In this interview with JOHN ALECHENU, a former presidential aide and Minister of Health, Prof. Alphonsus Nwosu, speaks on the controversy generated by Achebe's book- There Was A Country, the civil war, Peoples Democratic Party's dominance of the political scene and the ongoing Constitution review process
Chinua Achebe's new book on the Nigerian/Biafra civil war has stirred up controversies. What's your view on it?
I will make two points. First, there is no controversy; a fact was presented about the starvation of the innocent children of Biafra. A very well-known fact is that Chief Obafemi Awolowo defended this policy of famine when he said starvation was a legitimate weapon of war. It is a fact that Awolowo himself gave reasons why he defended it. Achebe simply stated the facts. And for us, Ndigbo, we are angry that Awolowo who we thought was our uncle and ally was the one who was saying we deserved to suffer. We felt disappointed.
Many people have said worse things about what Awolowo said. There is Dan Jacobs, in the 'Brutality of Nations,' there is Federick Foreseth and numerous others. Achebe said the same thing in 1983. In the present book, worst things were said by Achebe regarding the abuse, breach of code of conduct and irresponsible utterances of Brigadier Benjamin Adekunle, he is also Yoruba. Why is nobody attacking him? We wonder why nobody is attacking Achebe for what he said about Adekunle which the international community was outraged at. Achebe also said late Anthony Enahoro and Permanent Secretary, Allison Aida, said the same things about starvation being a legitimate instrument of the war. They are repeated in Achebe's book, why is nobody attacking Achebe for maligning Tony Enahoro or Aida? What Achebe tried to do was to draw attention to things that are not done in a nation and refusing to accept that certain people can be sacred cows and not be blamed if they cross the line. The minuscule of his book is about Biafra, how the lessons of Biafra can forge a brighter future for us as a nation, those who cannot see this from Achebe's book are not being fair to the book.
Some have argued that the British foisted an education system which was tailored to suit their civil service needs. Is this true?
Those who say such things are speaking nonsense. You know, in soccer there is a saying that you don't change a winning team. You also don't change a winning formula. The education that the British gave us was the education they had at home. The education they had at home was not for them to produce civil servants, it was the education that produced entrepreneurs, technologists, engineers, doctors and people who changed the society. That was what they exported to us, they didn't give us something different from what they had and some of my old teachers came from the British system. And many of these teachers were educated in the best institutions like Cambridge. They gave us quality education. In my own time in 1962, we took the West African School Certificate exams. In 1964, I took the Cambridge Higher School Certificate, we had to do sixth form and it gave me admission to the university. Some of Nigeria's best engineers, medical doctors, innovators are people who produced the Biafra war weapons. So, what was wrong with it? The system we had then was eight years in the primary school, five years in the secondary school and two years in higher school. I spent 15 years studying before I went into the University.
What's your opinion on the clamour for additional states in the ongoing constitutional amendment process?
I have seven points I would like to note in the constitution amendment process. If states are to be created, only one state needs to be created, not more than one. And that state is to be created from the South-East geopolitical zone for equity, justice and to achieve parity. I believe that states creation no matter what anybody says has advantages but I think that states are too weak in our system. There must be aggregation of our states into regions. The third point I want to make is that for Nigeria to be a federation, we must have greater devolution of powers, responsibilities and finance. The federating units should have their constitution as was the case. In other words, for Nigeria to operate as a federation, we should operate like that.
The finances at the centre are too much, making the centre control almost all aspects of the citizens' lives. I believe that the revenue sharing formulae that obtained at independence should be restored even if it is gradually. To be specific, derivation must get back in a graduated manner to the 50% which it was at independence. In other words, what is on top of the land and below the land belongs to the geography where it is found and they pay 50% tax to the centre. The advantage of this is that it will encourage all the regions to stop being lazy and develop economic areas where they have comparative advantage and raise their internally generated revenue. As federal minister, I was stunned that the cotton in Zamfara was of the highest quality in the world not to talk of groundnuts, palm oil, cocoa, coal, bitumen, etc. Restoration of competition among the regions is good for our federalism. The next area is the reorganisation of the coercive agencies of state especially the police into regional and area commands for greater effectiveness. I believe in the armed forces and the police because these are nation building institutions that allow Nigerians to be domiciled everywhere in Nigeria, but they should be reorganised for effectiveness. The final area that requires amendment concerns who is a citizen of Nigeria? What does citizenship really mean? How do we resolve this indigeneship? Is an indigene a citizen or what? What does the Nigerian state give its citizen in return for his loyalty? Is the citizen entitled to education, health, housing, employment and his human dignity? If these things are not enumerated and not justifiable, I will consider any new amendment to be cosmetic. It is only when Nigeria is prepared to do this thing for its citizens that patriotism emerges.
As a founding member of the ruling PDP, do you see the party ruling for 60 or more years?
I am one of the members of the five organisations that came together to form the party at the beginning. I am therefore not surprised that PDP is the dominant party. It is based on its guiding principles. The principles were simple- it was for all shades of political thinking to come together to form one formidable party that will form a protection. If the Alliance for Democracy faction hadn't pulled out, we would have even had a more formidable party. Therefore, I am not surprised that it is dominant. And once it became dominant in the 1999 election, it will take time for the dominance to end. The second is that, we are determined that the party must deliver to the people; it must be responsible to the people. As political adviser to the then President Obasanjo, we coined the phrase 'democracy dividend.' The third is that no one has a right to rule over another without his consent. How PDP will fare in the next couple of years will depend on how true it remains to these principles especially the last two principles. When we noticed the party was deviating from these principles, I became a member of a group who formed the PDP reform group and became a keynote speaker. For my pains, all of us got suspended by the party for insisting on internal democracy; for insisting that the party exists to deliver on good governance. It was the present President who directed that the decision be reversed. For the party to remain in office for one million years is not of concern to me as much as: is the PDP delivering democracy dividend. Is the PDP keeping to internal democracy? Are the people's choices the ones who get elected?
With the insurgency in northern Nigeria and the growing level of insecurity, do you see Nigeria going in splinters?
No. I don't see Nigeria going in splinters. That is my prayer. But we should not pull at the seams too much. I believe that the contemporary truth from our past that has been made clear by Achebe is not good for nation building. These senseless killings diminish our nationhood, they diminish our sovereignty, they diminish our ability to develop and weld together as a nation. Ethnic directed and ethnic motivated violence is the worst crime you can commit against nationhood. The second worst crime against nationhood is religious directed violence. You go and bomb churches, you go and bomb mosques, you go and bomb schools, that is terrible in a nation. There can be no right reason for doing the wrong thing.
