Sanusi Lamido’s “In Defense of Reverend Mathew Kukah”

By

Nasiru Yauri

University of Maryland, College Park, USA

nassj@hotmail.com

It was not my intention to join issues with Sanusi Lamido Sanusi, for apparently historical antecedents are major determinants of his convictions. I believe as one smitten by some historical events, he bears a lot of resentment (and he has a right to) to the institutions in northern Nigeria; apparently not only the traditional institutions in the north, but also the religious institution (as I later observed in his other articles on the Shari’a). I am not carried away by the power of words and logic that Sanusi used to explain the appointment of Kukah and Tobi. I am sure many of us, who are not so educated, can still see the sentiments from which Sanusi writes. The article in which he defended Kukah was his first article I have ever read, but as I read the article I knew that it was full of resentment, which albeit hidden still stick out . And the logic presented was fluid. Let me clarify, that as a person I do not appreciate institutions, be they traditional or religious, being used for the oppression of a class of people in society. And I truly, truly share with Sanusi Lamido Sanusi some resentment of some events in our history. Thus, I may have my quarrels with the traditional institutions of the north. But one must also not shy away from the truth simply because it is been pursued by an institution he despises. It is also a fallacy to deny a people justice, simply because “I am one of them, and if I condemn, criticise and disown them, I will achieve the status of a national hero”. To me, all those are not noble intentions.

Given the political arrangement obtainable in Nigeria, that the decision of Obasanjo to appoint two Christians to head the national conference is ill-conceived, is a fact irrefutable. If it was done the other way round, I would still have said it was ill-conceived. Many countries in the world, including the US, give some consideration to diversities in their political appointments. The appointment of Condi Rice (An African American) as the US Secretary of State and Alberto Gonzalez (A Hispanic American) as Attorney General of the United States are clear examples. The political machinations and injustices of Obasanjo against Nigerian Muslims are the first of their kind in Nigeria’s history; even past military dictators have taken ample cognisance of ethnic and religious diversities in their political appointments. To a very large extent, I agree with those who explain that Obasanjo’s appointment of Tobi and Kukah are deliberate calculations to plant seeds of discord among northerners specifically, and generally among Nigerians; and to establish or strengthen a divide between them. This is the second time Obasanjo has constituted a panel to which Nigerians feel very sensitive, and in both instances has appointed both Chairman and Secretary of the panels from the Christian denomination. That honestly appears to me more than mere coincidence. Obasanjo gave an analogy of his action, by citing the SDP ticket of Abiola/Kingibe as two Muslims elected to lead Nigeria. I disagree to the usage of that analogy for three reasons. First, I recall that many of us frowned at such an arrangement and wished that Abiola had picked his running mate from the Christian north. Second, right from the start, the 1992 election was meant to be a charade, as it turned out to be. That many Nigerians could not see the insincerity of the government of the day to hold, and declare winners of that election, still beats my imagination. Third, and most alarming, Obasanjo by that analogy portrays his ethnic and religious bigotry; as well as the execution of a hidden agenda of vendetta. By implication, he is saying that he is carrying out some revenge for some of the actions of Nigeria’s past leaders.

Not even a sincere Christian can say wholeheartedly that justice and fairness was done in appointing two Christians to head a conference in Nigeria, as Chairman and Secretary. Obasanjo himself knew that such a decision is headed towards controversy. I doubt if Obasanjo or anyone else can submit that there is no Muslim with credentials to be appointed as Chairman or Secretary, if not for any other reason, but to create confidence in Nigerians of different religious background on the activities of the conference. . And to give members of the two major religions in the country a sense of belonging, and guarantee their confidence in the proceedings and outcomes of the conference. By the way, I am no believer in this conference as I vehemently doubt the sincerity of the convener or even the intentions for which it was convened.

That the appointment was merely done on merit is the most fluid explanation, and it smacks of insult on the Nigerian Muslim population. Is Obasanjo, Kukah or Sanusi saying that there is no Muslim who qualifies on merit to be appointed as Chairman or Secretary of a national conference? Of course, we need no answer for that, his appointment of Oputa and Kukah to head the “Oputa Panel” and now Tobi and Kukah to head the national conference, are evidences to show that as a “born again” Obasanjo cannot give any Muslim a position of trust. Evidences show, therefore, that Obasanjo is not only ethnocentric, but full of religious bias. I know some will say “but some of his ministers are Muslims”. From a submission made to Obasanjo (which he has not refuted) by the Nigeria Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs, only 17 of his 41 ministers are Muslims, among the 84 ambassadors, 50 are Christians and 34 are Muslims; of the 45 permanent secretaries only 16 are Muslims, and only 4 of the 46 heads of parastatals are Muslims. Further proof is found in his sacking of senior Muslim officers of the army, navy and air force on assumption of office. And his appointment of 18 Christians as army commanders with only one Muslim, also of the 15 in the air force one is a Muslim and 14 are Christians. Without prejudice to seniority, the heads of Nigeria’s Custom, Immigration, NIA, SSS, Prison service are all Christians. The facts above also appear to me more than just coincidences. They seem more like the machinations of a President who is carrying out a vendetta by acting to the whims of a section of the Nigerian society. This is indeed an unhealthy development which shall not be allowed to rear its head in Nigeria. Because religious crises, where they occur, are more volatile and violent than ethnic crises, and the actions of this President seem to encourage the proliferation of such tendencies.

My advice to Sanusi, however, is that as we try to champion the common good of all, we must not “blame the victim” (thanks to Haruna Mohammed) just so that we appear as national heroes. And justice could go either ways; to my son or to the son of my neighbour.