The Chinua Achebe Foundation Interview Series© : A Meeting of the Minds 

Professor Chinua Achebe in Conversation with Professsor Isidore Okpewho, Professor Chukwuma Azuonye, Professor Okey Ndibe, Sowore Omoyele, and Chido Nwangwu. Additional questions from Professor Emmanuel Obiechina, and Dr. Ike Okonta.  
 

Professor Chukwuma Azuonye, poet and short story writer, is Professor of African Literature and former Chair of the Africana Studies Department at the University of Massachusetts in Boston. A member of the Okike Arts Center, he has previously taught in four Nigerian universities (Ibadan, Nsukka, Lagos and Abia State) and was Chair of the Department of Linguistics and Nigerian Languages at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka. He has also held an Andrew W. Mellon Fellowship at the Harry Ransom Humanities Research Center at the University of Texas at Austin. He is currently on sabbatical leave at Harvard University on a Sheila Biddle Ford Foundation Fellowship. His books include Nsukka Harvest; Dogon; Edo; The Hero in Igbo Life and Literature; (ed. with Nwoga), and Performance and Oral Literary Criticism; and Testaments of Thunder: Poems of War and Crisis. His college anthology, co-edited with Steven Serafin, The Columbia Anthology of African Literature, and his annotated edition of the Complete Works of Christopher Okigbo are forthcoming in 2007. 

Okey Ndibe is an associate Professor of Literature at Simon’s Rock of Bard College in Great Barrington, MA, USA. He was born in Yola, Nigeria, in 1960. After a distinguished career as a magazine editor in Nigeria, he moved to the US in 1988 to be the founding editor of African Commentary, an award-winning and widely acclaimed magazine published by the Nigerian novelist, Chinua Achebe. He has been a visiting writer-in-residence and assistant professor of English at Connecticut College, and has contributed poems to An Anthology of New West African Poets, edited by the Gambian poet, Tijan Sallah. He has also published essays in a number of North American, British and Nigerian magazines and writes a weekly column for the Guardian, one of Nigeria's daily newspapers. Professor Ndibe is the author of the critically acclaimed novel Arrows of Rain.

Chido Nwangwu, an analyst on CNN's 'Inside Africa' program, is Founder & Publisher of the first African-owned, U.S-based newspaper to be published on the internet, USAfricaonline.com; The Black Business Journal and CLASS magazine. He is based in Houston. 
 

Professor Okpewho is State University of New York Distinguished Professor of Africana Studies, English, & Comparative Literature at Binghamton University.  Professor Isidore Okpewho is from Delta State. He has a B.A. in Honors Classics from the University of London, a Ph.D. in Comparative Literature from the University of Denver, and a D.Litt. in the Humanities from the University of London. He has taught at the State University of New York at Buffalo (1974-76), University of Ibadan (1976-90), Harvard University (1990-91), and Binghamton University (since 1991). 

Sowore Omoyele, a former student leader who survived torture under the Abacha regime,is a pro democracy activist, and is widely considered one of his generation’s most respected and outspoken investigative journalists. 

     
Professor Emmanuel N. Obiechina is a distinguished scholar and literary critic known for his keen and thoughtful interpretations of African literature and the African diaspora. 
 
Born in 1933 in Nigeria, Obiechina received his BA in English from University College in Ibadan, Nigeria, an affiliate of the University of London in 1961 and his PhD in English from the University of Cambridge in 1967. 
 
With 20 years of teaching experience, Obiechina has taught students at universities in both the US and Africa. From 2002-2003, Obiechina was a Visiting Scholar in the department of African and African American studies at Harvard University. He was also a fellow in the Du Bois Institute where he presented research work entitled 'Slavery and the Fall of Africa: Textualizing a Historic Tragedy' as part of an ongoing book project. 
 
His honors include being awarded a festschrift, entitled Meditations on African Literature edited by Dubem Okafor and awards for 'Humanistic Perspectives on Contemporary Society' from the Ford Foundation. Additional prizes include several NEH Summer Institute appointments as well as fellowships at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars, the University of Cambridge and a Fulbright Travel Fellowship for Senior African Scholars. 
 
Obiechina has written numerous publications including Masksong for Our Times (2003); Language and Theme: Essays on African Literature (1990); Africa Shall Survive (1982); Culture, Tradition, and Society in the West African Novel (1975); An African Popular Literature: A Study of Onitsha Market Pamphlets(1973); Onitsha Market Literature (1972); and Igbo Traditional Life, Culture and Literature (1971) with M.J.C. Echeruo. 

Dr. Ike Okonta is a research fellow in Oxford University's department of politics and international relations, and co-author of Where Vultures Feast: Shell, Human Rights and Oil. After obtaining an Msc in journalism at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and a doctorate at Oxford University (his dissertation was in the politics of the Ogoni); he was a Post-doctoral Fellow at the University of California, Berkeley.

For three years, he worked with the Movement for the Survival of Ogoni People, and was campaign advisor to the late Ken Saro Wiwa. Dr Okonta has served on the editorial board of Liberty, the quarterly journal of the Civil Liberties Organisation of Nigeria; and was deputy editor of The News/Tempo Magazine, Nigeria; and editor of Democracy & Development, the journal of the London Centre of that name. He won the Association of Nigerian Authors Prose Prize in 1998. His publications are Where Vultures Feast: Shell, Human Rights, and Oil in the Niger Delta, (co-author Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, 2001) and When Citizens Revolt: Nigerian Elites, Big Oil, and the Ogoni Struggle for Self-determination (forthcoming). 
 

 THE CONVERSATION 

You have stated quite often that, in order to understand our present situation and come up with solutions, we need to know where the rain began to beat us. We are mired in deep moral, ethical, and political chaos in Nigeria. People are asking, “What is going on?”  Where, Professor Chinua Achebe, did the rain begin to beat us?   

