Nigeria Content Online

The death of one of Nigeria’s political icons,
Anthony Enaharo, this week should cause a moment for deep introspection
on our history as a nation. For 67 years, Enaharo was a major factor in
our political history. We can identify three distinct phases in his
political life.

The first is as a fiery nationalist and major
campaigner for Nigeria’s independence. From 1941 as lead writer and
editor in the nationalist press, he was a significant player in the
struggle for our independence. He was a founding member of the Action
Group and in 1953, moved the motion for accelerated independence. He
was a significant player in all the constitutional conferences leading
to Nigeria’s independence.

The second phase of his political life was from
1967 when he was appointed Federal Commissioner for Information and
played an exceptionally successful role as the chief defender of the
integrity and unity of the nation throughout the civil war up till 1974
when he was moved to another portfolio having successfully helped build
the post war reconciliation. One of my most valued possessions is
Anthony Kerk-Greene’s two volume documentary source book “Crisis and
Conflict in Nigeria: 1967-1970.” It documents the role of political
actors during those difficult years.

I quote extensively from page 148 of volume two
where Enaharo was defending the Nigerian nation on the Kingsway in
London on 17th July 1967: “If succession by Ojukwu and his group is
accomplished, Nigeria would most probably disintegrate. Once
fractionalisation starts, it certainly would result in the further
disintegration of the former Eastern Region of Nigeria. Neighbouring
states with ethnic and other problems will in due course also
disintegrate and a chain reaction will be set up all over Africa.
Africa would end up in petty little principalities. Each successor
‘mini state’ would be sovereign enough to acquire foreign protectors
and purchase arms. Such a situation with its inevitable dislocations
and frictions over boundaries, trade and division of assets would
produce wars. Foreign countries would intervene on behalf of their
‘protectorates’ and the conflagration would be bloodier and more
permanently damaging to the interests of Nigeria and Africa.” I cannot
agree more.

The third phase of Pa Enaharo’s political life
started when he took the leadership of NADECO in 1994 and his discourse
changed radically. For the last twenty-five years of his life, he
became the champion of the restructuring of Nigerian federalism on the
basis of ethnic collectives and transforming the polity from a federal
to a confederal one in which each ethnic group would have its autonomy.

He established the National Reformation Movement,
which later transformed into a political party committed to breaking up
Nigeria into ethnic conclaves with the right to self-determination. He
abandoned his earlier campaign about the dangers of fractionalisation
into tiny principalities and became steadfast and stubborn that ethnic
nationalities should meet and re-negotiate the existence of Nigeria.
His campaign was picked up by the Campaign for Democracy which
organised a conference in 1998 calling for a new Nigeria in which
‘ethnic nationalities should be the building blocks of the Federation,
with the right to self-determination”.

I have always argued that this approach is wrong
and politically dangerous. It is a system that cannot but lead to
disintegration of the state. Pa Enaharo in the third phase of his
political life worked so hard to destroy what he had worked so hard to
build previously.

In 2006, the late Beko Ransome Kuti convinced me
to meet with Pa Enaharo to discuss the reasons why many in the North
shunned the invitation of the ProNational Conference Organisation
(PRONACO). Beko, Wale Okuniyi and I had a long meeting with him in
Lagos. His opening line was that civil society activists from the North
had an obligation to convince the leaders of their ethnic nationalities
to join PRONACO in the process of renegotiating Nigerian federalism.

I explained to him that the Hausa for example do
not define themselves as an ethnic group and that the key identity
categories they use are territory and religion. By insisting on a
conference composed of ethnic groups, the political base is reduced to
a level to which many feel excluded and therefore dismiss the effort as
a joke. His response was that there is ample anthropological and
sociological evidence that categorises all Nigerian groups into ethnic
categories and no one could pull wool over his eyes.

We ended the meeting on the note that he would
tour the North to have interactive sessions with civil society groups
that I offered to organise. When I called his secretary to follow up on
the tour, I was informed that Pa Enaharo had decided there was no
purpose talking to civil society groups in the North. Northerners, I
was told, only listen to their Emirs. Pa Enaharo would tour the North
and talk to Emirs to get their representatives to be part of PRONACO. I
was saddened by the determination of Pa Enaharo to pursue the political
wilderness in the third phase of his political life. Nonetheless, I
remain a great admirer of his contribution to building and preservation
this complex country of ours.

May his soul rest in perfect peace.