One defining feature of these times, is the oxymoronic profile of the Nigerian State. It is strong on one hand, while it can also be described as weak on the other. As it is, the Nigerian State, unlike in the past, is not an assumed socio-political animal.
Even for some social forces, it no longer exists and can be toyed with. For some others, restructuring is the mantra and to this extent, the Nigerian State in its current form must be reconfigured. There is even a third position whose perspective is that, if restructuring fails, then secession or separatism becomes the viable option.
Read Also: Sunday Igboho alleges plot to arrest him
So active and vociferous are some of these people that one is tempted to feel that the Nigerian State as strong as it appears to be, can be described as either weak or weakened. It is a situation which brings into fore the rather delicate relationship between the individual on one hand and the State on the other. Perhaps the most basic issue to note here is that for a State to maintain a semblance of legitimacy, there must be consent on the part of its inhabitants.
But at the moment, this consent is being withheld by the various non-state actors across the land. And if the truth must be told, the State has brought this situation upon itself. The current managers through various acts of commission and omission have successfully alienated large sections of the populace .For instance, empirical checks reveal that the Nation’s Security architecture is being monopolized by a particular section of the country. To worsen matters, there is even an in your face attitude towards the whole thing. In more stark terms, the attitude seems to be: So what, and what can you do about it? However and as such situations go, something is being done about it.
Much of the foregoing may well explain the increasing visibility and activism of sub national merchants.
Read Also: Kanu’s case and ‘tsetse fly on the scrotum’ allegory
All of a sudden the Ohanaeze becomes a major voice on the scene. In addition, May 30 becomes a major signifier -Biafran day- in which the irrelevance of the State and its underbelly is shown up for all the World to see. What has been sketched in the immediate foregoing is also being played out in the Western part of the country. Suddenly, we have a Sunday Igboho on our hands. And the main reason for the relevance and existence of this new social force can be observed in the weakness and passive profile of the State. On this note the reader will do well to remember that some wanton killings were carried out in Igboho’s primordial zone, and nobody was pulled in for it. The consequent feeling naturally is: what are the managers of the State doing? Nothing. Hence, the relevance of an Igboho.
Meanwhile, the genesis and evolution of a social force like Nnamdi Kanu can be observed along the same trajectory. And by way of response the weak State in its attempt to contain these two has decided to muster its strong assets such that as we speak, Kanu has been rearrested while Igboho is on the run after his mini armoury has been decimated. If the managers of the State expected loud cheers on this issue they were mistaken. After all, has it not been said that: One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter. This may well explain why managers of the State are having to engage in some rear-guard explanations in which they are having to justify their latest moves against Kanu and Igboho.
Ironically enough, the social force who appears to have lent much validity to these nuanced perspectives is none other than President Muhammadu Buhari himself
As regards the latter the rendition is that he has stockpiled arms with a view to undermining public order. Whose Order? The cynic may well ask. While in the case of Kanu, the narrative has been put out about his chrome yellow life style and how in the process he has been able to put in place, an inciting machine which has been responsible for a number of deaths. These respective narratives as valid as they appear to be are not generating the right kind of traction with the populace in the light of two inter-related factors. In the first instance, though the State has demonstrated its strength in the light of its engagement with these two individuals, yet its renditions sound hollow in the light of its perceived partisan profile. Secondly these two individuals have since been shorn of their individuality. They represent something larger than themselves.
For instance, in the case of Igboho, Gani Adams a veritable icon of the Oduduwa idea has since weighed in heavily on his side. Rightly or wrongly this counts for something in areas which currently passes for the Western Region. Similarly and even on a more strident basis, there are loud voices to the effect that the State is exhibiting double standards with the arrest of Kanu. Some are even questioning the legality of the arrest by contending that the extradition processes should have gone through certain protocols. In the process, it has been alleged that the managers of the Nigerian State have engaged in some illegality in the arrest of Kanu. Moreover in both cases, examples are being cited of individuals in the North who have engaged in near-similar acts, but the State in a fit of double standards has merely looked on, in a manner that borders on tacit collusion. Therefore, and as regards these two individuals, what we really have on our hands in our currently fractured polity is not a black and white situation.
Rightly or wrongly various shades of grey can be seen. And in a divided polity like ours, most of these nuanced perspectives appear to be valid. Ironically enough, the social force who appears to have lent much validity to these nuanced perspectives is none other than President Muhammadu Buhari himself. In his recent public outing, rather than calm the fears and apprehension of concerned citizens about the perceived partisanship of the State under his watch, he merely attempted to justify and rationalize a lot of his actions which have thrown the Nigerian State into its current tail-spin. When pressed for instance on lopsided appointments, his rather facetious reply was that those who got such appointments were deserving of them. Similarly when asked about his empathic attitude towards Niger; with a straight face he responded by saying that his cousins were in that neighbouring country. Just like that!
So if one were to pursue this particular point further, what it means is that between Nigeria and Niger we know how our President will privilege his biases. What is also more saddening, particularly for the President himself is that some of the bright spots in his administration have been largely overshadowed by charges of insularity and nepotism. Take the railway for instance where a revolution of sorts is taking place under his watch. Yet nobody seems to care in view of what Wole Soyinka has called his unforced errors. Indeed the likelihood is that because of such unforced errors, the handling of Sunday Igboho and Nnamdi Kanu must be attended with some extra political care. Whereas ordinarily, and in normal times, the managers of the Nigerian State would have assumed a technicist posture towards these two individuals. But in view of the fact that the Strong State is weak, the self-same managers of the state must necessarily have to tread gingerly.