Well…I think there are two parts to the story of the African peoples…the rain beating us obviously goes back to our colonial experience.  People don’t like this particular analysis, because it looks as if we want to put the blame on someone else.  But what is happening in Africa today is a result of what has been going on for at least two, three hundred years. It goes back to the “discovery” of Africa by Europe.  If you go back through the hundreds of years, and examine what happened to the African communities and kingdoms, you will understand why this is a problem that will take quite a while to resolve.   

The solution, we initially thought, would lie simply in getting our independence from Great Britain. But if you take someone who has not really been in charge of himself for 300 years, and then tell him, “Okay, you are now free,” he will not know where to begin. This is how I see the chaos in Africa, and the absence of logic in what we’re doing.  I can only see the result of a people who have lost the habit of ruling themselves, but were told one day: “Okay, now you’re free.” All kinds of things will ensue. Therefore I think the rain beating us has an historical explanation.  

Now having said all that, this does not absolve us from the need to take hold of our events today, and say: “Okay, that was in the past...from today, this is the program we have; let’s look at what we have not done. Of course, putting it this dramatically makes the matter appear simple. This is not a matter of just getting up to say: “Okay, we’ll do this, we’ll do that...” however, the right leader with the right kind of character, education and background, will understand what is at stake – where Africa has been, and where it needs to go…we have to get into the issue of how we need to get things done. We need to seriously get into such details as -- how can Nigerians conduct a free and fair election? How can Nigerians elect the right leaders, and ensure that those elected will keep to the tenure that was agreed? How do we ensure that these leaders don’t then attempt to double their tenure, or even change it into a kind of dynasty to hand over to their son(s)? What I am suggesting is that we should be ready for the long haul, for a long time of addressing these pertinent issues, talking about them and making all kinds of arrangements and measures to alter the present, undesirable situation.  What we are doing here, just answering questions, discussing affairs, is part of it; we must have this intellectual exercise and other kinds of exercises. We can’t guarantee anything—but we can begin somewhere, right now. Because what we haven’t done is begin.

The question of leadership today that you address appears a very complex and disturbing issue.  The autocratic and dictatorial approaches to government we generally see in Nigerian and African leadership actually goes back several centuries.  I am presently studying the despotic styles of some of our ancient kings and builders of empires celebrated in our oral traditions, and in examining these tales, see familiar trends in the present leadership.  

I am beginning to wonder whether the present leaders are intent on perpetrating these terrible leadership styles or if there is something altogether ingrained in us...in our attitudes to leadership that needs radical correction.  Perhaps we can try to explain the present phenomena in light of our living in a considerably altered climate of relationships, and our leaders are having a very difficult time managing an unwilling social structure made up of disparate ethnicities. 

Perhaps, we need not even start with the colonial period to discover when the rain began to beat us.  Maybe the rain has been beating us even before representatives of foreign powers came to our continent.  I don’t know how you will react to that, Professor.  I’m thinking of specific leaders, even Shaka the Zulu. When you really examine these histories, you’ll find something not so glorious about the way our historic leaders governed their people.  

You have raised a very interesting, very important, and, as you’ve said, very troubling question.  Let us look at two different stages of our history. There is a sense in which we, today, can call ourselves modern people, and our times, modern times. An obvious difference between modern and medieval times--whether in Africa or Europe--is that, at the time empires were being founded, there seemed to be the requirement for harshness, even brutality, found in every history, wherever you go in the world, you’ll find this style.   

When, for instance, the Europeans came to Benin—well, Congo is a better example, because there you saw a nation state in the making at the same time the Europeans were creating their own empires. Now, that period is past. We are no longer living in those days.  Therefore the days of absolute monarchs are over; or the days when a president can turn his presidency into a dynasty and hand power over to his son.   

Togo! 

Togo, yes, there are quite a number of them in Africa. What I’m suggesting is that the style we are complaining about is already outmoded.  That we are simply backward in allowing the methods that may have been used by the ancient Kingdoms in the distant past to be applicable to our times. 

The good news is that, in these tales I’ve mentioned, the will of the people ultimately triumphs.  Even in the most tyrannical situation, the bad king, the cruel king is often humiliated and dethroned as the popular will triumphs.  How can we in our present circumstances create an environment where the popular will is expressed? 

Now that’s the second half of this issue. Modern democracies make that possible today…a system where the power of the people triumphs – a modern system to curtail the power of the king! Our presidents in Africa don’t want to submit themselves to the test of merit; they want to be president and king and emperor for life without any accountability to their people.

Let me borrow from the history of the Igbo [because that is the history I am most familiar with].  The Igbo people expressed a strong anti-king sentiment –Ezebuilo, which literally means--a king is an enemy. The Igbo are very democratic people. Their culture illustrates a clear cut opposition to Kings… because I think the Igbo people had seen what kings could do.  There is no doubt that in their history, they experienced the high-handedness of kings, so they decided that a king cannot be a friend.  And they tried to construct all kinds of arrangements to whittle down the menace of those with the will to power, because such people are there in large numbers in every society.  So, the Igbo created all sorts of titles which costs so much that, in the end, the aspirant becomes impoverished in the process and ends up with very little.  So that individual begins again, and by the time his life is over, he has a lot of prestige, but very little power. 

I’d like to delve into the question of leadership in Nigeria.  In your classic treatise, the Trouble with Nigeria, you clearly stated that: 

The trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership. There is nothing basically wrong with the Nigerian character. There is nothing wrong with the Nigerian land or climate or water or air or anything else. The Nigerian problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example which is the hallmark of true leadership. 

The persistent debate about whether the problem is leadership or the led is made even more relevant by the fact that you are commending Nigerians for making Obasanjo retreat from his quest to rule Nigeria almost indefinitely.  Is the problem that of leadership or is it a confluence of leadership and follower-ship? 

Well, I don’t want to rewrite the book I wrote so long ago. I figured it out then that the two issues are obviously related, and you cannot separate them neatly.  But I believe I began with this question in mind: what do we do to solve the problem?  The problem is, quite simply: If you have a bad leader, how can the follower-ship be good enough to change the situation? What power does it have? The way I saw the solution, the practical solution is this—a leader is one person selected (and shall we say, theoretically) by the whole country.  It’s easier to get a hold of this one person and say to him: “Look, this is what you have to do: a, b, c, and, d.   

