Professor ANYA O. ANYA is among few Nigerians who understand the country in all ramifications. In this interview with IKECHUKWU AMAECHI, he brings his wealth of experience to bear on his analysis of the problems of Nigeria as well as prospects
Nigeria is at the crossroads once again. What is the problem?
Prof. Anya O. Anya
It is the problem of development. We have come a long way, but we do not seem to have learnt many of the lessons we are supposed to have learnt, given our history. Immediately after Independence, we got into a series of problems that led to the crisis in the West. We had the emergency rule in the West where Dr. (Moses) Majekodunmi became the administrator. We had Obafemi Awolowo with the treasonable felony case and some of those things came as a result of a heightened sense of ethnic-driven competition. But they needed not have been so.
At that particular time, the East had no problem with the West and the North. But the North had problem with the West and vice versa. But because we did not think through the nature of the problems and what the expected reaction of both sides were, we dealt with the tactical issues that developed, rather than the strategic issues that should have guided us. The difference between strategy and tactics is that in tactics you are reacting to the immediate and therefore responding to situations developed by other people. But in strategy, you sit back and take everything into account. You know your strength, your weaknesses and the desirable goal that you have in mind, and you organise everything along those lines. But that kind of sophistication was not available in the political sphere. So, that is one dimension of it.
The other dimension is that we fought a war, but the war did not involve the whole of Nigeria. Whether it was in Kaduna or Lagos, they were still having their weekend parties as if nothing was happening. The war took place in the Eastern enclave. And when you have gone through a war, you will understand that war is human being at their worst. And nobody who has gone through war will want it.
Because it was not a national experience – but a sectional experience, the lessons to be learnt from it have not guided our politics, and it has not guided our leaders. That is why we are replaying in 2014 the politics of 1964 to 1966 that led to the war. But that would have been okay, or the worst features of that would not have been evident if the leadership post-war learnt the lesson and were guided by it. What do I mean by that? Though General Yakubu Gowon said “no victor, no vanquished”, that wasn’t the way the government operated, especially when the military became the dominant force. The military, to a large extent as a result of the war, became more of an instrument of the North rather than a Nigerian organisation, which is why it is not surprising that the people who emerged as military heads of state were all Northerners, almost without exception. The result, of course, was that the triumphalism that comes out of a war situation, which is different from the kind of interactive relationship that is necessary in building a nation guided policies – and it looked as if everything was being done not to allow every section develop at its best but to allow some sections to be held back and some sections to develop.
Unfortunately, once you do not open up a place, none among the North, the West or the East will reach its full potential because the competitive spirit that helped in the early years is no longer there.
Northern Nigeria made more progress under the Sardauna of Sokoto (Ahmadu Bello) than at any other time in its history. And it was not because Sardauna was such a fantastic leader. It was because there was free competition among all the regions. That free and healthy competition upgraded education and healthcare system. So there was better momentum for development in the East, West and North. But, that could not hold any longer. What made it worse was that the hierarchical set-up of the military, its unified command, meant that even if you wanted competition, it was not going to be. So there was no competition, no discussion and no interaction that can help develop a common nationality. That is why in 2014, we are all looking as if after 100 years, we are all strangers to ourselves.
The truth of the matter is that Nigeria has actually made a lot of progress. But even the progress that we have made, we do not appreciate it because what led to that progress was as if it was accidental. It was not planned for. Nobody in Nigeria’s post war history has set out with a definite intention of building a nation.
In what way(s) would you say Nigeria has made progress?
In 1964, I first drew public attention to it because I had access to the data. An American research group did research on Eastern Nigeria and the data showed that Eastern Nigeria was the fastest-growing and industrialising economy in the world. The reason for that was because the relationship between the centre and the regions was loose enough; each (of the regions) could develop at its pace and tackle its own problems. Why this point is significant is that nine years earlier, when Michael Okpara took over as the Premier of Eastern Nigeria, the region was the poorest; and yet in nine years, it had gone up to where it was, because there was competition and because you had visionary leadership.
In fairness to both Awolowo and Sardauna, they also were making great progress in relation to the resources available to them and the environment they inherited.
