Kannywood

Kannywood’s Struggle: An Inconsistent Contradiction

Abba Anwar

Morality should not be viewed, assessed and understood from the point of view of one’s or group’s perspective of thinking. It is also not a commoditized and skillfully chosen product. If one looks at it vividly clear with an embracingly open mind could come to term with me that there are manifestations, features and meaning embedded in the word, morality. That is why, for example, corruption is seen and regarded as an immoral practice throughout the world. Money laundering, political violence and social unrest all fall under the same category with corruption, in terms of their classification and itemization within the awkwardly - shaped immoral behaviour.

To further buttress my point of the globality of morality my reader may wish to remember that there are many Conventions at the international level that are aimed at doing away with corruption and money laundering. Which tells you that these are globally rejected immoral acts? We have morality in politics, family setting, economy and governance. Some might even say religion (depending on your understanding of the concept) is an embodiment of morality and a staunch enemy of immorality if you like.

But with all the above assertions, one has to fully grasp the indismissible reality that there are some nitty-gritty areas within cultures, races, tribes and to some limited extent, professions where exhibition, manifestation and translation of good and bad are not the same. In fact sometimes in parallel positions. For example it is a proper thing for a western lady to wear jeans trouser and go about her normal businesses outside. And the same thing sounds strange to a Hausa girl.

It is normal for an Arab to shake hands with his children. But in the Hausa Community when a man stretches his hand tries to shake it with that of his father it is regarded as a sign of disrespect. Talkless of a Yoruba man who has to do “Doobale” going down completely or close to that. In this kind of areas critical debates come in. That is this issue of shaking hands, is it, for example, allowed in Islam or not? If it is allowed then the consideration of one’s culture must totally be relegated to the background. So religion comes first before any other thing.

Let me take my dear reader to the main issue at stake, in this text. That is film production and other related explanations. Allow me to go straight to the point and say films censorship was not first introduced in Nigeria or Kano state in particular. The Motion Picture Production Code (Popularly known as the Hays Code after its creator, Will H. Hays) was first published in March 1930. It was the first attempt at introducing film censorship in the limited states of America.

It was examined that, the code was founded according to the concept: “If motion pictures present stories that will affect lives for the better, they can become the most powerful force for the improvement of mankind”. The implication was glaringly showing that films were failing to achieve these lofty and laudable objectives. Hence the urgent need for the Code.

The Code was based on three general principles:-

a. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin,

b. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of drama and entertainment, shall be presented, and

c. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy be created for its violation.

These rules were put together and developed in a series of rules grouped under self explanatory headings, crimes against The Law, Sex, Vulgarity, Obscenity, Profanity, costume, Dances (i.e. suggestive movements) religion, locations (i.e. the bedroom) national feelings, titles and “Repellent subjects” (extremely graphic violence).

For the purpose of clarity one has to understand that the British Board of Film Censors’ recommendation had been adopted by British Film Producers and distributors for similar reasons. And the Code had unarguably influenced the context of almost every American film made between 1930 and 1966. That was when the Motion Picture Association of America introduced a ratings system along the lives of the BBFC’s classification certificates.

In the past, I did not write a word concerning film production and its many palavers as it affects the popularly called and known Kannywood. I mean in Pre-Hiyana Saga, during the saga and it’s aftermath. For my absolute fear of digression let me not attempt to discuss about the history of the initial Hollywood, Bollywood, the polluted Nollywood and the derailed, biased and increasingly unproductive Kannywood. For that explanation (I mean Hollywood’s and Bollywood’s) I pleasurably refer my reader to some morally guided talks on the subject by Sheikh Muhammad Bin Othman, of the Masjid Al-Sahaba, Kundila, Kano. Or one is free to go and look for other explanations from internet search engines, e.g. Google, Yahoo, Asks, etc.

I did not write about them not because there was nothing to write home about. But simply because there were (are) writers who tried to critically examine all the conditions that were prevalent, that served the purpose of my intention to write something. But then some of the writers were as unproductive as the known killer diseases of this world. During the Hiyana Saga a lot had been said, written, transferred and all that. This piece is looking beyond Maryam Hiyana and her attendant attachments. So the content of this context sees beyond its nose, if I can put it that way.

What bothers me most these days is the way and manner our writers are neglecting the contradictive aspect of the existing arguments. What I am saying in essence is there are alot of contradictions and counter productive moves by the film makers in Kano, by way of their responses to the control mechanisms put by the Kano Stare Censorship Board, under the able leadership of Malam Abubakar Rabo Abdulkareem, as the Director General.

I could remember vividly clear that after all the hues and cries that trailed the (un) popular Maryam Hiyana’s moral bankruptcy, the Kano State Censorship Board called a press Briefing on Monday 11^th February, 2008, at the Conference Room of the Board, where the Director General, Malam Abubakar Rabo addressed the press.

But before that Press Conference there was a ban on films location activities. The ban stayed for a period of 6 months. And the Press Conference came on the expiration of the ban. So one could see that it is not the intention of this piece to took at Hiyana’s dilemma or accusations and counter-accusations that followed. I would want to start with the Press Conference and go on to other issues that followed.