That is a lot easier than getting hold of 150 million Nigerians and saying to them -- this is what you should do: 1, 2, 3...!  So in terms of the practicality -- how do you affect the leadership situation; why don’t we try the one person who came forward, took an oath to serve the nation--to do this, do that, and the other--but then does none of what he swore to do?  Why don’t we deal with that?  So I would say it is still a matter of leadership, and I think the disappointment—really, this is how I see the Obasanjo tenure, because I was one of those who said: let’s give him a chance; look at what he’s done, look at his track record. He proved us absolutely wrong; somebody can have a good track record, or what looks like a good record and yet prove a total failure.  That means we should learn next time to look beyond alleged records.  I think we must not be persuaded by the fact that somebody said this, or promised that...at a particular historical point.  We must find out whether this man is a democrat in spirit.  Does he believe in the people?  Does he respect his people?  If the person doesn’t respect his own people, perhaps he respects Europeans, perhaps he respects Americans. We should say to him go to Britain or America, you are not good enough to be president of Nigeria.      

America’s third president, Thomas Jefferson, wrote extensively about the role of leaders and followers in a Democracy. He held that “Ignorance and sound self-government could not exist together; the one destroyed the other. A despotic government could restrain its citizens and deprive the people of their liberties only while they were ignorant… only a popular government can safeguard democracy. Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves are its only safe depositories. And to render them safe, their minds must be improved to a certain degree...” 

Well, I think President Jefferson was talking about democracy as a sacred trust.  And in order to protect it, and to make sure that it thrives, one has to make sure the population is educated. In many ways, he’s saying that it’s not just the leadership that makes democracy successful, but the entire nation that has a very important role to play; indeed, the population as a whole has a very crucial role to play in preserving democracy. Here is the question: “How can a nation ensure that its citizens are well educated to preserve and protect their democracy?” The answer, I am afraid, lies, again, with the leaders. Do the leaders have a sense of the sacredness, the mission they have undertaken? Do they understand that educating the ‘masses’ will preserve democracy and lead to prosperity? It is under good leadership that the educational system thrives, and the population is well equipped to do as Jefferson suggests. 

It is also important to note that Jefferson speaks about leadership at a very deep level…with a sense of almost a priest hood–an anointment to do something which is terribly, terribly important. I’m more than what I used to be before now; I’ve been given a sacred task! It is the leader who must have that sense.  The Nigerian population has to become aware of the absolute need for its leaders to come to their task with seriousness, dedication and honesty, no 419 leaders.  However, once he has taken on the responsibility, it is the leader who must feel this great weight that he is carrying, that he is taking on – to look after the life, the welfare of a whole people. 

It seems to me that the responsibility of this leader you’ve talked about cannot be achieved unless such a person is appropriately prepared. But do we need in our constitution to specify that our leaders must be, at least, college educated?  In many advanced countries, there is a requirement, certain qualities that the leader must have, before one can ascend to the position of President.  In forty six years of Nigeria’s statehood, we have not had a single college educated President, except Azikiwe whose leadership was essentially ceremonial.  Some people feel that maybe this is one of the reasons we haven’t gone anywhere. 

Well, I wouldn’t put it quite as strongly as that, and I wouldn’t put educational qualification in the Constitution. However, I think this is what the population itself should be aware of.  We need a civilized man/woman, an educated man/woman, one of conviction, honesty and all of that.  It’s true, really surprising, that we seem to avoid a university education when it comes to choosing our leaders, but I don’t think that’s a matter for the Constitution. 

The question of choice in selecting a leader is academic, due to the election rigging, the violence associated with it. In this case, the followership we are talking about doesn’t really have a choice of leadership, because there’s not a true democratic process. 

Well, yes…it looks impossible now, because we’ve allowed this situation of confusion to go on, to last, you know, virtually since our independence.  It’s just been growing steadily worse…and the problem, of course, accelerated under the military…the denial of the democratic rights of the people. That the people have inalienable rights is simply not there; is an idea that just doesn’t belong with the military.  And once we get into the habit of being ruled by soldiers, you also remove the knowledge that people have rights. Democracy, you see, is the very antithesis of military rule. And democracy is not a fancy word; it is something that is full of meaning, even in our culture.  So we must recognize the abnormality of the rule by the gun -- that is the real abnormality. And if one falls into it, God forbid, one must try to get out of it as soon as possible. 

I remember interviewing you in 1987 shortly after your novel, Anthills of the Savannah came out.   

And I was saying the same thing... (General Laughter)  

Yes, nothing has changed in Nigeria…if anything, it is worse today! And you did say that Nigeria as a nation has not yet been founded, that Nigeria is still looking to be founded.  Twenty years later, is the nation nearer or farther from being founded, and can you say what it will take to begin to create a sense of national consciousness in Nigeria? 

You know it’s almost depressing to say, well, I told you this ten years or twenty years ago… It is depressing; because even centenarians among us, don’t have forever, and want to see some change in the country we fought the British so hard for, in our lifetime. Every generation is entitled to that.  Even so, I think hard and difficult as the work is, I have found in comparatively recent events in Nigeria, a little sign of light…the fact that Nigerians finally got the president to withdraw from his almost insane desire to extend his tenure...  I think if Nigeria recognizes the importance of that little victory, something that other nations take for granted—that  there will be no argument when the time comes to change one leader for another—when Nigeria is able to take that for granted, I think a huge step would have been taken.   
 

One of the things professional politicians complain about is that good people don’t get involved in politics.  You were in politics briefly [as deputy national president of Aminu Kano’s Peoples Redemption party]. What can you tell us about your involvement in that party, and why you felt there was no hope for the political process until 2006 when you saw a little spark of hope? 

