FG SHOULD CONVENE NATIONAL PEACE MEETING – TANKO YAKASAI

Alhaji Tanko Yakasai, elder statesman and First Republic politician, is a popular voice on national discourse. In this interview, he reflects on his fears and hopes for Nigeria in the light of a number of threatening and disturbing developments, urging the Federal Government to be decisive in handling the drivers of hate speeches as well as to demonstrate, beyond words, a determination to check any attempt by any group to forcibly evict any Nigerian from his/her region of residence. He also stresses the need for the Federal Government to initiate a national peace meeting to attempt to fashion out a peaceful and harmonious way forward. He spoke to Desmond Mgboh at his residence in Kano. Excerpts.

Sir, there have been various quit notices issued to Nigerians by various regional and ethnic groups. First, there was the quit notice issued to Easterners by some Hausa “boys’ and only last week, there was a similar ultimatum issued to Hausa and Yoruba to leave the oil rich Niger Delta area for their home regions.  What is your take on these quit notices?

Well, in the first place, honestly, I don’t think anybody has the right to ask any other Nigerian to move from wherever he has decided to stay to any other place, except he himself has decided on his own to go. So, all these notices, in my opinion, are threats. The only thing is that in a situation where the political atmosphere is politically charged, anything that is capable of bringing about disharmony between one section of the country and the other should be cause for concern to every Nigerian. I think those in authority have the responsibility to deal with this situation in accordance with the law. These threats are not part of what is expected of any law-abiding citizen in any country.

How do you see the management of these threats, whether it’s the eviction notice by Hausa youths or that of the Niger Deltans asking Hausa people to leave their land, or the hate speeches and the anti Igbo song already in circulation?

Let me say that this anti-Igbo song, I never heard it. I have heard people talking about it, but I never heard it. I never heard a single word in respect of that. But hate speeches, I have been reading from left, right and center and they are very dangerous. It was what happened in Rwanda that ultimately led to the death of so many people. It’s a reckless attitude and it should be highly discouraged. My concern is; you see when an infraction is taking place and those in authority decided to ignore it, it’s an encouragement for other people who are law abiding citizens to begin to think that if Mr. A can do such a thing and get away with it, why not me? And this is what is happening in Nigeria.  We have reached a situation where people go against the law and those in authority would ignore them. We have now reached a situation whereby those in authority ignore some of these things. We now have a situation where hate speeches are coming from different parts of the country. But if only a firm action had been taken right from the start, we would not have reached the level we are today. I think those in authority have the responsibility to deal with issues like this promptly before they start to get out of control.

Sir, it has been argued that the present day hate speeches were actually nothing but the antagonism that began in the run up to the 2015 elections and that to a great extent, the political class and governance actors of today were the originators of hate remarks in the polity. What is your view?

Yes I know; if you remember that on the eve of the last presidential election, the then president, Dr. Goodluck Jonathan, approached a group because hate speeches were mostly being made here in the North at that time and the president at that time, approached some notable Northerners for their support, to go round and talk to the traditional rulers, religious and political leaders in the region to intervene so that the situation could be brought under control. The people approached at that time promised to do what they were requested to do, but after collecting the money, they disappeared. Consequently, I was invited by somebody on behalf of the then President Jonathan to undertake the same task; to talk to people who can bring sanity into the situation. I agreed that I would help and I was requested to nominate people who would help me do that which I did. Eventually, we undertook a tour of the whole of the 19 Northern states and Abuja and we were able to cover 17 out of them. We were in Gombe, talking to opinion leaders with an appointment to pay a visit to the Emir of Gombe which would culminate in our stay in Gombe and from there off we went, but as we were waiting to see the Emir, Boko Haram attacked the town and we were hurriedly consigned to our vehicles by security operatives and we were led out of Gombe in a hurry. But we did our best. We started with a visit to the palace of the Sultan of Sokoto and we went round the whole of 17 Northern states and met their traditional rulers and the political leaders. And the result was that the tension was reduced up to the time of the elections. And also, thank God, through many interventions, Jonathan himself conceded defeat when he did not win the elections. So, all these problems came again after the elections. They started before the elections but they subsided. The new development, I don’t think they have any direct connection with what happened during the elections.

What then do you think triggered the recent bursts of hate speeches from all regions of the country?

