Not long ago, there was a military coup in the West African state of Guinea following the death of erstwhile despot, President Lansana Conteh. The coup in Guinea came after the one in another African state of Mauritania. These developments could easily be interpreted as the gradual resurgence of military rule in Africa.
It might therefore be understandable if objections arose from other parts of Africa. In Nigeria’s case, President Umar Yar’Adua instantly dispatched a special envoy, ex-president Ibrahim Babangida for an assessment of the situation in Guinea. Why the choice of IBB? In the last months of Obasanjo’s regime, there was mutiny of military officers against the continued stay in office of President Conteh, with all his failings.

The mutiny in Guinea was at a time Obasanjo was plotting his third term (indefinite stay) in office. It was therefore obvious to Obasanjo that if the mutiny against Guinea’s Lansana Conteh succeeded, Obasanjo might face the same mutiny. He therefore hurriedly found in Ibrahim Babangida, the status of a super diplomat to cool down the dangerous events in Guinea.

When therefore, Lansana Conteh died and the military seized power, Nigeria’s Musa Yar’Adua found an easy choice in General Babangida to, once again, go and speak to his "officers."

Why Nigeria always assumes it can dabble in the affairs of other countries only when it chooses or self-serving is not clear. As Obasanjo’s special envoy to the same Guinea last time, IBB intervened at the early stages of the crisis. In short, before the event, and he was duly accorded the respect due to a senior military officer. Somehow, that diplomatic success went virtually unreported.

This time, as Yar’Adua’s special envoy, IBB landed in Conakry after the event, meaning after the military coup had completely succeeded and the new rulers popularly acclaimed by ordinary Guineans, who for decades, had been clamouring for a change. That was the fact IBB met on the ground and so; he had to reciprocate the respect of the Guinean military officers.

Back home in Nigeria, IBB duly reported his findings. Nnamdi Azikiwe’s immortal words must ring again, "Only a mad man will argue with a man carrying a gun."
Not unexpectedly, IBB’s report on the reality of the situation in Guinea has infuriated respectable Nigerians like Itse Sagay and Tam David west, who are well meaning, but simply idealistic. There are two different issues. IBB’s, indeed, Nigeria’s views on military rule, even in 2009 on one hand, and the fact he (IBB) met on the ground. Certainly, Yar’Adua did not send IBB to go and drive away the Guinean officers from power.

Even with the total success of the coup in Guinea, are the people happy and supportive or not? With the coup, are Guineans angry or frustrated? After the coup, are Guineans (as Nigerian always do in desperate situations) any longer praying for divine intervention?

Time there was when Lansana Conteh, with the collaboration of politicians, would not hold elections when due and if the elections were held at all, the pattern was even such that Nigerians would not accept. Salaries of even soldiers could not be paid and development was stagnated. When faced with far less dire situation in Tanzania last time, Julius Nyerere, one of the first generation of African leaders voluntarily stepped down.

In Guinea, even when Conteh was dying, he would not go. A similar situation in Britain in 1963 saw Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan stepping down for Alec Douglas-Holmes? Why must African leadership be so debilitating?

Nigeria should not have underestimated or taken the frustration of Guineans for granted. If the Guinean military officers acceded to Nigeria intervention last time to allow nature (to) take its course in solving the leadership crisis, it surely was expecting too much of the Guineans this time to allow the same Conteh’s collaborators/foot soldiers, parading as politicians to organise fresh elections.

What, any way, was the guarantee that new elections would be held by Conteh’s lieutenants? And if they held such elections, would the pattern and results be different from what Guineans experienced for the past quarter of a century? Indeed, the chances were that late President Conteh’s colleagues would aim at continuing and completing their tenure of authoritarianism and by product of non-accountability in every shade and form.

When people are suppressed and pauperized for decades, leaving only death as the option to change the leadership, it would be resumption of bad business as usual to allow the same fellows in charge.

All along, Nigeria implied endorsement of Conteh’s misrule of the last 25 years by dining and wining with him at annual ECOWAS and African Union ‘jamborees’.
Most ridiculously, the same African Union, ECOWAS and of course, Nigeria expressed outright and complete hostility to the Guinean coup. It must be conceded to Kenya for being sincere enough to keep quiet on the coup in Guinea.

And then, the joke of suspending Guinea and Mauritania from membership of African Union and ECOWAS? Have these two countries bothered with any response? What is the value, if any, of membership of African Union and ECOWAS, except protection of individual political interest of each incumbent leader?
Otherwise, where were African Union (leaders) and ECOWAS in the past couple of years of crimes against humanity in Darfur by the Sudanese central administration? till now, all African leaders have been looking the other way, leaving only United States and Britain to champion the plight of the Darfur minority in Sudan.