The question of involvement in politics is really a matter of definition.  I think it is quite often misunderstood.  I have never proposed that every artist—because that’s what I am basically; I am an artist, a writer first, and why you’ve heard of me—I have never proposed that every writer must become an activist in the way we have always understood political activity.  Some will, because that’s the way they are.  Others will not, and we must not ask anyone to do more than is necessary for them to perform their task.  

There are artists who by nature are activists. They are everywhere, they seem to be everywhere, and that’s the way we should let them be.  In other words, we cannot prescribe how many hours in the day a writer should put into political action.  In my case, for instance, if I were to enumerate for you the various things I’ve done politically, you would be quite surprised, including being the deputy chairman of the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP).  Some of you are probably too young even to know what that means.   

My involvement in politics goes back to my narrow escape in 1966, or was it 1967, from soldiers who were looking for me, because I wrote A Man of the People.  If I were to count all of that, my experiences with military governments, including the Lagos State government, which canceled a whole convocation, a whole commencement, because I was to get an honorary degree—now, if you add up all of that, and say to me: “Is this all you’ve done politically?” I’ll say yes.  That’s enough, you see, because I’m not proposing that writers should become politicians.  I am saying that there are certain moral principles for which they will stand, and if those are offended or attacked, the writer would indicate his displeasure. But I wouldn’t ask for more.  If anyone wants to do more, Good luck! 

Do you see anyone in the political field right now who would carry the burden of competence on behalf of Nigerians?  Or who would really stand as a democrat? Have we had any leader that you can say measured up to any significant expectation?   

I think we have had some good leaders; we had some very bad ones, as well.  But let’s leave the past; let’s also leave what we should do next time around, because that’s not the task for one person. I’m merely proposing what Nigerians should really begin seriously to think about, and that is -- number one, they must not allow the success or victory, the small victory they have won over the third term scenario, to make us complacent, because I can assure you, those who were planning this third term situation haven’t gone home to sleep…the whole thing has simply taken on new incarnations. There are people who believe in it, there are people who are to gain from it and they are still around. Therefore we must really fight this to the very end.  There are other plots that will achieve the same end without calling it third term. Putting a candidate groomed to run the show for you so that you can continue to control the nation from the background is one way.   

Some further mention of the military incursion into Nigerian politics is important here. Some have stated that between Abacha, Babangida, and Obasanjo who have together ruled Nigeria for over half of its forty six years, we can essentially blame the corruption, the decadence and collapse of the nation, quite squarely on those three men. If this is the case, what is your impression of this statement, and if not, what do you think is responsible for the repeated intervention of the military in our politics? 

Well, I don’t have a measure of just how much each of these military leaders contributed.  But one thing I think we must guard against--the three leaders you have mentioned, if you examine their record, what they have tried to do is upset the system of political succession through stable elections. Democracy cannot exist in a situation where there is no system of orderly succession from one regime to another.  If every election is an occasion for violence and crisis, there is no possibility of democracy.  Now the three leaders you’ve mentioned have each attempted to destroy the electoral process and the careful and orderly succession that is implied in elections. Because, you see, where you have a proper, viable and healthy system, if a leader is doing badly, all you need to do is say, tomorrow is election day; we will vote him out.  

If you can’t say that; if you can’t guarantee that somebody who is not doing well will be fired--thank you very much…enough; we’ll try somebody else-- if you are deprived of that possibility, then the country is in very serious trouble. And the military leaders very much want to create that situation.  This is what they want to achieve; a situation in which they will be seen as permanent, as indispensable, as the only ones who can set things right, and they will pull all kinds of tricks to bring this about. These three leaders we’ve had; the last three, hopefully, of the military, each attempted to upset the electoral system of the country. 

Some groups have been calling for the constitution to be re-examined; would you say that these three leaders have been able to simply hijack the electoral process as a result of the power that has been assigned to the president? And why these three leaders, in particular; why they more than others… 

(Cutting in):   Well, the thing, you see, is incremental; this abuse of power leads to more abuse and then to more. And, so it begins with small steps, like the cancellation of an election that has taken place to begin with, and then, something else. Abacha, himself, wrote a Constitution for Nigeria which we are operating now.  Now, you simply don’t ask the landlord to write the laws for rent control...so that’s what has happened. The Constitution certainly should be looked at very closely, but you don’t want to do that in the midst of the present leadership struggle in the midst of a regime that is interested in staying on forever. You don’t ask members of such a regime to prepare another Constitution, because you can tell beforehand whose interests will be served. So, if you’re going to have a new Constitution, it will be when present problems are sorted out; the process will then be handled honestly, fairly, and justly. 

For the greater part of Nigeria’s history, most of the governments have fallen within the definition of ‘illegal administrations.’ Is it necessary to write into the constitution some kind of penalty for an interruption of a legal government…Is it necessary to put in a clause in the Constitution for punishment in such a situation? 

Well, there are so many things one could talk about, but I don’t think I’m in a position to enumerate what needs to be written into the Constitution, or what needs to be left out. However, I think we must first insist on…we need to begin to clear the deck of all this nonsense that is going on now.  Don’t ask me how you should go about doing it; I think Nigerians are quite capable of deciding what should be done, to insist on it! After all, it is the Senate that insisted that a third term would not be allowed.  It does, in fact, have the power to take such admirable and groundbreaking decisions. If its members were to use their power properly as they did on that occasion, the Senate would solve many problems. So, we have to use the power we have; we shouldn’t sort of throw our hands in the air, and say – “this man is terrible,” and just go on living as we have, all along, as if we’re totally powerless. Nigeria is not powerless. 

So, it’s back to Nigerians themselves.  

Yes…the democratic process and activism 

You mention the power of the Senate in defending the country from a disastrous situation. Now do you consider the Senate and the House part of this leadership we’re talking about? Because when one talks about the President, we are referring to one person; but there are certain arms of government structured according to stipulations within the Constitution to work with the President or to check his excesses… 

As an oversight…working in conjunction with and not apart from the presidency... 

Yes…but do you, first, consider the Senate a part of leadership? 

The National Assembly…the Senate and the House…oh, yes! 

And what role would you enjoin both to play? 