So, to come back to your question, the tragedy of Nigeria is really the fact that the war happened. But the war didn’t happen in a vacuum; the war had to happen because attitudes that were not consistent with building a nation were very much in evidence. The East, for example, fought a war it needed not have fought, if we had managed our politics better than we did.
Why do I say so? At the point where the movement towards war was unavoidable, the East had no problems with both the North and the West. But the East was saying: you cannot have the relationship between the North and the West be as fractious as it was if we are one nation. You cannot get to the point where one part of the country is, as it were, being punished. It doesn’t look just, but we jumped into it, and in jumping into it, we seemed to have taken side. It was a perception. It was not real and that is what was used as alibi for the pogrom. If there had been no pogrom, perhaps there would have been no war because the pogrom now pushed the Easterners – and when I say Easterners, I am not talking only about the Igbo, because the Ibibio, Efik, Edo were also killed. And that got us into a position where there was a demand for a reprisal and we couldn’t manage it. And the people in leadership in Nigeria then were incapable of managing it.
Yes, we give accolades to Gowon. But the truth of the matter is that Gowon and Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu were too young in terms of experience to handle the kind of problems that were in the country. And that situation hasn’t really changed much.
So, where are the achievements you alluded to?
Wherever you go, you will certainly see Nigerians holding their own everywhere. The mistake we have made is that we have allowed our best to migrate to other places. The mistake we have made is that within the country itself, we have not allowed our best to be themselves, and the reason is the cultural and structural relationship between the various peoples. You see, whether we like it or not, the traditionally hierarchical arrangement of governance in the North is not really meant for fast-paced development because you do not encourage the initiative of the young ones or the bright ones. Everybody has to fit into the mould. But right now, the country has opened up; there are more educated and competent Northerners that can run any system in the world. It wasn’t so earlier. In terms of infrastructure and so on, we were making good progress. In fact, infrastructure is as bad as it is mainly because in the years of the military, we were not maintaining and renewing what we already had, and we allowed it to decay.
Events playing out in the country in the last three to four years were exactly the same that led to war in the 1960s. Are you worried that we are treading a familiar path?
I don’t think we can go back to the scenario of the 1960s. Let me say this; I have had the privilege in the last three years to do things that have given me a broader insight than many in my generation of the current situation in the country. I chaired what was called the Expenditure Review Committee of the Federal Ministry of Education in the last quarter of 2010 and first quarter of 2011. This was a committee that was looking at the disparity between a high recurrent expenditure and our low capital expenditure. Then we had election and the post-election violence, and I found myself a member of the Lemu panel that investigated that. After that, there was the Belgore committee that looked at the whole issue of why decisions of past conferences and meetings were not being implemented. After that, I found myself in the Presidential Advisory Committee that packaged the national conference.
The post-election violence panel enabled me to tour all the seven states in the North West except Kebbi. The Femi Okurounmu committee allowed me to go to all the geo-political zones. When you have done that, you will understand first-hand what the problem in the country is. The problem of the country now is not the same as in 1960. First is that everybody recognises that we are better off working together and living together, and that no part can on its own achieve its full potential without the help of the others. That is a consciousness that wasn’t there in the 1960s. It is there now and it is stronger even in the younger generation. In other words, there are ways you push Nigeria to go now and you find that the younger generation will rise up against you because those old days will not return. Don’t forget that the demography of Nigeria is such that the younger generation is in the majority. Seventy per cent of all Nigerians are below 45 years, and 60 per cent are below 30 years. In other words, if you are talking about democracy, the under-40s should be running the country because they are in the majority. So, there is no way we can return to those old times. But we must now restructure the imbalances that both military rule and non-governance produced.
When I say non-governance, there are decisions that should have been taken 10 or 20 years ago, if we were planning for the future, that were not taken. Because they were not taken, the country cannot be what it could have possibly become. So we cannot go back to the 1960s because people are better educated. I sat down to talk to some of the bright young Northerners, particularly the women, and discovered unbelievable human resources locked up in them. Just create the atmosphere where everybody is free to contribute his own quota, and the place will explode.