Where were African Union leaders when democracy was murdered one after the other in Kenya and Zimbabwe? Were Kenyan and Zimbabwean military not employed to kill protesting Africans in those countries? Only Botswana and Zambia have been courageous to speak against state murders and terrorism in Kenya and Zimbabwe.

If Kenyans and Zimbabweans could be chocked out of any hope for democracy, what should be so rigid against military coup in Kenya and Zimbabwe anytime in the future? If the head of the army in Zimbabwe could so partisanly declare publicly that he and his men would not support any regime unless headed by Robert Mugabe, where was African Union? In that situation, what option other than survival of the fittest in an inevitable crack in the Zimbabwean military?
What is more, there is nothing new or unprecedented in the Guinean situation. The country’s leader at independence in 1960, Sekou Toure ran a tyrannical authoritarianism until he died in 1982. His regime exhibited one party rule, detention without trial and brutal suppression of opposition.

Sekou Toure tried courageous and patriotic rivals like the first Secretary-General of the defunct Organisation of African Unity, Diallo Telli, for alleged coup plot and hanged. Yes, Dailo Telli was hanged. There was no reaction from other African leaders. The Guineans Army led by Lansana Conteh was helpless until Sekou Toure died in office.

General Conteh therefore seized the opportunity to stop the deceased President Toure’s lieutenants from holding elections or succeeding their mentors. History has just therefore repeated itself in Guinea.

No matter how imperfect is our situation in Nigeria, we still succeed every time in forcing out any unpopular regime, military or civilian. Nigerians must also extend that right to Africans in various countries on the continent where leaders kill dissenters, suppress opposition or perpetuate themselves in office.
With due respect to Itse Sagay and Tam David-West, these political brigands paradigms African leaders do not merit the strict constitutionalism in political arranged as obtained in civilized societies. We are so free in Nigeria as to be blind to the plight of our fellow Africans.

Put in another way, can we (Nigerians) tolerate anyone to rule us for 20, 30, or 40 years as in Libya, Egypt, Gabon, Sudan, Morocco, Algeria, Zimbabwe, etc? Worse still, can we allow such leader(s) to clamp down on criticisms and opposition? What option is left in these African countries of one-man perpetual rule?
Ghana has only lately edged Nigeria out from the scale of democracy where the freedom of expression is reflected in political choices. Otherwise, if fellow Africans on the continent enjoy one tenth of our freedom in Nigeria, peace and political stability will abound in Africa.

Even if Ibrahim Babangida or indeed Nigeria disagreed, what could any of them do about the reality in Guinea? That is a problem for Guineans themselves.
The debate for or against military rule will never end. But the necessary environment for military rule must not be created. Who determines such environment? Success or failure of coup attempt.

Farewell to Femi Fatoba

At last, the reality is here that playwright, actor and my friend since our childhood days, Femi Fatoba, is dead as he is buried tomorrow in Ibadan.
His final resting place is inside his decent bungalow at College of Medicine Estate, Igbo-Oloyin Arulogun Road, Ojoo, near the military cantonment.
Femi Fatoba died in a motor accident at Patani, while returning from Niger Delta University, Yenagoa, to Ibadan in the hope of spending the New Year and Christmas holidays with his family.

My friend was a peculiar Nigerian, indeed, a Yoruba patriot. Femi Fatoba was very Godly but was disgusted with the Clergy. He loved songs but would not be preached to by hypocrites and fraudsters parading as religious leaders.

Is it possible to be Godly without being religious? Yes, or at least, Femi Fatoba lived to the Yoruba sincerity that "Iwa ni esin." As Femi Fatoba would have translated, "The genuine religion is your everyday conduct to fellow human beings." How could a Muslim or Christian preacher in his career position, as a bank chief, steal billions of naira and yet, at weekend services, (Friday or Sunday) sermonized to the congregation on the imperative of obeying the Lord’s commandments?

As a genuine Yoruba, and Nigerian, each of his children’s names is either uncommon or sends a message.
Faruku, Tinuola, Segilola, Funmito, Fagunwa, Oduduwa, Iyebiiye (another of mothers). Femi Fatoba was faithfully to his mother and ancestral mentors.
Chief D. O. Fagunwa, for example was the famous author of Yoruba novels like Ogboju Ode ninu Igbo Irunmole, Irinkerindo ninu Igbo Olodumare, etc. Who was that Yoruba man not to remember and appropriately appreciate D. O. Fagunwa?
By the way, Femi Fatoba was one of the few Africans to attend the prestigious Central School of Speech and Drama, Hampstead, London.
To maintain his sincerity of his dislike of the hypocrisy of human beings, Femi Fatoba in his lifetime, requested for burial services according to Ifa tradition. His wish will be met fully.