Well, their roles are written down very clearly. Its members are meant to be an oversight of the administration, to oversee what the president and the government is doing or planning to do, and to work together with the presidency and the Judiciary - the third arm of government- for the good of the nation. The Senate and the House each play very important roles…it is not an accident that there is a separation between the Senate and the House. And if each saw itself in the light of trust, and almost priesthood, again, of sacred trust, which is placed on the Senate of Nigeria or the House of Representatives, its members would work to check excesses from the Presidency. So, I think it’s good that you raised this. 

And I have been talking about the leadership as if it is a single person – it’s not; it’s a body and even beyond that. I think anyone who is educated, who is aware of what is going on has a certain responsibility in a country like Nigeria, and if we were all doing our duty, our situation would never be as bad as it is today. I never mentioned this before, because there is a tendency in Nigeria for people to say--well, since you can’t place blame on any one person, in fact, if it is everybody who has this responsibility, then why are you blaming the head of state, or why are you blaming the Senate? My response to that is that there are degrees of responsibility. And it goes down from the top to the last person. 

Doesn’t that brings us back to the need for an educated citizenry that understands the political process…or has to be educated to understand this process?  

Yes, it does.  And I don’t think we can spell it out any clearer here than is already known.  Nigerians chose members of the Senate and the House to represent their affairs and they must be held accountable to this. And we must not forget that the Senate took their responsibility very seriously in the Third Term crisis.  Its members got together, inquired into their constitutional responsibility, and then applied it. This is a question of applying what is already in the law; members of the Senate and the House know this. I think it was in 1992 that I wrote a piece, I remember vaguely, asking the Senate to fire the President.  Now, we all know the Senate has this power; therefore I think that this is a call on anybody who has the clout, the ability to help save our country that is in peril.  

And anyone who has any kind of position, of authority, whether it is at the presidency, in the Senate, in the House, or in the individual states; all these people should stand up and say, “we’ve had enough of this, it’s simply not going to happen! We see the beginnings of this, in Nigeria, fortunately.  It’s not everybody in Nigeria who is saying: oh, yes...this man should stay longer… There are all these people who understand that the Constitution is being abused; they should organize themselves in just the way the Senate did on that one issue.  They should use it as an indication of what is within their reach. 

I just want to touch on two issues that are in the Constitution that many people are troubled by – one is the immunity clause that protects former leaders from prosecution.  A lot of people feel that this is the reason why Nigeria has not been able to make certain corrupt leaders pay for their abuse of power.  The other is that the Constitution provides too much power to the presidency, many experts posit that there should be a reduction in the power of the presidency, making it also more equitable between the three arms of government, the judiciary, the Senate and House, and the Presidency.  They feel that if this is done, it will help, in many ways, in reshaping the type of people that seek office…that one of the reasons people seek the presidency is that there is far too much power at the center. 

Well, again, any suggestion to change the Constitution – or to add or subtract from it, should wait for a stable period. In other words, not while there’s this fire raging, because it’s not going to be possible to do it. The other issue of immunity; again, that’s something that should be decided in a stable period.  Not when the country is in this condition. 

But, I think the point is that the instability in the country derives from these two issues; the immunity clause and the excessive power allowed the president… 

Yeah, well, you see, the thing is...let’s be practical, considering how do you do it? After all, this excessive power of the presidency was created by Abacha’s Constitution.  In other words, this is having someone who is interested, who has an agenda, write the Constitution. That’s really what you want to prevent. When, say, the next election takes place, the one that is imminent, it is in our collective interest–and I’m assuming the election is peaceful and produces a succession which it is meant to do–it is at this point that we can say, okay –our Constitution, we’re going to look at it, again. Everything, including the immunity clause…  

But, I agree, in principle, with your suggestions for the Nigerian Constitution. I don’t know of any Constitution in the world – I’m not an authority on Constitutions – I wouldn’t think there are too many places where so much power would be seen to be concentrated in one hand, except in an out and out autocracy. But Nigeria is supposed to be a democratic nation, you see, this is the beginning of Nigeria’s new democracy.  I was reading something from the Jimmy Carter Center, recently, that bemoaned the fact of Nigeria, which seemed such a hopeful spot in democracy until recently, going astray. So, there is, definitely, a need to reorganize the distribution of power in Nigeria. I think there’s no doubt about that, and, as you say, I think what drives so many people to seek the presidency at all costs, and to do anything to make their tenure go on forever – all that would be reduced if the attraction, really, illegal attraction, it has is removed.  

The one other issue people feel is crucial in sustaining a democracy is being able to have free and fair elections. Many argue that the 1993 elections annulled by IBB were the freest and fairest we’ve ever had; in fact, several commissions from Europe and America supported this assertion.  People have also argued that in order to have free and fair elections, an election board run by someone of impeccable character and reputation, and manned by people the country can trust is vital. But we don’t see this happening with the 2007 elections. Again, people are worried that we are going to see widespread corruption, as usual, which doesn’t augur well for a country begging for true leadership that is representative of the people. 

Yes; well, I don’t think we want to spend too much energy hoping that any of these major changes will take place between now and the next election. Because, you see, who is going to put this into effect -- someone who is interested in continuing the status quo? So, all the suggestions I’m making are in the hope that we will survive the next election and that, thereafter, the survivors will organize the beginning of another debate about how does Nigeria succeed; how does Nigeria bring all the human and material resources it has to bear on its development? And that would be a big debate to keep Nigeria busy for a long time.  

And then, we must also learn patience, because building a nation is not something you do in one regime, in years, even; it’s a lifetime process. What we should aim for is a system that guarantees that any improvement we make in our condition will not be destroyed by the next person who takes over. For it seemed that some progress had been made in the electoral process; but you see how very quickly it was negated by a determined…leader... So, we must…Nigeria must be ready for a long period of learning and of protecting whatever is gained, is learned. We have to make sure that we’re not learning the same lesson every year, or even every four years; but that something which has been provided and put in place for the good of the country is sacred, and that there is the necessity to provide the sanctions for abuse of something Nigeria has agreed on.  So, I think we’ve got a lot of work ahead of us. 
 

