Igwe Agbuzu Abuja summit remarks ignite debate over traditional council structure and Nnamdi Kanu comparison with Sunday Igboho
I watched the video of a traditional ruler from Igboland, Eze Ogbunechendo of Ezema Kingdom, HRM Igwe Lawrence Okolie Agbuzu OON, CFR, making three controversial statements at the first National Traditional and Religious Leaders Summit held in Abuja last Tuesday.
Also read: Sunday Igboho forgiven by Ooni of Ife in historic reconciliation
The first was his contention that there was nothing like the Southern Nigeria Traditional Council, which the Ooni of Ife, His Imperial Majesty, Oba Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, its chairman, had said there was.
To further contradict Igwe Agbuzu, the Ooni’s assertion was corroborated by another Igbo monarch, the Eze Aro IX, Dr. Eberechukwu Kanu Oji, who said the Southern Nigeria Traditional Council was actually inaugurated sometime ago in Oyo state with him, Eberechukwu, as its Publicity Secretary.
Whether or not the council exists is not my beef here, but I tend to support the views of Igwe Agbuzu that the entirety of the council – Northern, Southern, and National – should be democratised to reflect the present realities of agitations against marginalization of minority groups and the strident call for power-sharing in all its ramifications – political, economic, social, cultural, name it!
Said Agbuzu: “Now, again, they were talking about the Southern Traditional Rulers Committee on Health, and the eminent Professor Mohammed Pate was saying that this will become an annual event—what we are doing today—if I heard him correctly.
The truth of the matter is that there is nothing like a Southern Traditional Rulers Council. If you come here and give money to people on that basis, it is not correct.
“The South is not the North. We have our system. We need unity in diversity. So, if you want to deal with us, deal with us in the Southeast.
If you have resources for us, give it to us. Don’t give it to people who come and say they represent a traditional rulers council. Democracy is a representative government, and anybody who goes to present himself without his people is not democratic or traditional. So, get it right.”
Well said! Responding, however, the Eze Aro IX described the Southern Nigerian Traditional Rulers Council as “a movement—a journey—comprising members from across the entire southern part of Nigeria.
He (Ooni) is our chairman. We have the co-chair here from the Southeast and we have eminent traditional rulers from across the southern parts of Nigeria.
“We have come together to advance the cause of the Southern Nigerian Traditional Rulers Council. The President was part of the inauguration of the Southern Nigerian Traditional Rulers Council.
It happened in Oyo, and we had representatives from the press, the government, and stakeholders at that inauguration. Since that inauguration, the Southern Nigerian Traditional Rulers Council has been active.
“We have had our AGM, which took place in Ogun State. We have undertaken several activities together. So, please, for the purposes of clearing any doubts, the Southern Nigerian Traditional Rulers Council exists.
The Southern Nigerian Traditional Rulers Council is united, with traditional rulers and royal fathers from across the entire southern Nigeria—all represented here.”
Nigeria’s Traditional Council: A house divided?
Chairman of the disputed Southern Nigeria Traditional Council and the Ooni of Ife, Oba Ogunwusi, nailed it with a take-it or leave-it statement:
“The Southern Traditional Rulers Council is very optional. You don’t need to join us if you don’t want to, but it is a force—a formidable force—among traditional institutions for us to come together…” Who will hear that and not tremble?
But why should the National Council of Traditional Rulers be co-chaired only by the Sultan of Sokoto and the Ooni of Ife? The chairmanship should rotate beyond these two important traditional rulers.
Maybe a zonal structure of six geo-political groups will be a starting point. But unknown to him, Igwe Agbuzu must have hurt the sensitivity and sensibilities of some of his colleagues from the North when he said whereas a monolithic council for that part of the country might be okay, a similar configuration for the South is not!
Who told him all traditional rulers from the North fancy to be under the Sultan’s beck-and-call? Just like the Igwe seeks the “liberation” of his South-east or Igboland from Yoruba/Ooni domination, so also do we have traditional rulers from the North who resent the Sultan’s domination and desire to break loose from it. So, let the council be democratised totally and completely; no half-measures.
Igwe Agbuzu also pleaded passionately for the IPOB seccessionist leader, Nnamdi Kanu, but he goofed in that his plea is somehow belated.
It should have come when Kanu’s fate was not yet decided and he was still a detainee. But he no longer is!
Kanu has been tried by a court of competent jurisdiction of charges that were read to him in open court and in a language which he clearly understood. He was given:the ample opportunity to defend himself and he did.
We saw him even change defence counsel and, on one occasion, he elected to take over his own defence. Having had his day in court, as they say, he was found guilty as charged and was sentenced to life imprisonment.
As we speak, and as the Igwe rightly mentioned, Kanu is serving his prison term in Sokoto prisons. He is now a prisoner and not a detainee. And the processes of releasing or granting reprieve to a prisoner differs from those of a detainee.
Was President Tinubu impressed?
The third controversial statement made by Igwe Agbuzu, which drew prolonged laughter from his audience that, incidentally, included President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, was his comparing Nnamdi Kanu with Yoruba self-determination nationalist, Sunday Adeyemo, aka Sunday Igboho.
Saying that those of them in the south-east see Igboho as the counterpart of Nnamdi Kanu, he added that it grieved his heart to see Igboho walk free while Kanu is in prison.