During that Press Conference the first wordings that came from the mouth of Malam Rabo were and I quote “further to the unfortunate happenings in the film industry, His Excellency the Executive Governor of Kano State, Malam Ibrahim Shekarau, has approved the appointment of Task Force Committee to sanitize, standardize and professionalize the film industry in the state”.

The Director General says, “The suspension order was clearly on location activities unlike what was speculated that it was meant to jeopardize the Film Industry. Marketers, production and post productions companies, Musical Studios and other activities were not affected by the order. More so, the Board has responded to various appeals made by organizations that have a stake in its activities to revisit the issue of censoring films already completed before the unfortunate incidence”. He further states “Accordingly, this is not the first time filming activities were suspended in Kano State. In the year 2002 the then administration suspended filming activities without any exception, even cinema houses were affected...”

The bone of contention and the point of argument or departure, if you like, between the Board and the Filmmakers is where the Director General made it categorically clear that and I quote, “… I would like to make it abundantly clear that every individual operator MUST register and be issued with license to operate, be it an Artist, Script Writer, Designer, Director, Producer and other related persons in the Home Video as provided by section 8 sub section “B’ of the Kano State Censorship Board Law 2001”.

The hit-and-miss approach by the film makers was severely boxed down, when at the Press Conference; Malam Rabo outlined the conditions upon which the ban lifted. He says and I quote “… I am happy to announce to our teaming stakeholders and the general public that the ban on location activities is hereby lifted with effect from Tuesday 12^th February 2008, on the following conditions:-

a) All film operators and related persons must register with the Board and be issued with license as enshrined in the Kano State Censorship Board Law 2001, section 6, sub section “B” to ensure maximum control.

b) All film corporate bodies and companies/professional Guilds and Associations must register with the Board as provided by Kano State Censorship Board Law 2001.

c) All production scripts and outing schedules must be approved by the Board before any location activities.

d) All production must not jeopardize the sensitivities of the general public thus (sic) Religion, Culture, Law, State and ethics of the profession. Hitherto, (sic) public are rest assured of protecting their dignity in Hausa films.

e) Any film that features non registered artiste/artistes by the Board will not be cleared.

f) The proliferations of Hausa musical albums has attracted the Board’s attention, hence must be censored. Therefore lyricist and musician are equally to register like the rest of our stakeholders”.

Lest I forget, during the hey days of Hiyanagate, there were worries and confusions within the Kannywood circle. That prompted and forced some of the leading elements within the confused and angered Kannywood circle to come out and loudly dismissed the Hiyana Saga as uncultured, un-Islamic and unproductive. That opened a can of worm and a new chapter of understanding the Kannywood itself, how it was packaged as a group of entertainers, the characters that made up its parts, inconsistencies, confusions, ups and downs, derailments and host of others.

Immediately after some of the talks given by some leading characters in the media, some actresses came out and revealed boldly that more than 90% of the so called leaders in the industry were the ones that poisoned the whole process and the foundation upon which the industry was built. Revelations upon revelations! A popular actress was reported to have said one of the so-called leading characters dribbled her thinking and made her to pleasurably abandoned her husband in order to be recruited as artiste. And she eventually landed on an uncultivated land of hopelessness, carelessness and regret. But unfortunately for her, the subsequent parts of her actions after the confession did not show an iota of regret. Up till today!

In retrospect, one could correctly put it this way that the creation/formation of Kannywood was absolutely on confusion, contradiction of parts and unorganized plans of action. So these are some of the contradictions this piece is talking about.

As part of the repercussions that tailed the Hiyanagate, the Association of film makers came out with 21 names of both actors and actresses that were expelled from the film industry in the state. They were accused of different forms of immoral behaviours. Some were accused of indecent dresses, some with drug abuse, some with being links between prostitutes and indiscipline men, some with instigating friction between the ranks of the members, some with exposing Hiyana’s clip to the public and on and on (see Film Magazine of January, 2008, page 20).

In a letter jointly signed by the National Vice President MOPPAN, Chairman Film Makers Association and Chairman Producers Association, Viz; Ahmad M. Sarari, Sa’idu Isa Gwanja and Muhammad G. Kabara respectively. In the letter which was sent to the Executive Secretary, Kano State Censorship Board, Malam Abubakar Rabo Abdulkareem, dated 9^th December, 2007 and was published in the Fim Magazine of January, 2008, volume 97, pages 19-20, states that, “we would like to remind the Board of the position already taken by MOPPAN where it clearly stated the grey areas between the Board and the Associations where the Board’s responsibility was understood to be the regulations of the industry not its activities. It is the individual guilds and associations that control the conduct of their members pertaining professional practice in line with their Code of Ethics”.

If I may ask my dear reader to please make a critique of the above portion of the letter, I think the simplest thing one could do is to come up with the glaringly shown contradiction in the paragraph. The letter says “…. The Boards’ responsibility was understood to be the regulations of the industry not its activities”. For God sake how can a line of demarcation be drawn between the “industry” and its “activities?” Please tell me what makes the industry to be an industry? Is it not its activities? Can an industry be without any activity? So what are these people saying in essence?