I’m not sure if this is so much a question as it is a statement…would you say that the introduction of democracy, elections whether free and fair have served any purpose? I must think that we’re at a point that is so premature in our development, that there are so many things lacking, I won’t mind if someone stays in power for ten years if we actually had running water and they actually provided solutions. Some people would argue that, in the initial stages, maybe some countries need a dictatorship that they need someone to come into power and say this is what we ought to do…Nigeria is a complicated country…there are so many different cultures, different people that want to be in power. What do you think about that? 

I think that you’re very dangerous (Laughter)… Seriously, don’t ever accept that short-change of a dictator who ‘knows what the country requires and will do it effectively.’ We had that before when the military first came to power. That was the excuse.  “These are military-trained people...they are smart, and drilled; everything in precision.  They will know exactly what it is we need.” Don’t believe a word of it.  Dictatorship is never your friend in the end.  Dictatorship is never your friend.  So we have to go with Democracy…and protect it. Winston Churchill said democracy is a terrible system, but it is the best we have.  We have to go by that.  It means we must also learn patience. By understanding exactly what is happening, we will know what is possible.  Nobody would expect any leader to do the impossible.  That’s part of education.  We are not demanding what cannot be done.  But what can be done, there’s a lot of scope for that.  There’s a lot of scope for what can reasonably be done by our leaders.  

Professor Soyinka wrote in his latest memoir, You Must Set Forth at Dawn, that at one time you, he and J.P. Clarke went to see Babaginda to plead that Mamman Vatsa’s life be spared. But by the time you got home, he had already been killed. Soyinka writes that he felt very betrayed. Would you say, based on that experience and others, that Babaginda is one of the most dangerous leaders that ever walked the soil in Nigeria?  

(Laughter) 

You want me to put my signature on it?  I know that I can vouch for the story, the story that we went. It was the first day that I ever set eyes on Babaginda, and we left thinking that we got a promise, and that we were going to celebrate and eat, only to realize when we got home that it was all gone.  Well, it made me feel sick…sick to my stomach… and it’s something I can never forget.   

In The Trouble with Nigeria, you suggest: “Nigerians are corrupt because the system they live under today makes corruption easy and profitable. They will cease to be corrupt when corruption is made difficult and inconvenient.” 

Yes, the problem is probably bigger today than it’s ever been, because of the massive way in which the leadership is using the nation’s wealth to corrupt, really to corrupt the country, so no improvement or change can happen.  In a situation where that is possible, there’s really nothing one can propose. You see, these changes that are recommended are all tied in; one is linked to the other. If we are talking about the need for clean elections, well, we can’t have clean elections if billions of naira and dollars are available to people who want to corrupt the selection, so that the validity of elections disappears.  But even though corruption seems almost the very nature of the Nigerian state, it can be stopped.  However, the person who will stop corruption isn’t going to be the same person who helped make it endemic. 
 

The World Bank just released numbers indicating that about 3 hundred billion dollars has been pilfered from Nigeria’s treasury since independence.  In The Trouble with Nigeria, you discussed at length that this theft of national funds is one of the factors essentially making it impossible for Nigeria to succeed.  Many pundits see a direct link between crude oil and the corruption in Nigeria, that putting in an elaborate system preventing politicians or civilians from having access to petrodollars is probably a major factor in reducing large scale corruption. What are your views?  

Again, I’m not an authority on finances…I don’t pretend to be able to tell Nigerians what they need to do to end corruption. Many others have written extensively about this topic…about what needs to be done. The leaders are aware…the checks and balances you suggest are important ideas. Certainly, if all these and other ideas being suggested for cleaning up the country are put in place--again, even at the leadership level--if only some of it works, we will begin to see a decrease in corruption. You know, corruption in Nigeria has grown because it is highly encouraged. 
 

Which brings us back to the issue of accountability…accountability has to be a strong component of the fight to stop corruption.  

You are absolutely right; but the thing is – who is responsible for the probing that is being done? Every Nigerian knows that there should be accountability, that people should be accountable. But if the person running the whole show has all of the resources of the country in his control and he is also the one who selects who should be probed or not--don’t you see what is wrong in all this? And the judiciary…well, we don’t know even know exactly where the judiciary comes in, in all this…in this state of anarchy in the nation, it’s difficult to propose anything. I mean, the solution is straightforward – if you commit a crime, you should be brought to book. But if whoever selecting those to be probed has an interest in who will be brought to book and who will not; if such a person uses institutions set up to stop corruption to threaten innocent people with prosecution...in such a situation, it is very difficult to propose the obvious, which is hold people responsible for misconduct, and punish them if they are guilty. 

I was going to ask your view about the role of the EFCC… 

That’s what I’ve just talked about…I don’t think it can work in the Nigerian situation, as it is today… 

So, the situation seems almost insurmountable; because I think this is why people are talking about--going back to the issue of an immunity clause--how does the state of anarchy become reversed?  What are the measures that can be taken if we have interested candidates who keep recycling themselves into positions of leadership?  We have no accountability…the structures are there, but they are not being enforced.  So, how do we begin? We don’t have new voices coming in to protest the situation, or perhaps, they are not being allowed to.  I fully understand what you are saying--that interested persons cannot begin to address the problems they have created, because this runs counter to their agenda…But it seems to me that people might be questioning – how do we change the system, what do we do? How can we seize hold, and effect these changes without some of these checks, such as the immunity clause being scrapped and accountability being enforced.  It seems such a vicious circle... 

Of course, it’s a vicious circle…but we saw a spot of light in what the Senate did over the third term issue.  I think that what is most hopeful is that the elected representatives of the people should pull up their socks and really get to work, because that’s why they were elected.  That’s why you have the Senate and House of Representatives.  