Well, I don’t want to appear as if I am not trying to quench the problem. But all these problems have their beginning and those in authority know the beginning. They were there, they should have taken steps to bring the situation under control and they did not. I agree that the Vice president, Yemi Osinbajo, when he was the acting president had initiated meetings with leaders and he should continue to do that. But I think that it was a little bit too late.

Generally, be they Northern, Eastern or Western elders-don’t mind me, I am going back to pre- 1967 divides of Nigeria. They say  these elders have not demonstrated sufficient sincerity to help the younger generation appreciate the need for unity in Nigeria. That very often, these elders hide in the shadows, using the youths as proxies in their regional war. Correct?

When you talk of pre-1967 elders, you are talking of elders like me….

…And the new recruits in the rank of elders, people from 65 years upwards…

You see the trouble is this. Once there is a disconnection; you run into problem. All these problems have their origin and the origin is military intervention. All these talks about restructuring and so forth and so on, honestly, the people are just trying to look for excuses. But the real problem or the cause of the problem is the dismantling of the structure of the political leadership in Nigeria as a result of military coups. Military coups brought about indiscipline in the society and the military themselves were fighting one another – we are all witnesses to how many times a military man overthrew a regime led by a fellow military man. It happened on several occasions and as a result, you find that when people come to power they are more concerned about their own welfare than the welfare of the people. So, this is the problem. Military rule brought about indiscipline in the society; it brought endemic corruption in the society, they brought about dislodgement of political leadership in the country and they destroyed the bedrock of the civil service in the country. 

 

So, you are absolving elders of any blame in the way the country is going?

After the elimination of the first set of political leaders, the only time the opportunity presented itself was in the Second Republic and just as the politicians were trying to prepare the ground after years of military rule, then all of a sudden, the military came back. And note that up till today, Nigeria has been under a military ruler, either in uniform or in mufti.

From the feelers, Easterners in the North are discomforted by the quit notice. The same experience of fear and trepidation is the lot of many Hausa people resident in Port Harcourt and other parts of the Niger Delta. They are jittery. What is your advice to these Nigerians whose only ‘sin’ is that they are living in places of their choice?

My advice, first, goes to those in authority – the Federal Government and all the agencies that guarantee peace and peaceful coexistence in this country. The Federal Government should mobilize its forces to ensure that those who feel uncomfortable are given assurances, not only by mouth but also through practical demonstrations that the government is prepared to protect their lives and property. You see when somebody is fearful, there is no amount of talk that would ease his fear until you take practical steps that would convince him that he could stay in peace and tranquility. He wants to see that you are practically serious and ready to protect him. Unless you do that, he cannot have the peace of mind that he is safe. So, the challenge of the quit notices is in fact a direct challenge to the government, the Federal Government for that matter. The Federal Government can do a lot with the cooperation of the state governments and political leaders, but essentially it’s the Federal Government that needs to take the initiative and thrash out these things.

In the public domain today, there have been talks about the sanctity of Nigeria unity side-by-side contrary talks on the need to discharge this unity. Given your vision and wisdom, what are your fears for Nigeria?

Well, I am a confident person. I observed through experience that Nigerians need one another. We support one another.  The way God created Nigeria; I don’t believe that Nigeria is just a creation of the British. God used the instrumentality of the British colonial administration to create Nigeria. And I have said it before that even if the British did not come to Nigeria, there would eventually have been something like the Nigeria of today. If you consider that more than half of Cameroon was part of Nigeria, half of Niger, half of Chad and half of Benin Republic were; they were all people related to Nigeria or lived with Nigeria. There could have been invariably the emergence of a nation like Nigeria or a nation that is bigger than Nigeria in this space we are occupying today.

So, Nigeria came about through the instrumentality of the British colonial administration by God Almighty and He made it in such a way that we are complementing one another. I have said it many times and I gave practical examples on how different parts of Nigeria are dependent on one another. The Northerners are dependent on the Southerners and Southerners are dependent on the Northerners. The manufacturing industries are situated in the South West, but the market is all over Nigeria. If there were no Nigeria, that market would disappear. The business of trading is in the hand of the Easterners, but the Easterners need the market and this is a market of almost 200 million people. This market is serving well the interest of Easterners who are traders by nature and who are resident all over the country. We are dependent on one another. The Northerners, apart from the oil money that all the states of Nigeria are benefiting from, need the South at least to reach out to the other parts of the world. We need access to the sea for us to export our commodities and for us to bring in goods.  So, we are complementary to one another. And even if there is no Nigeria today, one thing is certain, these needs are still there and they would forge a new understanding on their own.

