social media oeuvre. She is both self-confessed feminist and gay and consistently offers controversial views of Nigeria’s patriarchy and the LGBT community in general. To them, the Queen Tweet counts as one more controversy that she is provoking to chase influence. The commentators, therefore, use their knowledge of Anya’s social media footprints to approach her comment.
The majority of those who push this line of attack are from Nigeria, Anya’s original home country. To them, it does not matter that the professor offered justification for her tweet, the devastating impact of the Nigerian Civil War on her family. War displaced almost half of her family members, she said. Britain actively supported Nigeria to suppress the breakaway republic of Biafra. And, since government conducts every action on behalf of the Queen, the departed monarch was, therefore, vicariously liable for the trauma that she and her family underwent. It was her war, which she was not waging on behalf of the Igbo or Biafrans but for herself and her family.
If we follow her line of argument, no one can fault her for telling her story and pointing the accusing finger. Her stories – and the justification for the attack on the Queen – resonate in the old Eastern Nigeria, which suffered the most during the war. In other words, anyone who witnessed the 1967-1970 war in the Eastern Region can relate to Anya’s point of view. Those who tend to downplay the war of brothers in Nigeria are only able to guess at the level of physical, mental, and psychological devastation that it occasioned for people of the region. Therefore, it must be a bit gratuitous to mock Jews, Amerindians, or the Igbo for crying about the bestiality that the colonial authorities visited on them. Prof. Anya is right to feel anger and to express it, though in an objectional manner.
The second line of attack comes from those who think the timing of Prof. Anya’s tweet was wrong and her issue inappropriate. Are they right? We know that the English monarch is titular head of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom, as well as other Commonwealth countries that accepted her to continue as their queen.
It does appear that the professor and her group are conflating the Queen’s ceremonial and philanthropic duties with the actions of various UK governments since 1952. The ceremonial head of the UK government and state religion do not grant interviews, make their feelings known or express political opinions. In the specific case of Biafra, the UK government decisions and actions during the Nigerian war came from Prime Minister Harold Wilson and his secretaries. They received approval from parliament to supply weapons of war. And they planted advisers on the Nigerian side of the conflict.
It is true that every action in a period of war – including the decision to go to war – must receive the approval of the Queen. And this is where the complication arises. Did the Wilson government obtain formal approval of the Queen to support the genocide that took place in Eastern Nigeria? Can a Queen (or King) withhold assent on a piece of legislation passed by parliament for the Kingdom? If the answers are in the negative, then it will be difficult to lay the blame for colonialism and other acts of aggression at the feet of the British monarch.
But we can never know how the monarch views the policies and actions of the government that operates in their name. Everything we know comes from the record of policymaking and actions of those that the monarchy invited to form government after each election or displacement. Thus, to the extent that victims can blame any UK national they see, anyone can blame the queen or king for colonialism, slavery, wars and killings promoted by the crown for millenniums. This does not, however, mean that she is culpable. The records of debates, policies and actions say otherwise about where the responsibility lies – and this is the office of the prime minister, the chief executive officer of government.
Peter Obi wants to murder self?
One tries to make sense of the most recent statement credited to Mr. Festus Keyamo, one of the spokespersons for the Tinubu Campaign Organisation. He said this:
“We are also aware that plans are afoot by Mr. Peter Obi to fake an assassination attempt on himself and hire Labour Party boys dressed in APC caps and T-shirts to attack some Labour Party offices. It is all part of the “US Plan.” It is the first in a series of incendiary actions planned by this ill-prepared but desperate candidate.”
What exactly does this mean? That Peter Obi will hire people and beg them to murder him? Or that he plans to die through other means but do it in such a way that APC will take the blame for the tragedy?
The Igbo tell the story of the tortoise who threatened to march a pregnant woman to death any day that a stampede breaks out in the market square. One day, a stampede did break out and fleeing feet marched a woman with child to death. Of course, everyone turned to the tortoise because what he threatened to do happened the way he described it. The animal kingdom ignored every explanation the tortoise offered to show that he was not responsible for the death. And he went in for it.
It is a good thing that Keyamo mentioned this, for he now must live with a huge responsibility to ensure that Obi does not die during this campaign.