So that’s at least part of the solution then… 

And let me tell you something that happened before your time.  It is this type of desperation that led us into the first military exercise, because when people sat and talked about what do we do, to whom do we go…people were pointing, you know, to those with the gun.  It is this kind of situation that leads to military takeovers; but God forbid that Nigeria should go that route again. 

I’d like to move onto a topic you also mentioned in The Trouble with Nigeria – indiscipline.  We all remember when the Buhari-Idiagbon regime came into power; many people criticized them as being too harsh, yes.  But certainly, one of their major successes was the War Against Indiscipline. I remember this vividly; for the first time that I could recall, Nigerians were standing in lines, things were orderly…it seemed as if there was a revolution in the minds of the citizenry.  All that has now disappeared; we’re back to…anarchy has been used a lot during this conversation.  What steps do you feel can be put in place to bring Nigerians back in line with what is needed for nation building?  

All the things we’ve been talking about together are related to responsibility; awareness of those who are selected to lead.  Awareness of their responsibility and their willingness to use the power they are given for the good of the people. 

The other question I would like to talk about is something you’ve eventually made, I guess, a classic term – the cult of mediocrity – in Nigeria.  Nigerians seem to, historically, lean away from excellence when they are choosing their leaders or looking for people to appoint to cabinets, parastatals--what have you. There doesn’t seem to be in place, any longer, a culture that celebrates excellence, and I wonder as a younger person about this, because there was a time in my memory when we did have some of the best and brightest in positions of influence and power; that seems to have all disappeared. So, I guess my question really is: how do we, again, get the best and the brightest in Nigeria to become engaged in Nigerian political life? 

Well, I think we’ll wait for it to happen while we’re cleaning up. You see, all the things we’ve said really should direct us to the task that needs to be done at home.  And if that begins to happen, you’ll find, I’m almost sure, that some of these…the brightest and the best, by the way, many of whom are out of the country…this is the saddest thing of all – that Nigeria is using part of its resources to train experts for the rest of the world; for the majority of our best and brightest to leave, pack up, and go somewhere else.  But when this change that we’re hoping will come after the next election…I hope the beginning will come at least; that these people will begin to see that however bright they are, and however good they find things where they are now, they will discover that their real mission and calling is in Nigeria, and they will return home. 

You had talked about what was happening in your homeland as part of the reason you rejected the last award you were given.  Could you tell us a little more about this? 

Well, it is like when they talk about the last straw that breaks the camel’s back.  In other words, a lot had been happening in different parts of the Nigeria that put me in a situation of great sadness and distress.  But what seemed almost incredible to me was the succession of events in Anambra state, in which it was clear from all accounts that the presidency was encouraging the destabilization of the government of Anambra state, and encouraging a small group of people whose sole interest seemed to be in getting their hands on the financial allocation made to the state.  In other words, to use the money that was intended for work on the state for their own private ends…and that these were friends of the presidency.  

And that just seemed to me like such an impossible, such an unbelievable scenario – that the head of state, or his government, or his office should be encouraging crime in one of the constituent states of the federation, encouraging anarchy in a part of  the country, Nigeria. That state, of course, as you know, is my state.  It’s also part of Igboland, which has had a peculiar history in Nigeria, some of which involves the president of Nigeria…his attitude to this part of Nigeria, which he and some like him consider is responsible for the troubles of the Nigerian civil war.  And so, he just seemed to me totally irresponsible; it was incredibly irresponsible for leadership to be involved, instead of preventing chaos, to be promoting it.  And it seemed to me like this is the very end of government itself, where government dismisses itself and joins ranks with crime.  So, I wasn’t going to be part of any of this.  And it seemed to me that the strongest statement I could make was to turn down the honor of Commander of the Federal Republic which I was awarded. 
 

There is so much pain in this analysis.  And it seems to me that the very award as Commander of the Federal Republic is one that is imbued with a lot of responsibility; if, indeed, you are going to “command” the Federal Republic of Nigeria in any capacity, it has to be with integrity, and I can see how this must have completely abrogated this responsibility that you were supposed to take. 

Well, let me thank you all very much.  When things get to this stage, I think probably the thing to do is switch from high tragedy to humor. There was an Englishman who complained that it pleased Her Majesty, the Queen, to make him Commander of the British Empire at a time when there was no empire left to command.  That’s right; there was no more state…. 

[General Laughter] 

I wanted to add to that, because certain elements in the presidency are trying to spin your turning down of the award as a slight to the Nigerian people. And it is important to differentiate between accepting a prize from a presidency you believe is complicit in crimes against the citizens of Nigeria, as opposed to rejecting an award from the people. 

Oh, it was not an award from the people, in my estimation.  The analysis I just gave indicates who I hold responsible for the situation.  It is not Obasanjo’s prize, I know, but it was coming through him…he was the one who was going to give it to me, and I was saying I won’t take it from you…until you’ve cleaned up your act.  So, anyone who says that I slight Nigeria doesn’t know me or my history.  I have received many, many, many awards from Nigeria, and I’m very proud of all of them, and would have been very proud of this one had it come from the right person. 

I do know that in the 1980’s you rejected at least one or two appointments by the Babaginda government and neither of those actions made you exactly popular with the government in power at that time.  Can you speak to the moral underpinnings of those decisions that you made, and maybe enlarge on the kind of little gestures that perhaps would seem little but ultimately serve to chasten governments that act with impunity? 

Thank you for the comments first of all.  I’m reluctant to enlarge on any step that I personally have taken as my way of responding to injustice at home.  One reason I think I’m reluctant to do that is that it seems unnecessary. Once you’ve taken an action, in my style, that action should just speak for itself.  But you, of course, want me to embellish it, and all I can say is I respond.  There is something in me, as I’m sure there is something in you, something in all of us that makes us say, in certain positions of extreme misconduct: “Thus far and no further.”  And it is like a clock that ticks in you and says you have to do something about this—even if this is not normally your work.  Let’s say you’re a farmer.  But today, you won’t go to the farm because the grave situation around you pre-empts your doing your regular work. When such a position occurs, I think we should follow the dictates of our moral sense and our conscience, because if we don’t, we will not be happy with ourselves.   