You mean something would still bring the people of Nigeria together?

Yes, definitely, except that we would now suffer in between. This is the reason I am really feeling bad. If young people, who were not part of the sufferings to bring about the country Nigeria, speak carelessly, it is understandable because they did not sweat for it. But if people in their late 70s and 80s are talking or threatening the unity of Nigeria over small issues, it makes me very unhappy. I know we are very few, people like me. This is the assurance I have in my mind that in any case, people like me, who are 90 and those who are immediately coming behind me, we are very few. We are on our way out. The best we can hope for is to live another 10, 15 years. We would disappear.

But if we, people like me, are speaking the language of carelessness, then we are not giving a good example or   good leadership to our children and to the coming generation of Nigerians. This is my concern and I don’t know, I really don’t know, but I think the Federal Government needs to initiate a national meeting and not like the 2014 Conference, it should not be confab. It should be a peace initiative that should be attended by political leaders, religious leaders, traditional rulers, the academia and the business community- all the stakeholders. Bring the leading elements among them together to discuss. The mere fact that faces would be seen together in a meeting, searching for peace, would send a very good signal to the generality of Nigerians that their leaders are trying to bring about peace in the country.

But what about the implementation of the outcome of this meeting that you are proposing? Drawing from experience, will the government have the will power to implement outcomes of meetings of this nature?

The Federal Government that would initiate this meeting should commit itself to tackling the main issues that would assure everybody and implement them.

There is the argument that when emotions are charged, consensus becomes difficult.  Look at the issues of devolution that was killed even before arrival. Do you still think that we can achieve a reasonable middle road at a moment like this when each and every person and region is charged to a boiling point and has reverted to his or her ethnic conclave?

Well, I am glad that you mentioned the issue of devolution. Devolution issue was given a wrong interpretation. People painted it wrongly. Devolution means transferring items from the exclusive list to the concurrent list. What does that mean? It means that if you do that, you will be enabling the states to partake more actively in their destinies. Take the issue of electricity generation that is exclusive to the Federal Government. If states would be given the opportunity to generate power in the country, it would surely help. Where the Federal Government can do, the states could as well do their own bit. It does not mean that the Federal Government would be deprived its own role in the process.  Any item you transfer from the exclusive list to the concurrent list means that you are leaving the Federal Government with its power and you are taking part of that power and allowing the states to do their own bits. It does not mean that you are removing powers of the Federal Government. Today, items under concurrent list are legislated by the federal and state governments. So, that when you transfer power to the concurrent list, it’s the same thing that would happen.

My concern, so far, is that the performance of state governments so far does not give room for confidence that if you give them more powers they would do better. If you look at the 36 states of the country today, those who owe their workers salary are in the majority, including states that are getting derivation revenue. So, to give them more powers? Yes, give them more powers! But, I don’t think that they have the capacity to handle more powers. But let them have the powers. I don’t have any quarrel with that. The picture given of devolution is as if it would deprive the Federal Government of its powers or authority on those items that you are transferring from the exclusive to the concurrent list. It is not the case.

Who is opposed to this devolution? Is it the Federal Government or the states or..?

So far, I don’t hear of anybody that is opposed to it.

Then why did it fail in the Senate?

They said they didn’t bring it one after the other. Didn’t you listen to the Senate President?  He said that it was presented to the Senate in block and so people did not understand it. And if even they did, it would have gone one way or the other. We should not quarrel with them. I think my quarrel is with those who are advocating for devolution for their failure to do their homework because a lot of them are now talking of restructuring and they have not explained what restructuring means. When you are talking of restructuring a country, be it Nigeria or any other country, I think the people of that country are entitled to know what would be their fate when the country is restructured. There would be fear, the fear of the unknown. Those who are advocating restructuring should address the issue of the fear of the unknown so that everybody would be assured that there is no sinister motives behind the agitation and this is the impression that is being created, because I don’t see why people should be afraid of coming out with their own blueprint on how they expect Nigeria to be.

from The Sun News http://ift.tt/2wRcDpi
via IFTTT