But I could see that the letter says this confused position was taken by MOPPAN. Can this cloudy position taken by MOPPAN, Motion Picture Practitioners Association of Nigeria? I hope MOPPAN was not misquoted. So whether MOPPAN or no MOPPAN, the fact remains that, these stakeholders lack the ability to understand who they are, what role are they playing in the society, where they are heading to and under what platform are they assembled! This is too bad!!

The item 3 of this letter continues thus “The Board reserves the right to deal accordingly with any practitioner who violates the laws establishing it”. This is a sharp contradiction with the MOPPAN position stated above. I think a practitioner can only violate any law by acting contrary to that law, that is though an activity. Then where is the difference or demarcation between the “industry” and “its activities”? It also means that item 3 of the this renders the whole of item 2 useless. Contradiction upon contradictions! And there is no consistency in the contradiction itself. If there is one then item 3 should not do away with item 2 immediately.

The same letter published in the Fim Magazine of January, 2008, pages 19 to 20, in item 12 says and I Quote “Film making is a profession not just a trade guided by (sic) Federal, state and guilds associations’ laws. Therefore, the Board must not ignore the responsibilities of other bodies that as well have a stake in regulating the practice of this noble profession” I would want to highlight on 2 fundamental contradictions only embedded in this paragraph. One, nowhere in his speech or talks Malam Rabo discards the knowledge of the existence of other regulating agencies. Secondly, the letter draws the attention of the Censorship Board that “… the Board must not ignore the responsibilities of other bodies that as well have a stake in regulating the PRACTICE (Empliasis Mine) of this noble profession”. Regulating practice is as equal as regulating an activity. This part contradicts the earlier part of the letter, i.e. item n umber 2.

Ibrahim M. Mandawari and one Khalid Musa signed a letter that was sent to the Chairman Task Force on Sanitization of Film Industry in Kano State, Office of the Secretary to the State Government, which was dated 14^th September 2007, titled “Sanitization Of The Film Industry In Kano State”. They signed the letter as Director General and Director Administration respectively of the Kannywood Foundation.

In the letter there are many places that need some clarification. But because of the short nature of the piece I think we shall meet in the next outing. Nevertheless, we can still visit item “L” of the letter which says and I quote “The Mobile Court shall be replaced with a Disciplinary Committee. Which will comprise all stakeholders and government representative from the state Ministry of Justice and the regulatory body. The stakeholders themselves will carry out enforcement of the decided sanctions by the committee”. This shows that Ibrahim M. Mandawari and Khalid Musa are of the opinion that erring members should be punished. Please my reader take this at the back of your mind as the reading progresses.

To make the filmmakers sit up to their responsibilities, the Kano state Censorship Board calls on any body wishes to play a role in the film industry to come forth and register with the Board. After being registered one has to sign an undertaking. In the undertaking there is a portion which states,

“… that I promise not to undertake role that will be detrimental to my religion, Culture, state, people or the profession”. I think this is a clear case of “Gyara Kayanka”, i.e. helping you to sit up correctly. Things are going normally, as wished by the members of the public, the Censorship Board and some rational stakeholders in the film industry.

In a swift, hypocritical, contradictory and uncultured reaction the leaders in the industry called a Press Conference and made it categorically clear that they now called the expelled actors and actresses to come on board again. This is hypocrisy of the highest order! Those expelled/suspended artistes that were called back on the state, have they been cleared off their accusations?

Some of them were accused of being drug addicts, some, indecent behaviours and on and on. So what informs their bouncing back? Have they become saints between the time they were expelled and the time they were called to bounce back? I am not saying they can not be good people again. Please understand my argument. This is the kind of, knowingly or unknowingly, orchestrated contradictions.

My prayers are as follows:

a Malam Abubakar Rabo Abdulkareem should please be firmer and apply all laws,

b These people should understand that the struggle is not between them and Malam Rabo, but it is between them and the good conduct of Kano people, the right thinking people of the state, regardless of their political affiliations and above all the teachings of the Holy Prophet Muhammad (S.A.W.).

c I urge our Friday Mosques and other mosques to please preach excessively against the bad sides of film industry.

d The Societal Re-Orientation Directorate (A Daidaita Sahu) should please, through its “Zauren Shawara” forums create more awareness against uncultured films.

e The right thinking stakeholders in the film industry should try as much as they can to see that they sanitize the practice.

f I also urge Dr. Bashir Shehu Galadanchi (Mai Tsangaya) to please request our Alarammomi (Qur’anic experts) to put their heads together with the authorities to see to the end of this barbaric behaviour.

g Shari’ah Commission should please come to the aid of the Censorship Board. They have all the avenues to assist immensely.

h I urge the Emirate Council to please call the attention of all the Hakimai and Dagatai to please work assiduously against the poisoned nature the Kannywood as a body and film industry as an envelope of activities.

i Also I urge the Censorship Board to joint hands with any relevant agency in the State and see for the proliferation of the production of decent literary books and films. Expert’s advice should be sought. Professor Abdallah Uba Adamu can be an excellent material here.

I rest my case