That is the way it happens to me, and once I do it, it’s done. I can’t stand up and say to others-- go and do it, because it may be more dangerous for the next person, and I have to recognize that. You have to be careful. You tell a young person out of school: “You go and do this” and they’ll mow him down. You can’t live with yourself.  So this is a very difficult and dangerous segment of this activity and I’m not able to be eloquent about this.  It is hard and difficult, and something that every human with a conscience will be able to decide for him or herself. 

As a follow-up on the Anambra situation… despite your strong protest as to what the president is doing in Anambra state, he seems to have continued, because it is clear that he has declared certain persons to run the affairs of Anambra state.  What do you think of the president interfering so blatantly in the government of states as to go against the people’s choice of the person they need to govern them?  And secondly, what do you think the people of Anambra should do in particular; how do they counter this…how do they control the situation? 

Yes, well, I think that the trouble with  the president is that he is really so obsessive, he seems so completely unable to control his passions and hatreds and dislikes, and so, I’m not surprised that he would even increase his interference just to show that he is the one ruling the nation, and not me.  That’s fine…but I would expect the people of Anambra, when the time comes, to choose the person or persons who will run their affairs…without interference… 

Can you comment on the upheaval in Niger Delta and Rivers States; the trouble arising from what the people feel is an unfair distribution of resources? A particular sore point is the issue of the allocation of proceeds from petroleum resources that they feel are not being put back into their communities.  Some of their leaders feel that the handling of this particular resource, because it is found on their land, should be left to them.  What are your thoughts on this? 

I think what is being experienced in that part of our country is the bitterness and anger, which you would expect from a people who feel that they have been cheated…who feel there is no justice or fairness in the distribution of the assets of the nation. Who feel that they’ve been neglected, their homeland devastated by negligent oil operations, yet when they look around, they see those who are in authority, yet far away, using these resources to bribe all kinds of people, to give allocations of this or allocations of that to favorites. Yes...whereas, the owners of the land see themselves as destitute.   

So it’s not surprising that they would be up in arms. If the Federal government even had a viable, continuous dialog with this people, explaining what is happening--assuming there’s an explanation--that would be an entirely different matter.  But it looks as if those in power don’t really care. It’s like -- they are far away from the scene of anarchy; they have their block of oil area to exploit, and yet they have never been anywhere near the Niger Delta before in their life. But they’re enjoying this, really, illegal profit of someone else’s sweat. So, this is the way the people see it. Now, if that’s not accurate, someone ought to explain it to them, because they are Nigerians, you see. They shouldn’t feel out of control, they should not feel powerless; this is their homeland. So, it’s a failure of those who rule if this situation exists.  If the situation being alleged is not true, the people who are leading should have shown how it is not true. 
 

Would you like to address how our women may be safely integrated into participating in national affairs?  

Everything is ripe for re-examination, especially the role of women and their rightful place in restoring our nation. Women should be involved in politics in greater numbers for the larger good of the nation. Many, sadly stay away, in part, because of the violence of politics. I think we should aim to end the violence of Nigerian politics, return it to its humane origins. There really should be no reason that the selection of representatives in Nigeria should become a violent act. The fact of violence in the selection process just shows that things are not right, are not going well.  It’s almost like the proverb of our people, which I’ve used often -- that if you’re told that a house has fallen (yeah; the house that is Nigeria has fallen), what we should begin discussing is how to put it back together again. This includes making certain of the future of women, as well as of our youth who have no jobs after university education, who are roaming around and falling into crime. So again, everything is ripe for re-examination. 

What role does the school curriculum have to play in discouraging the excesses prevalent today?   

Well…what do we teach our children? Certainly, children should be taught their history--who they are--which is not the case, now. There’s a whole lot of instructive work for the country, and the task is so overwhelming. But, you see, the resources Nigeria has had--and still has access to--is overwhelming.  If it wasn’t being pilfered, stolen, right left and center, it would be enough to bring this nation into the modern world. In fact, when I wrote the Trouble with Nigeria, the president was talking about Nigeria becoming a modern state by the year 2000.  It seemed so far ahead, so far away, then; but here we are, beyond the year 2000, and we’re probably worse now than then.  Building a nation is a very, very, big, difficult, but not impossible enterprise. But it becomes impossible when you have leaders who are not up to their task. 
 

The late Billy Dudley said that Nigeria has an Igbo problem…something you addressed in the Trouble with Nigeria.  What did you and others who have said the same thing mean by that?  Can you please relate your discussion to the uneasy position of Ndigbo in the Nigerian body polity?     

You are right. I have addressed it…I have written about it…so people should go and read what I wrote! I would like to be very brief about that because part of that problem, the Igbo problem, is that it starts a fight.  I don’t want to start a fight.  You can look historically, for instance, at the Biafra War which was fought not only by Igbo, but mainly because they were the majority, it is regarded as Igbo versus the rest. It’s well known that there were some Efiks and Ibibio who were as convinced [about Biafra].  I knew one personally, the late Chief Ekukinam Bassey, for instance, who was traveling on behalf of Biafra during the war.  But it was largely seen as Igbo versus the rest.  That’s the way it was.  And there are other issues one can raise going back to the colonial period; the way the Igbo fared in Nigeria.  They seemed to have done quite well in the early stages, but when it came to independence their role got them into trouble with some of our neighbors.  It’s not something to be wondered at, that people are different.   

There are three major nations, the Igbo, the Hausa-Fulani, and Yoruba.  These are nations, not tribes.  They are people who incidentally were living in the same place they’re living today.  It’s not like any one of them moved, and yet they didn’t burn down the continent.  They just lived in their different ways.  So it is something that can be done again, live in their different ways, in the same places where they are. The Igbo are travelers, so maybe it’s not quite the way it always was; they’re all over the place. They are traveling not only in Nigeria, but all over the world. An Igbo professor phoned me from Alaska, the other day, asking me to come there to give a talk. Going to Alaska to talk to Igbo students! If you want to live together you have to accommodate each other.