Despite the progress that has been made, there are two key problems: unemployment and poverty. And the reason those problems are there is that we have never really had the patience to go back and ask fundamental questions like: what kind of nation do we want to build? What are the rights of each individual Nigerian? What is the worth of the life of each individual Nigerian? What is your minimum entitlement as a Nigerian citizen? Because we have not asked those basic questions, the result, of course, is that there is a disconnect between the welfare of the people, which is what governance should be about, and the actual processes of managing the economy, which is why we have so many private jets. We have so many billionaires, but because there is no social conscience that connects that to the life of the ordinary people, there is that disconnect. But whether we like it or not, there are already things being done that will change all that.
As you pointed out earlier, the problem in Nigeria in the 1960s was neither between the East and the West nor between the East and the North. Right now, there is crisis in the country. Again, it is not between the North and the East; it is between the North and the South South, but if you read the letters by Adamawa State Governor, Murtala Nyako, and former Minister of Steel, Paul Unongo, the East is again being dragged into the fray. In fact, they are again being made the central issue.
You know, perception and reality are not the same. You have asked a very fundamental question. First, how old is Nyako and how old is Unongo? They are probably close to their 70s, if not older. In other words, they are still operating with old models that existed when they grew up in the 1960s which led to the war and they became full adults in the 1970s. Indeed, Nyako can even claim that he fought the war and he was victorious.
But at heart, they are still driven by that fear – of competition – and it is easier to find scapegoat for your own failures. Let us be honest; who created Boko Haram? It cannot be anybody from the South; it is a creation of the system in the North. It is a creation by people like Nyako. But it is easier to blame the victim, especially if you think you can kick him around and nothing will happen. But let me also say this, which is where they got Nigeria wrong because Nigeria has moved far away from that; ethnic betting is not sufficient to bring people to war any longer, not even Northerners. While he is busy finding victims, the problem around him will continue to grow to the point that if people like him do not take care, it may consume them because the younger generation of Northerners are not going to fall for this kind of cheap propaganda. It does not mean that we should not recognise what they are doing; that it is dangerous for the country. The solution to the problem cannot come from the East or the West; it must come from the North. And the North at this point in time has the capacity to deal with the Unongos and the Nyakos in their midst.
So, what do you make of Nyako’s accusation that President Goodluck Jonathan is promoting genocide against the North?
When you make a statement, you provide the facts. What facts did he provide? None! It is mere sentiment, and sentiment is not enough in modern world. If you are talking about genocide, there are more documented cases of genocide in this country, and it was not in the North.
What could be their goal?
Don’t forget that the letter was not meant to be read by you and I; it was meant to be a secret letter to Northern governors and it was meant to create a certain kind of solidarity. But even those his buddies and compatriots were frightened by the kind of things that he said. They may not have said it publicly. No matter the kind of bold face he puts, the truth of the matter is that he was and is still an embarrassment to the North. Like I said at the national conference, where Nigeria is today, every part of the country has problems and no part of the country can solve all its problems without the help of other parts. And this is even more so in the case of the North. The North is in a desperate situation and many of their leaders are driven by the fear of what could happen if they do not have a grip on the situation.
Those who know about the North know that the post-election violence in 2011 was not because Jonathan won an election. No, that was against their leaders, traditional and political. They felt betrayed. The North had been in charge, but what did it bring to the society? Nothing! That was what the violence was all about, and in a sense that is also what led to Boko Haram. It is a response not to the rest of the country but their own leadership, and Nyako is part of that leadership and has occupied a very privileged position. He is also driven by fear. So, he must have a scapegoat. Unfortunately, Nigeria has moved further. There is better education and understanding in the North today that they cannot fall for that kind of cheap rabble-rousing. But that should not make us to be complacent.
What do you make of the level of insecurity in the country today, and how do you think we can solve the problem?
Insecurity in Nigeria is not more than other people or countries are grappling with, if you exclude the recent outburst of the Boko Haram. The only frightening thing is that people are not having the perception that enough is being done to address the problem. And I said perception. In which country do you have people who belong to the privileged class, people who belong to the leadership class, speak of their country in such negative terms, in such derogatory terms as Nigerians do about their country? It doesn’t matter what happens in the United States, once you pass a certain line, Americans would not have you speak derogatorily of their country.