Said he: “I listened to the opening address by His Imperial Majesty (the Ooni), and he was gingering all of us to work as a family, to work as a team, and to see Nigeria as one.
This is good. But when you look at it, this same Imperial Majesty is arranging to confer a very high honor on Sunday Igboho who, in my own part of Nigeria and the Southeast, we see as a counterpart of Nnamdi Kanu.”
The whole hall, still managing to keep itself under control, erupted when he said, speaking directly to Mr. President: “Bring this man (Kanu) out.
If we don’t want him in Nigeria, return him to Kenya or London where they took him from.” The cameras caught the president sprawling on his sofa soaked with laughter!
But is it as easy as that? And is the comparison between Sunday Igboho and Nnamdi Kanu not akin to comparing sleep with death and oranges with apples?
Dr. Sunday Dare, Presidential adviser on Media and Public Communication, while offering an explanation, stated that the methods adopted by both men and their impacts differed significantly.
While Kanu’s actions involved armed rebellion, Igboho’s only focused on peaceful community defence against external threats.
For the sake of emphasis, Dare stated quite emphatically that there is “no basis for comparison” between Igboho and Kanu. Their actions, methods and consequences were fundamentally different.
While Kanu crossed into armed rebellion and violent enforcement of his illegal, disruptive and destructive sit-at-home orders, Igboho “remained largely defensive and localised against perceived external threat, without the same level of state-targeted insurgency.”
Igboho’s activism was centred on defending communities in the south-west against criminal activities attributed to killer-herdsmen, alongside peaceful agitation for a Yoruba nation.
Kanu, however, went violent with his own agitation, which “included the enforcement of sit-at-home orders (often through threats and violence), resulting in numerous deaths (reports cite over 700 fatalities linked to enforcement clashes and defiance killings).
“Other inimical activities (of Kanu) include attack on security forces, destruction of public infrastructure, and the formation of armed groups like the Eastern Security Network (ESN).
Kanu’s rhetoric and actions escalated to calls that many viewed as inciting violence against the state and even against his own people in the southeast who defied (his) orders.”
In simple grammar: Kanu crossed the line; Igboho did not!
Too early to pardon Nnamdi Kanu
My own views on this matter tally with those of Dr. Dare. Responding earlier to a post on the same issue on a platform to which I belong, I had argued thus:
“Kanu and Igboho are not the same kettle of fish. Igboho did not announce sit-at-home in the southwest. He did not organise his own army to kill and maim security agents and ordinary people.
He did not declare secession. He was only interested in protecting his people against Fulani terrorism. The same Fulani terrorists have been so declared as terrorists by the United States (and the international community).
“Igboho did not constitute himself into an affront to constituted authority. He respected Yoruba leaders and traditional institutions.
He subjugated himself under control and did not pose as Lord of the Manor like Kanu did. He did not abuse judges.
He did not denigrate the judiciary. He did not abuse everyone. He did not flex muscles with the powers-that-be but went on his belly before Yoruba traditional rulers begging for assistance.
“Igboho placed himself under control. Kanu puts himself outside of it. Igboho can be restrained. Kanu cannot. Igboho never advocated for the destruction of the southeast or Igbo land.
Kanu advocated for the destruction of the southwest and Yorubaland. Kanu showed unmitigated hatred for the Yoruba both in speech and action. Igboho did not exhibit any such animosity towards the Igbo. I can go on and on!
“Therefore, Kanu must pay for the innocent lives he wasted. He must also pay for the destruction of lives and properties during #ENDSARS protests in Lagos.
It is unfortunate that rather than acknowledge the truth, those pleading for Kanu are peddling cheap sentiments. It won’t work.
But if it does, a dangerous precedent will be set. And when the Southwest explodes in retaliation, may the good Lord help us!
“Up till now, Kanu is still laying claim to controlling the southeast, belching out orders from his prison room. He pretends to still wield power, enforcing, elongating, reviewing and canceling sit-at-home orders in the southeast.
But he lied! It was Gov. Charles Soludo’s action that has put an end to sit-at-home in the southeast, if truly it has now ended. Kanu is merely trying to reap where he did not sow.
He lays claim to the authority and powers he did not possess. He is too full of himself; self-conceited and too self-opinionated.
“Arrogant! Rude! Power drunk! Closet dictator! Who can restrain him and his rag-tag army in the entire southeast?
He has no respect for anyone there. Who has he not abused there? Kanu rightly belongs where he is now – prison. Alternatively, a zoo!”
I seriously believe so! Time to grant Kanu reprieve, if at all, is not now. He should be allowed time to mature in prison. Unleashing him on civilised society at this point in time may be dangerous.
Counter-productive, too! Time may temper him; so maybe we can return to review his case after 10, 15 or 20 years.
Good behaviour while in prison is also a key determinant of whether or not reprieve will be granted. And reprieve must never be allowed to trump justice.
Justice demands that Kanu should sufficiently atone for his many crimes before he ever sees the light of day again.
Also read: IPOB family reaffirms Kanu’s prophecy amid Sokoto imprisonment
Otherwise, society suffers double jeopardy- which will be unfair to the countless number of victims of Kanu’s uncountable shenanigans!