We need to have a change of mindset, and we need leaders that have the vision to drive us in a new direction.
Do you think President Jonathan is that leader? Does he have the capacity?
That is not a fair question because you cannot do the assessment of a government on the basis of a dominant personality. No government functions that way. There are enough things happening that will change Nigeria, if only we recognise that building a country is not the job of one leader. Leadership is a collegial affair. And the real problem that is being demonstrated is that we don’t have that collegial leadership in Nigeria – people who share the same values, experiences and vision. In those circumstances, it is easy to see Jonathan as not doing enough. But the truth of the matter is that any failure you ascribe to Jonathan at this point is not a failure of the president; it is a failure of the Nigerian leadership and it includes all of us.
What do you think about the agitation of the North that it is its turn to govern Nigeria? Do they have a point?
Luckily, Christianity and Islam agree on one thing – that power is given by God, not by man. Therefore, no man can decide it is my turn, because you are not God. In any case, in our circumstance in Nigeria, it is actually a minority that is making that noise. Most Nigerians are only looking forward to get a leader that can inspire them and may not actually bother where the person comes from. But it is the injustices of the past that occasionally make people to say look, maybe if it was my own man, things may not be as bad as this. But that is an illusion. If your man is incompetent, he is incompetent and he is not going to change your situation. And if we are really going to be honest, we can line up all the Northerners who have run this country before, and it is possible to point at each of them and tell where they got it wrong. But at the end of the day, the blame game is really out-dated. It doesn’t help anybody. The thing is to move this country forward, and the country is at that point that if we get certain things right in the next two, three or five years, you may not recognise it again.
How can we address the issue of corruption in Nigeria and what do you think about the view held by some that corruption is at its peak today?
Corruption is a product of the environment. There is no country that does not have corruption. The difference is that in most sensible countries, there are incentives for good behaviour, and sanctions for bad behaviour. If you have a proper regime of incentives for good behaviour and sanctions for bad behaviour in place, even corruption can be tamed.
The terrible thing about Nigeria of today is that we can actually point to people who made millions and billions out of certain transactions and the country seems helpless to deal with them. When you make it easy for people to do anything with impunity and nothing happens, of course, it will multiply.
So the problem is not corruption; but our attitude to corruption and our inability to define what is corruption. We think corruption is only when people take money. But if I give what is due to you to somebody close to me, that is also corruption. It may not be on a huge scale, but the dimension is the same. It is an element of injustice.
In 2011, you were one of the Igbo leaders who not only supported President Jonathan, but rallied the Igbo behind him. Four years down the road, are you convinced that the East has been adequately rewarded for that support?
I have no hesitation in saying no. We have not benefitted in any way commensurate with the effort we put into it, but it is work in progress. I have been part of a group that has seen the president and we actually told him, with figures, what our people think he is not doing right. I am a scientist; I don’t deal with opinion but with facts and logic. The Igbo nation has not done well with him. As I had cause to tell him, so much is being made of second Niger Bridge; but second Niger Bridge is not his project. It has been there. In fact, Olusegun Obasanjo even laid the foundation. But that is a different story. The Igbo expect to see projects carried out in this period, so that it can be something we can point at and say that during the time of Jonathan, this and this happened.
I have no hesitation to say that he has to do a lot more to deserve Igbo vote moving forward. And I am saying it as somebody who worked more than the average for his election.
I didn’t do it because it was Jonathan or I expected to gain anything, but because it looked as if it was a new opportunity for Nigeria to go in a new direction. Nigerian politics and power management had fallen into a particular pattern and you needed to destabilise that pattern into a new direction, so that we can re-assess, and in the re-assessment, maybe we can bring the country into the modern world.
How many would have thought that an Ijaw minority would be president of Nigeria 10 years ago? Even the Ijaw, if you had told them, would have laughed at you. But the opportunity for changing things came through Jonathan, and that was why some of us went for it to sow the seeds for a new Nigeria.
Are those seeds germinating?
In many ways, yes; but we still have to bring them together to make a story we will use to inspire the younger ones. That is what seems to be lacking.
You are a delegate to the on-going national conference, and there are some Nigerians that have dismissed it as a mere talk show, with no enabling law. Why would somebody like you lend your credibility to that?
I get amused when people make such statements with such authority. This conference cannot be a jamboree. This conference was needed by the country because we had reached the point where there were so many contradictions and contrary forces that we needed to re-focus the country in a direction. There were too many voices speaking in all kinds of ways. We need to bring Nigerians to learn how to talk to each other, and the conference is achieving that.
Let me illustrate. When the conference was mooted, as you said, many people said it was a waste of time; but when the Presidential Advisory Committee toured the various geo-political zones, what happened? It was demonstrated dramatically in Benin because the Benin people and other people in the South South came out. Governor Adams Oshiomhole is a very articulate person, a man of great conviction; but on that one occasion, the people had no hesitation in telling him that he got it wrong. They heckled and booed him because he was not saying what accorded to the mood of the people. When it came to Lagos, because of Tinubu, people assumed that it was a non-starter. But what happened? The place was filled by all the people that matter in Yoruba land, and it became obvious that Tinubu, in that context, is just one small voice, a powerful one; but he cannot speak for the Yoruba and they demonstrated it. That changed the dynamics.
Now, you have talked about lack of enabling law. We have a constitution in place. That constitution actually gives inherent powers to our president to issue orders that have the force of law, and if you go through that, he has the powers to convoke the confab. I am not a frivolous man and I don’t make statements without cross-checking. I took the trouble to ask two very respected Senior Advocates of Nigeria (SANs) with grounding in constitutional law: Look at the constitution, has the president the power to convoke this or not? I wanted to be sure, so that I don’t lend my support to something that is not legal. It was done independently and both were very affirmative and quoted sections of the constitution.
I can assure you that if at the end of it, like the president said in his speech inaugurating the conference, the matter will go to a referendum, the National Assembly is already working towards an enabling framework for that referendum. If everybody is of good faith and it happens that way, all will be well because what will come out of it will be a new approach to what Nigerians want in their country because whether we like it or not, there are two central difficulties with the current constitution. The first is that the environment in which it was constructed was militaristic and therefore cannot really have the best of democratic tenets imbedded in it. The second fact is that as some people have claimed, when you say “we the people”, it presumes a certain minimal input by the people of Nigeria into it, and once that minimal input is not there, then it is a fraud to say “we the people”.
The people may not be right always, but you will better do what they want because sovereignty belongs to them.
You said earlier that the economy of Eastern Nigeria was the fastest-growing in the world in the 1960s; but some say the South East has the worst economy right now, even in Nigeria. So, what went wrong?
I won’t go as far as saying it is the worst in Nigeria. You see, part of the problem of Nigeria’s economic statistics is that the informal sector is still a very large proportion of the economy, and nobody has taken time to study it sufficiently to actually give numbers of what is being produced at that level. That is why at times when you look at the average Nigerian, you know what is supposed to be his earnings, and you look at the man and wonder how he survives, because there are other things that he does to augment his income that you don’t capture in the statistics that you produce.
So, it is not true that the South East economy is the worst in Nigeria. No, it cannot be, because the people there are too hardworking for that to apply. However, they can do far better than they are doing. There are fundamental things that should have happened in Aba 20 years ago that didn’t happen; fundamental things that should have happened in Onitsha 30 years ago that did not happen. Ten years ago, they still have not happened.
But new things are developing. Unfortunately, the governors of the South East are not paying any attention. Aba, for instance, is losing much of what made it tick and it is not only the roads. The condition under which the people pursue their daily bread has to be modernised, has to be better than it is at the present.
Are you satisfied with the performance of the South East governors so far?
Without exception, they can all do better than they have done. But you can see, many of them are struggling to change course. And new things are also happening there that you can point at. Take former Governor of Anambra State, Peter Obi, for instance; he has made a new statement about governance, politics, about economy with what he has done in Anambra. Nobody would have thought that what he did was possible in Anambra six years ago, but that tells you that human beings can change things. However, you must be in that frame of mind to solve problems.
